REMARKS ON THE Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Verſes OF THE SEVENTH CHAPTER of ISAIAH: IN ANSWER TO Dr. W—MS'S Critical Diſſertation on the ſame, As approved and republiſhed by THE AUTHORS OF THE CRITICAL REVIEW.
[] REMARKS ON THE Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Six⯑teenth Verſes of the Seventh Chapter of ISAIAH, &c.

THIS text has in all ages of Chriſtianity been eſteemed a clear and certain predic⯑tion of the miraculous birth of Chriſt; and therefore theſe remarks upon it would have been ſuperfluous, had not a learned and ingenious gentleman lately attempted to prove a contrary [4] doctrine ^*; viz. ‘That the prophet (in this text) had no reference to the Meſſiah ^†.’ That ‘the words of Iſaiah prove only that a young woman ſhould conceive and bring forth a ſon, without in⯑timating any thing miraculous in her conception,’ &c. ^‡ That ‘from the moſt careful and impartial examination, the word [...] (here tranſlated a virgin) doth not appear to ſignify ſtrictly a virgin;’ but that ‘it ſeems to mean a young woman in gene⯑ral, without ſpecifying particularly, whether ſhe is a virgin or not ^‖.’

This writer is not ſingular in his notions, for the authors of the Critical Review have publicly pro⯑feſſed themſelves of the ſame opinion concerning this prophecy (ſee N^o 136, fo. 349.)— ‘The moſt obvious and natural explication (ſay they) is this which Dr. W—ms ^§ has adopted,’ &c.

I do not find that they have objected to a ſingle part of the Doctor's work; and therefore this pub⯑lic declaration certainly makes them parties to the whole: nay, perhaps I may ſay with juſtice, that they are more concerned in publiſhing theſe notions to the world, even than the anonymous author him⯑ſelf; for inſtead of giving a ſhort extracted ac⯑count [5] of the work as uſual, they ſeem to have co⯑pied the whole, almoſt at length, ſcarcely omitting a ſingle circumſtance.

Now I muſt acknowledge, in juſtice to Dr. W—ms, that I think he has ſet forth his hypo⯑theſis to all the advantage that it is capable of; nevertheleſs, he does not make it appear that the word [...] in any other place of the Old Teſta⯑ment where it occurs, muſt neceſſarily ſignify a young woman that was not a virgin; without which proof the common acceptation of the ſign pro⯑miſed by Iſaiah cannot with juſtice be rejected; eſpecially as a virgin did afterwards conceive, and bear a ſon; a miracle which never happened before or ſince the birth of Chriſt! therefore it was cer⯑tainly a ſign worthy of that great and wonderful event; and, from that time to this, has by all Chriſtians (except the author of the Critical Diſſer⯑tation and the authors of the Critical Review ^*) [6] been eſteemed the completion of the ſaid pro⯑phecy.

Dr. W—ms obſerves that the word [...] occurs only ſeven times in all; and therefore, I hope, it will not take up too much of my readers time, if I attempt to examine the context of theſe ſeveral places, in order to aſcertain the true ſenſe of the word.

The text wherein the ſignification of this word is eſteemed the moſt doubtful, is in Prov. xxx. 19. where Solomon mentions four things that were too hard for him; in which number (according to the Engliſh tranſlation) he includes ‘the way of a man with a maid.’ The ſenſe of this paſſage is very different according to the Syriac verſion, wherein [...] is rendered [...] in his youth, viz. the way of a man "in his youth," and not "with a maid," as in the Engliſh verſion. Like⯑wiſe the Latin vulgate, as well as the old Latin verſion of St. Jerome, conform in ſome degree to the Syriac, though not intirely; for they conſtrue it in adoleſcentia (not in adoleſcentia ejus) which is ſufficiently clear without having recourſe to Dr. Kennicott's ^* expedient of ſuppoſing a corruption in the preſent Heb. text to enable him to read ‘in his youth;’ as if it had been wrote originally [...].

[7]Nevertheleſs, it appears to me that the common Engliſh tranſlation of this paſſage is to be preferred, and that the word muſt here neceſſarily ſignify a maid or virgin: for the writer ſeems to allude to the ſecret artifices and allurements uſed by a man in order to ſeduce a virgin; ſuch artifices as are hinted at in Exodus xxii. 16. (—‘And if a man entice a maid,’ ( [...]) &c.) therefore a word ſignifying merely a young woman, or one that was not eſteemed a virgin, would not have been ſo ſuit⯑able to the context of either of theſe paſſages. The way of a harlot was too well-known in former days, (as well as the preſent) to be eſteemed a myſtery; and much leſs a myſtery to Solomon, who had ‘threeſcore queens, fourſcore concubines, and vir⯑gins without number.’ (See Canticles vi. 8.) But it is not at all unnatural to ſuppoſe that this eaſtern monarch, with all his wiſdom, might ſometimes be perplexed with doubts and jealouſies concerning the virtue and private conduct of ſome of thoſe females (as well virgins as others) with reſpect to other men: this, it ſeems, was by him eſteemed as diffi⯑cult to be traced as the way of a ſhip in the ſea, an eagle in the air, &c. By the ſin of the adulte⯑rous woman (to which the preceding ſimilies allude as being equally uninveſtigable ^†) Solomon repre⯑ſents [8] the great difficulty of detecting the inconſtancy of any particular perſons in the two former claſſes; I mean his queens and concubines; and he would not find it leſs difficult (for ſome time at leaſt) to trace out the way (or behaviour) of private admi⯑rers towards the third claſs of his women, that were eſteemed virgins in the eyes of the world.

In confirmation of this I muſt obſerve, that the ſtrictneſs of the law of Moſes rendered the ob⯑ſervance of ſecrecy abſolutely neceſſary to offenders in this way: for, if a man was found guilty of ſe⯑ducing a virgin (ſee Exodus xxii. 16.) he was obli⯑ged not only to pay a heavy fine to the young wo⯑man's father, and to take her for his wife, but was likewiſe deprived of an indulgence, which, of all others, ſeemed moſt agreeable to the libidinous diſpoſition of the Jews at that time; and was al⯑lowed them by Moſes only on account of the hard⯑neſs of their hearts; (ſee Matthew xix. 8.) I mean the giving a bill of divorce; for, in this caſe (when a man was obliged to marry one whom he had ſe⯑duced) he might not put her away all his days. (See Deut. xxii. 28.)—A puniſhment of greater morti⯑fication to the Jews than any other, which the learned Philo (though himſelf a Jew) candidly ac⯑knowledges ^*.

[9]This certainly was a ſufficient cauſe for ſecrecy on the man's part; ſo that, whether his way (or behaviour) with a maid was really criminal, or only imprudent (for either of them may be implied in the text) he would, as much as poſſible, conceal it from the world, and render it as uninveſtigable as the other things mentioned in the text to be too wonderful for Solomon; at leaſt his beſt endea⯑vours would not be wanting to make it ſo.

Neither can we ſuppoſe that the ſame earneſt en⯑deavours would be wanting on the young woman's part to conceal her diſgrace from her friends as long as ſhe could. But the reaſons for ſecrecy are far more obvious in the caſe of eſpouſed virgins; for, according to the law of Moſes (Deut. xxii. 23, 24.) if a man was baſe enough to ſeduce one of theſe, an ignominious death was to be the immediate and dreadful conſequence of a diſcovery; when both parties muſt ſhare the ſame wretched fate ^*.

Now if all that I have ſaid ſhall not be thought ſufficient to prove that [...] in this paſſage muſt neceſſarily ſignify a maid or virgin, I have never⯑theleſs the ſatisfaction of obſerving that the author of the objections, in page 20, allows it to be ‘a very obſcure paſſage;’ and profeſſes to ‘lay no ſtreſs upon it;’ and therefore, I think, I may ſafely conclude, at leaſt, that it is incapable of [10] proving any thing againſt the true ſenſe of the word in the other paſſages.

The ſame author obſerves in page 19, that "other four places are abſolutely uncertain;" but they appear in a very different light to me.

In the firſt of theſe places (Geneſis xxiv. 43.) the word is applied to Rebekah before her mar⯑riage, who in the ſame chapter is ſaid expreſly to be a virgin ( [...]) ‘neither had any man known her.’ (See 16th verſe.)

In the ſecond place (Exodus ii. 8.) it is applied to Moſes's ſiſter, who watched her infant brother during the time of his being expoſed in the little ark of bulruſhes.

Now it does not appear that Moſes had any other ſiſter beſides Miriam the propheteſs; (ſee Numb. xxvi. 59. and Exodus xv. 20.) and why her chaſ⯑tity ſhould be called in queſtion (eſpecially ſo early in life) I know not!

In the third place (Pſalm lxviii. 25.) this word with the context expreſſes the damſels playing with timbrels in the ſolemn proceſſions of the ſanctuary; who, had they been damſels ſuſpected of having "wrought folly in Iſrael," (Deut. xxii. 21. ^*) they, ſurely, would not have been permitted to join in this divine ſervice.

[11]The laſt of theſe four places, which the Doctor thinks "abſolutely uncertain," is Canticles i. 3. where the ſame word is applied to the virgins that waited on Solomon's ſpouſe. But this uncertainty is eaſily removed by the other paſſage in Canticles (chap. vi. ver. 8.) where the ſame word is happily applied to the ſame perſons; who muſt be under⯑ſtood to be virgins, becauſe (as Dr. W—ms him⯑ſelf acknowledges in page 29 ^*) they ‘are diſtin⯑guiſhed from queens and concubines.’

This one would ſuppoſe to be an inſurmountable obſtacle to the Doctor's argument; but he paſſes very ſlightly over the difficulty, and contents him⯑ſelf with informing us, that ‘this diſtinction is no proof at all, becauſe, the ſame; indeed, a ſtronger diſtinction is made, Ezek. xliv. 22. in favour of [...].’

Now I hope the Doctor will excuſe my want of diſcernment in not being able to diſcover the weight of this reaſon againſt ſo ſtrong a proof, as the diſ⯑tinction in queſtion; becauſe, if [...] is proved, [12] ever ſo clearly, to ſignify ſtrictly a virgin (and in⯑deed I know no reaſon why any perſon ſhould doubt of it) yet it is no argument why the other may not likewiſe ſignify the ſame thing; for the word maid, by having this ſignification in Engliſh, does not oblige us to give a different ſignification to the Engliſh word virgin: therefore I think I may ſafely conclude in the Doctor's own words, that this laſt text ‘has the appearance of being deciſive in the caſe;’ (ſee page 29.) and that the word [...] cannot ſignify a young woman that is not a virgin, becauſe, by the ſame word in the plural number (according to the author's own obſervation) ‘vir⯑gins ^* are diſtinguiſhed from queens and concu⯑bines.’

[13]I propoſe now to examine whether we may ſafely acquieſce with the author of the Critical Diſſerta⯑tion, fo. 44. and the authors of the Critical Review (No 136, fo. 359.) in their opinion, that Iſaiah in his prophecy concerning Immanuel, in the ſeventh chapter, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th verſes, ‘had no reference to the Meſſiah.’

Dr. W—ms objects (in page 9.) that the 16th verſe of the ſeventh chapter of Iſaiah ‘cannot, in any ſenſe, be applied to the Meſſiah.’ The words of this text, according to the Engliſh tranſlation, are as follows: ‘For before the child ſhall know to refuſe the evil, and chooſe the good, the land that thou abhorreſt ſhall be forſaken of both her kings.’

This verſe ſeems to be the principal cauſe of his objections againſt the common interpretation of the two preceding verſes.

Now, though I do not think with him that theſe three verſes muſt, of neceſſity, relate to the ſame per⯑ſon; yet I apprehend there is a great probability [14] that they may; and that the 16th verſe may reaſon⯑ably be accounted for, even when applied to the Meſſiah. Dr. W—ms approves of the meaning given to the word [...] in the 16th verſe by Mr. Mann (viz. that it may ſignify "vexeſt" inſtead of abhorreſt) ‘the land which thou (Ahaz) vexeſt with thy idolatry.’ (See fo. 34.) Thus far he favours the explication which I propoſe to give of this paſſage; but then he ſuppoſes that the land which Ahaz vexed ſignifies the land of Judah only. ‘The prophet meant to ſay, according to this au⯑thor (ſays the Doctor) that the land of Judah, which Ahaz by his idolatry and wickedneſs had brought into trouble and difficulty, ſhould be delivered from both theſe kings:’ (fo. 35.) by which the Doctor refers to Reſin king of Syria, and Pekah the ſon of Remaliah king of Iſrael, who at that time were confederate againſt Judah, and ‘went up towards Jeruſalem to war againſt it.’ See the firſt part of the ſame chapter.—The Doctor repeats the ſame thing in page 37—viz.—the land (of Ju⯑dah) which thou (Ahaz) vexeſt, &c. This throws great difficulty upon the text, which informs us, that the land which Ahaz vexed ſhould ‘be for⯑ſaken of both her kings.’ The conſtruction of the word rendered "her kings" requires us to un⯑derſtand that both the kings there ſpoken of ſhould be kings of that land which Ahaz vexed: [...] "both her kings."

[15]Now Pekah king of Iſrael cannot be underſtood to be one of theſe, if the land, which Ahaz vexed, ſignified the land of Judah alone; for in what ſenſe could he be called one of the kings of the land of Judah, who was not a conqueror (for the true king ſtill maintained his royal ſeat and title) but a de⯑clared enemy and diſturber, and king only of Iſ⯑rael?

Neither could Reſin king of Syria be properly ſaid to be either king of Judah or Iſrael; for he was only an invader of Judah, acting as an ally to the king of Iſrael.

Though indeed he had rather more right to be accounted one of the kings of Judah, than the king of Iſrael had, becauſe about that time he had taken poſſeſſion of Elath, a city of Judah: but this could not really intitle him to be called a king of that land, becauſe, from the time that the city was ta⯑ken, it ceaſed to be a part of Judah, and was ac⯑counted a part of the kingdom of Syria; for it is expreſly ſaid in 2 Kings xvi. 6. that ‘Reſin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.’ Dr. W—ms obſerves in a note (page 37.) that ‘Reſin and Pekah are, perhaps, here called the kings of Judah, becauſe they were then in poſſeſſion of all the country, Jeruſalem excepted;’ but the Doctor ſurely did not conſider, that Iſaiah was ſent to confirm Ahaz, [16] that he ſhould not fear ‘the two tails of theſe ſmoking firebrands’ (viz. Reſin and the ſon of Remaliah) and to aſſure him, that their evil council of ſetting up a king in Judah ſhould "not ſtand"— nor—"come to paſs." It is not likely therefore, that the prophet ſhould call either or both of theſe kings kings of Judah, becauſe it would have been abſolutely a contradiction to his meſſage, which was to encourage and eſtabliſh the then reigning king of Judah, deſcended from the houſe of David. Even the Doctor himſelf ſeems ſo ſenſible of the inſufficiency of his interpretation, that he after⯑wards, in the ſame note, propoſes another expe⯑dient (though a dangerous ^* one) in hopes of ſolv⯑ing the difficulty; for the text not being capable of ſerving his purpoſe as it ſtands at preſent, the pro⯑phet himſelf muſt be corrected.

[17]This is eſteemed a much eaſier thing, now-a-days, than for a critic to give up a favorite opinion, that happens to be contradictory to the Holy Scripture.

‘Suppoſe (ſays the Doctor) that we ſhould read [...] for [...] her kings? ſhall be forſaken of both kings’ —this, indeed, is cutting the knot, but it will not enable the Doctor to come off con⯑queror, like the Grecian hero. If the omiſſion of the word [...] in the Septuagint tranſlation ſhould even be allowed to afford ſufficient grounds for ſuch a ſuppoſition; yet ‘Dr. Kennicott's truly important work’ is not likely to furniſh various readings from MSS. equal in authority and antiquity with thoſe from which Aquila, Symmachus, and Theo⯑dotion were taken. Theſe were, manifeſtly, accord⯑ing to the preſent Heb. text in this paſſage; for it is rendered by all theſe tranſlators [...], of her two kings, or of both her kings.

The ancient Syriac verſion, likewiſe, confirms the text; [...] both her kings. It would have been time enough to have quoted Dr. Kenni⯑cott's various reading, when it was known that any ſuch ſubſiſted—for it is not fair dealing to wound the credit of the holy text with a mere "perhaps," ^* and for no other purpoſe (if I may uſe the Dr's [18] own words) than to "ſtrengthen a conjecture." In ſhort, I would adviſe the Doctor to let the text re⯑main as he found it, for this unjuſtifiable method of ſolving difficulties is a broken reed, which ſel⯑dom fails to wound the hands of thoſe who uſe it.

Now the difficulty ceaſes, if it be admitted that the land which Ahaz vexed ſignified the land or in⯑heritance of the twelve tribes of Iſrael, including Judah; which conſtruction the circumſtances of thoſe times will enable it to bear.

Ahaz had interrupted the ſacrifices of atonement uſually offered up for all Iſrael in the temple at Jeruſalem, which was common to Jews and Iſrae⯑lites; and therefore might truly be ſaid to vex the land of Iſrael, as well as Judah: for he not only "ſacrificed unto the gods of Damaſcus" (2 Chron. xxviii. 23.) but he ‘cut in pieces the veſſels of the houſe of God, and ſhut up the doors of the houſe of the Lord’ (24th verſe). King Heze⯑kiah ^* (who opened again the doors of the houſe of the Lord, and cauſed the prieſts and Levites to cleanſe all the houſe from the abominations of Ahaz) was conſcious that his father, by the inter⯑ruption of divine ſervice before-mentioned, had vexed Iſrael as well as Judah; and therefore made all the amends that lay in his power. He cauſed "an atonement" to be made "for all Iſrael:" for [19] the king ‘commanded, that the burnt offering and the ſin offering ſhould be made for all Iſrael.’ 2 Chron. xxix. 24.

He likewiſe ‘ſent to all Iſrael and Judah, and wrote letters alſo to Ephraim and Manaſſeh, that they ſhould come to the houſe of the Lord at Jeruſalem, to keep the paſſover unto the Lord God of Iſrael.’ 2 Chron. xxx. 1. And we read in the 11th verſe of the ſame chapter, that ‘divers of Aſher and Manaſſeh, and of Zebulun, hum⯑bled themſelves (accordingly) and came to Je⯑ruſalem;’ and "did eat the paſſover." (See 18th verſe.) Now as it appears that the land of all the other tribes, as well as the land of Judah, was really vexed by the apoſtaſy of Ahaz, there is reaſon to ſuppoſe that the land of Immanuel, mentioned by Iſaiah (viii. 8.) might ſignify (not only the land of Judah, but) the land of both the houſes of Iſrael, [...], mentioned in the 14th verſe of the ſame chapter; and that the two kings of the land, mentioned in the ſeventh chapter, may mean the kings, or ſeparate regal powers, of theſe two houſes of Iſrael, which were both to ceaſe before the child (Immanuel) ſhould know to refuſe the evil and chooſe the good. The word [...] or king, in a figu⯑rative way of ſpeaking, may very well be under⯑ſtood in ſome paſſages (not to mean merely the perſon of one particular king, but in a more gene⯑ral ſenſe) to ſignify a ſucceſſion of kings, or rather the [20] regal conſtitution of a ſtate; and the failure of ſuch royalty in ſome caſes ſerves as a diſtinguiſhing mark of conqueſt or ſubjection to a foreign power. ‘The king ſhall periſh from Gaza, and Aſhkelon ſhall not be inhabited,’ ſays the prophet Zechariah, (ix. 5.) by which is plainly underſtood (not the de⯑ſtruction of a ſingle king, but) the ceaſing of the regal government of the city of Gaza. It is a ſy⯑nonimous term with the departing of the ſceptre: ‘The pride of Aſſyria ſhall be brought down, and the ſceptre of Egypt ſhall depart away,’ ſays the ſame prophet in the 11th verſe of the ſucceeding chapter. The prophet Hoſea, likewiſe, uſes the word [...] in the ſame general ſenſe (xi. 5.) [...]—"the Aſſyrian (or Aſſur) ſhall be his king:" one Aſſyrian king only cannot here be meant; but the ſucceſſion of kings reigning in Aſſyria during the captivity of Iſrael. Therefore, I preſume, there is ſome ground for my ſuppoſition, that Iſaiah's ex⯑preſſion in the ſeventh chapter, [...], may ſignify the two ſeparate regal governments of Judah and Iſrael (called, in the twenty-third chapter of Ezechiel, Aholah and Aholibah) and not merely two ſingle kings.

When I firſt wrote this opinion, and communi⯑cated the MS. to Dr. W—ms, I apprehended that the thought was intirely new;—ſo little am I ac⯑quainted with the republic of letters, for want of leiſure and opportunity to read! I muſt therefore [21] acknowledge myſelf obliged to Dr. W—ms for his information, that the learned Mr. Mann, in his diſſertation De anno natali Chriſti, ‘appears to be of the ſame opinion.’ I had likewiſe the ſatisfac⯑tion, afterwards, to be informed by another gen⯑tleman (a worthy friend of mine) that the ſame in⯑terpretation is recommended in the Univerſal Hiſt. vol. IV. of the Octavo, p. 154, with the note K.

Now, that the opinion of the learned author may more clearly be underſtood, I will ſet down at length the whole that he wrote upon the text in queſtion.

Having mentioned the ſubject of Iſaiah's meſ⯑ſage to Ahaz, he adds— ‘Here the king, whe⯑ther out of reſpect or deſpondency and unbelief, —refuſing to aſk the promiſed ſign, the prophet aſſured him from the Lord, that—before that time came, a virgin ſhould conceive and bear a ſon, and call his name Himmanuel, or God with us; and ſo on.’ (K).

Upon this opinion he further explains himſelf in the following note:

‘(K) This we take to be a much more natural ſenſe of that prophecy than to ſuppoſe, as ſome have done, that ſuch a miraculous child was really born in Ahaz's time, to aſſure him of the promiſed deliverance; for as there is not the leaſt mention of ſuch an extraordinary birth, ſo neither do we ſee that there was any neceſſity for [22] it, in order to convince the deſponding king, who could not be ignorant of that prophecy of Jacob, that the ſceptre ſhould not depart from Judah, till Shiloh was come, much leſs, that he was to ſpring of the lineage of David. But what ſtaggered Ahaz's faith, and made him fear that the regal power was going to depart from his family, was, that his two enemies had combined to ſet a ſtranger on his throne. All, therefore, that was wanting to diſpel his preſent fears about it, was for the prophet to aſſure him from God, that this Shiloh, promiſed to Judah and David, who was to fore-run the total exciſion of the Jewiſh polity, was to be born in a miraculous manner and with a divine character, and other remarkable circumſtances, ſuch as, he might be eaſily ſatisfied, had not as yet happened in his kingdom.’

‘As for that part of the prophecy which is com⯑monly urged on the other ſide, namely, ‘Before this wonderful child ſhall know good from evil, the land which thou abhorreſt ſhall be forſaken of both her kings:’ We think, that if it be rightly un⯑derſtood, it will rather confirm our ſenſe of the prophecy, and that the words ought to be thus rendered. For (or rather, as the particle chi ſeems to import here, nay) before this child can know good from evil, this land, which thou (not abhorreſt, as our verſion renders it, but) art ſo [23] ſolicitous about, or giveſt up for loſt, ſhall be bereaved of both her kings; by which, we think, ought to be underſtood, not the kings of Syria and Iſrael, for the former could not be called her (Canaan's) king; and the latter had but a ſhare in it at beſt; but the kings of Iſrael and Judah, as it really was before the coming of the Meſſiah.’

In order to confirm this opinion, I have annexed to theſe remarks two diſtinct diſſertations: one on the prophecy of Iſaiah vii. 8. (—‘and within threeſcore and five years ſhall Ephraim be bro⯑ken that it be not a people’); and the other on the famous prophecy of Jacob, concerning the ſceptre of Judah.

In the former I ſhew, that the regal government of the houſe of Iſrael, as a ſeparate ſtate from Ju⯑dah, was put an end to not a great many years after Iſaiah's prophecy.

In the latter (I hope) I have proved that the re⯑gal government of the houſe of Judah (I mean only the temporal or worldly kingdom of Judah) ceaſed preciſely at the time limited by Iſaiah in the prophecy now before us. So that, I flatter myſelf, it will appear upon the whole, that the land of Iſ⯑rael, including Judah (being the land which Ahaz vexed) was forſaken of "both her kings," or regal governments, before the child Immanuel could "know to refuſe the evil and chooſe the good."

[24]For Herod the Great, on a careful examination (I believe) will be found to have been the laſt king of the whole land of Iſrael and Judah, which Ahaz vexed; and it is remarkable, that Chriſt, the true Immanuel, was a young child in the arms of his mother at the time of this monarch's death; ſoon after which, Joſeph, the huſband of the bleſſed vir⯑gin, was warned by an angel of the Lord in Egypt, ſaying, ‘Ariſe, and take THE YOUNG CHILD and his mother, and go into the land of Iſrael’ (not the land of Judah only) ‘for they are dead which ſought the young child's life.’ Matth. ii. 20.

But Dr. W—ms in a note (page 32.) obſerves, that the child Immanuel ‘could not be Chriſt, be⯑cauſe he is never called the king of Judah.’ And he thinks that Nathaniel, when he called him the king of Iſrael, ‘laboured under the ſame miſtake with all his countrymen, who expected a tem⯑poral Meſſiah.’ The Doctor obſerves in the ſame note, that "Chriſt is king of the whole earth;" which he ſeems to aſſign as a reaſon, why ‘he is never called the king of Judah.’

And indeed it does not appear that the Doctor had any other foundation for his cenſure of Natha⯑niel; though this argument is ſo far from being concluſive in favour of the Doctor's opinion, that it rather proves the contrary; for he that is king of the whole earth muſt neceſſarily, in a general ſenſe, be king of Iſrael and Judah; theſe titles [25] being moſt certainly included in the former, even ſuppoſing the peculiar ſceptre of each kingdom to be departed.

Nevertheleſs the argument (ſuch as it is) is ad⯑mitted and approved by the Critical Reviewers! for they quote the Doctor's words at length (ſee N^o 136, fo. 356.) without offering any thing to juſ⯑tify Nathaniel from the charge of labouring under a miſtake.

It ſhall therefore be my buſineſs to prove, that the miſtake does not reſt with Nathaniel.

Chriſt is in a peculiar manner eternal king of Judah and Iſrael, as well as king of the whole earth, and heir of all things. (Heb. i. 2.) The angel Ga⯑briel teſtified that Chriſt ſhould reign over the houſe of Jacob (which is Iſrael) for ever. See St. Luke i. 32. And the wiſe men of the Eaſt went to Je⯑ruſalem and inquired, ‘Where is he that is born king of the Jews? for we have ſeen his ſtar in the Eaſt, and come’ (that is, to Jeruſalem, the capital of his kingdom) "to worſhip him." See Matth. ii. 1, 2. Therefore the Doctor's objection that the child Immanuel could not be Chriſt, be⯑cauſe he is never called the king of Judah, ſeems to be intirely groundleſs; for the dominion of the land of Immanuel (mentioned in the eighth chapter of Iſaiah) may moſt certainly be attributed with more propriety to the Meſſiah, who was king and ſhep⯑herd [26] of Iſrael (ſee Ezek. xxxvii. 24. alſo xxxiv. 23, 24.) than to any ſon of Iſaiah whatever.

Dr. W—ms may, perhaps, ſuppoſe, that the king⯑doms of Iſrael and Judah could not belong to Chriſt, becauſe he refuſed to accept of any temporal go⯑vernment, and withdrew himſelf when he perceived that the people would come, and take him by force to make him a king; (ſee John vi. 15.) and further, becauſe he even declared that his kingdom was not of this world. See chap. xviii. 36. But all this ſeems to relate only to the manner of his govern⯑ment, which, in general, was merely ſpiritual. He was nevertheleſs king of Iſrael, being ſent in a par⯑ticular manner to the loſt ſheep of the houſe of Iſ⯑rael; (ſee Matth. xv. 24.) and, for a time, Jeruſa⯑lem was the ſeat of his kingdom, when he went up to the feaſt; and a very great multitude ſpread their garments in the way (a greater mark of ſubmiſſion than is ever paid to temporal princes) and others cut down branches from the trees, and ſtrawed them in the way (ſee Matth. xxi. 8.) and cried, Hoſanna, Bleſſed is the KING OF ISRAEL that cometh in the name of the Lord. John xii. 13.

Chriſt did not tell the multitude that they ‘la⯑boured under a miſtake’ in calling him KING OF ISRAEL; on the contrary it appears, that he ap⯑proved of the voice of the people; which could not have been the caſe, had he not been really king of Iſrael: for when the phariſees ſaid unto him, [27] Maſter, rebuke thy diſciples, he anſwered and ſaid unto them, ‘I tell you, that if theſe ſhould hold their peace, the ſtones would immediately cry out.’ Luke xix. 38, 39, 40. Thus was the Meſſiah not only "called," but proclaimed king of Iſrael; and as ſuch he received the homage of his people; yet in ſuch a manner, as beſt ſuited the ſacred character of him, who had rejected a worldly kingdom: for, inſtead of royal apparel and a triumphal car, he was "cloathed with humility," and ſitting on an aſs, that the prophecy of Zechariah might be literally fulfilled.

‘Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; ſhout, O daughter of Jeruſalem: behold THY KING cometh unto thee: he is juſt, and having ſalva⯑tion, lowly, and riding upon an aſs, and upon a colt the foal of an aſs.’ (Zech. ix. 9.) But though Chriſt profeſſed that his kingdom was not of this world, yet there was no worldly man hardy enough to reſiſt or oppoſe his will, when he was pleaſed to exert his divine authority over them; for ‘he caſt out them that ſold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money⯑changers, and the ſeats of them that ſold doves; and would not ſuffer that any man ſhould carry any veſſel through the temple.’ Mark xi. 15, 16.

And St. John informs us (chap. ii. 15.) that he made a ſcourge of ſmall cords, and drove them all (all ſuch as are above-mentioned) out of the temple.

[28]Of all the extraordinary things which Chriſt did, St. Jerome thought this to be the moſt wonderful, as Mr. Bragge remarks in his Practical Obſervations upon the Miracles. This perſonal authority and do⯑minion of Chriſt in Iſrael was expreſly foretold by the prophet Micah (chap. v. 2.) ‘But thou Beth⯑lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thouſands of Judah, yet out of thee ſhall he come forth unto me, that is, to be RULER IN IS⯑RAEL; whoſe goings forth have been from of old ^* from everlaſting.’ I never read any paſſage of Scripture which was capable of affording the leaſt countenance or ſupport to the contrary doctrine, that Chriſt was not the king of Iſrael. Indeed, the enemies and perſecutors of our Lord at the time of his crucifixion expreſſed their diſbelief of his being king of Iſrael ^†, becauſe they did not think him to be the true anointed or Meſſiah. Nevertheleſs, when the ſeveral extraordinary and miraculous cir⯑cumſtances relating to the birth, life, death, and perſecution of that moſt holy perſon (Jeſus of Na⯑zareth) are candidly examined and carefully com⯑pared [29] with the prophetical declarations concerning the promiſed Meſſiah, it manifeſtly appears, that there were very ſufficient reaſons for acknowledg⯑ing that perſon to be both Lord and Chriſt ^*; and conſequently "king of Iſrael," in the ſtricteſt ſenſe, not only during his bodily reſidence on earth, but to all eternity. Wherefore, we ought moſt certainly to acquit Nathaniel, and other faithful Iſraelites, of the miſtake which they have lately been ſuppoſed to "labour under," when they declared our Lord Jeſus Chriſt to be "the king of Iſrael." (John i. 49. xii. 13.)

[30]Thus far I have ventured to ſuggeſt, in anſwer to Dr. W—ms's declaration in page 9,—that "the 16th verſe" (of the ſeventh chap. of Iſaiah) "cannot, in any ſenſe, be applied to the Meſſiah:" I hope I have proved that it may; nevertheleſs I muſt obſerve, that even the common interpretation of this paſſage is not ſo unreaſonable as Dr. W—ms ſeems to imagine; though, indeed, the interpreta⯑tion before given appears to be much leſs liable to exception.

The Doctor animadverts ſeverely on the opinion of thoſe who ſay, that the paſſage contains two diſ⯑tinct prophecies;—viz. that the verſes 14 and 15 relate to Chriſt, but the 16th to Iſaiah's ſon. ‘Is not this (ſays he) very unnatural? and, if I am not miſtaken, very unuſual?’

But the authors of the old commentary on the Bible, commonly called Aſſemblies Annotations, were of a very different opinion.

They obſerve on this very text, that ‘it is an uſual thing in Scripture, with our prophet Iſaiah eſpecially, by way of alluſion, to apply the ſame words and phraſes unto divers ſubjects, where occaſion is to ſpeak of them together:’ and therefore they were of opinion, that the child men⯑tioned in the 16th verſe was ‘no other, in all like⯑lihood, than Shearjaſhub, the prophet's child, whom, to this purpoſe, God hath commanded him to take along with him.’ How far this was [31] an uſual thing with Iſaiah, may be ſeen even in prophecies which were delivered on the ſame occa⯑ſion as the text in queſtion.

For the further illuſtration of this point, I have added to my book a ſhort diſſertation on the nature and ſtyle of prophetical writings, ſhewing, that abrupt tranſitions from one ſubject to another are frequently found therein; and that the Holy Scrip⯑tures afford many examples of prophecies, which are blended and interwoven with other ſubjects that are intirely different, both as to the matter and the time of accompliſhment.

We muſt not expect to find all prophecies unat⯑tended with difficulties: nevertheleſs, there are no difficulties in the ſeventh chapter of Iſaiah ſo great as thoſe, that are occaſioned by Dr. W—ms's in⯑terpretation of it. ‘This prophecy (ſays he) as I take it, relates to one perſon only, and that was the ſon of a young woman then preſent; which ſon was afterwards to be born.’ See page 4.

Now I may aſk with Origen ^* (contra Celſum, pag. 28, Cambridge Edition, 1677.)— ‘Who was born in the time of Ahaz, of whoſe birth this is [32] ſaid,—Emanuel? that is, GOD WITH US? For if no one is found, it is manifeſt that what was ſaid to Ahaz, was addreſſed to the houſe of DAVID, according to that which was written;—viz.—of the ſeed of David a ſaviour is born according to the fleſh.’

Indeed we read, in the eighth chapter, of a ſon, which the propheteſs conceived and bare unto Iſaiah; and likewiſe, that Iſaiah was careful to take unto him FAITHFUL WITNESSES TO RECORD con⯑cerning him; ‘for (ſaid he) before the child ſhall have knowledge to cry, My father and my mo⯑ther (which muſt be within two years) the RICHES of DAMASCUS, and the SPOIL of SAMA⯑RIA, ſhall be taken away before the king of Aſ⯑ſyria.’ Therefore this child was certainly the TEMPORARY SIGN of the promiſed deliverance from the two powers of DAMASCUS and SAMARIA; but, unfortunately for Dr. W—ms's hypotheſis, the ſaid child was NOT CALLED IMMANUEL, but MAHER⯑SHALAL-HASH-BAZ, [...] properly ſig⯑nifying and prefiguring the near approach of the ſpoiling of Damaſcus and Samaria. Now, we do not read of any other child, born at that time, as a ſign; and therefore Dr. W—ms's opinion, concerning Immanuel, is not only a mere ſuppoſition, but a very improbable one; ſince it is not at all likely, that TWO CHILDREN were then born, one Maher-ſhalal-haſh-baz, and the other Immanuel, and both of them [33] intended as MERE TEMPORARY SIGNS OF THE SAME THING.

The Doctor will find, on a further examination of the text, that the birth of Iſaiah's ſon is only an alluſion or imperfect imitation of the former REMOTE SIGN mentioned in the ſeventh chapter (viz. of Im⯑manuel's birth) in the ſame manner as the brazen ſerpent ^* lifted up in the wilderneſs was an imperfect imitation or type of Chriſt crucified; and that the TEMPORARY DELIVERANCE from the two kings (of which the birth of Iſaiah's ſon was the TEMPORARY SIGN) cannot rightly be conſidered as the accom⯑pliſhment of the prophecy, but rather as a confir⯑mation and ſure pledge of the ſaid REMOTE SIGN, as I have before obſerved.

[34] "But when the FULNESS OF TIME was come," the angel Gabriel was ſent from God to Nazareth with a FURTHER REVELATION of the then approaching SIGN of the redemption promiſed by Iſaiah.

The bleſſed virgin anſwered (Luke i. 34.) ‘How ſhall this be, ſeeing that I know not a man?’

That "a woman ſhould compaſs a man" (viz. conceive and bear a ſon without the knowledge of man), this was an event ſcarcely to be expected or comprehended by man; it being the new thing which God had created in the earth, ſpoken of by the prophet Jeremiah xxxi. 22. ^* So that it was plainly the ſeed of the woman which bruiſed the ſer⯑pent's head, as promiſed in Geneſis iii. 15. ^†

The occaſion of Iſaiah's prophecy, concerning the miraculous birth of Immanuel, is mentioned in the beginning of the ſeventh chapter— ‘Becauſe Syria, Ephraim, and the ſon of Remaliah, have taken evil council againſt thee, (Ahaz) ſaying, Let us go up againſt Judah, and vex it; and let us make a breach therein for us, and ſet A KING [35] IN THE MIDST OF IT, even the ſon of Tabeal.’ But ‘thus ſaith the Lord God, It ſhall not ſtand, neither ſhall it come to paſs.’

Now, this was a confirmation of the promiſe made by God to David, and delivered by Nathan the prophet (2 Sam. vii. 16.) viz. ‘Thine houſe and thy kingdom ſhall be eſtabliſhed for ever be⯑fore thee: THY THRONE ſhall be eſtabliſhed for EVER.’

Therefore, as Juſtin Martyr obſerves ^*, if the prophecy, "Behold a virgin ſhall conceive," had not been ſpoken to the houſe of David, but to any other houſe of the twelve tribes, the affair might have been doubtful: but the ſign was really given to the HOUSE OF DAVID (ſee 13th verſe— ‘Hear ye now, O houſe of David’); and as no man was ever born of a virgin, except the MESSIAH, who, on account of this birth, was called the SON OF DA⯑VID; therefore it was ſurely the propereſt ſign that could be given, to aſſure them that the houſe and the KINGDOM of DAVID ſhould be eſtabliſhed for ever, [36] and that the evil council of Syria and Ephraim ſhould not ſtand. The houſe and the kingdom of David cannot be eſtabliſhed FOR EVER, in the per⯑ſon of any of David's deſcendants, except the Meſ⯑ſiah himſelf; for (with reſpect to the preſent times) the worldly kingdom of David ceaſed very many ages ago, and his people the children of Iſrael be⯑ing moſt deſervedly ejected (on account of their wickedneſs and unbelief) from their old inheritance the land of Canaan, have never ſince obtained any other as a poſſeſſion; but for near ſeventeen hun⯑dred years have been diſperſed throughout the whole world: and yet, by the manifeſt providence ^* of God, they remain to this day, in the midſt of all nations, a diſtinct and peculiar people; ſo that their preſent ſtate is an authentic and undeniable voucher of the truth of the Holy Scriptures ^†; [37] and themſelves, a living teſtimony of God's juſt judgment, which they ſtill lie under, until they ſhall repent.

But Chriſt's ſpiritual kingdom of Iſrael, into which we are adopted, is everlaſting; and the prophet Iſaiah gave Ahaz, and his cotemporaries of the houſe of David, the ſtrongeſt aſſurances that it ſhould be ſo.— ‘Of the increaſe of his govern⯑ment and peace’ (ſays he in the ninth chapter, which I have already ſhewn to have been delivered nearly at the ſame time with the ſeventh chapter) ‘there ſhall be NO END, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom to order it, and to eſtabliſh it with judgment and with juſtice from henceforth even for ever: the zeal of the Lord of hoſts will perform this.’

In page 37, Dr. W—ms ſays, ‘The laſt ob⯑jection which I know that can be made to my ſenſe of the paſſage is, that it is utterly incon⯑ſiſtent with the words of St. Matthew, chap. i. 22, 23.’

[38]Here I muſt intirely agree with the Doctor, though I am not the better ſatisfied with his hypo⯑theſis.

Now, that we may thoroughly underſtand the text in queſtion, it will be neceſſary to conſider St. Matthew's application of it.

He informs us, that ‘the birth of Jeſus Chriſt was on this wiſe: When as his mother Mary was eſpouſed to Joſeph, before they came toge⯑ther, ſhe was found with child of the Holy Ghoſt. Then Joſeph her huſband, being a juſt man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on theſe things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, ſaying, Joſeph, THOU SON OF DAVID, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is con⯑ceived in her, IS OF THE HOLY GHOST. And ſhe ſhall bring forth a ſon, and thou ſhalt call his name Jeſus ( [...]): for he ſhall ſave his people from their ſins. NOW ALL THIS was done, that it might be fulfilled which was ſpoken of the Lord by the prophet, ſaying, Behold, A VIRGIN ſhall be with child, and ſhall bring forth a ſon, and they ſhall call his name EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is, God with us.’ Now Dr. W—ms hopes to excuſe himſelf and his hypo⯑theſis by alledging (ſee page 40.) that this is only ‘an accommodation (by way of illuſtration, not [39] proof) of a paſſage to a particular ſenſe to which it originally had no reference.’

But ſhould we not ſeem to pay very little regard to Goſpel teſtimony (I now ſpeak as to Chriſtians) if we were to ſuppoſe, that the prophecy originally had no reference to this event, when an apoſtle ex⯑preſly affirms that it had?

Might not Dr. Doddridge's obſervation (quoted in page 38 of the Crit. Diſſert.) be then, with more juſtice, urged againſt us? viz. ‘This way of pro⯑ceeding will make the Scriptures the moſt un⯑certain writings in the world.’ But now let us ſee how this notion of an accommodation will ſuit with the reſt of the Doctor's hypotheſis.

He ſays (page 44.) ‘I think that the prophet had no reference to the Meſſiah, and that the evan⯑geliſt only alludes to this paſſage in Iſaiah, be⯑cauſe it was remarkably ſuitable to the matter which he was relating.’ Now the Doctor ſeems to have forgot his former opinion in page 23; viz. ‘that the word [...] doth not appear to ſignify ſtrictly a virgin.’

For if this were true, that [...] doth not ſig⯑nify a virgin, in what ſenſe could the text be eſteemed remarkably ſuitable to the miraculous con⯑ception of a VIRGIN by the HOLY GHOST? and in what manner could the accommodation of it to that ſingular event aſſiſt the ſacred hiſtorian ‘BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION?’ (See page 40.)

[40]Nay, the Doctor has even taken great pains to render the text REMARKABLY UNSUITABLE! for he would have us underſtand that [...] the YOUNG WOMAN (as he conſtrues it) ſpoken of in the text, was ſo far from being a VIRGIN, that ſhe was with child ("IS CONCEIVING and BEARING a SON," ſays he in page 37.) even at the time when ſhe was pointed at (as he ſuppoſes in page 31.) by the pro⯑phet. Theſe words (viz. ‘IS CONCEIVING and BEARING a SON)’ are a part of what he has given us in page 37, as a ‘literal tranſlation of the ori⯑ginal;’ but it is ſo far from being ſo, that the true ſenſe of the letter, or text, ſeems to be ex⯑changed for that of the interlineary verſion of the London Polyglot, which renders it ‘praegnans & pariens.’

But the words [...] are not participles active, but are in the perfect tenſe; yet there needs no apology for the Septuagint and other tranſlations in rendering them as if they were of the future tenſe, becauſe the ſentence, to which they belong, is plainly the prediction of a future event ^*; for in prophetical writings the perfect is frequently uſed [41] for the future tenſe. ‘Apud prophetas autem cre⯑berrime (praeteritum) pro futuro uſurpatur, quo res certò futûra ſignificetur, perinde ac ſi jam eveniſſet: ut puer [...] natus eſt nobis, pro naſ⯑cetur.’ BYTHNER. Inſtitutio Linguae ſanctae, p. 10. Dr. W—ms's literal tranſlation (as he calls it) of the perfect tenſe into the participle active can⯑not (I believe) be ſo eaſily vindicated.

Would it not be very unnatural to ſuppoſe, that the prophets have been intirely ſilent concerning this moſt remarkable ſign of the Meſſiah (viz. his being BORN OF A VIRGIN) inſomuch that an evan⯑geliſt ſhould be obliged to ACCOMMODATE to this ſingular circumſtance a paſſage, which originally had "no reference to THE MESSIAH?" And that he ſhould attempt to paſs ſuch a MERE ACCOMMODA⯑TION upon the world for the genuine ſenſe of the prophet, by ſignifying in the ſtrongeſt terms, that this text was fulfilled by the circumſtances which he there relates?

The evangeliſt thus expreſſes himſelf: ‘Now ALL THIS WAS DONE, that it might be fulfilled which was ſpoken of the Lord by the prophet,’ &c. [...], &c. which implies, that, if ALL THIS had not come to paſs, the word of the Lord by the prophet would not have been fulfilled; therefore this caſe is by no [42] means ſimilar to the inſtances of ACCOMMODATION drawn from the GRECIAN POETS ^* in page 41.

But why ſhould any one attempt, now-a-days, to explain away the genuine meaning of a prophecy, ſo literally fulfilled by the miraculous birth of Chriſt, when even the Jewiſh interpreters, near 300 years (i. e. according to the Chronicon of Euſebius 279 years) before that wonderful event, had conſtrued the ſame prophecy in ſuch a manner, that it could not poſſibly be applied to any perſon whatſoever, except the promiſed Meſſiah, who ALONE WAS BORN OF A VIRGIN?

This teſtimony of the Septuagint was taken no⯑tice of by Origen contra Celſum ^† (p. 27.) and is certainly of much greater authority in favour of the true ſenſe of the word [...] (rendered by [43] them [...], a virgin) than any thing that Dr. W—ms has offered againſt it.

It is remarkable, that all the ancient MSS. of the Septuagint, in different parts of the world, teſ⯑tify the truth of this reading; of which four in par⯑ticular are of conſiderable authority on account of their very great antiquity; viz. the Vatican, Alex⯑andrian, Complutenſian, and Venetian MSS. And though many copies of the Septuagint muſt have been in the hands of Jews, as well as others, both before and after the birth of Chriſt, yet I never heard that any perſon ever produced a copy which con⯑tradicted this original reading; for as the Septuagint was the common tranſlation uſed in the ſynagogues throughout all Aſia, Greece, and Egypt (ſee Bp. Walton's Prolegomena ix. p. 60. N^o 15.) any alte⯑ration in ſo remarkable a text as this would very ſoon have been diſcovered.

And it muſt alſo be remembered, that the ſeve⯑ral Greek tranſlations, wherein the word [...] is rendered [...], a young woman (viz. that of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus) were all made after the birth of Chriſt, when the unbelieving Jews were deſirous of perverting the true meaning of the pro⯑phecy.

The ancient Syriac verſion expreſſes [...] by the very word (viz. [...] from [...]) which the Doctor ſets up in oppoſition to it; and which he juſtly obſerves) muſt ſignify ſtrictly a [44] VIRGIN ^†. And laſtly, St. Matthew, whether he quoted the Original or Septuagint, was certainly convinced that the true ſenſe of the word was [...], a VIRGIN, and he hath accordingly left us his teſtimony of it; which proves that the Doctor's application of this word to the mother of Iſaiah's ſon muſt be very erroneous.

The child, Immanuel, could not be Iſaiah's ſon, becauſe it appears from ſo many undeniable teſti⯑monies, that his mother was to be really a virgin; and becauſe the event itſelf (by which the prophecy is beſt underſtood) has proved this truth beyond all contradiction.

Wherefore, I think, I may now ſafely conclude in Dr. W—ms's own words, before quoted, that his opinion concerning this text ‘IS UTTERLY IN⯑CONSISTENT WITH THE WORDS OF ST. MAT⯑THEW,’ and of courſe, that the Doctor is indiſpen⯑ſably bound to yield up his hypotheſis to the ſuperior authority of the evangeliſt.

A DISSERTATION ON THE NATURE and STYLE OF PROPHETICAL WRITINGS, SHEWING That abrupt Tranſitions from one Subject to another are frequently found therein. The ſame being intended to illuſtrate the foregoing Remarks on the Critical Diſſertation, &c.
[]A DISSERTATION ON THE NATURE and STYLE OF Prophetical Writings, &c.

THE prophecies contained in the ſeventh, eighth, and ninth chapters of Iſaiah ſeem to have been delivered during the general conſternation of the houſe of David, occaſioned by the invaſion of Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah king of Iſrael; becauſe ſeveral circumſtances relating to the ſaid kings, and their reſpective nations, are mentioned in each of theſe chapters^*; notwithſtanding that the ſame chapters [4] contain prophecies of very diſtant events, which are ſo blended with the tranſactions of the (then) preſent times, that it would not be eaſy to diſ⯑tinguiſh the real difference in point of chronology, if the apparent accompliſhment of theſe ſeveral prophecies did not remove the difficulty. Rezin and Pekah are both particularly mentioned in the 7th chapter, wherein the extraordinary birth of the child Immanuel is given as a ſign. The ſpoiling of their reſpective cities is promiſed in the 8th chapter ^†, wherein the birth of the child Maher⯑ſhalalhaſhbaz the ſon of Iſaiah is foretold, as the temporary ſign of the ſame; and notwithſtanding that the greateſt part of the ſaid chapter relates to thoſe times, yet the prophet introduces in the very midſt of it a plain reference to the times of the Meſſiah, ſee 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th verſes, which ſhall be hereafter conſidered. In the 9th chapter, the preſumption of Ephraim and the in⯑habitants [5] of Samaria ^‡ is reproved, and God's judgments are once more expreſly denounced againſt Rezin; as if theſe things were to happen after the birth of the child that was to ‘be called Wonderful, Counſellor, the mighty God, the ever⯑laſting Father, the Prince of peace, of the in⯑creaſe of whoſe government and peace there ſhould be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom,’ &c. for the birth of this divine perſon is foretold in the former part of the ſame chapter; and yet I never heard of an attempt to apply this prophecy to a ſon of Iſaiah, or to any other child born about that time.

In the beginning of this 9th chapter the prophet alludes likewiſe to ſome other hiſtorical circum⯑ſtances, beſides what are already mentioned con⯑cerning Syria and Ephraim; and theſe had either then lately happened, or were very ſhortly to come to paſs, notwithſtanding that the alluſion is [6] blended with a very diſtant prophecy concerning the preaching of Chriſt.

The circumſtances, which I ſpeak of, are the Aſſyrian conqueſt and captivity of Zebulun and Napthali, which happened in the days of Pekah king of Iſrael ^§. This was the affliction ^* by the ‘way of the ſea, beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations,’ mentioned by Iſaiah ix. 1. by which he expreſly points out the very ſpot, Galilee, where Immanuel was chiefly to be manifeſted by his mighty deeds and miracles: for the prophet immediately proceeds, verſe 2. ‘The people (ſays he) that walked in darkneſs ^† have ſeen a great light: they [7] that dwell in the land of the ſhadow of death, upon them hath the light ſhined.’ And after⯑wards in the 6th verſe he renews the ſame promiſes given in the 7th chapter, concerning the birth of a divine child; whoſe attributes and dignity are here ſo fully expreſſed by the prophet, that they can by no means agree with the character of any other child, but that which was truly Immanuel, or God with us. Therefore it is plain that the pro⯑phecies of the 8th and 9th chapters were delivered nearly at the ſame time with thoſe of the 7th chapter, which are further explained and confirmed thereby; ſo that if Dr. W—ms will carefully ex⯑amine all theſe three chapters, he will find, that it is not unuſual ^‡ in prophetick writings to make quick and abrupt tranſitions from one ſubject to [8] another, nor unnatural that a very diſtant prophecy ſhould be blended with others that were ſoon to be accompliſhed; becauſe it is the nature of prophecy to be delivered in this myſterious manner. For (ſays Iſaiah xxviii. 10) ‘precept muſt be (or hath been) upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little and there a little. For with ſtammering lips, and another tongue, will he ſpeak (or he hath ſpoken) to this people.’ And again in the 13th verſe, ‘here a little and there a little; that they might go and fall back⯑ward, and be broken, and ſnared, and taken.’ The nature and reaſon of typical writings are ſtrongly expreſſed in St. Mark's Goſpel ^§, iv. 11, 12, 13. wherefore it is our duty to aſk God's aſſiſtance [9] when we read the ſcriptures, that we may under⯑ſtand them to our comfort; leſt they ſhould be a ſtumbling block to us, as they were to the un⯑believing Jews. But not only the ſcriptures, even Chriſt himſelf became a ſtone of ſtumbling to the Jews. For, about the time of his coming, they univerſally expected a glorious and triumphant Meſſiah to rule over them; inſomuch that Herod the Great was exceedingly alarmed with the appre⯑henſion of ſo powerful a competitor for the throne of David. But when "the deſire of all nations" (ſee Haggai ii. 7.) was really come, his humble ap⯑pearance, meekneſs, and diſintereſted, though in⯑tereſting, doctrine, did not in the leaſt correſpond with their worldly imaginations; ſo that ‘he was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not.’ John i. 10, 11. For the Jews did not then conſider (any more than they do at preſent) that the humility of the Meſſiah was as expreſly foretold by the prophets as his glory. "Who hath believed our report?" ſays Iſaiah in chap. liii. when he is about to deſcribe the humility, afflictions, and death of the Meſſiah. ‘He hath no form nor comelineſs; and when we [10] ſhall ſee him, there is no beauty that we ſhould deſire him. He is deſpiſed and rejected of men,’ &c. See the whole chapter ^*.

The Jews could not reconcile this unexpected humility with that glorious character which they ſo long looked for and deſired, viz. ‘a king that ſhould reign and proſper;’ whom "the Lord" (Je⯑hovah) promiſed by Jeremiah ^† to ‘raiſe up unto [11] David,’ and who is likewiſe called (as a name the moſt ſuitable to the only begotten Son of God) "the Lord," (Jehovah) "our righteouſneſs." This unfortunate miſapprehenſion was plainly foretold by Iſaiah, when he warned the people to "ſanctify the "Lord of hoſts himſelf ( [...]) and (ſays he) ‘let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.’ Now, what perſon could the prophet mean by this glorious title ( [...] Jehovah Sabaoth) if not the Meſſiah? for he im⯑mediately adds, ‘and he ſhall be for a ſanctuary, [12] but (or rather and) for a ſtone of ſtumbling, and for a rock of offence to both the houſes of Iſrael, for a gin, and for a ſnare to the inhabitants of Jeruſalem. And many among them ſhall ſtumble and fall, and be broken, and be ſnared, and be taken. Bind up the teſtimony, ſeal the law among my diſciples.’ Iſaiah viii. 13—16.

We have the teſtimony of St. Paul in his Epiſtle to the Romans (ix. 33.) ^‡ that this text re⯑lates to Chriſt; for he has there blended a part of it with another quotation from Iſaiah xxviii. 16. ^§ [13] St. Peter likewiſe quotes it in his 1ſt Epiſtle ii. 8.^* and applies it to Chriſt. And indeed it can mean no other than "Chriſt crucified," who (as St. Paul informs us) was ‘to the Jews a ſtumbling block, and unto the Greeks fooliſhneſs,’ 1 Cor. i. 23. But notwith⯑ſtanding theſe plain teſtimonies, Dr. W—ms is of a very different opinion. ‘Iſaiah does not ſeem, (ſays the Dr. in a note, p. 32) to ſpeak of the Meſſiah till the ixth chapter.’ But though the Dr. here allows that the ixth chapter contains a prophecy concerning the Meſſiah; yet perhaps he is not aware, that if his reaſons againſt the com⯑mon interpretation of the viith chapter (on account of "the preſent order, and abrupt tranſition" which he complains of in p. 10.) were at all concluſive, the ſame would hold good likewiſe againſt the com⯑mon interpretation of this ixth chapter; wherein the tranſitions from one ſubject to another are equally abrupt, and the remote events concerning the birth and preaching of the Meſſiah are foretold, even before other events ‘which were immediately, or very ſhortly to happen.’ (See p. 9.)

The Dr. may be right enough in his obſervation that there are no inſtances ‘of remote ſigns to prove the accompliſhment of an event near at hand.’ (See pages 9 and 10.) But it is plainly his own miſtake which cauſes the difficulty that he [14] ſpeaks of; for the ſign given by Iſaiah of the birth of Immanuel, (viz. behold a virgin ſhall conceive, &c.) was not a remote ſign of an event near at hand (as the Dr. ſuppoſes) but a remote ſign of a remote event, and therefore not liable to his cenſure.

The holy ſcriptures afford a great many other examples of prophecies, which are blended and interwoven with very different ſubjects; different, I ſay, both with reſpect to the matter, and the time of accompliſhment.

There are alſo many inſtances of paſſages which bear a double conſtruction, being partly applicable to ſome particular perſon expreſly mentioned, though they ultimately and chiefly relate to another very different perſon.

The prophecy of Nathan concerning Solomon is of this kind. ‘He ſhall build an houſe for my name, and I will eſtabliſh the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he ſhall be my ſon.’ 2 Sam. vii. 13, 14. King David himſelf ex⯑plained this more particularly to his ſon Solomon, and applied it to him, 1 Chron. xxii. 9. ſaying, "for his name ſhall be Solomon (ſee the margin [...] "peaceable" agreeable to Chriſt's title men⯑tioned in the ixth chap. of Iſaiah, viz. [...] prince of peace) ‘and I will give peace and quietneſs unto Iſrael in his days. He ſhall build an houſe for my name, and he ſhall be my ſon, and I will be his father, and I will eſtabliſh the throne of his kingdom over Iſrael for ever.’ But where has [15] the throne of Solomon been eſtabliſhed for near 1800 years laſt paſt, if not in Jeſus Chriſt the ſpiritual Solomon, and prince of peace? For though this prophecy plainly related to Solomon, yet it referred to a further acompliſhment in the Meſſiah; by whom alone it could be perfectly fulfilled; and therefore a part of it is applied immediately to Chriſt by St. Paul in his Epiſtle to the Hebrews i. 5. ‘I will be to him a father, and he ſhall be to me a ſon.’

Of the ſame kind is the lxxiid pſalm, dedicated to Solomon. ‘They ſhall fear thee as long as the ſun and moon endure throughout all generations.’ This is indeed applied to Solomon; but as the reign of that monarch was merely temporal, the prophecy cannot be ſaid to be fulfilled in any other perſon beſides the Meſſiah himſelf, the true [...] (Solomon) who reigns, according to the Pſalmiſt's expreſſion "throughout all generations."

The prophet Haggai, chap. ii. promiſes Zerub⯑babel governor of Judah, and Joſhua the high prieſt, in the name of the Lord of hoſts, that ‘the deſire of all nations ſhall come,’ and that he (the Lord of hoſts) ‘will fill this houſe (that is, the houſe which they were ordered to build) with glory.’ v. 7. And he adds in the 9th verſe, ‘The glory of this latter houſe ſhall be greater than of the former, ſaith the Lord of hoſts: and in this place will I give peace ( [...]) ſaith the Lord of hoſts.’

[16]Nevertheleſs, in the former part of the ſame chapter, the prophet appeals to thoſe who had ſeen the ‘houſe in her firſt glory: and how (ſays he) do you ſee it now? Is it not in your eyes in compariſon of it as nothing?’ v. 3. Thus it is plain that the glory of the ſecond houſe did not conſiſt either in the grandeur of the building laid out by Zerubbabel and Joſhua, or in the preſence of thoſe great and holy men; notwithſtanding that the prophecy is addreſſed to them both, and that Zerubbabel is ſpoken to by God in a very re⯑markable manner at the concluſion of the ſame chapter, viz. ‘I will take thee, O Zerubbabel my ſervant, the ſon of Shealtiel, ſaith the Lord, and will make thee as a ſignet: for I have choſen thee, ſaith the Lord of hoſts.’ But the glory was, manifeſtly, to conſiſt in the "future coming, &c. of the deſire of all nations." For as the promiſe was made to Zerubbabel and Joſhua themſelves, the prophecy muſt neceſſarily be underſtood to have a more diſtant accompliſhment; which indeed the beginning of the ſentence ſufficiently proves, viz. [...] Yet once, it is a little while, and I will ſhake the heavens, &c. Haggai ii. 6, 7.

The prophet Zachariah likewiſe promiſes great things to Zerubbabel and Joſhua; which he ap⯑plies perſonally to them as builders of the temple; [17] though the ſame relate ultimately to Chriſt. See chap. iv. 6—10.

See alſo chap. vi. 11, 12, 13. wherein Joſhua by his name ( [...] which the LXX render [...] Jeſus, ſignifying a Saviour) as well as by his office and dignity of high prieſt, was plainly ſet forth as a type of the future Meſſiah.

The prophet orders him to be crowned, and ſaluted with the prophetical title of Chriſt, viz. the branch, of whom he foretold, that he ſhould ‘grow up out of his place,’ and ‘build the temple of the Lord.’

Joſhua might, indeed, be ſaid to build the temple, as well as Zerubbabel, but he could only be a type of the branch there promiſed, becauſe the real branch was yet to grow up out of his place ^*.

The crowns were given ‘for a memorial in the temple of the Lord,’ (not of the accompliſhment of this prophecy in the perſon of Joſhua, but ‘for a memorial’) of what ſhould afterwards ‘come to paſs’ if the people would diligently obey the voice of the Lord their God ^†. Thus we find that Solomon, [18] Zerubbabel, and Joſhua, as builders of the temple, were types of the Meſſiah, the true builder of the everlaſting TEMPLE OF GOD; I mean, the HOLY CATHOLICK CHURCH, properly ^‡ ſo called, ‘built [19] upon the foundation of the Apoſtles and Pro⯑phets; JESUS CHRIST himſelf being the chief [20] corner ſtone. In whom all the building fitly framed together, groweth unto an Holy Temple in the Lord:’ in whom ‘you (Epheſians) alſo are builded together for an habitation of God through the ſpirit.’ Epheſ. ii. 20, 21, 22.

[21]Compare the above mentioned texts with 1 Cor. iii. 11. John ii. 18—22. Luke xx. 17.18. Acts iv. 11. Pſalm cxviii. 22. Iſaiah xxviii. 16.

It would make a large volume if I were to col⯑lect all the prophecies which abſolutely relate to two different and diſtinct ſubjects in the type and antitype. Nevertheleſs, I am particularly obliged to take notice of two more of this kind, becauſe Dr. W—ms has quoted them in favour of his hy⯑potheſis, notwithſtanding that upon examination they will be found to make much againſt it. He ſays (in p. 38.) ‘it is not poſſible indeed to reconcile Matthew ii. 15.23. and perhaps ſome other paſſages in his goſpel, with any particular pro⯑phecy now extant in the Old Teſtament.’ As to the 15th verſe, wherein St. Matthew quotes the Prophet Hoſea xi. 1. ‘(out of Egypt have I called my ſon)’ the Dr. obſerves that ‘the paſſage in Hoſea where theſe words are found, is not a pro⯑phecy of a future event, but a declaration of an event long paſt, and therefore could not be ful⯑filled when the child JESUS came out of Egypt.’

Now, in one reſpect, the Dr. is right, viz. that the paſſage, with regard to the people of Iſrael, ‘is a declaration of an event long paſt:’ nevertheleſs he has not aſſigned any reaſon why the ſame paſſage may not, likewiſe, contain a prophecy of a future event, by being intended, like many other prophe⯑cies, to bear a double application.

[22]Eraſmus has aſſigned a reaſon for the error of Julian the apoſtate concerning this text; viz. ‘that he has too much followed the ſeptuagint edi⯑tion; nimirum ſecutus editionem ſeptuaginta’ (ſays he) ‘qui locum hunc tranſtulerunt in hunc mo⯑dum, quia parvulus Iſrael, et ego dilexi eum, et ex Aegypta vocavi filics ejus.’ (Annot. in Mat⯑thaeum, p. 250.)

A miſunderſtanding of this text is very ex⯑cuſeable, likewiſe, in the authors of that Greek verſion, who could not eaſily comprehend before the event, that the Meſſiah ſhould be called out of Egypt, as the children of Iſrael had been before him; and therefore they rendered the paſſage in ſuch a manner as they thought would beſt point out the application of it to the people of Iſrael only; [...]. ‘and out of Egypt have I called his children.’

But if the prophet himſelf had intended the ſame thing, and that only, he would, moſt likely, have made uſe of terms more expreſſive of a nation, or people, than of a ſingle perſon; ‘(from Egypt have I called my ſon,’ —) and then the Greek inter⯑preters would not have been obliged to leave the literal ſenſe of the original in order to adopt it with propriety to the people of Iſrael; which proves, that ſome ſingle perſon is more particularly pointed at by the prophet, than the people of Iſrael.

There are, indeed, many paſſages of Scripture, wherein nations are repreſented by ſingle perſons; [23] Ezekiel warned the two houſes of Iſrael under the figure of two adulterous women, Aholah and Aho⯑libah, &c. But the text in queſtion is very different from many others of that kind; for the people of Iſrael are not only repreſented therein under the figure of a ſingle perſon, but ſome eminent ſingle perſon is likewiſe plainly repreſented, at the ſame time, under the name and figure of the people of Iſrael, of which the particularity of the ſtile affords evident teſtimony [...] ‘when Iſrael was a little child, and I loved him, and out of Egypt have I called my Son.’ But the following part of the text, where⯑in Iſrael could not be a type of the Meſſiah (I mean their forſaking God's commandments, and ſacri⯑ficing to Baal) is immediately expreſſed in the plural number, as being applicable to the children of Iſrael only, and not to Chriſt [...] ‘as they called them, ſo they went from them: they ſacrificed unto Baalim, and burnt incenſe to graven images.’ Hoſea xi. 2. Thus it is plain that the text is ap⯑plicable, in the firſt place, to the children of Iſrael, who were brought by God out of Egypt, when they firſt began to be eſteemed a nation, and there⯑fore might, as a type of Chriſt, be likened to a little child, being young and weak, in compariſon of their future ſtate and power. And 2dly, It is un⯑doubtedly very applicable to the ſingle perſon of the [24] Meſſiah, who was, alſo, called by God out of Egypt; when he was really a little child ^*, according to the plain literal meaning of the paſſage referred to by St. Matthew, who quoted the ſenſe of the Hebrew text, and not that of the Septuagint verſion.

The child mentioned by Hoſea as having been called ^† out of Egypt, is indeed expreſly named Iſrael; but this is ſo far from ſetting aſide the ap⯑plication to Chriſt, that, on the contrary, it affords the ſtrongeſt confirmation of it: for this name was neceſſarily given in the prophecy, that the appli⯑cation might be double; viz. firſt to the people of Iſrael, and laſtly to the Meſſiah.

The Meſſiah is expreſly called Iſrael by Iſaiah (xlix. 3.) in a prophecy which cannot, at all, be ap⯑plied to the people of Iſrael, like the former; but muſt relate entirely to Chriſt. viz. ‘Thou art my ſervant, O Iſrael, in whom I will be glorified.’ (xlix. 3.)

[25]Indeed the true ſenſe and application of this paſ⯑ſage does not appear without the context: never⯑theleſs, I am not ſorry for the neceſſity of a long quotation from this chapter, becauſe it will convey a very clear and diſtinct idea of the birth and office of the Meſſiah, at the ſame time that it proves the point in queſtion.

"Liſten, O iſles, unto me, and hearken, ye people from far, the Lord hath called me from the womb ^‡, from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name ^§. And he hath made my mouth like a ſharp ſword ^‖, in the ſhadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a poliſhed ſhaft; in his quiver hath he hid me, and ſaid unto me, Thou art my ſervant, O Iſrael, in whom I will be glorified. Then I ſaid, I have laboured in vain, [26] I have ſpent my ſtrength for nought, and in vain, yet ſurely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God. And now, ſaith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his ſervant, to bring Jacob again to him, though Iſrael be not gathered" (here is a plain prophecy that blindneſs in part ſhould happen to Iſrael) "yet ſhall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God ſhall be my ſtrength. And he ſaid, it is a light thing that thou ſhouldeſt be my ſervant to raiſe up the tribes of Jacob, and to reſtore the preſerved of Iſrael: I will alſo give thee for a light to the Gentiles ^*, that thou mayeſt be my ſalva⯑tion unto the end of the earth." "Thus ſaith the Lord, the Redeemer of Iſrael, and his Holy One, to him whom man deſpiſeth ^†, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a ſervant of rulers," &c.—Thus far may perhaps be ſufficient to ſhew the nature and deſign of the prophecy. Iſaiah has introduced the important ſubject as the narrative of a dialogue [27] between two diſtinct perſons, who are both men⯑tioned in this laſt (the 7th) verſe; viz. "the Lord ( [...]) the Redeemer of Iſrael," and ‘his Holy One, ( [...]) whom man deſpiſeth,’ and who is alſo called Iſrael in the former part of this chapter. Now it is remarkable, that the people of Iſrael, or tribes of Jacob, are likewiſe diſtinctly mentioned in the ſame prophecy; ſo that the perſon, to whom the Lord ſaid, "Thou art my ſervant, O Iſrael," (ſee 3d verſe) cannot mean any other perſon beſides the Meſſiah himſelf; he alone being the true ‘light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of his people ISRAEL.’ For though the Jewiſh Religion was for many ages the only true religion, yet the Gentiles were not induced, univerſally, to acknowledge the truth of the Holy Scriptures by becoming proſelytes to Judaiſm, but by being converts to Chriſt, by whom alone they have been enlightened according to the Scriptures. If all theſe things be conſidered, they will (I doubt not) afford ſufficient proof, that the text quoted by St. Matthew from Hoſea xi. 1. (though introduced in a context abſolutely relating to the people of Iſrael) was, nevertheleſs, propheti⯑cally intended to be applied likewiſe to ſome ſingle perſon, and that the ſame was eminently fulfilled in the perſon of Jeſus Chriſt, the only begotten Son of God, whom the Father called out of Egypt by his angel. Jacob, and the children of Iſrael, may indeed be called the Sons of God, but it muſt be in [28] a very different ſenſe from the former; for they are only types of the true Iſrael ( [...]) the Prince of God, who gave this name to Jacob, when he wreſtled with him, that he might render him more conſpicuouſly a type of himſelf; viz. as one that had ‘power with God, and with men, and had pre⯑vailed.’ Jacob was ſenſible of the Divine preſence, and therefore called the name of the place Peniel, ( [...]) or (as it is expreſſed in the margin) the face of God; for (ſaid he) ‘I have ſeen God face to face, and my life is preſerved.’ Gen. xxxii. 28, 29, 30.

I have already ſaid ſo much concerning the nature of prophecy in general, and have quoted ſo many examples of two different ſubjects being referred to by one and the ſame prophetical expreſſion, that (I hope) I need not any longer urge the reaſonable⯑neſs of a double application, likewiſe, of the text quoted by St. Matthew from the Prophet Hoſea; eſpecially as Dr. W—ms has not aſſigned any one reaſon why it ought to be otherwiſe; nor any authority whatſoever for his aſſertion in page 39, that the paſſage "could not be fulfilled when the child Jeſus came out of Egypt;" except, indeed, the autho⯑rity of his own bare word: which, nevertheleſs, ſeems to have had ſufficient weight with the Critical Reviewers, though it is oppoſed to the expreſs teſti⯑mony even of an Evangeliſt.

The other quotation of St. Matthew, which Dr. W—ms has called in queſtion, is given in the [29] 2d chapter 23d verſe. viz. ‘He ſhall be called a Nazarene.’ This is one of the texts concerning which the Dr. affirms in page 38, that "it is not poſſible to reconcile" (it) ‘with any particular prophecy now extant in the Old Teſtament.’ But he is greatly miſtaken in this; for the text may certainly be reconciled, not only with one prophecy, but with many very particular prophecies ‘now extant in the Old Teſtament;’ and therefore St. Matthew ap⯑peals with great propriety in this caſe, not to one prophet alone, but to the ſenſe of all the prophets in general. viz. [...], that "which was ſpoken by the prophets."

For though the prophets do not ſay expreſly that "he ſhall be called a Nazarene;" yet many of them do plainly allude to this appellation. Our Lord was called a Nazarene, notwithſtanding that he was born at Bethlehem, the city of David, according to the Scriptures ^‡. He was ſometimes called [...] ^§, and ſometimes [...] ^‖; ſynony⯑mous [30] terms for a Nazarene or inhabitant of Naza⯑reth; which (as Dr. Hammond expounds it) ſig⯑nifies ‘The City of the Branch, or where the Meſſiah (the Branch) ſhould be brought up; an [...] accord⯑ingly (ſays the Dr.) this becomes Chriſt's vulgar title [...]’ —" [...]," &c.

Now the Meſſiah is called [...] the Branch by Iſaiah iv. 2. Jeremiah xxiii. 5. and Zechariah iii. 8.

A plant or branch is the uſual ſcripture-emblem for a child.— ‘Thy children, like olive branches, round about thy table,’ ſays the Pſalmiſt in the cxxviiith Pſalm, 3d verſe: and in Pſalm cxliv. 12. we read— ‘that our ſons may grow up as the young plants.’ Therefore the prophets very fitly expreſſed the childhood and growth of the Meſſiah by the word [...] before-mentioned; for it properly ſignifies not only a Branch, but Germen, a bud, or young twig, which Iſaiah further explains in the liiid chap. 2d verſe, by the word [...] a tender plant, or ſucker; which is not only a fit emblem of the once infant ſtate of the Meſſiah, but alſo of his gradual increaſe in ſtrength and wiſdom: for ‘he ſhall grow up before him (ſays the prophet) as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground;’ by which he aſſigns the true reaſon of Chriſt's being called the Branch. Indeed this whole chapter con⯑tains ſo perfect a deſcription of Chriſt's human ſtate upon earth, that no miracle or demonſtration what⯑ſoever can be more capable of affording conviction; [31] and, conſequently, thoſe who have read it, and ſtill diſbelieve, are inexcuſeable. The prophet Zecha⯑riah (vi. 12.) ſpeaks of the growth of Chriſt, the Branch, in the ſame kind of terms, [...] "He ſhall grow up out of his place;" or, as it is properly rendered in the margin, — ‘he ſhall branch up from under him.’ Moreover, this prophet foretold in the ſame verſe, that he ſhould be named the Branch.— [...] "Behold the man ^*, whoſe name is the Branch;" plainly alluding by the ſenſe (though not the ſound) of this appellation to Chriſt's being ſurnamed ^† the Nazarene from Nazareth, the city of the Branch.

But Iſaiah, in the xith chap. 1ſt verſe, not only alludes to the ſenſe and meaning of this ſurname, but to the very ſound of it; for he intitles him [...] Netſer, a Branch. Now Chriſt was really called in the common Syriac dialect— [...] Netſeria, a Netſerian or Nazarene, from [...] Netſereth (called [32] from the Greek Nazareth) where he had been brought up (Luke iv. 16.) and where (according to the true meaning of the appellation Netſerian or Nazarene, when interpreted) he grew up as a plant or branch; for St. Luke informs us (ii. 40.) that ‘they (viz. Joſeph and Mary, with the young child) returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth, and the child grew, and waxed ſtrong in ſpirit, filled with wiſdom; and the grace of God was upon him.’

And again in the 52d verſe.— ‘Jeſus increaſed in wiſdom and ſtature, and in favour with God and man.’ This exactly correſponds with Jere⯑miah's prophecy (xxxiii. 15.) viz. ‘In thoſe days, and at that time ( [...]) will I cauſe the Branch of righteouſneſs to grow up unto David.’

If all this be conſidered, I think, the fitneſs of St. Matthew's appeal to the prophets, concerning the word [...], cannot be called in queſtion, unleſs, like the Critical Reviewers (fol. 357.) we ſhould believe from Dr. W—ms's bare word, that [...] ſignifies a Nazorite, which interpretation would, indeed, render it impoſſible ‘to reconcile Matthew ii. 23. with any particular prophecy now extant in the Old Teſtament,’ according to the Doctor's aſſertion in page 38.

For the Dr. informs us in the following page (39) that "the word is not [...], a Nazarene, but [...], a Nazorite:" nevertheleſs it is certain, [33] that both theſe words ſignify the ſame thing, viz. a Nazarene (or inhabitant of Nazareth); and like⯑wiſe, that neither of them can ſignify a Nazarite, or (as he ſpells it) Nazorite.

For the Hebrew word [...] ſeparatus, from whence theſe laſt (Nazarite or Nazorite) are derived, is no where in Scripture rendered [...] or [...], but is diſtinguiſhed from them by an iota in the ſecond ſyllable, viz. [...], a Nazarite, Judges xiii. 5. and [...], Nazarites, Lamentations iv. 7. Beſides, it is very plain throughout the whole New Teſtament, that Chriſt was not called [...], as being a Nazarite (for he could not properly be called ſo according to the law of Moſes, though John the Baptiſt was really ſuch) but on account of his having been brought up at the city of Nazareth, which in the Syriac tongue was called [...] (not with [...] or [...] as Nezereth, but with [...] or [...]) Netſereth: for the word is plainly derived from [...] a branch, the name which the prophet Iſaiah has given to the Meſſiah himſelf, (as is before obſerved) and there⯑fore St. Matthew's appeal to the prophets in this caſe is very eaſily reconciled with the prophecies "now extant in the Old Teſtament," though the Dr. has declared that the ſame "is not poſſible."

Even Chriſt himſelf condeſcended ſometimes to propheſy in the ſame kind of ſtyle that had before been uſed by his ſervants the prophets. ‘Verily I ſay unto you, there be ſome ſtanding here, [34] which ſhall not taſte of death, till they ſee the Son of man coming in his kingdom.’ Matth. xvi. 28. And again, ‘If I will that he (John) tarry till I come, what is that to thee?’ John xxi. 22. Here our Lord makes uſe of ‘the ſame words and phraſes’ with which he was wont to expreſs his ſecond coming to judge the world; ſo that his diſciples underſtood, that John ſhould not die; whereas the event plainly ſhewed, that he ‘meant of his coming’ (ſo often mentioned in the New Teſtament) ‘in judgment upon the Jews at the final overthrow of Jeruſalem, which St. John outlived many years.’ See Dr. Cave on the Life of that Diſciple, Antiquitates Apoſtolicae, p. 158.

Our Lord, likewiſe, ‘uſed the ſame words and phraſes’ unto theſe two different ſubjects, viz. his coming in judgment upon Jeruſalem, and his laſt coming to judge the world, ‘when occaſion was to ſpeak of them together,’ according to the obſer⯑vation before quoted from Aſſemblies Annotations; inſomuch that the day of judgment, and the end of the world were expected to follow immediately after the accompliſhment of Chriſt's prophecies in the xxivth chap. of Matthew, xiiith of Mark, and xxiſt of Luke concerning God's judgment in the deſtruction of Jeruſalem.

The latter, however, may indeed be conſidered as a ſign, or type, of the great and laſt day; and the accompliſhment of the prophecies concerning it is undoubtedly a ſure pledge of God's future judgment: [35] juſt in the ſame manner as the temporary deliverance from Rezin and Pekah, promiſed to Ahaz and the houſe of David by Iſaiah, was properly the con⯑firmation and pledge of the future diſtant deliverance promiſed in the perſon of Immanuel. Therefore if Dr. W—ms ſuppoſes (as he hints in the words of Mr. Collins in page 7.) that this ſign ſtood in need of other ſigns to manifeſt that God would perform it in time, let him conſider the context once more, and he will find, that the ſign was not without ſuch a manifeſtation as Mr. Collins and himſelf have required. Perhaps it may be ſaid, that I have troubled my readers with a great many more ex⯑amples of "types, figures, and ſecondary ſenſes," than were neceſſary for the point in queſtion; but I was induced thereto by the too haſty cenſure paſſed on theſe ſort of writings by the authors of the Critical Review in page 349, where they ſeem to condemn all types, &c. whatſoever indiſcriminately, without deigning to diſtinguiſh the difference between pro⯑per types and imaginary ones.

A DISSERTATION ON ISAIAH vii. 8.
[]A DISSERTATION ON ISAIAH vii. 8.

THE accompliſhment of Iſaiah's prophecy (in confirmation of which he required Ahaz to aſk a ſign) was not ‘an event near at hand,’ as Dr. W—ms ſuppoſes; for no leſs a term than ſixty-five years was allowed for the accompliſhment of one of the circumſtances con⯑tained in it; viz.— ‘within threeſcore and five years ſhall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.’ Iſaiah vii. 8.

Nevertheleſs the king, or regal government of Ephraim (or Iſrael, for Ephraim in this text ſeems to be put for the ten tribes of Iſrael, as ſeparated [4] from Judah) laſted no longer than about twenty-one years after the prophecy was delivered; for "in the ninth year of Hoſhea" (the ſixth of Heze⯑kiah) ‘the king of Aſſyria took Samaria, and car⯑ried Iſrael away into Aſſyria,’ (2 Kings xvii. 6.) therefore commentators have generally found it very difficult to account for the number of ſixty-five years mentioned in this prophecy.

A very learned and juſtly eſteemed author ^*, in order to ſolve the difficulty, has applied ſeveral texts in the ſecond book of Kings to an imaginary cap⯑tivity or carrying away by Eſarhaddon, which, if the context be carefully conſidered, will be found to relate, undoubtedly, to the real captivity under Salmanaſſer. We underſtand, indeed, from Ezra iv. 2. that the adverſaries of Benjamin and Judah (the Samaritans) dated the time of their ſettlement in the cities of Samaria from ‘the days of Eſar⯑haddon king of Aſſur, which (as they ſaid) brought us up hither.’ But there is no neceſſity to ſuppoſe, that Eſarhaddon carried any people away into captivity from thence, nor any evidence to ſupport ſuch a ſuppoſition. Was it not poſſible for Eſarhaddon to plant freſh colonies in the land of Iſrael, where it was too thinly inhabited by the former colonies, without having carried away any of the inhabitants into captivity? Surely it was not [5] only poſſible, but moſt probable, that this was really the caſe; notwithſtanding that ſeveral other learned men, beſides Bp. Newton, have thought otherwiſe; and particularly Fr. Junius, quoted by Dr. Simſon in his Chronicon Catholicum (pars 3tia, p. 69.) But the Doctor himſelf ſufficiently accounts for the paſſages in Ezra (ch. iv. 2 and 10.); ſo that there is no neceſſity to ſuppoſe another captivity un⯑der Eſarhaddon:— ‘Quanquam enim Salmanaſar illam coloniam primus deduxerit, tamen cum plu⯑rimi incolarum à feris, & fortè peſtilentiâ (ſic enim ait Joſephus libro nono) extincti eſſent, poſ⯑tea plures ab Aſarhaddone illuc miſſos fuiſſe veri⯑ſimile eſt.’ And he likewiſe quotes Nicholaus Bra⯑bantinus to the ſame purpoſe:— ‘Leones enim vaſtaverunt magnam partem populi quem Salma⯑naſſar miſerat: propter quod iſte Aſarhaddon mi⯑ſit alios loco ipſorum, & cum iis unum de ſacerdo⯑tibus captivis, qui doceret eos colere Dominum.’

The prophet does not ſay, that Ephraim ſhall be broken from a kingdom in ſixty-five years, but that within ſuch a time he ſhall be broken from a people; therefore it is plain that the prophecy could not be accompliſhed by the captivity of Ephraim, and the deſtruction of the regal government of Samaria by Salmanaſſar; becauſe Ephraim, or the children of Iſrael, might be ſtill called a people, or nation, even after their removal into a ſtrange country, for they could not be ſaid to "be broken from a people," [6] until the judgments denounced againſt them by the prophet Amos (ix. 4.) ſhould be fulfilled, viz. ‘Though they go into captivity before their ene⯑mies, thence will I command the ſword, and it ſhall ſlay them.’

It appears from the hiſtory of Tobit, that this really came to paſs; for he ſpeaks of the frequent ſlaughter made of the people of his nation by Sen⯑nacherib, chap. i. 17, 18, ‘for in his wrath he ſlew many.’ And even in the reign of Eſarhad⯑don, about ſixty-five years after Iſaiah's prophecy, notwithſtanding that Achiarcharus, Tobit's nephew, was appointed over all the king's affairs (21ſt verſe) we find an inſtance recorded of the continuation of this perſecution.

For when Tobit was told (chap. ii. 3.) that one of his nation was ſtrangled, and caſt out in the market-place, he remembered (6th verſe) ‘that prophecy of Amos, as he ſaid (ſee Amos viii. 10.) Your feaſts ſhall be turned into mourning, and all your mirth into lamentation:’ for it was then the feaſt of pentecoſt, or ſeven weeks, and Tobit had ſent out to invite ſuch of his poor brethren as feared the Lord, that they might partake of the "good dinner which was prepared;" but, in the mean time, he received this melancholy account; (ſee 1ſt, 2d, and 3d verſes) which proves the pro⯑priety of his quotation from Amos. The ſame chapter of Amos contains a paſſage very ſuitable to my purpoſe (viii. 2, 3.)

[7] ‘The end is come upon my people of Iſrael; I will not again paſs by them any more. And the ſongs of the temple ſhall be howlings in that day,’ (ſee 10th verſe, quoted by Tobit— ‘and all your ſongs into lamentation) ſaith the Lord God, there ſhall be many dead bodies in every place, they ſhall caſt them forth with ſilence.’ I am ſenſible that the apocryphal book of Tobit ought not to be conſidered of ſufficient authority for the proof of any thing; yet I hope that the remarkable corre⯑ſpondence it bears to the ſubject in queſtion, will excuſe my quotation.

Moſes alſo propheſied that the captives of Iſ⯑rael ſhould be perſecuted;— ‘I will ſcatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a ſword after you.’ Levit. xxvi. 33.

So we need not doubt but that, by this and other ſuch heavy judgments of God, the captives of the ten tribes of Iſrael would be ſo much reduced in number within the term of threeſcore and five years mentioned by Iſaiah, that Ephraim might well be ſaid to be broken from a people; for we read in Deut. xxviii. 61, 62. ‘Alſo every ſickneſs and every plague which is not written in the book of this law, them will the Lord bring upon thee, until thou be deſtroyed. And ye ſhall be left few in number’ (which agrees well with the expreſſion of Iſaiah concerning Ephraim's being ‘broken, that it be not a people,’ viz. being now left few in [8] number) ‘whereas ye were as the ſtars of heaven for multitude.’

The completion of Iſaiah's prophecy concerning Ephraim is very apparent, even in another way; for though ſome of Ephraim, and of all the other tribes, were afterwards ſettled in Judaea and other places; though we read of a remnant of Iſrael (ſee 2 Chron. xxxiv. 9.) that contributed to the repair⯑ing of the temple in the reign of Joſiah king of Judah, long after the completion of the ſixty-five years limited by Iſaiah; and though Manaſſeh and Ephraim are expreſly mentioned on the ſame occa⯑ſion; nevertheleſs, this remnant of Ephraim, or Iſ⯑rael, could have no pretenſions, as before, to be eſteemed a ſeparate people or nation from Judah, becauſe they were once more become ſubject to the laws and regal government of the tribe of Judah, of which the authority exerciſed among them by Joſiah is a ſufficient proof; and therefore, notwith⯑ſtanding that on ſome particular occaſions they were diſtinguiſhed by their tribes, yet, as a body or nation, they were generally afterwards eſteemed a part of the tribe of Judah; which accounts for the expreſſion of the hiſtorian (2 Kings xvii. 18.) "There was none left but the tribe of Judah only;" that is, there was none left but part of the tribes of Levi, Benjamin, and ſuch individuals of the other tribes as lived in (or might have eſcaped into) the inheritance of Judah, and conſequently were [9] all conſidered as the proper ſubjects of the kingdom of Judah, and have ever ſince borne the name of that tribe, viz. [...] Jews. Thus the title of Jews became general about this time to all the other tribes, as well as Judah; for the kingdom of Iſrael was never afterwards reſtored in a ſeparate ſtate from Judah; and therefore after the captivity by Salmanaſſar, the land which Ahaz vexed might be ſaid to "be forſaken of" one of "her kings," ^* or regal governments.

But the ſucceſſion of the kings of Judah con⯑tinued regularly until the Babyloniſh captivity; and on account of this interruption (or of others after⯑wards) the land could not be ſaid to be forſaken of both her kings, if the regal government was to be afterwards reſtored for any conſiderable length of time: and we find that many kings reigned in Judah after that period. I have already obſerved, that, when Ephraim was broken from a people, the natio⯑nal name of Jews became general to all the other tribes, as well as Judah; but it is likewiſe remark⯑able, that about the ſame time the whole Jewiſh nation (including Judah and Benjamin) as deſcend⯑ants of Jacob, began once more to be called Iſrael, as they had formerly been before the revolt of the [10] ten tribes. In the ſecond book of Chron. xxxv. 3. ^‖ the Levites, that taught all Iſrael, are exhorted to ſerve the Lord their God, and his people Iſrael; meaning the whole nation. Iſaiah in the fortieth chapter (27th verſe ^*) and ſeveral ſucceeding chap⯑ters, ſpeaks of the whole Jewiſh nation under the title of Jacob and Iſrael: for tho' he might write theſe chapters before the change that I ſpeak of, yet it muſt be conſidered, that he is addreſſing himſelf to the people in the ſpirit of prophecy, and plainly refers to the latter times. Ezekiel (iii. 4. ^†) was ſent unto the houſe of Iſrael, meaning the Jews that were carried into captivity with Jehoiakim: ‘Get thee to them of the captivity,’ &c. (ſee 11th verſe.) Many of the other prophets expreſſed them⯑ſelves in the ſame manner. See Zech. xii. 1. ^‡ [11] Malachi i. 1. ^‖ Ezra iv. 3, &c. ^§ So that the na⯑tional names of Iſrael and Jews were now conſidered as ſynonymous terms; for Ephraim, the chief of the ten tribes, was now broken from a people, and there⯑fore the name of Iſrael did not generally diſtin⯑guiſh them as a ſeparate nation or people, as before; though, indeed, both Ephraim and the two houſes of Iſrael (the houſe of Judah and the houſe of Iſ⯑rael) were ſometimes afterwards, on particular oc⯑caſions, diſtinctly mentioned; as in the thirty-firſt ^* and fiftieth ^† chapters of Jeremiah, and eighth of Zechariah.

Nevertheleſs, all the nation were the children of Iſrael! all were Jews! and in length of time the remnant of Iſrael was ſo blended with Judah, that many intirely loſt the diſtinction of their tribes [12] (Ezra ii. 62. ^‡) and more eſpecially after the Baby⯑loniſh captivity, when the prophecy of Ezechiel ſeems plainly to be fulfilled. ‘Thus ſaith the Lord God, Behold, I will take the ſtick of Joſeph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Iſrael his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the ſtick of Judah, and make them ONE STICK, and they ſhall be ONE in mine hand.’ Chap. xxxvii. 19. And in the 22d verſe, ‘I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Iſrael, and one king ſhall be king to them all: and they ſhall be no more two na⯑tions, neither ſhall they be divided into two king⯑doms any more at all.’

Agreeably to this prophecy, the children of Iſrael were one nation, and under one king (that is, a ſuc⯑ceſſion of kings reigning one by one) during the reigns of all the Aſmonean princes, as well as that of Herod the Great, until Shiloh (the prince of peace) was come, according to the prophecy of the patriarch Jacob, recorded in Geneſis xlix. 10. viz. ‘The ſcepter ſhall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come, and unto him ſhall the gathering of the people be.’

A DISSERTATION ON GENESIS xlix. 10.
[]A DISSERTATION ON GENESIS xlix. 10.

IN the preceding Diſſertation concerning Ephra⯑im, I have obſerved that the ſceptre was con⯑tinued in the inheritance of Judah during the reigns of all the Aſmonaean princes.

And I believe the Jews themſelves will not deny, that the ſaid reigns include a part of the continuation of the ſceptre in Judah, as promiſed by the patriarch Jacob: therefore, I preſume, it will not be neceſſary for me to examine the Jewiſh hiſtories further back, than the time when the ſceptre was tranſlated into the family of Antipater; ſo that I propoſe to begin this Diſſertation where I left off in the laſt; viz. with the reign of Herod the Great.

[4]Herod had as much right to be eſteemed a Jew, or of the tribe of Judah ^*, as the Aſmonaean princes of the tribe of Levi: for not only the deſcendants of the twelve tribes were called Jews after the Baby⯑loniſh captivity (as I have before obſerved) but even the proſelytes of the Jews, though they were by birth Gentiles of any other nation whatſoever.

This is ſtrongly expreſſed by Joſephus, in his account of king Izates, the great Adiabenian pro⯑ſelyte. See Jewiſh Antiquities, (20th book ^†) [...]. Which is thus ren⯑dered by Gelenius, ‘cumque exiſtimaret ſe non eſſe perfectum Judaeum, niſi circumcideretur paratus erat, et hoc facere.’ And again— [...].— ‘neque ullo pacto laturos Judaeum in regio ſolio.’ The Idumaeans [5] (or Edomites ^‡) from whom Herod was deſcended, were not only proſelytes to the Jewiſh religion, but were ſtill more nearly connected with the Jews, by having been governed by the ſame princes and laws, from the time that they were conquered by John Hyrcanus, the nephew of Judas Maccabaeus; ſo that from that time they were accounted Jews, as Joſephus teſtifies. Antiq. 13th book, 17th chap. fol. 450. [...]. And they were afterwards as zealous for the rights and liberties of Jeruſalem (which they eſteemed their metropolitan city) as the native Jews themſelves. See Jewiſh War, book iv. chap. 16. page 887.— [...]. Thus it appears that the Idumaeans, as a nation, had certainly a right to be eſteemed Jews.

But king Herod's claim of relationſhip did not depend upon this ſingle circumſtance of his being deſcended from the Idumaeans. His connections with the Jews were far greater than any other Idumaean could ever boaſt of! His father Antipater, though an Idumaean, was a perſon of ſuch truſt and eſteem among the Jews, that he held the greateſt offices under their kings.

[6]He ſerved under their king Alexander as governor of Idumaea, (Antiq. book xiv. chap. 2. p. 469.) —under their king and high-prieſt Hyrcanus as governor of Judaea itſelf, and commander in chief of the Jewiſh army. And afterwards he ſerved under Caeſar alſo, as procurator of Judae [...]. See the xivth and xvth chapters of the ſame book.

Therefore, not only as an Idumaean, but alſo by theſe continual connections, as well as reſidence among the Jews, Antipater ſeemed to be entirely naturalized to this people; inſomuch that he eſteemed their intereſt as his own; their country as though it had been his native land! His aſſiduity and diligence in repairing the walls of Jeruſalem ( [...], book xiv. chap. 18.) when he had obtained leave of Caeſar to do ſo, is a proof of this, as well as Joſephus's manner of expreſſing that circumſtance. Jewiſh War, book i. chap. 8. viz. [...].—Thus rendered by Rufinus— ‘et praeter hoc (Antipater) impe⯑travit, ut ſubverſa patriae moenia renovare ſibi liceret.’ And again, [...]. Anti⯑pater vero, ubi de Syria Caeſarem proſecutus eſt, in Judaeam reverſus, ante omnia PATRIAE muros a Pom⯑pëio dirutos reparabat.

[7]If all theſe circumſtances are conſidered, it will not be eaſy to prove, that the ſon of ſuch a perſon ought to be accounted a foreigner to the Jews. Herod was born a ſubject of the kingdom of the Jews, and publickly profeſſed their religion, laws, and cuſtoms, notwithſtanding that he frequently offended againſt them all: and if he did not think himſelf, in reality, intitled to be eſteemed one of that nation, he nevertheleſs omitted no proper oppor⯑tunity of claiming relationſhip. A remarkable inſtance of this we have in his ſpeech to the Jews, when he propoſed to enlarge and beautify their temple. ‘For (ſaid he) our fathers built this temple to Almighty God after the return from Babylon,’ &c. [...]. Jewiſh Antiq. book xv. chap. 14. p. 543.

There are many other inſtances in Joſephus of Herod's expreſſing himſelf in this manner: and indeed the ſingular circumſtances of this monarch's connections with the Jews rendered his claim of relationſhip ſo juſt, that it could not be diſputed, although he was not deſcended of any of the twelve tribes. Joſephus, who called Herod's father (An⯑tipater) an Idumaean, does not deny that he was a Jew, but only that he was not deſcended from the chief Jews, who came into Judaea from Babylon, which had been aſſerted by Nicholas of Damaſcus. [8] Antiq. book xiv. chap. 2. p. 469. On the con⯑trary, Joſephus informs us, that, when the Jews of Caeſarea contended with the Syrians for the right of ſuperiority in that city, they alledged that the founder, Herod their king, was a Jew by birth; [...]. Antiq. Book xx. chap. 6. p. 695. And the juſtice of this plea, ſo far as it related to Herod, was allowed by the Syrians. [...], &c. See alſo Jewiſh War, book ii. chap. 12. p. 797. [...], &c.

If all theſe things be conſidered, I think, they muſt juſtify my expreſſion, that Herod had as much right to be eſteemed a Jew, as the Aſmonaean princes of the tribe of Levi: and though neither the latter, nor Herod (notwithſtanding that they were Jews) were really deſcended of the tribe of Judah; yet the completion of Jacob's prophecy, concerning the ſceptre of Judah, is not at all affected by this cir⯑cumſtance.

For the ſaid prophecy does not (I apprehend) ſo much relate to the deſcent or genealogy of the in⯑dividuals that were to rule in Judah, as to the par⯑ticular pre-eminence of that whole tribe, from which the ſceptre (the ſign of its being a diſtinct kingdom) [9] ſhould not depart till Shiloh was come. Therefore it is not ſo very material to my preſent purpoſe, whether Herod was a Jew or not, ſince it muſt be acknowledged (be his parentage what it will) that he was nevertheleſs "king of Judaea," as Luke ſtiles him chap. i. verſe 5. viz. king of the tribe and inheritance of Judah (as well as of the other tribes incorporated therein) and that he kept his royal reſidence in the capital city of that ruling tribe, as did all the preceding kings of Judah, howſoever deſcended.

An objection has been made to the common interpretation of the word [...] or ſceptre in Ja⯑cob's prophecy; viz. that ‘it could not with any ſort of propriety be ſaid, that the ſcepter ſhould not depart from Judah, when Judah had no ſcepter, nor was to have any for many gene⯑rations afterwards ^*.’ But the learned author of this objection has not conſidered that the ſceptre or regal government in Judah is plainly implied and foretold in the former part of the ſame prophecy, which entirely removes the force of his argument in favour of a different interpretation of that word. ‘Judah (ſaid the patriarch) thou art he whom thy brethren ſhall praiſe’ (alluding to the meaning of his name) ‘thy hand ſhall be in the neck of thine enemies: thy father's children ſhall bow down before thee.’ Gen. xlix. 8.

[10]Now, notwithſtanding the precedency of the tribe of Judah in the encampments and marching of the Iſraelites in the wilderneſs, yet this part of the pro⯑phecy ‘thy father's children ſhall bow down before thee,’ cannot be ſaid to be fulfilled, until all the other tribes became ſubject to the monarchy of the tribe of Judah under David and Solomon; which is obſerved likewiſe by the authors of the Commen⯑tary on the Bible, called Aſſemblies Annotations. "This" (ſay they) ‘was literally moſt verified in David and Solomon, who were of this tribe; and ſpiritually in Chriſt, the lion of the tribe of Judah, Rev. v. 5. to whom all knees ſhall bow.’ Phil. ii. 10.—And they obſerve further, that ‘the courage of Judah is compared to a lion's whelp; ſuch was the tribe of Judah in the firſt eſſays of war in the time of Joſhua; afterwards it increaſed to the vigour of a lion at full age, and old, in compariſon of a whelp; ſuch it was in David's time, and by age and experience ſubtle, as well as ſtrong; for David of that tribe was ſo wiſe, that Saul was afraid of his wiſdom, (1 Sam. xviii. 5.14, 15.) and very couragious (ſee 1 Sam. xvii. from ver. 32 to 51.) as the lion above other beaſts, who, by his courage and ſtrength, is a king over them.’ Num. xxiii. 24. Prov. xxviii. 1. and xxx. 30. Amos iii. 8. Mic. v. 8.

If all this be conſidered, it will appear that [...] in this text muſt be tranſlated a ſceptre; which is [11] the opinion likewiſe of Monſ. Martin— ‘Quoique le mot Hebreu ſignifie auſſi une verge, & qu'il ſoit employé quelque fois, dans un ſens meta⯑phorique pour la verge des afflictions, la liaiſon de ce verſet avec le precedent, & toute la matiere contenue dans ce texte, ne permettent pas d'ex⯑pliquer ici ce mot autrement que par celui de ſceptre; de même que dans ce paſſage de Za⯑charie, chap. x. 11. où ſe trouvent en Hebreu les mêmes termes qu'ici: le ſceptre ſe departira d'Egypte.’

Thus it is plain that the regal ſceptre was not to depart from the tribe of Judah till Shiloh was come.

Now the Meſſiah was not born until towards the cloſe of king Herod's reign, therefore the ſceptre of Judah could not be ſaid to depart, or begin to de⯑part ("be departing," as ſome commentators have fancied) before that period. Neither could the the land which Ahaz vexed be ſaid to ‘be forſaken of both her kings,’ or monarchies, whilſt Herod continued to reign in Jeruſalem. But immediately after his death, the form of government was entirely altered. There was no longer a ſceptre in the tribe or inheritance of Judah! The Jews had now no other worldly king but Caeſar; for the peculiar ſceptre of Judah was departed. They were indeed ſubject to a ſceptre, but it was the Roman ſceptre; which could not on this account be called the Sceptre of Judah; and therefore it is plain that at this time [12] the ſceptre departed from Judah. A ſolemn lega⯑tion of fifty ambaſſadors from Jeruſalem (who were backed by eight thouſand Jews at Rome) ſollicited Caeſar that their regal government might be changed, and that they might be added to the pro⯑vince of Syria, and become ſubject to the Roman commanders that ſhould be ſent there.— [...]. See Antiq. p. 611, 612. See alſo p. 781, 782. where the ſame thing is ſtrongly expreſſed.

Nevertheleſs Caeſar did not at that time entirely comply with their requeſt; for as Archelaus was named by his father Herod to be his ſucceſſor in the kingdom, Caeſar was pleaſed to grant him the half of Herod's dominions, but not as a kingdom; for he allowed him the title only of Ethnarch; and as ſuch Archelaus had no more rigth to the enſign of royalty ſpoken of by the patriarch Jacob in the 49th chapter of Geneſis, than he had to the title and dignity of a king, which were never conferred on him, though promiſed conditionally.

[...] [13] [...]. Antiq. book xvii. chap. 13. p. 611. —From this it appears, that an ethnarch did not differ from a king in title only.

"The dignity of a kingdom" was then merely promiſed; which is a proof that the ethnarchy, at that time eſtabliſhed, was entirely without ſuch dignity: and Archelaus was ſo far from obtaining the promiſed kingdom, that about nine years after⯑wards he was baniſhed even from his ethnarchy. See Jewiſh War, book ii. chap. 6. p. 784 ^*.

In the mean time Herod Antipas, another ſon of Herod the Great, was tetrarch of Galilee. It was this Herod who beheaded John the Baptiſt in his territory of Galilee, and whoſe crafty, baſe, and ſelf-intereſted diſpoſition was characterized by the Meſſiah himſelf under the ſimile of a fox: for in deteſtation of ſuch pernicious principles he even named him from that wily animal. ‘Go and tell that fox,’ &c. To this man was Chriſt ſent by Pontius Pilate; not becauſe Herod Antipas had any judicial authority in Jeruſalem, but becauſe Chriſt was accounted a Galilean, and therefore Pilate [14] ſent him, as being one that belonged unto Herod's juriſdiction. See St. Luke xxiii 6, 7 ^†.

Judaea was, indeed, ſpiritually the kingdom of the Meſſiah, of which many inconteſtable proofs are inſerted throughout this work, and compared with the predictions of the prophets; but with reſpect to its temporal or civil government, it was ſo far from being a kingdom at this time, that it was only conſidered as a part of the province of Syria; and for above thirty years together was governed by a regular ſucceſſion of Roman procurators ^‡, until Herod Agrippa obtained Judaea and Samaria (in addition to his former dominions) of the emperor Claudius, who likewiſe confirmed his title of king. This, at firſt ſight, ſeems a weighty objection to the explanation, which I have offered, concerning the completion of Jacob's prophecy: but if we conſider all the circumſtances of this reign, perhaps it will [15] appear otherwiſe. Though Agrippa enjoyed the title, pomp, and appearance of a king, he was nevertheleſs ſubjected in no ſmall degree (as well as his predeceſſors the Roman procurators) to the controul of the Roman preſident of Syria ^§.—For when he had undertaken thoroughly to repair and compleat the fortifications of Jeruſalem, Marſus the preſident of Syria had a watchful eye over him, and ſignified his diſtruſt to Caeſar, who cauſed him to deſiſt. Antiq. book xix. chap. 7. p. 677.— And afterwards Marſus exerted his authority as preſident in a very remarkable manner, even in the dominions of Agrippa, when the king himſelf was reſi⯑dent therein; for being jealous of the friendſhip and unity between Agrippa and ſeveral of the neigh⯑bouring potentates, who were come to viſit him at Tiberias, he ſent and commanded them all to depart to their reſpective governments, which was a matter of the greateſt mortification to Agrippa.— [...]. Antiq. book xix. chap. 7. p. 678.

Theſe are proofs that Agrippa's power as a king was very much circumſcribed in compariſon with that of Herod the Great. Herod was ſo far from [16] being ſubject to the controul of the preſidents of Syria, that he himſelf was made preſident of all Syria by Caeſar; ( [...]) who directed the ſeveral governors to do nothing without his counſel and advice. [...]. Jewiſh War, book i. chap. xv. p. 746. See alſo Antiq. book xv. chap. 13. p. 541.

On the other hand, likewiſe, the reign of Agrippa was ſo very ſhort in compariſon of the time that the ſceptre had been departed from Judah, that, I think, it can ſcarcely be conſidered as an exception either to the prophecy of Jacob, or to this of Iſaiah, concerning the two kings; eſpecially as Agrippa was cut off from his kingdom by a very remarkable interpoſition of Divine Providence: for after he had ſlain St. James (the brother of St. John) im⯑priſoned St. Peter, and otherwiſe grievouſly per⯑ſecuted the Chriſtians, he fulfilled the meaſure of his iniquity by accepting the idolatrous flattery of the people at Caeſarea; ‘and immediately the angel of the Lord ſmote him, becauſe he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten up of worms, and gave up the ghoſt;’ (Acts xii. 23.) having reigned over Judah only three years according to Joſephus, who, in the 19th book of his Antiquities, chap. 7. p. 679, confirms the account given by St. Luke, though in ſome particulars his relation is different. [...] [17] [...], &c. Jewiſh War, book ii. chap. 19. p. 793.

Immediately after his death (his ſon, Agrippa the younger, being only an infant) the kingdom was reduced again into a province ^*, and never was any more reſtored; for the government of the Roman procurators (which had been only interrupted by this ſhadow of a reign, after eight or nine perſons had been inveſted with that dignity) was once more eſtabliſhed and continued during a regular ſucceſſion of ſeven other procurators, until the time of the the general revolt of the Jews, when the juſt and dreadful vengeance of God was ready to overtake them for their wickedneſs and unbelief, according to the expreſs prediction of Chriſt recorded in the Goſpels. Matt. xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xxi.

Agrippa the younger afterwards obtained the kingdom of Chalcis ^†, and ſome other dominions; but he never had any authority at Jeruſalem, except that eccleſiaſtical authority over the temple and [18] prieſts, which his uncle and predeceſſor Herod king of Chalcis had enjoyed before him; for all Judaea (except two ^‡ cities in Peraea, and two ^§ in Galilee, given to Agrippa) were governed by Felix, the Roman procurator. " [...]." Jewiſh War, book ii. chap. 22. p. 796. Thus it appears, that Jeruſalem had ceaſed to be the ſeat of regal government, from the time of Herod's death to the total deſtruction of that city; except indeed during the three years reign of Herod Agrippa. But it is remarkable, that before this ſhort reign the Jews had not only ſollicited Caeſar by a ſolemn legation of fifty ambaſſadors (as I have before obſerved in page 32.) that their nation might no longer be governed by kings, but their chief prieſts had likewiſe publickly abrogated all pretenſions that their nation could have to any peculiar ſceptre of their own: for when Pilate brought forth Jeſus in the preſence of the main body of the people, who were aſſembled at Jeru⯑ſalem on account of the paſſover, and ſaid, ‘Be⯑hold your king;’ and again, ‘Shall I crucify your king?’ they anſwered,—We have no other king but Caeſar. St. John xix. 14, 15.

[19]This publick acknowledgment of the Jews, that the peculiar ſceptre of Judah was then no more; the limited juriſdiction as well as brevity ^‖ of Herod Agrippa's reign; and the want of regal ſucceſſion for a long time before it, and for ever after it, are reaſons, which, I hope, will juſtify my ſuggeſtion, that the ſaid reign is not to be conſidered as a con⯑tinuation of the ſceptre in Judah: and therefore it is moſt natural to conclude, that the ſame really departed at the death of Herod the Great; which period correſponds more exactly to the time pointed out by Jacob's prophecy than any other. Shiloh, [20] the Prince of Peace, was then come; and Herod (convinced by "the wiſe men from the eaſt," that a child was born king of the Jews) had attempted in vain to cut him off at Bethlehem ^*. for, like the [21] generality of the Jews, Herod expected a temporal prince; and therefore concluded, that his own ſceptre and authority was in danger, as it really was, it being then about to depart. For very ſoon after⯑wards Joſeph, the huſband of the bleſſed Virgin, was warned by an angel of the Lord in Egypt, ſaying, ‘Ariſe, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Iſrael’ (not the land of Judah only): ‘for they are dead which ſought the young child's life.’ Matth. ii. 20.

Perhaps ſome critic may object, that, as Chriſt was undoubtedly king of Iſrael and Judah, the ſceptre of Judah cannot be ſaid to depart at the death of Herod according to the interpretation juſt now given of the patriarch Jacob's prophecy: therefore it is neceſſary for me to obſerve, that the ſceptre ſpoken of in this prophecy, and the ceaſing of the two kings or regal governments, ſpoken of by Iſaiah, can only be underſtood to mean the de⯑parture of the worldly ſceptre, and temporal regal authority from Judah and Iſrael, as neceſſarily to be [22] diſtinguiſhed from the ſpiritual authority, and hea⯑venly kingdom of Chriſt; for as Chriſt was ‘born king of the Jews,’ ſo the ſceptre of Judah with reſpect to him is not departed, but is everlaſting, according to the prophecy of the Royal Pſalmiſt concerning Chriſt's kingdom. ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the ſceptre of thy king⯑dom is a right ſceptre. Thou loveſt righteouſ⯑neſs, and hateſt wickedneſs; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladneſs above thy fellows.’ Pſalm xlv. 6, 7.

The other part of Jacob's prophecy concerning Judah (viz. "nor a lawgiver from between his feet") does not relate (I apprehend) to the ſceptre or regal government of Judah; for the particle [...] (rendered "nor" in the common Engliſh verſion, which divides theſe words from the former part of the ſentence) ſeems to point out, that two diſtinct things are here ſpoken of, as Monſ. Martin has obſerved. ‘Car cette particule et marque que c'etoient deux choſes different le ſceptre et le legiſlateur.’ But as the accompliſhment of prophecies is always the beſt interpreter, I have been chiefly confirmed in this opinion of Monſ. Martin, by obſerving, that the departure of the lawgiver from Judah was not leſs remarkable in the accompliſhment, than that of the ſceptre; for the prophecies concerning both ſeem plainly to have been accompliſhed in two different perſons.

[23]The word [...] muſt be underſtood in a very inferior ſenſe from the uſual acceptation, if the Jewiſh Sanhedrin, or the Scribes and Phariſees are to be eſteemed lawgivers, as ſome have imagined.

The Lord himſelf is called by Iſaiah [...] "our lawgiver;" xxxiii. 22. And, as it pleaſed Almighty God to declare his will to his people Iſrael by Moſes and the Prophets, they alſo are intitled to the name of lawgivers, as being the im⯑mediate inſtruments of God's revelation. Judah might likewiſe be properly called a lawgiver (Pſalms lx. 7. cviii. 8.) becauſe the Meſſiah was to be born of that tribe. But the Scribes and Phariſees, or the Sanhedrin, were not ſent by God with any fur⯑ther revelation, than what had before been given by Moſes and the Prophets; and therefore, though they ſat in Moſes' ſeat (Matt. xxiii. 2.) yet they could not properly be called lawgivers; being only lawyers or expounders of the law of Moſes: and, if no perſon among the Jews for above ſeventeen hun⯑dred years has had a better claim to the title of lawgiver than theſe, it muſt plainly appear that the lawgiver (as well as the ſceptre) is departed from Judah; and conſequently, that the Meſſiah came before that time. Malachi is the laſt perſon whom the Jews acknowledge as a prophet in their canon of the Scriptures; and it is remarkable that Al⯑mighty God was pleaſed to comfort them by this holy meſſenger ( [...]) with the promiſe of another [24] meſſenger or prophet. ‘Behold, I will ſend you Eli⯑jah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.’ Mal. iv. 5. This dreadful viſitation of their nation was certainly accompliſhed in the deſtruction of Jeruſalem; for if we examine the hiſtories of former times ever ſo minutely, we ſhall not be able to find any national afflictions or miſeries whatſoever to be compared with thoſe which the Jews ſuffered at that time. This ought to be a ſufficient proof to the Jews of the truth of Chriſt's prophecy concerning themſelves recorded in Mat⯑thew xxiv. 15.21 ^*. Luke xxi. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 ^†. and Mark xiii. 19. ſo that as one part of [25] the prophecy was ſo punctually accompliſhed, they may ſafely aſſure themſelves, that ſuch great tribula⯑tion will never befall them again, according to Chriſt's promiſe in the ſame prophecy.

Compare the ſaid prophecy with that of Daniel ix. 26, 27.

But though this great and dreadful day of the Lord is certainly paſt, yet the Jews do not allow that the promiſed Elijah is yet come. Nevertheleſs they ſent Prieſts and Levites from Jeruſalem to enquire of John the Baptiſt— ‘Who art thou? —Art thou Elias?’ and he ſaith, I am not. Art "thou that prophet?" (meaning moſt likely that prophet promiſed by Moſes in Deut. xviii. 15 and 18 verſes, who was afterwards acknowledged by about five thouſand Jews at one time; for ſo many were joint witneſſes of one of his miracles, being convinced by all their ſenſes of ſeeing, hearing, and taſting) and he anſwered no.

But notwithſtanding that John was a different perſon from Elijah the prophet, according to his [26] own confeſſion, yet he was moſt certainly the pro⯑phet promiſed by Malachi under the prophetical appellation of Elijah, which denoted the excellency of his ſpiritual miſſion; for the angel Gabriel told his father Zacharias in the temple, that John ſhould go before the Lord in the "ſpirit and power of Elias." See St. Luke i. 17. And afterwards Chriſt himſelf bore witneſs of him— ‘if ye will receive it, this is Elias ^* which was for to come;’ (Matt. xi. 14.) and in the ſame chapter he calls him ‘a prophet, yea, and more than a prophet;’ he being the Lord's meſſenger promiſed by Malachi iii. 1. to prepare his way before him.

John was likewiſe a lawgiver ( [...]) as well as a prophet and meſſenger; for ‘there went out to him Jeruſalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan.’ Matth. iii. 5. And when he warned them to flee from the wrath to come, ‘the people aſked him, ſaying, what ſhall we do then?’ (Luke iii. 10.) and we find by the ſucceed⯑ing verſes that he inſtructed them accordingly, not only with general doctrine, but even with particular advice ſuitable to the different claſſes of men. Theſe teſtimonies of the Evangeliſts in favour of John are confirmed in no ſmall degree even by the Jewiſh hiſtorian Joſephus, who calls him ‘ [...], a good man’ —for indeed his life and converſa⯑tion [27] was ſo exemplary and unblameable, that many of the Jews (as Joſephus informs us) believed the deſtruction of Herod's army to be a juſt judgment of God for the murder of that good man ^*. See Jewiſh Antiq. book xviii. c. 7.

John was not, indeed, of the tribe of Judah, yet it cannot be denied, but that he was a Jew, according to what has been before obſerved con⯑cerning the Aſmonaean princes, and ‘Herod the king of Judea’ (Luke i. 5.): and he might very well be accounted a lawgiver from between the feet of Judah, for he was born in the hill country of Judea (Luke i. 65.) in a city of Juda (Luke i. 39. [28] at a time when that tribe was in full poſſeſſion of its inheritance.

But the circumſtance which more particularly points out the accompliſhment of Jacob's prophecy in this holy Nazarite ^† is, that John was the very laſt of the Jewiſh lawgivers or prophets. For though, on extraordinary occaſions, ſome prophetical ſen⯑tences may have been uttered by men adhering to Judaiſm, after the coming of Chriſt (ſuch as the remarkable prophecy of Caiaphas the high-prieſt concerning Chriſt— ‘that it was expedient that one man ſhould die for the people,’ &c. (John xi. 50.) ^‡ yet the Jews cannot prove that a ſingle prophet [29] (profeſſedly as ſuch) has been ſent to them from God ever ſince the time of John; that is, for above 1700 years; except they will condeſcend to allow to St. Paul, Agabus, and others of the primitive Chriſtians, the title of prophets: but theſe were under the diſpenſation of the New Teſtament, after the ceremonial and typical law was annulled, and therefore cannot be reckoned among the Jewiſh lawgivers or prophets.

This was confirmed by Chriſt himſelf (Luke xvi. 16.) "the law and the prophets were until John." —And again (Matth. xi. 12, 13.) ‘for all the prophets and the law propheſied until John.’

Theſe are ſufficient authorities, I hope, to juſtify my ſuppoſition, that the prophet and lawgiver de⯑parted from Judah at the death of John the Baptiſt; or rather, was gradually departing for ſome time before his death: becauſe as Chriſt increaſed, John decreaſed, according to his own prophecy recorded by John the Evangeliſt, (iii. 30.) ‘Ye yourſelves bear me witneſs, that I ſaid, I am not the Chriſt, but that I am ſent before him. He that hath the bride’ (that is, the church or congregation; for John had juſt before been told that Chriſt ‘bap⯑tizeth, and all men come to him,’ 26th verſe) ‘is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bride⯑groom, which ſtandeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly becauſe of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy is therefore fulfilled. He muſt increaſe, [30] but I muſt decreaſe ^§. He that cometh from above, is above all: he that is of the earth, is earthly, and ſpeaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven, is above all. And what he hath ſeen and heard, that he teſtifieth; and no man receiveth his teſtimony. He that hath received his teſtimony, hath ſet to his ſeal, that God is true. For he whom God hath ſent ſpeak⯑eth the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by meaſure (unto him). The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son, hath everlaſting life: and he that believeth not the Son, ſhall not ſee life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.’

Thus far the Evangeliſt ſeems to be relating the teſtimony of John, the ſecond Elias.

In the 5th chapter (31ſt verſe) of the ſame Evan⯑geliſt we read, that this remarkable teſtimony was afterwards referred to by Chriſt himſelf. ‘If I bear witneſs of myſelf (ſaid Chriſt) my witneſs is not true. There is another that beareth witneſs of me, and I know that the witneſs which he wit⯑neſſeth of me, is true. Ye ſent unto John, and [31] he bare witneſs unto the truth. But I receive not teſtimony from man:’ — nevertheleſs our Lord condeſcended to give the Jews an opportunity of being convinced by the teſtimony of man, a man, whom they almoſt univerſally eſteemed on account of the purity of his life, which I have already ſhewn from the authority even of the Jewiſh hiſtorian Joſephus.

The mercy of God, therefore, is apparent in this condeſcenſion; and though our Lord himſelf de⯑clared, that he received not "teſtimony from man;" yet he added—"but theſe things" (relating to John's teſtimony) "I ſay, that ye might be ſaved."

He then gives a moſt lively and comprehenſive (though ſhort) deſcription of the holy character of this his harbinger. "He was" (ſays our Lord) "a burning, and a ſhining light;"—and he re⯑minds the Jews, that they formerly teſtified a very particular approbation of this holy perſon: ‘and ye were willing’ (ſays he) ‘for a ſeaſon to rejoice in his light. But I have greater witneſs than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finiſh, the ſame works that I do, bear witneſs of me, that the Father hath ſent me. And the Father himſelf, which hath ſent me, hath borne witneſs of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor ſeen his ſhape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath ſent, him ye believe not. Search [32] the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which teſtify of me.’ Thus Chriſt pointed out to the Jews three inconteſtible indications of the truth of his holy doctrine.

1ſt. The teſtimony of John the Baptiſt, with which he indulged them, though the ſame might be eſteemed unneceſſary for the cauſe of him, who "receives not teſtimony from man."

2dly. His own mighty works, daily wrought among them, which, as he ſaid, ‘bear witneſs of me, that the Father hath ſent me.’

And 3dly. The witneſs of the Father himſelf, though (as Chriſt expreſſed himſelf to the Jews) ‘Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor ſeen his ſhape;’ but he ſeems plainly to direct them to that witneſs of God, which has in all ages been apparent in the accompliſhment of the word of the Lord by his prophets.

Even the unbelieving Jews themſelves pretended to believe the Scriptures, and acknowledged them to be the word of God; and therefore Chriſt referred them to the Scriptures, as being the witneſs of the Father himſelf. "Search the Scriptures," &c. But they wilfully neglected to make a right uſe of ſuch ample teſtimony; and were, therefore, inex⯑cuſable. "Do not think" (ſaid Chriſt) ‘that I will accuſe you to the Father: there is one that accuſeth you, even Moſes in whom ye truſt. For had ye believed Moſes, ye would have believed [33] me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how ſhall ye believe my words?’

In the very next chapter (vi. 1, 2.) the Evan⯑geliſt relates the accompliſhment of one of the circumſtances of Jacob's prophecy, as recorded by Moſes; viz.— ‘and unto him ſhall the gathering of the people be.’

"After theſe things" (ſays St. John) ‘Jeſus went over the ſea of Galilee, which is the ſea of Tibe⯑rias, and A GREAT MULTITUDE FOLLOWED HIM, becauſe they ſaw his miracles,’ &c. And again (14th and 15th verſes) "then thoſe men" (the five thouſand perſons, who were fed by Chriſt with five barley loaves and two ſmall fiſhes) ‘when they had ſeen the miracle that Jeſus did, ſaid, This is of a truth that prophet that ſhould come into the world. When Jeſus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king’ (for they could not poſſibly give him a greater proof of their ſincerity in gathering to him as the true Shiloh) ‘he departed again into a mountain him⯑ſelf alone.’

The people of Iſrael (as Mr. Mann obſerves in his learned treatiſe de Anno Natali Chriſti, p. 4.) were not the only people that were to be gathered unto Shiloh; not one nation only is pointed at in the prophecy, but many nations. The patriarch's words were not [...] the gathering of this people, or nation, but in the plural number [...] the gathering of the nations; which has been [34] apparently fulfilled: for the nations have at dif⯑ferent times almoſt univerſally ſubmitted to the faith of our Lord Jeſus, the true Shiloh; notwith⯑ſtanding that many have ſince fallen back into groſs ignorance, ſuperſtition, and unbelief^*. The gather⯑ing of the people to impoſtors does not at all affect the certainty of the ſign given by the patriarch Jacob in the gathering of the people to Shiloh.

Many falſe Chriſts have indeed appeared accord⯑ing to our Lord's prediction in Matthew xxiv. 24 ^†. Luke xxi. 8 ^‡. and to ſuch the Jews have zealouſly gathered themſelves: for ‘they received not the love of the truth, that they might be ſaved. And for this cauſe God ſent them ſtrong deluſion’ (as [35] foretold by St. Paul) ‘that they ſhould believe a lie.’ 2 Theſſ. ii. 11.

The ſame people, who rejected the truth through hardneſs of heart, and want of faith, very ſoon afterwards, by a contrary infatuation, rendered them⯑ſelves deſpicable by the moſt abſurd credulity.

Even the Jewiſh hiſtorian Joſephus gives ample teſtimony of the proneneſs of his countrymen to error and falſe doctrine, and that they were eaſily led away by impoſtors and deceivers. He relates a very remarkable inſtance of it, in their being led out by an Egyptian to the mount of Olives; from whence he had undertaken to ſhew them a won⯑derful ſpectacle, viz. that the walls of Jeruſalem ſhould fall at his command ^†.

The ſame ſpiritual blindneſs continued even after the abomination of deſolation, notwithſtanding the apparent judgment of God upon them, in the de⯑ſtruction of their great (and once holy) city: for they have (as readily ſince that time, as before) acknowledged the incredible pretenſions of ſeveral impoſtors, who have at different times ſet themſelves up for the true Meſſiah. For inſtance, the infamous Barchocheba ( [...] or, Son of a Star) in the reign of the emperor Adrian, was gladly received, and zealouſly ſupported among the Jews, until an immenſe ſlaughter of his miſerable adherents plainly demonſtrated that he was more properly intitled Bar⯑chozba [36] ( [...]) Son of a Lie. The Jews were alſo notably deceived by Sabbatei Sevi, who wick⯑edly took upon himſelf the character of the Meſſiah. But it is remarkable, that it was the Jews alone, and not all the other nations of the world, that were gathered to theſe counterfeits; which ought to de⯑monſtrate to the preſent houſe of Iſrael the apparent difference between the true Meſſiah, and the miſer⯑able deceivers above-mentioned.

Thus, I hope, I have ſhewn, that the ſceptre did not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from be⯑tween his feet, until Shiloh was come; and that the gathering of the people (not of one nation only, but of the univerſe at different times) has been unto Chriſt himſelf, according to the Scriptures.

‘Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears. Let all the nations be ga⯑thered together, and let the people be aſſembled: who among them can declare this, and ſhew us former things? Let them bring forth their wit⯑neſſes, that they may be juſtified: or let them hear, and ſay, "It is Truth."’ Iſaiah xliii. 8, 9.

‘Glory be to God in the higheſt, and on earth peace, good-will towards men.’

AN ANSWER TO SOME OF THE Principal Arguments uſed by Dr. W—MS IN DEFENCE OF HIS CRITICAL DISSERTATION ON ISAIAH vii. 13, 14, 15, 16, &c. IN WHICH The opinions of the late Dr. SYKES, and Dr. GEORGE BENSON, concerning Accommodations of Scripture Prophecy, are briefly conſidered.
[]AN ANSWER TO Some of the principal Arguments uſed by Dr. W—MS in Defence of his Critical Diſſer⯑tation on ISAIAH vii. 13, 14, 15, 16, &c.

I HAVE pointed out to Dr. W—ms ſeveral miſtakes in his Critical Diſſertation on Iſaiah vii. 13, 14, 15, 16; yet he hath not thought proper to acknowledge one of them, though he has laboured to diſprove ſeveral. Some of the principal arguments which the Doctor has advanced in favour of his hypotheſis are conſidered in the following pages.

But before I proceed to a defence of my remarks, it may be neceſſary for me to examine a very im⯑portant queſtion concerning the interpretation of Scripture prophecies, notwithſtanding that Dr. W—ms apprehends the ſame to be ‘ſufficiently and even concluſively decided already;’ viz. Whether any "allegorical meanings, and double ſenſes of "Scripture prophecies are to be allowed?

[4] ‘It is impoſſible (ſays the Dr.) to determine when any prophecy is fulfilled, if it has more than one ſingle ſenſe. If it has two (ſays he) it may have two hundred, and all of them equally juſt.’

For the confirmation of this ſentiment, he refers me to Dr. George Benſon's preface to the firſt volume of his paraphraſe and notes on St. Paul's Epiſtles, and to Dr. Sykes's Connexion of natural and revealed Religion, page 217, &c.

Theſe I have examined with as much care, I be⯑lieve, as is neceſſary, and find, that the third objection to Dr. George Benſon's hypotheſis, quoted even in his own Introduction, p. xxxiv. obliges him to make ſuch large conceſſions concerning types and figures, that—notwithſtanding his great zeal againſt double fenſes, his denying of them ſeems a mere diſagree⯑ment in terms, and not in effect, from the general received opinion.

In his anſwer to the ſaid objection, he allows, p. xxxv. ‘That, wherever the law or the Prophets have declared, that the rites and ceremonies of the Moſaic conſtitution were intended to point out a moral obligation, or to prefigure the Meſſiah, or ſomething in the Chriſtian diſpenſation, there that moral intention, or prophetic prefiguration, is the one, true ſenſe of the text, &c.’ See the Doctor's anſwer at length in p. xxxv.

Here he plainly allows of a direct application, in ſome caſes, to the antitype; which he calls ‘the [5] one true ſenſe of the text.’ —But how (as a rea⯑ſonable man) he can poſſibly avoid acknowledging the neceſſary conſequence of this his conceſſion, I leave all candid readers to judge: for if there is an allegorical ſenſe alluding to the antitype (which he calls "a moral intention or prophetic prefiguration") there muſt certainly be, likewiſe, a literal ſenſe ap⯑plicable to the type itſelf.

Indeed the Doctor has in that place refined his argument to ſo ſmall a thread, that it becomes almoſt imperceptible.

The next objection quoted by Dr. Benſon, is as follows. — Object. IV. ‘Are not many paſ⯑ſages in the New Teſtament taken from the Old Teſtament, and uſed in a quite different ſenſe from what they have, as they ſtand in the original writer? and muſt not theſe be called double ſenſes of the words of ſacred Scripture?’

To this the Doctor anſwers, — ‘It is acknowledged, that our Lord, and his Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, have taken ſeveral paſſages from the Old Teſtament; and uſed them in a very different ſenſe from what they have, as connected with the place from whence they were taken.’

‘But that will not prove a double ſenſe of the words. I may quote a paſſage from Homer or Virgil, Herodotus or Livy, to expreſs my preſent meaning, and in quite another ſenſe from what it has in thoſe antient authors. But that will not [6] prove that thoſe antient authors intended their words ſhould be underſtood in two ſenſes. In the original intention they had only one meaning. In my accommodation of them, they have only one meaning. And though the ſame words may have different ideas affixed to them; and be uſed, by ſucceſſive ſpeakers, or writers, in various ſenſes; yet that does not prove that, in the original in⯑tention, they had more than one ſignification.’

Now I readily allow, that Dr. Benſon's idea of an accommodation is certainly true in ſuch caſes as he has ſuppoſed, viz. in quotations from Homer or Virgil, &c. ‘To expreſs a preſent meaning in quite another ſenſe from what it has in thoſe antient authors.’ And I as readily aſſent to a part of Dr. W—ms quotation in page 41 of his Critical Diſſertation from a very learned author, ^* viz. that when ‘paſſages in the Grecian poets are cited, or alluded to, in the writings of the New,’ or Old [7] "Teſtament," the ſame ‘are not to be conſidered as prophecies.’ For indeed they cannot other⯑wiſe be eſteemed than as ‘a mere accommodation of phraſes.’

But when the word of the Lord by his prophets, or (as St. Matthew warily expreſſes himſelf) ‘that which was ſpoken of the Lord by the prophet,’ is cited by an evangeliſt, and declared to be fulfilled; the idea of "a mere accommodation" becomes highly improper, not only in a grammatical, but alſo in a religious ſenſe.

Therefore, in anſwer to all that has been ſaid in favour of accommodations, I muſt obſerve, that the fulfilling of proverbs and phraſes, or of quotations from poets and hiſtorians, by a ſimilarity of circum⯑ſtances, is ſo widely different from the fulfilling of a prophecy, that the true meaning of the word fulfill, when applied to the latter, cannot juſtly be aſcertained by ſuch a compariſon.

The word of a prophet (eſpecially the word of the LORD by a PROPHET) implies a foretelling or pro⯑miſe of future things, which muſt in due time be fulfilled; as ‘all things muſt be fulfilled (ſaid our Lord) which were written in the law of Moſes, and in the prophets, and in the Pſalms concerning me.’ Luke xxiv. 44.

Therefore when we are told, that "the word which was ſpoken of the Lord by the prophet" is fulfilled, we [8] cannot, either with grammatical, or religious pro⯑priety (as I have before obſerved) underſtand any other fulfilling or accompliſhment than that which was originally intended by the holy ſpirit to be pre⯑figured.

Becauſe we cannot allow, that a ſcripture prophecy is accommodated ‘to a particular ſenſe, to which it originally had no reference^*,’ unleſs we allow likewiſe that ſuch an accommodation is abſolutely a perverſion of the primary ſenſe of the prophet: for readers would not only be thereby perplexed and miſled with reſpect to the true accompliſhment ori⯑ginally and ſingly intended by the words of the pro⯑phet ſo cited, but would alſo be naturally led to con⯑ceive, that the matters, related by the evangeliſt, were intentionally prefigured or foretold thereby, which would be a deception of no ſmall diſcredit to the evangeliſt, if his compariſon had really no other relation to the prophecy than that ‘of a ſimiliarity of circumſtances.’

So that ſuch a miſapplication of ſcripture pro⯑phecy cannot otherwiſe be conſidered than as a de⯑ception leading to a double miſconſtruction as above; which would be as little ſuitable to the teſtimony of an evangeliſt "by way of illuſtration," as to the original ſenſe of the prophet, whatever Dr. Benſon [9] may think of it, or Dr. W—ms either. See his Remarks, p. 40.

If all this be duly conſidered, I think no one can reaſonably ſuppoſe that an evangeliſt would attempt to miſlead his readers by declaring a prophecy to be accompliſhed or fulfilled in ‘a particular ſenſe to which it originally had no reference.’ See Cri⯑tical Diſſert. p. 40.

Dr. Benſon in page xxii. of his introduction in⯑forms us, that ‘if the iid and xvith Pſalms can be ſhown quite throughout to agree to king David, then they ought to be interpreted of him. But if (as ſome judicious perſons have thought) there be in them ſome expreſſions, which are not applicable to king David, then they ſhould be interpreted wholly concerning the Meſſiah; to whom they do, in every part, very well agree.’

Now I am of the ſame opinion with Dr. Benſon that theſe two Pſalms are undoubtedly to be inter⯑preted of the Meſſiah, and I do not at all contend for the application of them to David.

I only object, therefore, to the Doctor's rule of interpretation, which he has applied to the ſaid Pſalms; becauſe I think it will be liable, in a great variety of applications, to miſlead and perplex thoſe perſons, who may happen to adopt it.

For inſtance; the lxxiid Pſalm, of which he ſpeaks in the ſame page, is undoubtedly a prophecy of Chriſt's kingdom, as Dr. Benſon interprets it; yet [10] his rule ſeems to lead him into a real difficulty con⯑cerning it; becauſe he is thereby obliged to deny the leaſt reference to king Solomon; when it plainly appears by the title of the Pſalm ( [...] "To So⯑lomon") that the pſalmiſt abſolutely addreſſed himſelf to Solomon, who in the beginning of his reign was manifeſtly a type of the ſpiritual Solomon or Shiloh ( [...] or [...]) the prince of "peace ^*."

Indeed the Doctor's rule can by no means be ad⯑mitted, if we conſider the nature and general ſtyle of prophetical writings, and the abrupt tranſitions fre⯑quently found therein; of which I have given am⯑ple and undeniable proofs from the viith, viiith, and ixth chapters of Iſaiah. See the ſecond part of my remarks on the Critical Diſſertation.

Theſe paſſages, and many others of the ſame kind, very much confirm what I have wrote (Part II. p. 23) concerning the paſſage quoted by St. Matthew from Hoſea; (viz. ‘out of Egypt have I called my ſon’) and, I think, muſt prove to all conſiderate people, that Dr. Sykes (the other cham⯑pion for accommodations to whom Dr. W—ms has referred me) has been much too precipitate in decla⯑ring (pages 230 and 231 of his Connexion of natural and revealed Religion) ‘that the prophet (in this text) is not ſpeaking of any future event:’ and that the [11] term ‘fulfilled, cannot imply a prophecy of our Sa⯑viour's going into Egypt, or coming from thence:’ &c.—The ſame obſervation may with juſtice be made concerning Dr. W—ms, who boldly aſks (page 40.)—"How can it be ſaid, that any thing is ful⯑filled "which was not ſpoken to be fulfilled? as in chap. ii. 15. (Matthew) ‘or not ſpoken by a pro⯑phet, in the ſenſe in which it is cited by an evan⯑geliſt?’ Alſo the Doctor declares in page 39— concerning this paſſage, that it ‘could not be ful⯑filled when the child Jeſus came out of Egypt.’

In anſwer to theſe aſſertions I muſt obſerve in the firſt place, that they cannot by any means be proved. And ſecondly, that it is moſt reaſonable to believe this text of Hoſea to be a prophecy of Chriſt; be⯑cauſe the ſtyle and conſtruction of the ſentence itſelf is ſo peculiarly adapted to the ſingle perſon of the Meſſiah, that the Seventy have thought themſelves obliged to leave the literal ſenſe of the original, in order to render it more ſuitable in their tranſlation to the people of Iſrael: all which I have before parti⯑cularly noted.

But there are ſtill other reaſons to be given in fa⯑vour of it.

Though the people of Iſrael are here ſpoken of in ſuch a manner, that Dr. W—ms thinks he has ſufficient reaſon to intitle it ‘a declaration of an event long paſt;’ yet St. Matthew expreſly quotes it as a prophecy, viz. as ‘that which was ſpoken of [12] the Lord by the prophet;’ which expreſſion could not with any propriety be uſed, if the words of the prophet were merely an hiſtorical relation; for they could not, in that caſe, be ſaid to be ‘ſpoken of the Lord.’

Thus it plainly appears, that there is not the leaſt room to ſuppoſe an accommodation.

So that, notwithſtanding all that has been ſaid by Dr. Sykes, Dr. G. Benſon, and Dr. W—ms, againſt double ſenſes, it muſt unavoidably be allowed, that the ‘declaration (in this place) of an event long paſt,’ prefigured an event to come; and conſe⯑quently that this ſingle text affords an indiſputable proof of the ſubſiſtance of double ſenſes in the Scrip⯑tures.

Though ſome Chriſtians have run into errors by turning every thing into allegory, double ſenſes, pa⯑rables and types, whether they were really ſo or not; yet this is no juſt argument why we ſhould indiſcrimi⯑nately reject all conſtructions of this kind.

And though I contend for double ſenſes in ſome caſes, yet I am as averſe to an unneceſſary multipli⯑cation of them as Dr. W—ms can be; and there⯑fore reject and proteſt againſt the Doctor's propoſi⯑tion (in page of his MS reply to my remarks) that if a prophecy ‘has two (ſenſes) it may have two hundred; and all of them equally juſt.’

The fulfilling of a prophecy (as I have before ob⯑ſerved) muſt mean the only true accompliſhment, or [13] completion of it; ſo that it cannot juſtly be extended, or applied to any further circumſtances, than thoſe particularly and originally intended; therefore, when an evangeliſt has declared a prophecy to be fulfilled, though he may have convinced us that the prophet's words referred to are capable of bearing a double ſenſe (viz. one literal, and one allegorical or prefi⯑gurative, which he himſelf points out) yet, at the ſame time, he manifeſtly excludes the other 198 ſenſes, notwithſtanding that Dr. W—ms thinks "all of them equally juſt." For after a declaration is made (of indiſputable authority) that a prophecy is fulfilled, it would be, not only impertinent, but preſumptuous, to look for a further accompliſh⯑ment.

It is neceſſary, however, for me to obſerve, that the fulfilling of ſome particular prophecies includes a conſiderable length of time, as well as a variety of circumſtances and places.

Of this, I propoſe to give one remarkable in⯑ſtance, which will afford me, at the ſame time, a proper opportunity of ſpeaking more particularly to Dr. Sykes.

The Doctor, in his Connexion of natural and re⯑vealed Religion, chap. x. p. 229, affirms, ‘that our Saviour, and his apoſtles, applied the term to ful⯑fill, when there was only a ſimilitude of circum⯑ſtances: and (that) they cited the words of the Old Teſtament, and made uſe of that term, upon [14] the application of them, where they did not de⯑ſign to expreſs the accompliſhment of a prophecy.’ ‘You have (ſays the Doctor) an inſtance very clear in Matthew xiii. 14, 15. where our Saviour gives the reaſon why he ſpoke to the people in parables: becauſe, ſays he, they ſeeing ſee not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they under⯑ſtand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Eſaias, which ſaith, by hearing ye ſhall hear, and ſhall not underſtand, and ſeeing ye ſhall ſee, and ſhall not perceive. For this peoples heart is waxed groſs, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have cloſed: leſt at any time they ſhould ſee with their eyes and hear with their ears, and ſhould underſtand with their hearts, and ſhould be converted, and I ſhould heal them.’

‘Our Saviour (ſays the Doctor) applies theſe words to the Jews in Judea, and St. Paul, many years afterwards, applies the very ſame prophecy to the Jews at Rome.’ ‘This ſhews (continues he) that, though the term fulfill, when applied to an event foretold, does ſignify the accompliſhment of a real prophecy; yet it was uſed in caſes where there was no accompliſhment of a prediction, but only a ſimilitude of circum⯑ſtances; and conſequently, the application of the words of a prophet to a certain particular event, by w [...]i [...]h they are ſaid to be fulfilled, does not [...] a double ſenſe of prophecy, [15] or that ſuch a particular event was foretold:’ ‘But the real meaning of the word muſt be deter⯑mined by other circumſtances; ſuch as, whether the prophet is ſpeaking of a future event or not, or, in ſhort, by thoſe means by which one knows whether the words are prophetic or not.’

But before all this reaſoning of Dr. Sykes be admitted, we ought carefully to examine the foun⯑dation or proof on which it is built.

This he calls "an inſtance very clear;" but I hope to convince my readers, that it is no inſtance at all of this matter, and conſequently that the Doc⯑tor's concluſion thereupon is unjuſt.

Were not the Jews one people, and deſcended from the ſame ſtock, whether they lived at Jeruſa⯑lem or Rome?

If this be granted (and I think the moſt zealous advocates for Dr. Sykes will not deny it) it muſt ne⯑ceſſarily be allowed likewiſe, that this remarkable prophecy of Eſaias concerning them, (viz. ‘by hearing ye ſhall hear, and ſhall not underſtand,’ &c. Iſaiah vi. 10.) was manifeſtly fulfilled when the Jews rejected the doctrine of Chriſt, whether preached by himſelf at one time, or by his apoſtles at other different times.

So I think I may ſafely conclude that the two dif⯑ferent applications quoted by Dr. Sykes of this ſame prophecy, were not occaſioned, as he ſuppoſes, by a [16] mere "ſimilitude of circumſtances," but by a direct accompliſhment of the prediction in both caſes.

Now as this example cannot any longer ſerve the cauſe in favour of which it was quoted by Dr. Sykes; I hope it will not be eſteemed an im⯑proper example of a very different argument, and therefore I ſhall beg leave to claim it on my ſide of the queſtion, as "an inſtance very clear" of the truth of the obſervation which I made above, viz. that the fulfilling of ſome particular prophecies includes a conſiderable length of time, as well as a variety of circumſtances and places.

However, I muſt not leave this text without coming to a further explanation with Dr. W—ms concerning it, becauſe he has brought a very heavy accuſation againſt me concerning the parallel account given by St. Mark, chap. iv. 11, 12.

He charges me with reflecting ‘ſeverely on the character of the bleſſed Jeſus,’ by ſaying, ‘that he taught in parables, leſt they ſhould underſtand and be ſaved.’ "Our Saviour" (ſays the Doctor) ‘gave a very different reaſon for his conduct; and Mr. S— ſhould have rendered the paſſage Mark iv. 12. agreeable to the evangeliſt's words in the 33d verſe of the ſame chapter: [...] ſhould be there tranſlated if per⯑adventure, as it is in 2d. Timothy ii. 25.’ — However, I am not at all conſcious (I thank God) [17] of having in the leaſt reſpect offended againſt the character of our bleſſed Lord.

Neither do I know of any ſevere reflection in this caſe, except the Doctor's own charge againſt myſelf.

Whatever ſenſe the word [...] may bear in other places, yet in the parallel places of St. Matthew and Mark above-mentioned, it muſt neceſſarily be conſtrued "leſt"—or to that effect: for, as the ſenſe of the context muſt confirm the true meaning of any particular word, it will be found, upon ex⯑amination, that the Doctor's ſenſe of theſe paſſages cannot poſſibly be admitted.

The words of Chriſt, according to the teſtimony of both theſe evangeliſts, point out the material diſtinction, which he then made between thoſe that were true believers, and the reprobate Jews, whom our Lord called, "them that are without" (ſee Mark iv. 11.) to the former it was ‘given to know the myſtery of the kingdom of God,’ Matthew xiii. 11. Mark iv. 11. But to the latter, ſays St. Matthew, "it is not given."

Now this neceſſary diſtinction is entirely loſt by Dr. W—ms's interpretation, becauſe there is no ſuch diſtinction made in the 33d verſe of the fourth chapter of St. Mark, the ſenſe of which the Doctor propoſes to adopt; for the evangeliſt is there ſpeaking of Chriſt's preaching in general to the whole multitude, including thoſe to whom ‘it [18] was given to know,’ as well as thoſe to whom it was "not given;" and this is certain, becauſe in the very next verſe (the 34th) we read, that afterwards, ‘when they were alone, he expounded all things to his diſciples.’

Now it might very well be ſaid of Chriſt's preaching to the whole multitude of good and bad together, that ‘with many ſuch parables ſpake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it;’ becauſe Chriſt obſerved this ſame method, even when he taught his diſciples alone; and at laſt de⯑clared to them, ſoon before his paſſion, ‘I have yet many things to ſay unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.’ John xvi. 12.

But when the reprobate Jews are ſpoken of ſeparately and diſtinctly from thoſe to whom it was "given to know," it cannot be underſtood that the word was ſpoken ‘unto them as they were able to hear it.’

Becauſe, it is apparent, that they were never able to hear it, or bear it—according to the true ſenſe of theſe phraſes; which imply ſuch a comprehenſion of the doctrine, as may produce an aſſent or belief; otherwiſe the prophecy of Iſaiah, which Chriſt then referred to, could not have been fulfilled. ‘Be⯑cauſe ſeeing, they ſee not (ſaid our Lord) and hearing, they hear not, neither do they under⯑ſtand.’ (Which is very different from being ſpoken to, as Dr. W—ms would have it, ‘as they [19] were able to hear.’) ‘And in them (continued our Lord) is fulfilled the prophecy of Eſaias, which ſaith, by hearing ye ſhall hear, and ſhall not underſtand, and ſeeing, ye ſhall ſee, and ſhall not perceive.’ (Therefore it is plain that St. Mark's expreſſion, chap. iv. 33. cannot be applied to theſe, when diſtinctly ſpoken of from the reſt of the congregation.) "For this people's heart" (ſaid Iſaiah) ‘is waxed groſs, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have cloſed, leſt at any time they ſhould ſee with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and ſhould underſtand with their heart, and ſhould be converted, and I ſhould heal them’ (ſaid our Lord). The cloſing of their eyes was their own act and deed, ‘their eyes THEY have cloſed, LEST they ſhould ſee,’ &c. So that there was no partiality ^* in their condem⯑nation, [20] they having rendered themſelves unworthy of a clearer revelation by their unwillingneſs to be converted. They rejected ſuch evidence as Chriſt was pleaſed to give them, which would have been amply ſufficient, had they not not wilfully ſhut their eyes againſt it; for St. John ſays, chap. iii. 19. ‘this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkneſs rather than light, becauſe their works are evil.’

Therefore they were juſtly eſteemed unworthy ‘to know the myſteries of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, "whoſoever hath" (ſaid our Lord) ‘to him ſhall be given, and he ſhall have more abundance: but whoſoever hath not, from him ſhall be taken away, even that he hath. THEREFORE, [...], ſpeak I to them in parables, becauſe they ſeeing, ſee not,’ &c.

The words [...], "THEREFORE," plainly refer to the foregoing ſentence, viz. ‘but whoſoever hath not — from him ſhall be taken away,’ &c. So that the ſcope and tenor of the argument would be entirely deſtroyed if Dr. W—ms's ſenſe of the parallel paſſage in St. Mark were to be admitted.— For Chriſt plainly intended to ſhew, that the unbe⯑lieving Jews would loſe even what little knowledge they had; ſo far would they be from underſtanding or receiving his parables. And the event plainly proved this; for they fell from bad to worſe, untill [21] the total deſtruction of Jeruſalem, when the abo⯑mination of deſolation (ſpoken of by Daniel) was accompliſhed.

St. Mark does not, indeed, expreſs the very words of the prophet Iſaiah, nor mention the quotation made of them by Chriſt, but he plainly delivers the full ſenſe of them, as they were really fulfilled in the unbelieving Jews, viz.

"Unto you" (ſaid Chriſt to his diſciples) ‘it is given to know the myſtery of the kingdom of God, but unto them that are without, all theſe things are done in parables: THAT ſeeing they may ſee, and not perceive, and hearing they may hear, and not underſtand, LEST at any time they ſhould be converted, and their ſins ſhould be forgiven them.’

The particle [...] ("THAT") followed by verbs in the ſubjunctive mood ( [...], &c.) cannot poſſibly be made ſenſe of, if the word [...] ("LEST") is tranſlated,—"if peradventure"; becauſe the negative [...] (viz. [...], and [...], "may not ſee, and may not underſtand") abſolutely leads to a different ſenſe from that propoſed by Dr. W—ms.

So that it is moſt reaſonable to conclude with Dr. Hammond, that theſe words [...] ‘that ſeeing,’ &c. ‘note the obduration of the Iſra⯑elites, which fell on them from God's deſertion; as a puniſhment of their not making uſe of the [22] talents, which he had given them, and ſo this verſe is anſwerable, and parallel to Matthew xiii. 15, or the end of that place in Iſaiah recited, and ſet down at large in St. Matthew; but here —(and ſo alſo in Luke viii. 10. and John xii. 40.) epitomized and ſummed up, [...], leſt they ſhould ſee,’ &c.

The word [...], therefore, cannot in ei⯑ther of theſe places be conſtrued "if peradventure," without deſtroying the propriety of our Lord's quota⯑tion from Iſaiah, delivered at length by St. Mat⯑thew, and epitomized by St. Mark as above; for the word [...], in the original prophecy, is properly rendered [...] in the Syriac, and LEST in the Engliſh tranſlations, and cannot poſſibly bear any other ſenſe agreeable to the context; becauſe the prophet plainly foretold, that the Jews would wilfully ſhut their eyes ( [...]) ‘LEST they ſhould ſee with their eyes.’

Now, men do not uſually ſhut their eyes in order to ſee therewith, or (according to Dr. W—ms's interpretation of [...]) "if peradventure" they may ſee with their eyes; but rather, that they may not ſee, or, according to the propriety of the Engliſh tranſlation of [...], ‘LEST they ſhould ſee with their eyes,’ &c.

The cloſing of the eyes, in this place, is indeed a mere figurative expreſſion for the inſenſibility and wicked obſtinacy of the Jews; yet the ſame reaſon⯑ing [23] holds good, notwithſtanding this conſideration, and ſufficiently proves, that the word [...] muſt be conſtrued negatively, and not, as Dr. W—ms propoſes, "if peradventure."

By this example we learn that ſome parables were not only difficult to thoſe reprobate unbelievers, whom St. Mark calls "them that are without," but alſo, even to the true diſciples themſelves; who, by miſunderſtanding the parable of the ſower, and by deſiring an explanation of it (ſee 10th verſe) occaſioned this remarkable anſwer of our Lord, the purport of which is recorded in the two texts con⯑ſidered above.

Nevertheleſs, there were very many caſes, wherein the teaching by parables and types was (not only the ſafeſt and moſt prudent, but alſo) the ſhorteſt and cleareſt method of conveying a true idea of the propoſed doctrine, as being very ſuitable to the genius and cuſtoms of the Eaſtern nations in general, and of the Jews in particular; and alſo becauſe the types and figures themſelves would make a very deep impreſſion on the memory, and by their well known characters clearly illuſtrate the allegorical meaning.

I propoſe now to reconſider the principal ſubject of my remarks, viz. the prophecy of Iſaiah con⯑cerning the birth of Immanuel.

Dr. W—ms has aſſerted (page 44.) ‘that the evangeliſt only alludes to the paſſage in Iſaiah, [24] becauſe it was remarkably ſuitable to the matter which he was relating.’

This occaſioned my queſtion to the Doctor, viz. ‘If [...] does not ſignify a virgin, in what ſenſe can the text be eſteemed remarkably ſuitable to the miraculous conception of a virgin by the Holy Ghoſt? And in what manner could the accom⯑modation of it to that ſingular event aſſiſt the ſacred hiſtorian (as he ſuppoſes) by way of illuſtration?’ See Part I. page 39.

I afterwards obſerve, that the Doctor ‘has taken great pains to make the text remarkably unſuitable, by inſinuating that [...] the YOUNG WOMAN (as he conſtrues it) ſpoken of in the text, was ſo far from being a virgin, that ſhe was with child, even at the time when ſhe was pointed at (as he deviſes in p. 31.) by the prophet.’

To which the Doctor replies, ‘had St. Matthew alluded to the birth of this child, it would have been very unſuitable.’

Now this conceſſion is ſufficient for my purpoſe, becauſe the Doctor's inſinuation, that the evangeliſt alluded only "to the name Immanuel," and not to the other circumſtances related by the prophet, muſt appear entirely groundleſs, when we conſider the words of St. Matthew.

For though the evangeliſt interpreted the name Immanuel, yet this does not prove, that he referred [25] merely to this name, but rather, that no other perſon but the Meſſiah himſelf could properly be intitled, "God with us;" and conſequently that he eſteemed the words of Iſaiah to be really a prophecy, and ſuch a one as could not be fulfilled, except in Chriſt alone, who was truly "God with us." But farther—The evangeliſt's manner of introducing the quotation very clearly ſhews, that this name was not the only thing he intended to allude to.

For he ſays— ‘NOW ALL THIS WAS DONE— ( [...]) that it might be fulfilled which was ſpoken of the Lord by the prophet, behold A VIRGIN ſhall be with child, and ſhall bring forth a ſon,’ &c.

The words "ALL THIS WAS DONE" muſt refer to the relation before given, concerning the miraculous conception of the virgin Mary by the Holy Ghoſt, and therefore the prophecy of Iſaiah, that A VIRGIN ſhould conceive, and bear a ſon, was ſuitable, not in the name only (as Doctor W—ms has inſinuated) but in the whole quotation.

Another objection is made, ‘that the birth of a child from a virgin is a fact of ſuch a nature, as not to admit of proof.’ "It is a fact" (ſays the Doctor) ‘which in the very nature of it can⯑not be a ſign to any perſon but the mother.’

Nevertheleſs the Scriptures inform us that this ſign was clearly proved (i. e. the wonderful event that a [26] virgin had conceived, was known with abſolute cer⯑tainty) even before the birth of the Meſſiah; and this, not merely by the teſtimony of the mother, but by other very ſufficient authorities; which rendered the ſign as apparent and indubitable, as any other ſign that was ever given, even the moſt ſelf-evi⯑dent.

For after the angel Gabriel had revealed to the virgin Mary, that ſhe (although a virgin) ſhould "conceive and bring forth a ſon;" St. Luke i. 31.) the ſame thing was confirmed to her by her couſin Elizabeth in the hill country of Judea.

"Bleſſed is ſhe that believed" (ſaid Elizabeth filled with the Holy Ghoſt) ‘for there ſhall be a per⯑formance of thoſe things which were told her from the Lord.’ Luke i. 45.

See the whole ſalutation, and the teſtimony of John the Baptiſt, though himſelf at that time only a babe in the womb; which clearly proves that the abſolute knowledge of the fact was not confined to the virgin mother alone.

Afterwards an angel was ſent from God to pre⯑vent Joſeph from putting away his eſpouſed wife on account of her being with child; and the angel in⯑formed him before the time, that ſhe ſhould ‘bring forth a ſon;’ and, that he might the more effec⯑tually convince him of his wife's purity and virtue, he aſſured him, ſaying, ‘that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghoſt.’ (Matt. i. 20.)

[27]Therefore, though ‘the birth of a child from a virgin’ is by Dr. W—ms eſteemed ‘a fact of ſuch a nature as not to admit of proof;’ yet no⯑thing is impoſſible with God, who was pleaſed to give theſe indubitable proofs of the long promiſed ſign, even whilſt the child Jeſus was in the womb, which muſt entirely obviate the Doctor's objection, that "this cannot be a ſign to any perſon but the mother."

In the fulneſs of time the ſign was manifeſted in the moſt extraordinary manner.

An angel, accompanied with a multitude of the heavenly hoſt, proclaimed the wonderful birth to the ſhepherds in the field; and a ſtar pointed out to the eaſtern ſtrangers the place where the young child lay.

Undoubtedly this wonderful circumſtance, that A VIRGIN HAD BROUGHT FORTH A SON, would, in a little time, be as well known to the houſe of David, as theſe miraculous manifeſtations and confirmations of the ſaid ſupernatural birth; eſpecially as the family of Joſeph, the bleſſed virgin's huſband, was the chief branch of that royal ſtock, lineally deſcended from Zorobabel, and ſo from the ſon of Jeſſe.

There is ſtill another difficulty with Dr. W—ms. ‘I cannot perceive (ſays he) what event the birth of Immanuel could be a ſign of, unleſs it could be a ſign of itſelf?’

But is it really poſſible, that Dr. W—ms ‘can⯑not perceive,’ that the miraculous birth of the [28] true Immanuel was a ſign of ſomething more than that event itſelf?

Was it not a ſign to all thoſe, who then waited for "the conſolation and redemption of Iſrael," (Luke ii. 25.) that the kingdom of God was nigh at hand? (Matthew xii. 2 [...]. ^* Luke x. 9.11. ^†.)

Was it not a ſign to Joſeph, and others of the houſe of David, that a child, ſo born, muſt be the long promiſed Meſſiah of the ſeed of David, to whom the kingdom was to be reſtored, and in whom (according to Iſaiah's promiſe to his cotemporaries of the houſe of David) it was to be eſtabliſhed for ever? See Iſaiah ix. 6, 7. 2 Sam. vii. 16.

But, I find, it is in vain that I urge to Dr. W—ms the accompliſhment of the ſeveral pro⯑phecies concerning the eſtabliſhment of the ‘kingdom of David’ in Chriſt; for the Doctor ſtill ſeems to perſiſt in his former notion that Nathaniel ‘la⯑boured under a miſtake’ in calling Chriſt ‘king of Iſrael.’

He hopes to evade the point by alledging, that ‘not only Nathaniel and the diſciples, but the whole Jewiſh nation did actually labour under a [29] great miſtake about the nature of the Meſſiah's kingdom.’

Thus he would lead me to a very different queſ⯑tion; but I am aware, that though the diſciples did, for ſome time, "labour under a miſtake," as the Doctor obſerves, concerning ‘the nature of the Meſſiah's kingdom;’ yet there was not the leaſt miſtake, in thoſe who truly believed, concerning the main point in queſtion, viz. whether or not the Meſſiah was really a king?

Notwithſtanding that our Lord rejected all the temporal authority of a worldly king, and declared, that his kingdom was not of this world, he was nevertheleſs really a king, "king of Iſrael" (as Nathaniel called him) and king of Judah, or (which is the ſame thing) "king of the Jews;" for even Pilate himſelf ſeemed convinced of Chriſt's juſt right to the title of king, though, like a thorough-paced time ſerver, he preferred his own temporal in⯑tereſt to all other conſiderations, and delivered up THE KING OF KINGS (Rev. xvii. 14.) to be ſlain, know⯑ing him to be A KING; for his anſwer to the chief prieſts, concerning the title intended to be affixed to the croſs, plainly ſhews, that he was conſcious of this.

Dr. W—ms charges me with having ‘brought a vaſt number of texts to prove, not (my) aſſertion, that Jeſus was ever called the king of Judah, but the truth of (his) aſſertion,’ &c. concerning the [30] miſtake of Nathaniel. And he ſays, ‘this will be evident to every one who conſults the paſſages cited by me.’

But if the Doctor will pleaſe once more to con⯑ſult the paſſages himſelf, he will find, that ſeveral among them are prophecies which were abſolutely fulfilled in our Lord Jeſus.

Therefore, I hope, he will not venture to aſſert, that the prophets likewiſe "laboured under a miſtake," when they proclaimed theſe titles of the glorious Meſſiah; or that the diſciples, and all other Chriſ⯑tians even to this day ſtill "labour under a miſtake" in applying them to Chriſt, in whom alone they were, or could be fulfilled.

‘Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; ſhout O daughter of Jeruſalem: behold THY KING cometh unto thee:’ the prophet then proceeds to deſcribe this coming of THE KING of Zion and Jeruſalem, ſo as exactly to correſpond with the evangeliſt's account (Luke xix. 37, 38.) of Chriſt's publick entry into Jeruſalem, when ‘the whole multitude of the diſ⯑ciples began to rejoice and praiſe God with a loud voice, for all the mighty works that they had ſeen: ſaying, bleſſed be THE KING that cometh in the name of the Lord,’ &c. For he was certainly a king even when he rode upon the aſs, which is proved by the continuation of Zechariah's prophecy (ix. 9.) whereby he points out the character and appearance of the king of Zion and Jeruſalem mentioned in the [31] beginning of the ſame verſe; "he is juſt" (ſaid the prophet) ‘and having ſalvation, lowly, and riding upon an aſs, and upon a colt the foal of an aſs.’

So the prophet Micah declared, that out of Beth⯑lehem Ephratah ſhould ‘he come forth that is to be ruler in Iſrael, whoſe goings forth have been from of old from everlaſting.’ (chap. v. 2.)

The event proved the truth of the prophet's words, as well as of the evangeliſt's citation (Matt. ii. 5 and 6.) for the holy one that was born at Bethlehem was afterwards undoubtedly "ruler in Iſrael," be⯑fore the diſſolution of that people from an united na⯑tion: of which (beſides the power of his teaching and his mighty works) his publick entry into Jeru⯑ſalem, and the authority ſhewn by him in clearing the temple, are remarkable proofs.

That Chriſt was "a ruler in Iſrael" is implied in the preceding words of the ſame prophet (Micah v. 1.) ‘they ſhall ſmite the judge of Iſrael with a rod upon the cheek.’ A ruler and a judge are ſyno⯑nymous terms; and it is certain that Chriſt pro⯑nounced judgment againſt Iſrael for their impeni⯑tence and want of faith—condemning them (with reſpect to their temporal eſtate) to a horrid deſtruction and deſolation ^*: and as all this was moſt punctu⯑ally fulfilled ^† upon them, it is certain likewiſe, that [32] the ſame "judge of Iſrael" whom they ſmote upon the cheek, will one day judge them, alſo, in their eter⯑nal ſtate, as well as all their unhappy deſcendants who perſiſt in the ſame unbelief.

If theſe prophecies were really fulfilled in Jeſus, they moſt certainly prove, that the Meſſiah was (as he ever will be) A KING, and conſequently that his diſciples were not miſtaken in calling him ſo, how⯑ſoever they might miſunderſtand the nature of his kingdom.

Therefore the Doctor's reply upon this point can⯑not well be eſteemed a proof of any thing more than of his own great unwillingneſs to acknowledge, that he himſelf (inſtead of Nathaniel) labours under a miſtake.

Another remarkable excuſe, which the Doctor has offered in behalf of his hypotheſis, deſerves par⯑ticular notice.

In anſwer to my remarks on Canticles vi. 8. (con⯑cerning the particular diſtinction there made of vir⯑gins from queens and concubines) the Doctor replies, that ‘Hebrew poetry is not ſo well underſtood as to enable (me) to determine that [...] in Canticles vi. 8. is not uſed in ſtead of [...] for the ſake of metre.’

This unexpected turn of thought may, perhaps, be eſteemed ingenious, but it is far from ſatisfactory; for if criticks were allowed to ſubſtitute the ſenſe of one word for another, whenever their arguments are [33] reduced to that neceſſity, it would be but a vain taſk to diſpute with them; and a confuſion of lan⯑guage, like that of the builders of Babel, muſt neceſſarily ſucceed their perverſion of words.

In Engliſh poetry the Doctor may produce as many inſtances of ſuch ſubſtitutions as he pleaſes, and he may reſt aſſured, that I ſhall never think it worth my while to attempt a confutation of them.

But when ſuch refined criticiſms are applied to any part of Holy Scripture, I think, they ought not by any means to be admitted, unleſs the authors of them ſhall be able to prove, that it is more juſtifi⯑able to adapt the Scriptures to our own private opi⯑nions, than our opinions to the Scriptures.