F 
 
 ';--:.^ '::M^^.m'^-. 
 
 i^-z_ 
 
 -'i 
 
 BS1^I5 
 .8.S53 
 
\ 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 
 
 or THE 
 
 
 
 Theological Seminary, 
 
 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 
 
 Cfifip, ._^CL-C— K- niu. 
 
 
 
 > •■ ""^ -^"T". .^""T U!.y.ii)it„ 
 
 "•>■ 
 
 
 Book, No, 
 
 
 
Y^*^ 
 
 I've 
 
V 
 
REMARKS 
 
 O N 
 
 Several very important Prophecies* 
 
 IN FIVE PARTS. 
 
REMARKS 
 
 O N 
 
 Several very important Prophecies. 
 
 IN FIVE PARTS. 
 
 I. Remarks on the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, 
 and Sixteenth Verfes of the Seventh Chapter of 
 
 Isaiah, in Anfwer to Dr. W ms's Critical Dif- 
 
 fertation on the fame, as approved and republifhed 
 by the Authors of the Critical Review, 
 
 II. A Diflertation on the Nature and Style of Prophe- 
 tical Writings, Ihewing that abrupt Tranfitions from 
 one Subjeft to another are frequently found therein. 
 The fame being intended to illuftrate the foregoing 
 Remarks. 
 
 III. A Differtation on Ifaiah vii. 8. 
 
 IV. A Differtation on Genefis xlix. lo. 
 
 V. An Anfwer to fome of the principal Arguments 
 
 ufed by Dr. W ms in Defence of his Critical 
 
 Differtation on Ifaiah vii. 13, 14, 15, 16, &c. in 
 which the Opinions of the late Dr. Sykes and Dr. 
 G. Benfon, concerning Accommodations of Scrip- 
 ture-Prophecy, are briefly confidered. 
 
 THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 By GR ANVI LLE ^SH AR P. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for B. WHITE, at H o r a ce's-He ad, 
 
 Fleet-Street. 
 
 M.DCC.LXXV. 
 
REMARKS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Verfes, 
 OF THE 
 
 Seventh Chapter of ISAIAH. 
 
 IN ANSWER TO 
 
 Dr. W Ms's Critical Diflertatlon on the fame. 
 
 As approved and republijhedhy 
 
 The Authors of the Critical Review, 
 
 Part I. 
 
REMARKS 
 
 O M THE 
 
 Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and 
 Sixteenth Verfes of the Seventh Chap- 
 ter of Isaiah, &c. 
 
 «* Hear ye now, O houfe of David, is it a fmall thing 
 ** for you to weary men, but will you weary my 
 <* God alfo ? Therefore the Lord himfelf Ihallgive 
 ** you a fign : Behold, a virgin (hall conceive, and 
 «* bear a fon, and ihall call his name Immanuel. 
 ** Butter and honey Ihall he eat, that he may know 
 '* to refufe the evil and choofe the good. For, be- 
 «* fore the child (hall know to refufe the evil and 
 <* choofe the good, the land that thou abhorrell 
 <* ihall be forfaken of both her kings.'* 
 
 THIS text has in all ages of 
 Chriftianity been efteemed a 
 clear and certain predidion of 
 the m'^aculous birth of Chrift; and there- 
 fore thefe remarks upon it would have 
 been fuperfluous, had not a learned and 
 
 ingenious 
 
[ 8 ] 
 
 ingenious gentleman lately attempted to 
 prove a contrary dodrine (i)-, viz. " 7'haf 
 ^ the Frophet (in this text) had no refe- 
 ' ferencetothe Me£iah{7.):' That ''the 
 * words of Ifaiah prove only that a young 
 ' woman fiould conceive and bring forth a 
 ^ fon, without intimating any thing mira- 
 ' culousin her concept iony' &c. (3) That 
 'from the mojl careful and impartial ex- 
 '- aminatiouy the word'' nti^y (here tran- 
 ' flated a virgin) " doth not appear to fig- 
 ' nfy JlriBly a virgin ;" bat that ** // 
 ' feems to mean a young woman in general ^ 
 ' without fpecifying particularly whether 
 ^ Jhe is a virgin or not (4)." 
 
 This writer is not lingular in his no-^ 
 tions, for the authors of the Critical Re- 
 view have publicly profeffed themfelves 
 of the fame opinion concerning this pro- 
 phecy (fee No. 136, fo. 349.) — " TZv 
 
 *^ mojl 
 
 (i) See Critical Differtation on Ifaiah vii. 13, 14, 
 15, 16. 
 (2) Page 44. (3) P. 21. (4) P. 23. 
 
f 9 ] 
 
 ** mo/l obvious and natural explication (fay 
 
 " they) is this which Dr, W ms (5) 
 
 " has adopted I' &c. 
 
 I do not find that they have objeded 
 to a fingle part of the Doctor's work ; and 
 therefore this public declaration certainly 
 makes them parties to the whole : nay, 
 perhaps I may fay with juftice, that they 
 are more concerned in publifhing thefe 
 notions to the world, even than the ano- 
 nymous author himfelf; for, inftead of 
 giving a fliort extracted account .of the 
 work as ufual, they feem to have copied 
 the whole, almoft at length, fcarcely 
 omitting a fingle circumftance. 
 
 Now I muft acknowledge, in juftlce 
 
 to.Dr. W ms, that I think he has fet 
 
 forth his hypothefis to all the advantage 
 that it is capable of 5 neverlhelefs, he does 
 not make it appear that the word XXQ^"^ 
 
 B in 
 
 (^) The author of a Con^cyrdance to the Greek Tef- 
 tament. 
 
[ 10 ] 
 
 in any other place of the Old Teftament 
 where it occurs, muft necejfarily figmi^^ a 
 young woman that was not a virgin j with- 
 out which proof the common acceptation 
 of the fign promifed by Ifaiah cannot with 
 juftice be rejected ; efpecially as a virgin 
 did afterwards conceive and bear a fon ; 
 a miracle which never happened before 
 or fince the birth of Chrifl ! therefore it 
 was certainly a fign worthy of that great 
 and wonderful event j and, " from that 
 time to this, has by all Chriftians (except 
 the author of the Critical Differtation 
 and the authors ofthe Critical Review) (6) 
 been efteemed the completion of the faid 
 
 prophecy. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 (6) Dr. W ms has fince informed me of one other 
 
 nvriter of the fame opinion concerning this paffage ; 
 (viz. the author of ** The AJfemhlf^ Confejfion of Faith 
 examinedy^^ printed in*i65i ;) but at the fame time he 
 acknowledges that this authority was not known, even 
 to himfelf, until ** federal months after the D:JJeri at ion 
 nvas publijhed :^^ and he declares, concerning his own 
 fentiments of the paffage, that he apprehended them 
 " altogether nenAj'^ when he wrote ; ^* for (fays he) I did 
 " 7:ot then knotM that any Cbrifian ^writer had fo explained 
 
C " ] 
 
 Dr. W ms obferves that the word 
 
 : — »Q^:i? occurs only feven times in all ; 
 and therefore, I hope, it will not take up 
 too much of my readers time, if I at- 
 tempt to examine the context of thefe fe- 
 veral places,, in order to afcertain the true 
 fenfe of the word. 
 
 The text, wherein thefignification of 
 this word is efleemed the moft doubtful, 
 is ia Prov. XXX. 1 9. where Solomon men- 
 tions four things that were too hard for 
 him ; in which number (according to the 
 Englifli tranflation) he includes '^ the way 
 " of a man nvitb a maid^' The fenfe of 
 this paffage is very different according to 
 the Syriac verfion, wherein ,'— ^^^y:i is 
 rendered aiZoa^l^!:^, 171 his youths viz. 
 the way of a man *' in his youih^' and 
 not " ix^ith a inaid^' as in the Englifh 
 verfion. Like wife the Latin vulgate, as 
 well as the old Latin verfion of St. Je- 
 rome, conforms in feme degree to the 
 
 B 2 Syriac, 
 
[ 12 ] 
 
 Syriac, though not intirelyj for they con- 
 ftrue it, in adoJefcentia^ (not, in adolefcen- 
 tia ejus J which is fufficiently clear with- 
 out having recourfe to Dr, Kennicott*s (7) 
 expedient of fuppofing a corruption in 
 the prefent Heb. text to enable him to 
 read ** in his youth -y' as if it had been 
 written originally ^^Q^3?a, 
 
 Neverthelefs, it appears to me that the 
 common Englifli tranflation of this paf- 
 fage is to be preferred, and that the word 
 muft here neceffarily fignify a maid or 
 virgin : for the writer feems to allude to 
 the fecret artifices and allurements ufed 
 by a man in order to feduce a virgin j 
 fuch artifices as are hinted at in Exodus 
 xxii. 16. (— " And if a man entice a 
 maidy' : — i^ina &c.) therefore a word 
 fignifying merely a young woman, or one 
 that was not efteemed a virgin, would 
 not have been fo fuitable to the context 
 
 of 
 
 (7) See his fermon preached before the univerfity of 
 Oxford in 1765. —Note 8, page 46. 
 
[ »3 ] 
 
 of either of thefc paffages. The way of a 
 harlot was too well known in former days 
 (as well as the prefent) to be efteemed a 
 myftery s and much lefs a myftery to So- 
 lomon, whohad ** threefcore qucens,yo^r- 
 ^^fcore concubines^ and virgins without 
 "number." (See Canticles vi. 8.) But it 
 is not at all unnatural to fuppofe that this 
 eaftern monarch, with all his wifdom, 
 might fometimes be perplexed with 
 doubts and jealoufies concerning the vir- 
 tue and private condud: of fome of thofe 
 females (as well virgins as others) with 
 refped: to other men : this, itfeems, was 
 by him efteemed as difficult to be traced 
 as the way of a (hip in the fea, an eagle 
 in the air, &c. By the fin of the adul- 
 terous woman (to which the preceding 
 fimiiies allude as being equally uninvefti- 
 gable) (8) Solomon reprefents the great 
 
 difficulty 
 
 (8) Such is the way of an adulterous woman j fhe 
 cateth and wipeth her mouth, and faith, I have done 
 no wickednefs. Prov, xxx. 20. 
 
[ '4 ] 
 
 difficulty of detecting the inconftancy of 
 any particular perfons in the two former 
 claffes ; I mean his queens and concu- 
 bines; and he would not find it lefs dif- 
 ficult (for fome time at leaft) to trace 
 out the way (or behaviour) of private ad- 
 mirers towards the third clafs of his wo- 
 men, that were efteemed virgins in the 
 eyes of the world. 
 
 In confirmation of this I muft obferve, 
 that the flridlnefs of the law of Mofes 
 rendered the obfervance of fecrecy abfo- 
 lutely neceffary to offenders in this way : 
 for, if a man was found guilty oi /educing 
 a virgin^ (fee Exodus xxii. i6.) he was 
 obliged not only to pay a heavy fine to 
 the young woman's father, and to take 
 her for his wife, but was likewife de- 
 prived of an indulgence, which, of all 
 others, feemed mod agreeable to the li- 
 bidinous difpofition of the Jews at that 
 time; and was allowed them by Mofes 
 
 only 
 
[ '5 ] 
 
 only on account of the hardnefs of their 
 hearts', (fee Matthew xix. 8.) I mean the 
 givi72g a bill of divorce y for, in this cafe, 
 (when a man was obliged to marry one 
 whom he had feduced,) he might not put 
 her away all his days, (SeeDeut.xxii.28.) 
 — A punifliment of greater mortification 
 to the Jews than any other, which the 
 learned Philo (though himfelf a Jew) 
 candidly acknowledges (9). 
 
 This certainly was a fufficient caufe 
 for fecrecy on the man's part ; fo that, 
 whether his way (or behaviour) with a 
 ?naid were really criminal, or only impru- 
 dent, (for either of them may be implied' 
 in the text J he would, as much as pof- 
 fible, conceal it from the world, and 
 render it as uninvefti gable as the other 
 things mentioned in the text to be too 
 wonderful for Solomon ^ at leaft his bed 
 
 endeavours 
 
 fp) Ka« TO 'uTavTwv exejjoig u.r,<ji<ra.TQiy rri» loov yay.xit 
 
 Fcl. 789. Paris Edition, 1640. 
 
[ 16 ] 
 
 endeavours would not be wanting to 
 make it fo. 
 
 Neither can we fuppofe that the fame 
 earned endeavours would be wanting on 
 the young woman's part to conceal her 
 difgrace from her friends as long as (he 
 could. But the reafons for fecrecy are 
 far more obvious in the cafe of efpoufcd 
 virgins ; for, according to the law of Mo- 
 fes, (Deut. xxii. 23, 24.) if a man was 
 bafc enough to feduce one of thefe, an 
 ignominious death was to be the imme- 
 diate and dreadful confequence of a dif- 
 covery 5 when both parties muft fliare 
 the fame wretched fate (10). 
 
 Now, if all that I have faid fhall not be 
 thought fufficient to prove that mQ^ii? 
 in this paflage muft neceflarily fignify a 
 maid or virgin, 1 have neverthelefs the 
 fatisfadion of obferving that the author 
 of the objedions, in page 20, allows it 
 
 to 
 
 (10) Deur."xxii. 25, 24, 
 
r '7 ] 
 
 to be ^* a very obfcure pajjage \' and pro- 
 ieffes to *' lay nojlrejs upon it\^ and, there- 
 fore, I think I may fafely conclude, at 
 Jeaft, that it is incapable of proving any 
 thing againft the true fenfe of the word 
 in the other paflages. 
 
 The fame author obferves, in page 19, 
 that " othtr four places are ahfoliitely un- 
 " certain i" but they appear in a very dif- 
 ferent light to me. 
 
 In the firft of thefe places, (Genefis 
 xxiv. 43.) the word is applied to Rebe* 
 kah before her marriage, who in the 
 fame chapter is faid expreffly to be a i;/r- 
 gin^ (m^^nri) *' neither had any man 
 ** known her J' (See i6th verfe.) 
 
 In the fecond place (Exodus ii. 8.) if 
 
 is applied to Mofes's fifter, who watched 
 
 her infant brother during the time of his 
 
 being expofed in the little ark of bu!- 
 
 ruflies. 
 
 C Now 
 
[ »8 3 
 
 Now, It does not appear that Mofes had 
 any other fitter btfides Miriam the pro- 
 phetefs 5 (fee Numb. xxvi. 59. and Exo-^ 
 dus XV. 20.) and why her chaftity (hould 
 be called in queftion (efpecially fo early 
 in life) I know not ! 
 
 In the third place, (Pfalm Ixviii. 25.) 
 this word with the context expreffes the 
 damfels playing with timbrels in the fo- 
 lemn proceflions of the fanduary ; who, 
 had they been damfels fufpeded of ha- 
 ving " 'wrought folly hi Ifraely' (Deut. 
 xxii. 21.) (li) they, furely, would not 
 have been permitted to join in this divine 
 feryice. 
 
 The laft of thefe four places, which 
 the Doftor thinks ** abfolutely uncertain^' 
 is Canticles i. 3. where the fame word is 
 applied to the virgins that waited on So-. 
 
 lomon's 
 
 (11) — — .<< that ftie die : becaufe Ihe hath ivrought 
 *' folly in Ifraely to play the whore in her father's 
 " houfe: fo fnalt thou pat evil away from among you," 
 
[ 19 ] 
 
 lomon's fpoufe. But this uncertainty is 
 eafily removed by the other paffage in 
 Canticles, (chap. vi. ver. 8.) where the 
 fame word is happily appUed to the fame 
 perfons ; who mud be underftood to be 
 
 virgins, becaufe (as Dr. W ms him- 
 
 felf acknowledges in page 29) (12) they 
 " are dijiinguijlxd from queens and concii-^ 
 " bines y 
 
 This one would fuppofe to be an in- 
 furmountable obftacle to the Do(ftor*s ar- 
 gument J but he paffes very flightly over 
 the difficulty, and contents himfelf with 
 informing us, that " this diftindion .is no 
 « proof at all, becaufe the fame, indeed 
 " ajironger, dijiin^lion is made, Ezek. 
 *' xliv. 22. in favour of r-n^inn." 
 
 C 2 Now, 
 
 (,2) -— ." I (hall here add farther, that r—^Dbj? 
 «* occurs only feven times in ail 5 one of which has 
 " the appearance of " being decifi-ve in the cafe y name- 
 «< ly. Canticles vi. 8. where virgins are dijlinguijhed 
 «* frcm queens and concubines. But this dillinaion is no 
 " proof at all, becaufe the fame, indeed a ftronger, 
 •« diftind'tion, is made, Ezek. xliv. 22, in favour of 
 
[ 2P 3 
 
 Npw, I hope the Dodor will excufe my 
 
 waat of difcernment in not being able to 
 difcover the weight of this reafony agaiaftfo 
 ftrong a proof as the diftindtion in quef- 
 tjon ; becaufe, if m^tna is proved, eyer 
 fo clearly, to fignify ftridtly a virgin^ (ancj 
 ipjj.e^d I know no reafon why any per'* 
 fan fhould <]oubt of it,) y^t it is no argu- 
 ment why the other may not likewifijig-' 
 nify the fame thing ; for the word maid^ 
 by having this fignification in Englifh, 
 does not oblige us to give a different fig- 
 nification to the Englifli word virgin : 
 therefore, I think, I may fafely con- 
 clude, in the Dodors's own words, that 
 this laft text " has the appearance of 
 ^* being decifive in the cafe -,* (fee page 
 29.) and that the word r-nD^3^ can- 
 not fignify a young woman that is not 
 a virgin, becaufe, by the fame word 
 in the plural number, (according to the 
 author's own obfervation,) *^ virgins 
 
 " are 
 
f 21 ] 
 
 ^' are (13) diffinguiflied from queens 
 " and concubines." 
 
 I propofe now to examine whether wc 
 may fafely acquiefce with the author 
 of the Critical Diflertation, fo. 44. and 
 the authors of the Critical Review (N". 
 
 136, 
 
 (13) The ingenious author of the new tranflation of 
 Solomon's Song obferves in his annotations, p. 69, 
 that ** the Jcvvifli maidens before marriage were uader 
 ** fuch flridl confinement, and fo rarely fufFered to ap- 
 " pear in public, that the very name for a virgin in 
 " Hebrew is : — i^^y hiddenr 
 
 This word is well explained by the learned Stockius, 
 p. 820. 
 
 ** ( I ) Qeneratim & 1;/ originis notaf l^tentemJ* 
 
 ** (2) Speciatim («) proprie notat 'virgimm., qu:e do- 
 ** mi latitat & continetur, nee adhuc cura quoquam 
 ** rem habuit, Ita dicitur de Rebecca, nondum 
 ** propalam nuptam edu6la. Gen. xxiv. de Mirjam, 
 ** qua nondum rem cura quoquam habuetat, Ex. ii. 8. 
 ** de puella incorrupta & illibata, ciii Vir infidiatur, 
 " ut eapotiatur, Prov. xxx. 19. de matre Immanuelis 
 ** illibata & concubitus ignara, Jef. vii. f4.'* 
 
 " (^) Mctaphorice njirginum nomine veniunt pit fa,' 
 ** luandiy ad indicandum eorum animi integritatem & 
 " puriiatem, tam in do6lrina & cuhu divino, quam in 
 «* vita & moribus. Cant, i. 3. vi. 8," &c. Chriftiani 
 Stockii Clavis Linguse fandae Veteris Teflamenti vo- 
 cabulorum fignificationes turn generaks i\im/peciales or- 
 dine cencinno exhibens, ^c. 
 
[ 22 ] 
 
 136, fo. 359.) in their opinion, thafr^ 
 Ifaiah, in his prophecy concerning Imma- 
 nuel, in thefeventh chapter, 13th, 14th, 
 15th, and 1 6th verfes^ ^^ bad no reference 
 " fo the MeJJiah:' 
 
 Dr. W ms objeds (in page 9) 
 that the i6th verfe of the feventh chap- 
 ter of Ifaiah " cannot^ in any fenfe^ be 
 *< applied to the MeJJiahJ' The words of 
 this text, according to the Englifli tran- 
 flation, are as follows : " For, before the 
 " child Jhatl know to refufe the evil and 
 " choofe the good, the land that thoa 
 " abhorreft (hall be forfaken of both her 
 " kings/' 
 
 This verfe fcems to be the principal 
 caufe of his objections againft the com- 
 mon interpretation of the two preceding 
 verfes. 
 
 Now, though I do not think, with him, 
 that thefe three verfes mujl^ ofnecejjity^ 
 
 relate 
 
[ 23 ] 
 
 relate to the fame perfon ; yet, I appre- 
 hend, there is a great probability i\\2iitbcy 
 may ; and that the 1 6th verfe may reafon- 
 ably be accounted for, even when appli- 
 ed to the Meffiah. Dr. W ms ap- 
 proves of the meaning given to the word 
 5?P in the i6th verfe by Mr. Mann, (viz. 
 that it may fignify '^ vexeft' inftead of 
 abhorrejl,) ** the land which thou (Ahaz) ' 
 " i;f;c^ with thy idolatry." (See fo. 34.) 
 Thus far he favours the explication 
 which I propofc to give of this paflage ; 
 but then he fuppofes that the land which 
 Ahaz vexed fignifies the land of Judah 
 only, " The Prophet meant to fay, accord - 
 " ing to this author, (fays the Dodlor,) 
 that the land ofjudahy which Ahaz by 
 hijs idolatry and wicked nefs had brought 
 into trouble and difficulty, fliould be 
 delivered from both thefe kings :*\fo. 25-) 
 by which the Dodlor refers to Rej^n king 
 of Syria, and Pekah the fon of Remaliah 
 king of Ifrael, who at that time were con- 
 federate 
 
[ 24 ] 
 
 federate agalnft yW^>&, and ^^ went tip to^ 
 *^ wards Jerufalem to war againji itT See 
 the firft part of the fame chapter. — The 
 Doctor repeats the fame thing in page 
 2^7 — viz. — the land (of Judah) which 
 thou (Ahaz) vexeft, &c. This throws 
 great difficulty upon the text, which in- 
 forms us, that the land which Ahaz vex- 
 ed {hould " be forfaken of both her kings." 
 The conftrudion of the word, rendered 
 " her kingSy' requires us to underftand 
 that both the kings there fpoken of fliould 
 be kings of that land which Ahaz vexed ; 
 yf»3^D \TO " both her kings.'* 
 
 Now, Pekahking of Ifrael c2innoihe un- 
 
 derftood to be one of thefe, if the land, 
 
 which Ahaz vexed, fignified the land of* 
 
 Tudah alone ; for, in what fenfe could he 
 
 be called one of the kings of the land of 
 
 Judah, who was not a conqueror, (for the 
 
 true king flill maintained his royal feaf 
 
 and title,) but a declared enemy and dif- 
 
 turber, and king only ofjfrael? 
 
 Neither 
 
[ 25 ] 
 
 Neither could Relin king of Syria be 
 properly faid to be either king of Judah 
 or Ifracl; for he was only an invader of 
 Judah, ading as an ally to the king of 
 Ifrael. 
 
 Though indeed he had rather more 
 right to be accounted one of the kings oj 
 Juddb than the king of Ifrael had, be- 
 caufe about that time he had taken pof- 
 feffion oi Elatb, a City of Judah : but this 
 could not really intitle him to be called a 
 king of that land, becaufe, from the time 
 that the city was taken, it ceafed to be a 
 part oijudahy and was accounted a part 
 of tne kingdom of Syria \ for it is exprefs- 
 ly faid in 2 Kings ;cvi. 6. that " Refn 
 *' king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria ^ 
 " and drave the Jews from Elath : and 
 *' the Syriam came to Elath, and dwelt 
 
 " there unto this dayT Dr. W ms 
 
 obferves in a note (page 37.) that " Refin 
 
 D '' and 
 
[ 26 ] 
 
 *' and Pekah are, perhaps, here called 
 *^ the kings of Judah, becaufethey were 
 " then in poffeflion of all the country, 
 *' Jerufalem excepted /' but the Dodtor 
 furely did not confider, that Ifaiah was 
 fent to confirm Ahaz, that he fhould not 
 fear " the two tails of thefe fmoking fire- 
 *' brands^' (viz. Refin and the fon of Re- 
 maliah,) and to aflbre him, that their evil 
 council of fitting up a king in ^udah. 
 jhould *' not ft and" — nor — ** come to pafi^ 
 It is not likely, therefore, that the pro- 
 phet fhould call either or both of thefe 
 kings kings of fudah^ becaufe it would 
 have been abfolutely a contradiction to 
 his meflage, which was to encourage and 
 eftabli(h the then reigning king of Judahy 
 defcended from the houfe of David. 
 Even the Dcdlor himfelf feems fo fenfible 
 of the infufficiency of his interpretation, 
 that he afterwards, in the fame note, 
 propofes another expedient, (though a 
 
 dangerous 
 
[ 27 ] 
 
 dangerous (14) one,) in hopes of folving 
 the difficulty ; for the text not being ca- 
 pable of ferving his purpofe as it ftands 
 at prefent, the prophet himfelf muft be 
 Gorredted. 
 
 This is efteemed a much eafier thing, 
 now-a-days, than for a critic to give up 
 a favourite opinion, that happens to be 
 contradidtory to the Holy Scripture. 
 
 <( 
 
 Suppofe (fays the Dodlor) that we 
 " fhould read czb'^o^a for n'^j^n her 
 " kings ? JJoall be forfaken of both kings' 
 —this indeed is cutting the knot, but it 
 
 D 2 will 
 
 (14) " Thuj it happens with thefe facred books as 
 »• with prophane authors, that, when the medica manus 
 •* crittcorum is to perform an operation upon the text, 
 ** it i? often diflocated and maimed, and rendered al- 
 ** moft incurable by improper applications. But, what- 
 ** ever may be done with the hiftoiical books, we have 
 ** no right to indulge any conjectural emendations in 
 " the prophecies : it looks too much like tampering 
 «* with evidence. If they are faulty, they mud even 
 ** remain fo ; and we mull take the evidence as it 
 ** comes to us.'* 
 
 Dr. Gregory Sharpens 2d Argument in Defence 
 of Chriilianity, p. 265. 
 
[ a8 ] 
 
 will not enable the Doftor to come off 
 conqueror, like the Grecian hero. If the 
 omiflion of the word avtTjg in the Sep- 
 tuagint tranflation fliould even be allow- 
 ed to afford fufficient grounds for fuch a 
 fuppofition ; yet " Dn Kennicotfs truly 
 ** important work!' is not likely to fur- 
 nifh various readings from MSS. equal 
 in authority and antiquity with thofe from 
 which Aquila, Symmachus, and Theo- 
 dotion were taken. Thefe were, mani- 
 feftly, according to the prefent Heb. text 
 in this paffage , for it is rendered by all 
 thefe tranflators, tcov Svo Qua-iXeav aDTfjgi 
 of her two kings, or of both her kings. 
 
 The ancient Syriac verfion, likewife, 
 confirms the text ; ousLi^q ^;Z ioth her 
 kings. It would have been time enough 
 to have quoted Dr. Kennicott's various 
 reading, when it was known that any 
 fuch fubfifted— for it is not fair dealing 
 to wound the credit of the holy text with 
 
 a mere 
 
[ 29 ] 
 
 ^ mere ^^ perhapSy* (15) and for no other 
 purpofe (if I may ufc the Dodor's own 
 words) than to ^\ftrengthen a conjee- 
 ** ture.'' In (hort, I would advife the 
 Dodor to let the text remain as he found 
 it; for this unjuftifiable method of folving 
 difficulties is a broken reed, which fel- 
 dom fails to wound the hands of thofe 
 who ufe it. 
 
 Now the difficulty ceafes, if it be ad- 
 mitted that the land 'wkich Aoaz vexed 
 fignified the land or inheritance of tl^e 
 twelve tribes of Ifrael, including Judah ; 
 which conftrudion the circumftances of 
 thofe times will enable it to bear, 
 
 Ahaz had interrupted the facrifices of 
 atonement ufually offered up for all Ifrael 
 in the temple at Jerufalem, which was 
 common to Jews and Ifraelites ; and 
 
 therefore 
 
 (15) ** Dr. Kennicott's truly important work may, 
 *• perhaps y hereafter Jlrengthen this ccnjedure.''* In a 
 note, fo. 37. 
 
r 30 3 
 
 therefore might truly be faid to ^uex the 
 land of Ifrael as well as Judah : for he 
 not only *' facrificed unto the gods of Da^ 
 " mafcusy" (2 Chron. xxviii. 23.) but he 
 " cut in pieces the veffels of the houfe 
 " of God, 2inAJhut up the doors of the 
 •' houfe of the Lord'' (24th Verfe). King 
 Hezekiah (16) (who opened again the 
 doors of the houfe of the Lord, and 
 caufed the prrefts and Levites to cleanfe 
 all the houfe from the abominations 
 of Aha^) was confcious that his fa- 
 ther, by the interruption of divine fer- 
 vice before-mentioned, had 'vexed Ifrael 
 as well as Judah; and therefore made 
 all the amends that lay in his power. He 
 caufed " an atonement to be made ^^ for 
 " all Ifrael:'' for the king " comman- 
 " ded that the burnt-offering and the 
 *' fin-offering (hould be made for all If 
 " raeL' 2 Chron. xxix. 24* 
 
 He 
 
 (16) See 2 Chron. xxix. 
 
[ 3' 1 
 
 He likewife " fent to all Ifrael and 
 *' Judah, and wrote letters alfo to Ephra- 
 im and Manaffeh, that they (hould 
 come to the houfe of the Lord at Je- 
 rufalem, to keep the paffover unto the 
 Lord God of Ifrael'' 2 Chron. xxx. x. 
 And we read, in the nth verfe of the 
 fame chapter, that " divers of Alher and 
 " Manaffeh, and of Zebulun, humbled 
 " themfelves (accordingly) and came 
 •* to Jerufalem ;" and ^' did eat the pajf" 
 *' over.'' (See 18th verfe.) Now, as it 
 appears that the land of all the other Tribes^ 
 as well as the land of judahy was real- 
 ly vexed by the apoftafy of Ahaz, there 
 is reafon to fuppofe that the land of Ln- 
 mamiely mentioned by Ifaiah (vili, 8.) 
 might fignify (not only the land offudaby 
 but) the land of both the houfes of If- 
 rael, ^-^ibiT^:?^ Tin ''.3TI;, mentioned in the 
 1 4th verfe of the fame chapter ; and that 
 the t'wo kings of the land, mentioned in 
 
 ' the 
 
[ 32 ] 
 
 the feventh chapter, may mean the kings, 
 ot feparate regal powers^ of thefe two 
 houfes of Ifrael, which were both to ceafe 
 before the child (Immanuel) Jhould know 
 to refufe the evil and choofe the good. The 
 word ^^D or king, in a figurative way 
 of fpeaking, may very well be under- 
 ftood in feme paflages (not to mean 
 merely the perfon of one particular king, 
 but in a more general fenfe) to fignify a 
 fucce£ion of kingSy or rather the regal con-- 
 flitution of a Jlate ; and the failure of 
 fuch royalty in fome cafes ferves as a dif- 
 tinguifhing mark of conqueft or fubjec- 
 tion to a foreign power. " T^he iingjhall 
 " perififromGaza^andA/hkelonfhalhiot 
 " be inhabited^'' fays the prophet Zecha- 
 riah, (ix. 5.) by which is plainly un- 
 derftood (not the deftruftion of a finglc 
 king, but) the ceafing of the regal go- 
 vernment of the city of Gaza. It is a 
 fynonimous term with the departing of 
 the fceptre : *' The pride of AiTyria fhall 
 
 '' be 
 
T 33 1 
 
 ** be brought down, and the fceptre of 
 *' Egypt (hall depart away/* fays the 
 fame prophet in the nth verfe of the 
 fuccecding chapter. The prophet Hofea, 
 likewife, ufes the word ^^Q in the fame 
 general fcnfe (xi. 5.) tiin li^Mi ^d^Q — 
 " the Aflyrian (or Aflur) fhall be his 
 '" ]fL\ng\" one AJfyri an king only cannot here 
 be meant ; but the fucceflion of kings 
 reigning in Afiyria during the captivity of 
 Jfrael. Therefore, I prefume, there is 
 fome ground for my fuppofition, that Ifai- 
 ah's expreflion in the feventh chapter, 
 n^D^Q ^J'r, may lignify the two feparate 
 regal governments of Judah and Ifrael, 
 (called, in the twenty third chapter of 
 Ezechiel, Aholah and Aholibah,) and 
 not merely two lingle kings. 
 
 When I firft wrote this opinion, and 
 communicated the MS. to Dr. W — ms, I 
 apprehended that the thought was int»rely 
 new s — ib little am I acquainted with the 
 
 E repullic 
 
[ 34 ] 
 republic of letters, for want of leifure and 
 opportunity to read ! I muft therefore 
 acknowledge myfelf obliged to Dr. 
 W— ms for his information, that the 
 learned Mr. Mann, in his differtation De 
 Anno natali Chrifti, " appears to be of 
 *^ the fame opinion,'' I had likewife the 
 fatisfaftion, afterwards, to be informed 
 by another gentleman, (a worthy friend 
 of mine,) that the fame interpretation is 
 recommended in the Univerfal Hiftory, 
 vol. IV, of the Odtavo, p, 154, with the 
 ppte K* 
 
 Now, that the opinion of the learned 
 author may iiciore clearly be underftood, 
 I will fet down at length the whole that 
 he wrote upon the text in queftipn. 
 
 Having mentioned the fubjedt of Ifai- 
 ah'S meffageto Ahaz, he adds — -^' Here 
 *' the king, whether out of refpeft or def- 
 *' pondency and unbelief,—r-refu(ing to afk 
 ;;? the promifed iign, the prophet affured 
 
 ^^ him 
 
[ 35 1 
 *' him from the Lord, that — before that 
 *' time came, a virgia fliould conceive 
 ** and bear a fon, and call his nameHim- 
 " manuel, or God with us ; and fo on." 
 (K). 
 
 Upon this opinion he farther explains 
 himfelf in the followmg note. 
 
 *' (iC) This we take to be a much 
 *' more natural fenfe of that prophecy, 
 ** than to fuppofe, as fome have done, 
 *' that fuch a miraculous child was really 
 « born in Ahaz's time, to aiTure him of 
 " the promifed deliverance; for, as there 
 ^* is not the lead mention of fiich an ex- 
 " traordinary birth, fo neither do we fee 
 "that there was any neceflity for it, in 
 ** order to convince the defponding king^ 
 " who could not be ignorant of that pro- 
 " phecy of Jacob, that the fceptre (hould 
 '* not depart from Judah till Shiloh 
 *' was con>e, much lefs that he was to 
 f' fpring of the lineage of David. But 
 
 F 2 *' what 
 
y 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 cc 
 
 r 36 ] 
 
 what ftaggcred Ahazs faith, and made 
 him fear that the regal power was go- 
 ing to depart from his family, was, 
 that his two enemies had combined to 
 fet a ftranger on his throne. Ail,, 
 therefore, that was wanting, to difpel 
 his prefent fears about it, was for the 
 prophet to aflure him from God, that 
 this Shiloh, promifed to Judah ^nd 
 *^ David, who was to fore-run the total 
 *' excifion of the Jewifli polity, was to be, 
 ** born in a miraculous manner and witl^ 
 " a divine charader, and other remark- 
 " ablecircumftances, fuch as, he mighty 
 *^ be ealily fatisfied, had not as yet hap* 
 ** pened in his kingdom. 
 
 *^ As for that part of the prophecy 
 ** which is commonly urged on the o- 
 " ther fide, namely, " Before ihh'won^- 
 ** derful child fiall know good from evilf 
 " the land which thou abhorreji Jhall be 
 ^^ forfaken of both her kings i We think 
 
 \' that. 
 
■[ 37 ] 
 ♦• that, if it be rightly underflood, it will 
 ** rather confirm our fenfe of the prophe- 
 •* cy, and that the words ought to be 
 " thus rendered. For (or rather, as the 
 " particle chi feems to import here, nay} 
 " before this child can know good from 
 " evil, this land, which thou (not ab- 
 ** horreft, as our verfion renders it, but) 
 ** art fo folicitous about, or giveft up for 
 " loft, fhall be bereaved of both her 
 " kings i by which, we think, ought to 
 " be underftood, not the kings of Syria 
 ** and Ifra^l, for the former could not be 
 ^ called her (Canaan^s) king j and the 
 " latter had but a fhare in it at beft ; iut 
 ** the kings oflfrael and Judah^ as it real- 
 *^* ly was before the coming of the Mef- 
 " fiak" 
 
 In ordier to confirm this opinion, I 
 have annexed to thefe remarks two dif- 
 tindl diflertatioas : one on the prophecy 
 of Ifaiah vii. 8. (~— ." and withia 
 
 " thrcefcore 
 
[ sM 
 
 ** threefcore and five years fhall Ephfaim 
 •^ be broken that it be not a people") ^ 
 and the other on the famous prophecy of 
 Jacob, concerning the fceptreof Judah. 
 
 In the former I fliew, that the regal 
 government of the houfe of Ifrael, as afe- 
 parate ftate from Judah, was put ah end 
 to, not a great many years after Ifaiah's 
 prophecy. 
 
 In the latter (I hope) I have proved 
 that the regal government of the houfe 
 of Judah (I mean only the temporal ot 
 worldly kingdom of Judah) eeafed pre- 
 cifely at the time limited by Ifaiah in the 
 prophecy now before us. So that, I flat- 
 ter myfelf, it will appear^ upon the whole, 
 that the land of Ifrael, including Judah 
 (being the land which Ahaz vexed) was 
 forfaken of " both her kings ^'^ or regal 
 governments, before the child Immanuel 
 could " know to refitfe the evil andchoofi 
 ** the good^\ 
 
 For^ 
 
I 39 ] 
 
 For, Herod the Great, on a careful 
 examination, (I believe) will be found to 
 have been the laft king oi the ivholeland 
 oi Ifracl afid Judahy which Ahaz vexed ; 
 and it is remarkable, that Chrift, the 
 true Immanuel, was a yoting child in the 
 arfjis of his mother at the time of this mo- 
 narch's death ; foon after which, Jofeph, 
 the hufband of the blefTed virgin, was 
 warnfed by an angel of the Lord in Egypt, 
 faying, " Arife, and take the young 
 *' CHILD and his mother, and go into 
 •^ the land of Ifrael,'* (not the land of 
 Judab only,) " for they are dead which 
 ^* fought thepz^ff^ffoV^'s life." Mat.ii.ao. 
 
 But Dr W — ms in a note (page 32) 
 obferves, that the child Immanuel ** could 
 *■ not be Chrijl^ becaufe he is never called 
 " the king of Judah,'* And he thinks 
 that Nathaniel, when he called him the 
 king of Ifraely " /^/^^zyrf^ under the fame 
 ^' miftake with all his countrymen, who 
 
 " cxpeded 
 
XX 
 
 t 40 ] 
 
 expcfted a temporal Meffiah/' The 
 Dodor obferves, in the fame note, that 
 ** Chriji is king of the whak earth j" 
 which hefeems to affign as a reafon why 
 *' he is never called the king ofjudah*'' 
 
 And indeed it does not appear that the 
 Dodor had any other foundation for hi$ 
 cenfure of Nathaniel ; though this argu- 
 ment is fo far from being conclufive in 
 favour of the Dofto/s opinion, that it 
 rather proves the contrary ^ for he that is 
 king oUhe whole earth muft neceflarily, in 
 a general fenfe, be king of Ifrael and Ju- 
 dah -y thefe titles being moft certainly 
 included in the former, even fuppofing 
 the peculiar fceptre of each kingdom to be 
 departed. 
 
 Neverdielefs, the argument (fuchasit 
 is) is admitted and approved by the Cri- 
 tical Reviewers ! for they quote the Doc^ 
 tor's words at length, (fee N'* 136, fo.. 
 ,756.) without offering any thing to jufti- 
 
r 41 ] 
 
 fy Nathaniel from the charge of labouring 
 under a viijlake. 
 
 It (hall therefore be my bufinefs to 
 prove, that the miftake does not rejl with 
 Nathaniel. 
 
 Chrift is, in a peculiar manner, eternal 
 king of Judah and Ifrael, as well as king 
 of the whole earth, and heir of all things^ 
 (Heb. i. 2.) The angel Gabriel teftifi- 
 ed that Chrift ihould reign over the hoiife 
 of Jacob (which is Ifrael) forever. See 
 St. Luke i. 32. And the wife men of 
 the Eaft went to ferufakm and inquired, 
 ^' Where is he that is born ki?7g of the 
 <« yews? for we have fee n hisftar in 
 " the Eaft, and come*' (that is, to Jeru- 
 falem, the capital of his kingdom) '' to 
 ** worjfnp himy See Matth. ii. i, 2. 
 Therefore the Dodor's objedion, that the 
 child Immanuel could not be Chrift he- 
 caufe be is never called the king off udah^ 
 feems to be intirely groundlcfs -, for, the 
 
 F dominion 
 
[ 4^ ] 
 
 dominion of the land of Inimanuel (men-f 
 tioned in the eighth chapter of Ifaiah) 
 may moft certainly be attributed with 
 more propriety to the Meffiah, who was 
 king and Jhepherd of Ifrael^ (fee Ezek. 
 xxxvii. 24. alfo xxxiv. 23, 24.) than to 
 any fon of Ifaiah whatever. 
 
 Dr. W — ms may, perhaps, fuppofe^ 
 that the kingdoms of Ifrael and Judab 
 could not belong to Chrift, becaufe he 
 refufed to accept of any temporal govern- 
 ment, and withdrew himfelf when he 
 perceived that the people would come, 
 ^nd take him by force to make him a king y 
 (fee John vi, 15.) and farther, becaufe 
 he even declared that his kingdom was 
 - BOt of this world. See chap, xviii, 36. 
 But all this feems to relate only to the 
 manner cf his government, which, in 
 general, was merely fpiritual. He was 
 neverthelefs king of Ifraely Being fent in a 
 particular manner to the loft fheep of the 
 
 houfe 
 
[ 43 ] 
 houfe of Ifrael ; (fee Matth. xv. 24.) 
 and, for a time, Jerufaletn was the feat 
 of his kingdoniy when he went up to the 
 feaft ; and a very great multitude fpread 
 their garments in the way, (a greater mark 
 of fubmiffion than is ever paid to temporal 
 princes,) and others cut down branthes 
 from the trees, and ftrawed them in the 
 way, (fee Matth. xxi. 8.) and cried, 
 Hofiinnay Bleffed is the Icing of Israel, 
 that cometh in the name of the Lord. 
 John xii. 13. 
 
 Chrift did not tell the multitude that 
 they " laboured under a miftake' in cal- 
 ling him KING OF Israel ; on the con- 
 trary, it appears that he approved of the 
 voice of the people ; which could not 
 hive been the cafe, had he not been really 
 king of Ifrael: for, when the Pharifees faid 
 unto him, Mafter, rebuke thy difciples, 
 he anfwered and faid unto them, ** I tell 
 " you, that if thefe fliould hold their 
 
 F 2 '' peacey 
 
[ 44 ] 
 
 *^ peacCy the Jiones would immediately cry 
 *' out" Lukexix. 38,39, 40. Thus 
 was the Meffiah not only " called^' hut 
 proclaimed^ king of Ijrael\ and asfuch he 
 received the homage of his people ; yet, 
 in fuch a manner, as heft fuited the facred 
 chara(5lerof him, who h^idreje^eda world- 
 ly kingdom : for, inftead of royal apparel 
 and a triumphal car, he was *' cloathed 
 with humility^' and fitting on s.n afs, that 
 the prophecy of Zechariah might be lite- 
 rally fulfilled. 
 
 " Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; 
 *^ fhout, O daughter of Jerufalem : be- 
 " hold, THY KING Cometh unto thee : 
 *' he is juft, and having falvation, lowly^ 
 ^' and riding upon an afs, and upon a colt 
 " the foal of an afs/' (Zech. ix. 9.) 
 But, though Chrift profefl^ed that his 
 kingdom was not of this world, yet there 
 was no worldly man hardy enough to re- 
 f|ft or oppofe his will, when he was 
 
 pleafed 
 
J 45 ] 
 
 pjeafed to exert his divine authority over 
 them i for, " he caft out them that fold 
 " and bought in the temple, and over- 
 *' threw the tables of the money-changers, 
 " and the feats of them that fold doves ; 
 " and would not fiiffer that any man fhould 
 ** carry any veiTel through the temple." 
 Mark xi. 15, 16. 
 
 And St. John Informs us (chap, ii. 
 1 5.) that he made a fcourge of fmall cords, 
 and drove them all (all fuch as are above 
 mentioned) out of the temple. 
 
 Of all the extraordinary things which 
 Chrift did, St. Jerome thought this to be 
 the mod wonderful, as Mr. Bragge re- 
 marks in his Practical Obfervations upon 
 the Miracles. This perfonal authority and 
 dominion of Chrift /« Ifrael was expreiTiy 
 foretold by the prophet Micah, (ch. v. 2.) 
 " But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though 
 " thou be little among the thoufands of 
 ?' Judah, yet out of thee fhall he come 
 
 " forth 
 
[ 46 ] 
 
 ^^ forth unto me, that is to be ruler in 
 ''^' Israel j whofe goings forth have been 
 ** from of old (17) from everlafting.'* I 
 never read any paffage of Scripture which 
 was capable of affording the leaft counte- 
 nance or fupport to the contrary do(5trine, 
 that Chriji was net the king of IfraeL In- 
 deed, the enemies and perfecutors of our 
 Lord, at the time of his crucifixion, expreff- 
 ed their difbelief of his being king of Ifra- 
 el (18), becaufe they did not think him 
 to be the true anointed, or Mefiiah. Ne^ 
 verthelefs, when the feveral extraordinary 
 and miraculous circumftances, relating to 
 the birth, life, death, and perfecution, of 
 that mod holy perfon (Jefusof Nazareth) 
 are candidly examined and carefully com- 
 pared 
 
 (17) *' In the beginning was the Word, and the 
 <* Wotd was with God, and the Word was God. The 
 « fame was in the beginning with God." John i. i. 
 
 (18) " If he be the king ofJ/rael, (faid they,) let him 
 «* now come down from the crofs, and we will believe 
 ** him.'* Matth. xxvii. 42. , 
 
[ 47 ] 
 pared with the prophetical declaratiorrs 
 concerning the promifed MefGah, it ma^. 
 nifeflly appears, that there were very 
 fufficient reafons for acknowledging that 
 perfon to be both Lord a?id Chrijl (19) ; 
 and confequently *^ king oflfraely* in the 
 flrideft fenfe, net only during his bodily 
 refidence on earth, but to all eternity. 
 
 Wherefore, 
 
 (19) *^' Therefore let all tiie house of I/rael knew 
 « afluredly, that God bath made that fame Jefns ^hom 
 ** ye hwve crucified both Lord and ChriJlJ''* Adls ii. %is, 
 
 <* And the angel faid unto them, (the fhepherds,) 
 " Fear not : for, behold, I bring unto you good tidings 
 " of-greatjoy, which fhall be to all people. For, un- 
 «< to you is born this day, in the city gf Du'vidj afavi- 
 *^* our, 'which is Chriji the Lord. ^* Luke ii. lo, n. 
 
 «« The Word which God fent unto t\it children of I/- 
 ** raeh preaching peace by Jefus Chrifi^ (heiitordoii 
 " all)." Ads X. 36. 
 
 ** — But we fpeak the wifdom of God in a myftery, 
 ** (even) the hidden (wifdom) which God or4aine4 
 ** before the world unto our glory, Whict none of 
 ** the princes of this world knew ; for had they known 
 "^ (it) they would not have crucified the Lord of glory,** 
 I Corinth, ii. 7. 8. 
 
 " — That every tongue fliould cQnfefs that Jefus Qhrijf 
 " is Lord, to the glory of God the father." Philip, 
 ii. II. 
 
[ 48 ] 
 
 Wherefore, we ought mod certainly to' 
 acquit Nathaniel, and other faithful Ifra- 
 elites, of the mijiake which they have 
 lately been fuppofed to " labour under y' 
 when they declared our Lord Jefus Chrift 
 to be " the king of Ifrael^ (John i> 
 49- xii. 13.) 
 
 Thus far have I ventured to fuggeft, 
 
 in anfwer to Dr. W ms's declaration 
 
 in page 9, that " the 26th verfe*' 
 
 (of the feventh chap, of Ifalah) " can^. 
 *' not in anyfenfe be applied to the MeJJiah :\ 
 I hope I have proved that it may 5 never- 
 thelefs I muft obferve, that even the com- 
 mon interpretation of this paflage is not 
 
 fo unreafonable as Dr. W ms feems 
 
 to imagine 5 though, indeed, the inter- 
 pretation before given appears to be 
 much lefs liable to exception. 
 
 The Doftor animadverts very fcverely 
 on the opinion of thofe, who fay, that 
 the paflage contains two diftindt prophe- 
 cies ^ 
 
t 49 ] 
 ties ; — viz. that the verfes 14 and 15 re- 
 late to Chrill, but the 16th to ifaiah'3 
 Ion. " Is not this (fays he) very unna^ 
 ** turalf and^ if I am 7iot mijlakeuy very 
 *^ iinuJualT' 
 
 But the authors of the old commentary 
 on the Bible, commonly called Affcmblies 
 Annotations, were of a very different o- 
 pinion. 
 
 They obferve, on this very text, that 
 *' it is an ufual thing in Scripture, with 
 " our prophet Ifaiah efpecially, by way 
 ** of allufion, to apply the fame words 
 " and phrafes unto divers fubjedts, where 
 *' occalion is to fpeak of them together :'* 
 and therefore they were of opinion, that 
 the child mentioned in the i6:h verfewas 
 " no other, in all likelihood, than 
 " Shearjafliub, the prophet's child, 
 •' whom, to this purpofe, God hath 
 ^ commanded him to take along with 
 
 G - him/* 
 
[ so ] 
 
 ** him." How far this was an ufual 
 thing with Ifaiah, may be {ecn even in 
 prophecies which were delivered on the 
 fame occafion as the text in queftion. 
 
 For the farther illuftrationof this point, 
 I have added to my book a (hort differtati- 
 on on the nature and ftyle of prophetical 
 writings, (hewing, that abrupt tranfitions 
 from one fubje(5t to another are frequently 
 found therein 5 and that the Holy Scrip- 
 tures afford many examples of prophecies, 
 w^hich are blended and interwoven with 
 other fubjedls that are intirely different, 
 both as to the matter and the time of ac- 
 complifliment. 
 
 We mud not exped to find all prophe- 
 cies unattended with difficulties : never- 
 thelefs, there are no difficulties in the fe- 
 venth chapter of Ifaiah fo great as thofe, 
 that are bccafioned by Dr. W ms's in- 
 terpretation of it. " This prophecy" (fays 
 
 he,) 
 
[ 51 3 
 
 he,) " as I take it, relates to one perfon 
 << only^ and that was the fon of a young 
 " woman then prefent \ which fon was af- 
 " terwards to be born." See page 4. 
 
 Now I may afk, with Origen, (20) 
 contra Celfum, pag. 28, Cambridge edi- 
 tion, 1677,) — '' Who was born in the 
 " time of Ahaz, of whofe birth this is 
 *' faid, — Emanuel? //j^/i, God with 
 " us. For, if no one is found, it isma- 
 " nifeft, that what was faid of Ahaz 
 was addrclTed to the houfe of David, 
 according to that which is written : — 
 r^/-. — of iht feed of David a Saviour is 
 born according to the flejl^.'' 
 
 cc 
 <c 
 
 Indeed, we read, in the eighth chap- 
 ter/ of a fon, which the prophetefs con- 
 
 G 2 ceived 
 
 (20) *< A7ra;Trcro/x£v x.ara ra? X^ovy? t« A;(;afT»? lyivmai^.y 
 <* £(p' a T>) yEKHCTEi 'hiyira.i to, E/x/xavtf^^, o er* MeQ rJ^wc o 
 ** ©Eo; ; Et yot,^ ahiq £y§£^»3cr£Tat, oTtKov on to ru A^a? "^'J" 
 " HAEvor, T&; oixw H§>jTai Ax^jo% oia to £z crTrep^aT*^ A«|2i^ 
 
[ 5^ J^ 
 
 ceived and bare unto Ifaiah ; and like- 
 wife, that Ifaiah was careful to take unto 
 
 him FAITHFUL WITNESSES TO RECORD 
 
 concerning him : " For, (faid he,) be- 
 ** fore the child fhall have knowledge to 
 ** cry, My father and my mother, (which 
 ^^ mufl be within two years,) the riches 
 " of Damascus and the spoil of Sa- 
 *^ MARIA fhall be taken away before the 
 " king of Afiyria." Therefore, this 
 child was certainly the temporary 
 SIGN of the promifed deliverance from 
 the two powers of Damascus and Sa- 
 ?>f ARIA : but, unfortunately for Dr. 
 W ms's hypothefis, the faid child was 
 
 NOT CALLED ImMANUEL, but MaHER- 
 SHALAL-HASH-BAZ ^ T^ "^Vi ^Vi^ iTiU 
 
 properly fignifying and prefiguring the 
 near approach of the fpoiling of Damafus 
 and Samaria, Now, we do not read of 
 any other child, born at that time as a 
 fign 5 and therefore Dr. W- — - — ms's 
 opinion, concerning Immanuel, is not 
 
 only 
 
[ 53 ] 
 only 2ijnere fuppojitiofiy but a very impro- 
 bable one J fince it is not at all likely 
 that TWO CHILDREN wcre then born, 
 one Maber-JJ^alal'haJh'baZy and the other 
 Immanuel^ and both of them intended as 
 
 MERE TEMPORARY SIGNS OF THE 
 SAME THING. 
 
 The Dodtor will find, on a farther 
 examination of the text, that the birth of 
 Ifaiah's fon is only an allujioriy or itnper^ 
 'fe^ imitation^ of the former remote 
 SIGN, mentioned i» the feventh chapter, 
 (*z?/2;. of Immanuel's birth,) in the fame 
 manner as the brazen Jerpent (21), lifted 
 
 up 
 
 (21) " And the Lord faid unto Mofes, Make thee 
 ^* a fiery ferpent, and fet it upon a pole ; and it fhall 
 •* come to pafs, that every one that is bitten, when 
 ** he looketh upon it, mail live. And Mofes made a 
 ** ferpent of brafs, and put it upon a pole ; and it came 
 ** to pafs, that if a ferpent had bitten any man, when 
 " he beheld the ferpent of brafsy he lived." Numb. 
 xxi. 8, 9. — «* And as Mofes lifted up the serpent 
 ** in the wildernefs, even fo muft the son of man 
 •* BE LIFTED UP; that whofocvcf bcHeveth in hjm 
 f* SHOULD NOT PERISH, but havc eternal life." John 
 
 iii. 
 
[ 54 3 
 
 Zip in the wildernefs, was an imperfed: 
 imitation, or type, of Chrift crucified ; 
 and that the temporary deliverance 
 from the tw9 kings (of which the birth of 
 Ifaiah's fon was the temporary sign) 
 cannot rightly be confidered as the ac- 
 complifhment of the prophecy, but rather 
 as a confirmation and fare pledge of the 
 faid remote sign, as I have before ob- 
 ferved. 
 
 " Biity when the fulness of timet 
 ** was comey' the angel Gabriel was fent 
 from God to Nazareth, with a farther 
 revelation of the then approaching 
 sign of the redemption promifed by 
 Ifaiah. 
 
 The hlejjed ^virgin anfwered, (Luke i. 
 34.) *' How fid all this he^ feeing I know 
 ** not a manV 
 
 That 
 
 ail. 14, 15. — See Mr. Cruden's excellent remarks on 
 thefe texts, under the word SERPENT, in his Con- 
 ccadance. 
 
[ 55 1 
 
 That " a woman JJjouid compafs a man^ 
 (viz. conceive and bear a fon with- 
 out the knowledge of man) was an 
 event fcarcely to be expelled or compre- 
 hended by man j it being the neii; thing 
 which God had created in the earth, fpo- 
 kcn of by the prophet Jeremiah xxxi. 
 22. (22) So that it was plainly ihc feed 
 cf tke iDoman which bruifed the ferpent's 
 head, as promifed in Genefis iii. 15. (23). 
 
 The occanon of Ifaiah's prophecy, 
 concerning the miraculous birth of Im- 
 manuel, is mentioned in the beginning of 
 the feventh chapter. — " Becaufe Syria, 
 '' Ephraim, and the fon of Remaliah, 
 
 " have 
 
 (22) " How long wilt thou go about, O thou back- 
 " Aiding daughter? (the virgin of Ifrael) : for the 
 ** Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, a 
 *' WOMAN (hall COMPASS A MAN." Jcrem. xxxi. 22. 
 
 (23) "And I will put enmity between thee and the 
 ** woman, and between thy feed and her. seed : ir 
 *' SHALL BRUISE THY HEAD, and tliou flialt bfuife 
 *» his heel." Gen. iii. 15. 
 
t 56 1 
 
 " have taken evil counfel againft thee, 
 " (Ahaz,) faying, Let us go up againft 
 ** Judah, and vex it; and let us make a 
 " breach therein for us, and fet a king 
 *' IN THE MIDST OF IT, even the fon 
 « of Tabeal." But " thus faith the Lord 
 ' " God, Itjhall not Jlandy neither Jhall it 
 *' cometopafs.* 
 
 Now, this was a confirmation of the 
 promife made by God to David, and de- 
 livered by Nathan the prophet, (2 Sam. 
 vii. 16.) viz, *' Thine houfe and thy king- 
 *' dom (hall be eftablifhed for ever before 
 " thee: thy throne fhall be eftabliih- 
 <^ edfor EVER.'* 
 
 ' Therefore, as Juftin Martyr obferves 
 (24), if the prophecy, " Behold^ a vir^ 
 
 " zin 
 
 (24) Kccya t^fiVt w Tfv(puvf £( f/i^iv xect rnv 7rpo^»jTE»a/,- 
 
 iv yarft ^rj-vj/ETa*, uT^'Ku 'crpoj EXfipov oixov rw* Quasy.a. (pvXup, 
 lauq uv wTTopiav Etp^f to 'STpcAyfAO.' ETrnovi dV ;£at ayrij vi 'nrpo^Ti- 
 TBioc "Z^cog Tov oiKov Aatet^ £tp>)Ta», to tifri^.ivov '^po; AatiJ^ ^tto; 
 Geou EV /x.yr'^p'^) ^»a Hcrata w? E/A£^?^£ yjjEir^ai t^nyri^ri. Juf- 
 
 tini Dialogus cum Tryphone Judseo, pag, 293, Paris 
 Edition, 1636. 
 
C 57 ] 
 
 *' ginJJjall conceive i'' had not been fpo- 
 ken to the houfe of David, but to any 
 Other houfe of the twelve tribes, the af- 
 fair might have been doubtful j but the 
 fign was really given to the house of 
 David j (fee 13th verfe — " Hear ye 
 " now, O houfe of David j") and, as 
 no man was ever born of a virgin except 
 the Messiah, who, on account of this 
 birth, was called the Son of David, 
 therefore, jt; was furely the propereft 
 fign that could be given, to affure them 
 that the houfe and the kingdom of Da- 
 yiY^fhouli be ejlablifhed for every and that 
 the evil counfel of Syria and Ephraim 
 fliould not ftand. The houfe and the 
 kingdom of David cannot be eftabliflied 
 FOR EVER, in the perfon of any of Da- 
 vidV defendants, except the Mefliah 
 himfelfj for (with refpedl to the prefent 
 times) the worldly kingdom of David 
 ceafed very many ages ago, and his peo- 
 ple, the children of Ifrael, being moft 
 
 H defervedly 
 
[ 58 1 
 
 defervedly ejeded (on account 6f their 
 wickednefs and unbelief) from their old 
 inheritance, the land of Canaan, have 
 never fince obtained any other as a pof- 
 feflion, but, for near feventeen hundred 
 years, have been difperfed throughout 
 the whole v^orld : and yet, by the mani- 
 fcft providence (25) of God, they remain, 
 to this day, in the midji of all nations y 2l 
 diJiinB and peculiar people \ fo that their 
 prefent ftate is an authentic and undeni- 
 able voucher of the truth of the Holy 
 Scriptures (26), and themfelves a living 
 
 teftimony 
 
 (25) See bifhop Newton's Diflertation on the Pro- 
 phecies, iftvol. p, 215 to 238, where that learned au- 
 thor treats very fully and pathetically concerning the 
 remarkable providence of God in the prefervation of 
 the Jews. 
 
 (26) ** What is occafionally faid, by Mofes and 
 *' other prophets, concerning the future ftate of God's 
 «* people, the Jews, is, alone, fufficient to eftablifh 
 ** the divine authority of the holy writings. The pro- 
 ** mifes made to them are literally fulfilled, the ven- 
 <* geance denounced againll them is literally inflided. 
 ** Captives they were frequently made; wanderers 
 ♦< they becai^e ; and fucji they continue to be at this 
 
 ** day. 
 
i 5<) ] 
 
 teftimony of God's juft judgement^ wbic^ 
 theyjiiil lie under ^ until they JJmU repent. 
 
 But Chrifl's fpiritiial kingdom of Jfracly 
 into which we are adopted, is everlafting; 
 and the prophet Ifaiah gave Ahaz, and 
 his cotemporaries of the hoiife of David^ 
 the ftrongeft aflurances that it fhould be 
 fo. — " Of the increafe of hi i government 
 " and peace'' (fays he, in the ninth chap- 
 ter, which I have already (hewn to have 
 been delivered nearly at the fame time 
 with the feventh chapter) " there Jhall 
 " ^^ NO END, upon the throne of David ^ 
 " aftd upon his kingdom^ to order ity and to 
 " ejiablijh it with judgement and with juf 
 " tice^ from henceforth even for ever t 
 
 H 2 " the 
 
 ^* dayj fojburning In the midft of all nations, united 
 ** with none ; peculiars every where, and by no hu- 
 ** roan means to be again confolldated : nuhich is altO" 
 ** gether as ^wonderful as if the njcaters of any one parti' 
 ** cular ri'ver Jhould remain in diJiinSi globules, though 
 " fcattertd through the nxshole ocean, ^^ Dr. Gregory 
 Sharpe's 2d Argument in Defence of Chriftianity, ^r. 
 pag. 4and5. 
 
*' the zeal of the Lord of hofts will per- 
 ** form this/' 
 
 In page 37, Dr. W ms faySy 
 
 *^ The laft objedion which I know, that 
 " can be made to my fenfe of the paf- 
 
 fage, is, that it is utterly inconfiftent 
 
 with the words of St. Matthew, chap, 
 
 i. 22, 23." 
 
 Here I muft intirely agree with the 
 Dr. though I am not the better fatisfied 
 with his hypothelis* 
 
 Now, that we may thoroughly under- 
 fland the text in queftion, it will be ne- 
 ceflary to confider St. Matthew's appli- 
 cation of it. 
 
 He informs us, that " the birth of 
 ** Jefus Chrift was on this wife : When, 
 " as his mother Mary was efpoufed to 
 V Joftph> before they came together, 
 
 « flic 
 
r 6t ] 
 
 " fliewas found with chiU of ' the IMf 
 " Ghoji, then Jofeph, her hufbarid, be- 
 " ing ajuft man, and not willing to make 
 " her a public example, was minded to 
 *^ put her away privily. But, while lie 
 " thought on thefe things, behold, the 
 ** angel of the Lord appeared unto him in 
 " a dream, faying, Jofeph, thou son 
 " OF -David, fear not to take unto thee 
 " Mary, thy wife ; for that 'which is con- 
 " ceivedin her is of the Holy Ghost: 
 " and (he fhall bring forth a fon, and 
 " thou fhalt call his name Jefus, (j^Vv:;^) : 
 " for he fhall Jave his people from their 
 *' fins. Now ALL mis^was done^ that 
 " it might be fulfilled wLich was 
 ** fpoken of the Lord by the pro- 
 " phet, faying. Behold, a virgin (hali 
 " be with child, and fhall bring forth a 
 '^ fon, and they fliall call his name Em- 
 *' MANUEL, which, being interpreted, is, 
 
 '' God with us:' Now, Dr. W ms 
 
 hopes to excufe himfelf and his hypothe- 
 
r 62 ]; 
 
 fis by alledging, (fee page 40,) that thb 
 is only ^' ^/^ accommodation (by way of i/^ 
 " lujlration^ not proof) of a pafTage ta 
 " a particular fenfe, to which it origin 
 " nally bad no referenced 
 
 But fhould we not feem to pay very 
 little regard to Gofpel teftimony, (I now 
 fpeak as to Chriftians,) if we were to 
 fuppofe, that the prophecy originally had 
 no reference to this event, when an apof- 
 tle expreffly affirmi that it had ? 
 
 Might not Dr. Doddridge's obferva- 
 tion (quoted in page 38 of the Crit. ^ 
 Differt.) be then, with more juftice, 
 urged againft us ? i;/^?. " This way of 
 " proceeding will make the Scriptures 
 ^' the moft uncertain writings in the 
 <' world." But now let us fee how this 
 notion of an accommodation will fuit with 
 the reft of the Doftor's hypothefis. 
 
 He 
 
-C 63 ] 
 
 He fays,- (page 44,) '* I think that 
 S\ the prophet had no reference to the Mef- 
 f^ Jiaby sind that the evangelift. only al- 
 ii Judes to this paffage in'Ifaiah, becaufe 
 ,"."it was remarkably fiiitable to the matter 
 **' which he was relating." -Now the Dr. 
 fcems to have forgot his former opinion^ 
 in page 23, vi^^. *' that the word niZ^'^ 
 f* doth not appear to f^gnify JlriSlly a 
 "" virgin,'' -^d fc^^ 
 
 For, if this were true, that nD^j; doth 
 not fignify a virgin, in what fenfe could 
 the text be efteemed remarkably fuit able 
 to the miraculous conception of a virgin 
 by the Holy Ghpst ? And in what man- 
 ner could the accommodation of it to that 
 fnguhr event affift the facred hiflorian 
 ** BY WAY OF illustration"? (See 
 page 40.) 
 
 Nay, the Dodor has even taken great 
 pains to render the text remarkably 
 
 UN- 
 
[ 64 ] 
 
 unsuitable! for he would have us 
 underftand that na>5?n the young wo- 
 man, (as he conftrues it,) fpoken of in 
 the to.xty.'wz^yio far from being, a virqin 
 that (he was with child (^* is cokcei- 
 i*'ViNG and BEARING a SON," fays^Jie, 
 in page 37) evea at the time when fhe 
 was pointed at (as he fuppofes, in page 
 31) by the prophet. Tbefe words (vix. 
 ^. IS CQNCEjvjNG and bearing a son'') 
 are a part of what he has given us, in 
 page 37, as a ^' literal tranjlation of the 
 w- original';*'' but it is fo far' from being fo, 
 that the -tr lie fenfe oi the Utter, ortd)fti 
 feems to t^e exchanged'fof that of the iri-^ 
 terlineary VerfibA of th^ London Polyglot, 
 which rendeirs it " pragnans & pai^iensT 
 
 But the words mi^^l n*in are not 
 participles ^<£live, but are in the perfedl 
 tenfe j yet there needs no apology for the 
 Septuagint and other tranflations in ren- 
 dering them as if they were of the future 
 
 lienie, 
 
t 65 ] 
 
 tenfe, becaiife the fenteiice, to which 
 they belong, is plainly the prediction of 
 2ifutU7'et\tnt (27) : for, in prophetical 
 writings, the perfed: is frequently ufed 
 for thfe .future tenfe. *' Apud prophetas 
 *' autem creberrime (prasteritum) prof 
 *' futuro ufurpatur, quo res certo futura 
 *' fignifficetury perinde ac ii jam evenif- 
 " fet : ut puer t^n natus eft nobis, • pro 
 " nafcetur." Bythner. Inftitutio Lin- 
 gua' Sanclae, p. 10. Dr. W— — -ms's 
 literal tranjlation (as he calls it) of the 
 perj?^ tcnk into tht part lap le adlive can- 
 not (I believe) be fo eaiily vindicated. 
 
 Would it not be very unnatural to fup- 
 pofCj that the prophets have been intirely 
 filent concerning this moft remarkable 
 fignofthe Mefliah, (viz. his being born 
 
 I OF 
 
 (27) — ** It is a well known obfervation, of the 
 ** Chriftian and Jewifh dodloi's, that the prophet, fee- 
 ** ing in his mind's eye the events he foretels, often 
 ** fpeaks of them as already paft." Dr. Sharpe's zd 
 Argument in Defmce of Qhrifllanity, p. 309. — In a note. 
 
[ 66 ] 
 
 OF A VIRGIN,) infomuch, that an evan- 
 gelift ftiould be obliged to accommo- 
 date, to i\i\% Jingular circumjlancey a 
 paffage, which, originally, had " no re- 
 " fere?2ce to the Messiah ?" And that 
 he fhould attempt to pafs fuch a mere 
 ACCOMMODATION upon the world for 
 the genuine fenfe of the prophet, by fig- 
 nifying, in the ftrongeft terms, that this 
 text was fulfilled by the circumftances 
 which he there relates ? 
 
 The evangelift thus expreffeshimfelf: 
 
 " Now, ALL THIS WAS DONE, that iC 
 
 *' might bejulfilled which was fpoken of 
 " the Lord by the prophet," Gf^. tmto 
 
 ce oXov yBiovsv iva. 'srXvjpcoOTj to o'^Gev vtto th 
 ycvpiii Sid m 'srpo(p7irii Xsyovrogy &c. Which 
 implies, that, if all this had not come 
 to pafs, the word of t be Lord, by the pro^ 
 phef, would not have been fulfilled: there- 
 fore, this cafe is by no means fimilar to 
 the inftances of ACCOMMODATION drawn 
 
 from 
 
[ 67 ] 
 
 from the Grecian poets (28), in 
 page 41. 
 
 But-why fliould any one attempt, now- 
 a-days, to explain away the genuine 
 meaning of a prophecy, fo iitcrally fulfilled 
 by the miraculous birth of Chrift, when 
 even the yewijh interpreters, near 300 
 years (i. e, according to the Chronicon 
 of Eufebius, 279 years) before that won- 
 derful event, had conftrued the fame 
 prophecy in fuch a manner, that it could 
 not poflibly be applied to any perfon 
 whatfoever except the promifed Mefliah, 
 
 who ALONE WAS BORN OF A VIRGIN ? 
 
 This teftimony of the Septuagint was 
 taken notice of by Origen, (contra Cel- 
 
 I 2 fum 
 
 (28) The learned author, whom Dr. W-. m$ 
 
 has quoted in page 41, has made a very neceiTary re- 
 ferve on t)iis head, which the Doftor has omitied in 
 his quotation : 'vi^* *' But, indeed, to an attentive 
 *' mind, the difference will appear very great between 
 " the citations from prophane authors and the pro- 
 ** phets." 
 
[ 68 ] 
 
 fqm (29), p. 27,) and is certainly of 
 greater authority, in favour of the true 
 fenfe of the word riDb'i^i^ (rendered by 
 them Tu-updsvog, a virgin,) than any thing 
 that Dr. W ms has offered againft it, 
 
 It is remarkable, that all the ancient 
 MSS. of the Septuagint, in different parts 
 of the world, teflify the truth of this 
 reading ^ of which four, in particular, are 
 of confiderable authority, on account of 
 their very great antiquity; viz, the Va- 
 tican, Alexandrian, Complut^nfian, and 
 Venetian, MSS. And, though many 
 copies of the Septuagint mufl have been 
 in the hands of Jews, as well as others, 
 both before and after the birth of Chrifl, 
 
 yet 
 
 (29) Eav OS laS'ui^ tvftcrt,}\oyuv, to I^tf 'n 'Srocp^sp^, ^57 
 yelpaipSat ^ifnf uXk uvr avTHy 1^ 7} peavi^* (pvicrQ^iv 'srcoq 
 ccvrov, oT* h {/-ev ^e|»5 v AX[/.ot, rtv ol {jt,£» iC^o/xvixovTa /ixETetAij- 
 (poca-i 'STpoq rvjv <ma.pBevovy i^c. Quod ii Judaeus, vocabula 
 excutiens, neget fcriptum, Ecce njirgincnty it^Ecceado- 
 h/centula, dicemusibi legi vocem Alma, quam Septu- 
 aginta interpretes verterunt virginem, ^c* Carobridee 
 edition, 1677, p. 27. 
 
[ 69 ] 
 
 yet I never heard that any perfon ever 
 produced b copy which contradifted this 
 original reading ; for, as the Scptuagint 
 was the common tranflation ufed in the 
 fynagogues, throughout all Ada, Greece, 
 and Egypt, (fee bi(hop Walton's Prole- 
 gomena ix. p. 60. N°. 15,) any alteration, 
 in fo remarkable a text as this, would 
 very foon have been difcovered. 
 
 And it muft alfo be remembered, that 
 the feveral Greek tranflations, wherein 
 the word ndbyn is rendered vsocptg, a young 
 woman^ (viz. that of Aquila, Theodo- 
 tion, and Symmachus,) were all made 
 ^Jier the birth of Chri/ly when the unbe- 
 lieving Jews were defirous of perverting 
 the true meaning of the prophecy. 
 
 The ancient Syriac verfion expreffes 
 nziVi^ by the very word (viz. [AJio^i^ 
 from r-^t^ina) which the Dodor fets up 
 in oppofition to it i and which, hejuftly 
 
 obferves. 
 
[ 70 ] 
 
 obferves, muft fignify flriftly a virgin 
 (30). And, laftly, St. Matthew, whe- 
 ther he quoted the original or Septuagint, 
 was certainly convinced that the true 
 fenfe of the word was srocpQevog, a virgin, 
 and he hath accordingly left us his tefti- 
 mony of it j which proves, that the Doc- 
 tor's application of this word, to the 
 mother of Ifaiah'sfoUy muft be very erro- 
 neous. 
 
 The child, Immanuel, could not be 
 Ifaiah's fon, becaufe it appears, from fo 
 many undeniable teftimonies, that his 
 mother was to be really a virgin ; and be- 
 caufe /^^ ^w«^ /{/i?^ (by which the pro- 
 phecy is beft underftood) has proved this 
 truth beyond all contradidion. 
 
 Wherefore, 
 
 (30) The Rabbins always by n^lH^ mean a i^-zV- 
 gin : that they well underlland their own language 
 cannot be denied, l^c. p. 20. — See alfo p. 25, where, 
 fpeaking of the Septuagint tranflation of Eflher ii. 2. 
 he adds, ** nvhence Jt miijl undeniahly appear, that they 
 *' underJ}oodT\^\S^^to'mcan a virgin, in the Jirideft 
 " fenfe of the 'word, '* 
 
[ 71 ] 
 
 Wherefore, I think I may now fafely 
 
 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. Matthew," and, of courfe, 
 that the Dodor is indifpenfahly bound to 
 yield up his hypothefis to i\\Qfiiperior an^ 
 thority of the evangeliji. 
 
 "The END of Part I. 
 
DISSERTATION 
 
 ON THE 
 
 NATURE AND STYLE 
 
 OF 
 
 PROPHETICAL WRITINGS: 
 
 SHEWING 
 
 That abrupt Tranfitions, from one Subject to 
 another, are frequently found therein. 
 
 The fame being intended to illuftrate the foregoing 
 Remarks on the Critical Diflertation, ^c» 
 
 Part II. K A DIS- 
 
[ 75 ] 
 
 DISSERTATION 
 
 ON THE 
 
 NATURE and STYLE 
 
 O F 
 
 Prophetical Writings, & 
 
 THE prophecies, contained in the 
 fcventh,eighth, and ninth, chap- 
 ters of Ifaiah, feem to have 
 been delivered during the general confler- 
 nation of the houfe of David, occafioned 
 by the invalion of Rezin, king of Syria, 
 and Pekah, king of Ifrael ; becaufe feve- 
 ral circumftanceSj relating to the faid 
 kings and their refpedlive nations, are 
 
 K 2 men- 
 
[ 76 3 
 
 mentioned in each of thefe chapters (i) j 
 notwithftanding that the fame chapters^ 
 contain prophecies of very diftant events, 
 which are fo blended v^ith the tranfadions 
 of the (then) prefent limes, that it v^ould 
 not be eafy to diftinguifli the real differ- 
 ence, in point of chronology, if the ap- 
 parent accomplifhment of thefe feveral 
 prophecies did not remove the difficulty. 
 Rezia and Pekah are both particularly 
 mentioned in the 7th chapter, wherein 
 the extraordinary birth of the' fM^ 7;^- 
 manuel is given as a fign. The fpoiling 
 of their refpedlive cities is promifed in the 
 8th chapter (2), wherein the birth of the 
 
 child 
 
 (i) Septimum, o£lavum, ct nonam, Ifaiae caput in 
 eodem fere verfantur argumento, l^c, P. D. Huetii 
 Demonjiratio E-vangelica, p. 291. 
 
 (2) *' For, before the child ( Maher-Jhalal-haJh-baz) 
 Ihall have knowledge to cry, My father and my mother, 
 xh.Q riches of Damajcus and xkitj'poil of Samaria fhall be 
 taken away before the kingof AiTyria." viii. 4. ** For- 
 afmuch as this people refufeth the waters of Shiloah, 
 thatgo foftly, and rejoice in i?2^2;/« and Remaliah^sfctii 
 now, therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth upon them 
 
 the 
 
t n ] 
 
 child Maher-fhalal'hafli-baz, the fon of 
 Ifaiah, is foretold, as the; temporary figa 
 of the fame : and, notwithftanding that 
 the greateft part of the fald chapter relates 
 to thofe times, yet the prophet introduces, 
 in the very midft of it, a plain reference 
 to the time& of the Meffiah; fee 13th, 
 14th, 15th, and 1 6th, verfes, which 
 (hall be hereafter confidered. In the 9th 
 chapter, the prefumption of Ephraim and 
 the inhabitants of Samaria (3) is repro- 
 ved, and God's judgements are once more 
 expreffly denounced agatJiJl Rezi?2, as if 
 
 thefe 
 
 the waters of the river, llrong and many, even the 
 king q{ Ajjyria'^ cjfr. — ** And the ftretching out of 
 his wings fhall £11 the breadth of thy land, O Itn" 
 manud.^'' viii. 6, 7, 8. 
 
 (3) **''And all the people mall know, even Ephraim 
 and the inhabitants of Samariay that fay, in the pride 
 and ftoutnefs of heart. The bricks are fallen down, 
 but we will build with hewen ftones," ciff. ix. 9, 10, 
 ** Therefore the Lord ihall fet up the adverfaries of 
 iJ/sizr againft him,'* ^c. ix. 11. Thefe three vtrks, 
 9th, loth, and nth, and alfo the 21ft, plainly allude 
 to the fubjcd of the 7th chapter, viz. the evil cojnfel 
 and confederacy of Syria and Ephraim^ and God's prc- 
 mife that the fame (hould not ftand* * 
 
[ 78 ] 
 
 thefe things were to happen after the 
 birth of the child that was to ^ ' be called 
 " Wonderful^ Counfellory the mighty Gody 
 " the ever lofting Father ^ the Prince of 
 " peace y of the increafe of whofe govern^ 
 *^ ment and peace there fliould be no endy 
 " upon the throne of David and upon 
 *' his kingdom," &c. For the birth of 
 this divine perfon is foretold in the for- 
 mer part of the fame chapter 5 and yet I 
 never heard of an attempt to apply this 
 prophecy to a fon of Ifaiah> or to any 
 other child born about that time. 
 
 In the beginning of this 9th chapter, 
 the prophet alludes likewife to fome other 
 hiftoricai circumflances, befides what arc 
 already mentioned concerning Syria and 
 Ephraim s and thefe had either then late- 
 ly happened^ or were very (hortly to come 
 to pafs, notwithftanding that the allufion 
 is blended with a very diftant prophecy 
 concerning the preaching of Chrifl, 
 
 The 
 
[ 79 ] 
 
 The circumftances, which I fpeak of, 
 are the Affyrian conqueft and captivity 
 of Zebulun and Napthali^ which hap- 
 pened in the days of Pekah, king of Jf- 
 rael (4). This was the affliction {^)by 
 the " way of the fea^ beyond "Jor dan Jn Ga- 
 " //7<?f,ofthe nations," mentioned by Ifaiah, 
 ix. I. by which he expreffly points out 
 the very fpol, Galilee, where Immamiel 
 was chiefly to be manifefl:ed by his 
 mighty deeds and miracles j for the pro- 
 phet immediately proceeds, verfe 2. 
 ** The people (fays he) that walked in 
 
 " darknefs 
 
 (4) " In the days of Pekah, king of Ifrael, came 
 Tiglathpilefer, king of A^yriz, and took Ijon, and 
 Abel-beth-maa-chah, and Janoah, and Kedefli, and 
 Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Nap- 
 thali, and carried them captive to Aflyria." 2 Kings 
 XV. 29. 
 
 (5) ** Ncverthelefs, the dimnefs fliall not be fuch 
 as was in her vexation, when at the firfl he lightly af- 
 fiided the land of Zebulun, and the land of Napthali, 
 and afterward did more grievoufly afflid her, by the 
 way of the fea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee, of the na- 
 tions." Ifaiah'w, 1. ** The people that walked in 
 darknefs have feen a great light," ^r. ix. 2. 
 
C 80 ] 
 
 •^ darknefs (6) have feen a great light : 
 " they that dwell in the land of the flia- 
 '* dow of d^ath, upon them hath the light 
 " JloinedJ' And afterwards, in the 6th 
 verfe, he renews the fame promifes, gir 
 V€n in the 7th chapter, concerning the 
 .birth of a divine child ^ whofe attributes 
 and dignity are here fo fully exprefled, 
 by the prophet, that they can by no 
 means agree Vvith the charad:er of any 
 Uherxhild but that which was truly Im- 
 manuely or, God with us. Therefore, It 
 is plain, that the prophecies of the 8th 
 and 9th chapters were delivered nearly 
 at the fame time with thofe of the 7th 
 chapter, which are farther explained 
 
 and 
 
 (6) This correfponds with the' prejudice which the 
 Jews conceived againft their brethren the Galilaeans. 
 The chief Prieils and Pharifees anfwered Nicode- 
 mus, faying, " Search and look ; for out of Galilee 
 arifeth no prophet,''^ John vii. 52. In like manner an-, 
 fvvered Nathaniel, when Philip told him, " We have 
 found him of whom Mofes, in the law, and the Pro- 
 phets, did write, Jefus of Nazareth, thefon of Jofeph.'* 
 And Nathaniel laid unto him. Can there any good thin^ 
 €Gm: out of Nazareth ? John i. 45, 46. 
 
[ 8i ] 
 
 and confirmed thereby ; fo that, if Dr^ 
 
 \V ms will carefully examine all thefe 
 
 three chapters, he will find, that it is not 
 unujual (7), in prophetic writings, to 
 make quick and abrupt tranfitlons from 
 one fubie<5t to another, nor unnatural^ 
 that a very diftant prophecy fliould be 
 blended with others that were foon to be 
 accomplifhed ; becaufe it is the nature of 
 prophecy to be delivered in this myfterious 
 manner. For (fays Ifaiah, xxviii. 10.) 
 " precept muft be (or hath been) upon 
 ** precept, precept upon precept, lineup- 
 Part II. L '' on 
 
 (7) See Dr. W ^ms's comment on the opinion of 
 
 thofe who fay that the 14th, i5tb, and i6th, verfes of 
 the viith chap, oi Ifaiah contain two diflinfl prophecies. 
 ** Is not this (fays he) 'very unnatural ? and, if I am 
 not greatly miftaken, njery unufual F^^ P* 9.* 
 
 But an experienced writer, who, on many occafions, 
 has given ample proofs of great learning and fcripture- 
 knowledge, informs us, that *' it is ^ery natural arid 
 *' t'ery u/ual, with the prophets, to make a tranjltion 
 •* from one great deli'vcrance to anoihe^ , as alfo from one 
 *' great dsjlruaion to ancther :^' — and he afterwards 
 gives feveral remarkable inftances of it. See Dr. Gre- 
 gory Sharpens id Argument in Defence of Cbrifianiiy, 
 p. 255. 
 
■ [ 82 ] 
 
 ^' on line, line upon line, here a little 
 *' ^r\(3i there a little. For with ftammer- 
 *^ ing lips and another tongue will he 
 fpeak (or he hath fpoken) to this peo- 
 ple." And again, in the 13th verfe, 
 here a little and there a little j that they 
 might go and fall backward, and be 
 " broken, and fnared, and taken." The 
 nature and reafon of typical writings are 
 ftrongly expreffed in St. Mark's Gofpel 
 (8), iv. II, 12, 13. Wherefore, it is 
 our duty tp afk God's affiftance, when we 
 read the fcriptures, that we may under- 
 ftand them to our comfort, left they 
 ihould be a ftumbling-block to us, as 
 
 thev 
 
 (8) " And, when he (Jefus) was alone, they that 
 were about him with the twelve afked of him the para- 
 ble. And he iaid unto them. Unto you it is given to 
 know themyflery of the kingdom of God ; but, imtQ 
 them that ar( ^without, all theje things are d-one iv parables ; 
 that, feeing, they may fee and not perceive ; and, 
 hearing, they may hear and mt under/land ; left at any 
 time they Ihould be converted, and their fins ihould be 
 forgiven them. And he faid unto them, know ye not 
 this parable ? and how then will you know all para-*. 
 Vies? The fower foweth," ^V. Markiv. 10—13. 
 
[ 83 ] 
 they were to the unbelieving Jews. Bat 
 not only the fcriptures, even Chrift hini- 
 felf, became a ftone of ftumbling to the 
 Jews : for, about the time of his coming, 
 they univerfally expedled a glorious and 
 triumphant Mefliah to rule over them ; 
 infomuch, that Herod the Great was ex- 
 ceedingly alarmed with the apprehenfioa 
 of fo powerful a competitor y^r the throne 
 of David, But, when " the dejire of all 
 " natiom' (fee Haggai ii. 7.) was really 
 come, his humble appearance, meeknefs, 
 and difinterefted, thcugh interefting, doc- 
 trine, did not in the leaft ccrrefpond with 
 their worldly imaginations j fo that ** he 
 " was in the worlds and the world was 
 " made by him, and the world knew him 
 *' not : he came unto his own, and his own 
 " received him not I' John i. 10, 11. 
 For the Jews did not then confider (any 
 more than they do at prefent) that the 
 humility of the Meffiah w^as as exprcfOv 
 foretold by the prophets as his glory. 
 
 L 2 " Who 
 
[ 84 3 
 
 " 14^ ho hath believed our report V fays 
 Ifaiah, in chap. liii. when he is about to 
 defcribe the humility, afflictions, and 
 death, of the Meffiah. " He hath no 
 *' form nor comehnefs ; and, when we 
 " fhall fee him, there is no beauty that 
 *' we fliould defire him : he is defpifed 
 ** and rejedled of men^' &c. See the 
 whole chapter (9). 
 
 The Jews could not reconcile this un- 
 exped:ed humility with that glorious cha- 
 rafter which they fo long looked for and 
 defired, *viz. " ci king that Jl:ould reign 
 ** and profper 5" whom " the Lord'' (Je- 
 hovah) 
 
 (9) *' Who can read thj? oracle and not allow Ifaiali 
 «* to have been, what he is fometimes called, the 
 M Evangelical Prophet? Is not this prophecy, in eve« 
 «* ry part, as applicable to Jefus as is the account gi- 
 ** ven of him by the holy Evangelifts ? Coald it have 
 <* been exprefTed in ftronger or clearer terms if written 
 ** after the event ? And yet it was delivered above 700 
 <* years before the birth of Jefus." 'Dt. Gregory Shar^e^s 
 %d Argument in Defina of Chrijiianityt p, 232. 
 
[ 85 ] 
 hovah) promlfed by Jeremiah (lo) to 
 *^ raije up unto Davidy' and who is like- 
 wife 
 
 (lo) ** Behold the days come, faith the Lord, 
 (n^n^ Jeho'vahjJ that I will raife unto David a righ* 
 teous branch, and a kingjhall rei^n axd pro/per y and fhall 
 execute judgement and juilice in the earth. In his 
 days Judah ihall be faved, and Ifrael fhall dwell 
 fafely : and this is his name whereby he fhall be called. 
 The herd (Jeho-vah Pl^n"') c«^ rightecufncfs,'''* Jeremiah 
 xxiii. 5, 6. See alfo xxxiii. 16. — Where the fame 
 title (niiT') is given to the Branch of righteoufnefs 
 mentioned in the preceding verfe. — Compare with 
 thefe chap. xxx. 9. — ** And they Ihall ferve the tord 
 their God (CZartTI^JJi ntn^) and David their kiNg*> 
 (CZDD!7Q in DUil) " whom I will raife up unto 
 them.". — The comparing of thefe texts together has 
 cxrcafioned the following remark, which I find wrote 
 with a pencil in the margin of my Hebrew Bible, J fup- 
 pofe, by fome former owner of it. ** Meffias voca- 
 ** bitur David fecundum carnem, Jo'va fecundum di- 
 " vinitatem." — /. ^. " Chrift fhall be called ZJ^wV 
 ** with refpeft to his human nature, and Jeho'vah with 
 *» refped to his divinity." — The divinity of the Mef- 
 fiah may Be clearly proved, by a multitude of other 
 pafTages, even in the Old Tellament. Therefore, it 
 behoves the authors of the Critical Re-vieix) ferioufly to 
 confider how thofe men can be j unified who refufe the 
 Son of God the honour due unto his name ; fince " the 
 Father hath committed all judgement unto the Sony that all 
 men jhould honour th( Son e-ven as they honour thi Father** 
 John v. 22, 23. 
 
[ 86 ] 
 
 wife called (as a name the moft fuitable 
 to the only begotten Son of God) " the 
 ** Lord'' (Jehovah) " our righteoiifnefir 
 This unfortunate mifapprehenfion was 
 plainly foretold by Ifaiah, when he warn- 
 ed the people to "-^ JanBify the Lord of 
 " hojishimfelfy'' (vi^npn IHN m^y^ nim 
 rxiiC} i and (fays he) " let him be your 
 *' feary and let him he your dreads 
 l>iQV^^ what perfon could the prophet 
 mean by this glorious title (mb^2ir rWxX^ 
 Jehovah Sabaoth) if not the Mefliah ? for 
 he immediately adds, " and he fhall be 
 " for a fanduary, but (or, rather, and) 
 " for a ftone of ftumbling, and for a 
 *' rock of offence, to both the houfes of 
 II Iftael, for a gin and for a fnare to the 
 
 " inhabitants 
 
 A dodlrine very oppofite to this is approved and 
 commended in the loth article of the Critical Re^vie^ixi 
 for May, 1760 ; whereby it appears that the author or 
 authors of ihat recommendatory criticifm were not fuf- 
 ficiently armed againft the dangerous and pernicious doc- 
 rines of the book which they undertook to recommend, 
 «z;/x. The Trinitarian Contro'verjy re'vieived', or a Defence 
 ofth Jppeal to^ tht Common-^ enfe of all Chrifian People, 
 
[ S7 ] 
 
 " inhpbltants of Jemfalcm. And many 
 " ^inong thQmOn^W /Inmile and fa/If and 
 ^' ie broken^ and be fnared^ and be taken, 
 *' Bind up the tejlimony, feal the law a-- 
 " mcng 7ny difciples^ Ifaiah 13 — 16. 
 
 Wehavethetefl:imonyof,St,Paul,inhis 
 Epiftle to the Romans, ix. 33. (11), that 
 this text relates to Chriji -, for he has there 
 blended a part of it with another quota- 
 tion from Ifaiah xxviii. 16. (12). St. 
 
 Peter 
 
 (u) . " Tor ihey JIumhIed 2Xi\ihtJiumhling-J!o}7e; 
 
 «' as it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a /«wM>n- 
 ** /tone and rock cf cffence: and whofoever believeth on 
 ** him fralf not b: ajhaimd,^^ Rom. ix. 32, 33. 
 
 (12) ** Therefore, thus faith the Lord God, Behold, 
 " I lay in Zion, for a foundation, ay?^/z^, 2l tried Jione, 
 ** a precious c^rr.er Jicric, a fure foundation : he that 
 " believeth Ihali not make hnjie,'" ('C/TI"' N^) thatis, 
 he fhall not be fubjedl 10 that kind of hajle which is 
 commonly the elFed r/ y^^r. Therefore the Syriac 
 verfion has rendered it W^^^ \J /W/ not be afraid \ 
 which is very exprelTive of* the Prophet's meaning. 
 The LXX have rendered it » ^>j y.u.-ry.^a-xjjv^-n ; and St. 
 Paul, » y.aT«K7;^i-6u<7-Elai, that is, Jhall mt be ajl^amed -, 
 which is ftill moreexpreflive of a man's being free from 
 ^hat hajle or confufion caufed by fear. Kot 40 be ajhamed 
 
 is 
 
[ 88 ] 
 
 Peter likewife quotes it, in his firfl: Epif- 
 tle, ii. 8. (13), and applies it to Chrift, 
 And indeed it can mean no other thari 
 " Ckriji cructjiedy' who (as St. Paul in- 
 forms us) was " to the Jews a Jiumbling 
 " blocky and unto the Greeks fooliflinefs." 
 I Cor. i. 23. But, notwithftanding thefe 
 
 plain teftimonies. Dr. W— ms is of a 
 
 very different opinion. *' Ifaiah does not 
 ^^ feem* (fays the Dr. in a note, p. 32) 
 " tofpeak of the Meffiah till the ixth chap- 
 " ter" But, though the Dr. here allows 
 that the ixth chapter contains a prophecy 
 concerning the Meffiah, yet, perhaps, he 
 is not aware, that, if his reafons againft 
 the common interpretation of the viith 
 
 chapter 
 
 IS frequently put for not to fear. They fliall not ha 
 ajhamed'm the e'vil time, fays the Pfalmift, xxxvii. 19, 
 and again — they fhall not be ajhamed, but they Ihall 
 fpeak with the enemies in the gate. Pfalm cxxvii. 5. 
 
 Tljis I hope is fufficient to reconcile the feeming dif* 
 agreement between the original and St. Paul's quotation. 
 
 {13) ** And 2iJione of Jiumbling, and a rock of offence, 
 <* even to them ^h\c\ijiu7nble at the word, being difo- 
 <* bedient, whereunto alfo they were appointed.*' 
 
[ Sg ] 
 
 chapter (on account of ** ths prefent order ^ 
 " and abrupt tranfiiion^' which he com- 
 plains of in p. lo) were ct all conclufive^ 
 the fame would hold good likcvvifc againft 
 the common interpretation of this ixth 
 chapter; wherein the tranfiticns from one 
 fubjecfl to another are equally abrupt y and 
 the remote events, concerning the birth 
 and preaching of the Mefliah, are fore- 
 told, even before other events, " which 
 " were immediately ^ or very fiortly^ to 
 " happen,'" (Seep. 9.) 
 
 The Dr. may be right enough in his 
 obfervation, that there are no inftanccs 
 ** of remote ftgns to prove the accompli fli- 
 " ment of an event near at hand:'* (fee 
 pages 9 and 10.) But it is plainly his 
 own miftake which caufes the difficulty 
 that he fpeaks of; for the fign, given by 
 Ifaiah, of the birth of Zww^;///^/, (viz, be- 
 hold, a virgin fliall conceive, &V.) was 
 not a remote fign of an event near at hand. 
 
 Part II. M (as 
 
[ 90 ] 
 (as the Dr. fuppofes,) but a remote Jign of 
 a remote events and therefore not liable to 
 his cenfure. 
 
 The holy fcriptures afford a great ma- 
 ny other examples of prophecies which 
 are blended and interwoven with very 
 different fubjeds j different, I fay, both 
 with refpedt to the matter and the time of 
 accomplifhment. 
 
 There are alfo many inftances of pafTa- 
 ges which bear a double conflrudion, be- 
 ing partly applicable to fome particular 
 perfon, exprefQy mentioned, though they 
 ultimately and chiefly relate to another 
 very different perfon. 
 
 The prophecy of Nathan, concerning 
 Solomon, is of this kind. " He fhall 
 build an houfe for my name, and I will 
 eflablifh the throne of his kingdom for 
 ever, I will be his father, and he 
 
 '' fhall 
 
 
[ 91 ] 
 
 *' fhall be my fon." 2 Sam. vii. 13, 14. 
 King David himfelf explained this more 
 particularly to his fon Solomon, and ap- 
 plied it to him, I Chron. xxii. 9. faying, 
 " for his name fliall be Solomon^'' (fee 
 the margin nO^U " peaceable y* agreeable 
 to Chrift's title, mentioned in the ixth 
 chapter of Ifaiah, viz. CZD'^V^ TO Prince 
 oi peace J " and I will give peace and 
 " quietnefs unto Ifrael in his days. Pie 
 " fliall build an houfe for my name, and 
 " he fliall be 7ny fori, and I will be hisfa- 
 " ther^ and I will eftabhfli the throne of 
 " his kingdom over Ifrael ^or ever,'' But 
 where has the throne of Solomon been 
 eftabhflied, for near 1800 years laft pad, 
 if not in Jefus Chrijl^ the fpiritual Eolo' 
 mon 2ini prince of peace? For, though 
 this prophecy plainly related to Solomon, 
 yet it referred to a farther accomplifli- 
 ment in the Mefliah, by whom alone 
 it could be perfedly fulfilled ; and there- 
 fore a part of it is applied immediately to 
 
 M 2 Chrift, 
 
[ 92 1 
 
 Chfift, by St. Paul, in his Epiftle to the 
 Hebrews, i. 5. "I will be to him a 
 " father^ and he fhall be to me a Jonr- 
 
 Of the fame kind is the Ixxiid pfalm, 
 dedicated to Solomon. *^ They fhall fear 
 " thee as long 2i%the fun and moon endure^ 
 ** throughout all generationsJ' This is, in- 
 deed, applied to Solomon *y but, as the 
 reign of that monarch was merely tempo- 
 raly the prophecy cannot be faid to be 
 fulfilled in any other perfon befides the 
 Meffiah himfelf, the true nnl7\D (Solo- 
 mon) who reigns^ according to the Pfalm- 
 ift's expreffion, " throughout all genera- 
 " tion^r 
 
 The prophet Haggai, chap* ii. promi- 
 ic5 ZerubbabeU governor of fudah^ and 
 Jofljuay the high-prieft^ in the name of 
 the Lord of hcfis^ that " the defire of all 
 ^^ nations fhall come ^' and that he (the 
 Lord of hofls) [y will f II this houfe'' (that 
 
 is. 
 
[ 93 ] 
 
 is, the houfe which they were ordered to 
 build) ^' with glory." v. 7. And he 
 adds, in the 9th verfe, '* The glory of 
 " this latter houfe fliall be greater than 
 <' of the former, faith the Lord ofhofls; 
 " and in this place will 1 give peace 
 *' (C13iyv£; jnbi) faith the Lord of hofts." 
 
 Neverthelefs, in the former part of the 
 fame chapter, the prophet appeals to 
 thofe who had feen the *' houfe in her 
 " firfl glory. And how (fays he) do you 
 " fee it new ? Is it not, in your eyes, in 
 " comparifon of it, as nothing?" v, 3. 
 Thus it is plain that the glory of the fecond 
 houfe did not confift either in the grandeur 
 of the building laid out by Zerubbabel 
 and Jofliua, or in the prefence of thofe 
 great and holy men, notwithftanding that 
 the prophecy is addreifed to them both, 
 and that Zerubbabel is fpoken to by God 
 in a very remarkable manner, at the con- 
 clufion of the fame chapter, viz, " I will 
 
 " take 
 
 \ 
 
■ I 94 1 
 *^ take thee, O Zerubbabely my fervanf^ 
 " the fon of Shealtiel, faith the Lord, 
 " and will make thee as a fignet\ for I 
 " have chofen thee^ faith the Lord of 
 " hofts." But the glory was manifeftly 
 to confift in the " future conwig^ &c. of 
 *' the defire of all nations^ For, as the 
 promife was made to Zerubbabel and Jo- 
 Ihua themfelves, the prophecy muft ne- 
 cefTarilv be underftood to have a more 
 diftant accompliftiment j which, indeed, 
 the beginning of the fentence fufficiently 
 proves, viz. CiQT£?n Mu^ ^^:?1,C UNV j^-'H 
 D5?D T\XVA 113? Tet once^ it is a little while, 
 and I will fhake the heavens^ &c. Hag- 
 gai ii. 6, 7. 
 
 The prophet Zacharlah likewife pro- 
 mifes great things to Zerubbabel and Jo- 
 fhua; which he applies perfosally to 
 them, as builders of the temple, though 
 the fame relate ultimately to Chrift. See 
 chap. iv. 6 — 10, 
 
 See 
 
[ 95 ] 
 
 See alfo chap. vi. ii, 12, 13, wherein 
 Jo(hua, by his name> (vtlJin"' which the 
 LXX. render Iw^^gy J'^fa^^ fignifying a Sa- 
 viour,) as well as by his office and dignity 
 of high-prieft, was plainly fet forth as a 
 type of the future Meffiah. 
 
 The prophet orders him to be crowned, 
 and faluted with the prophetical title of 
 Chrift, viz. the branchy of whom he 
 foretold, that he fhould " grow up out 
 " of his place," and *' build the temple 
 ." of the Lord." 
 
 Jofliua might, indeed, be faid to build 
 the teniple, as well as Zerubbabel, but he 
 could only be a type of the branch there 
 prpmifed, becaufe the real branch was 
 yet to grow up out of his place ( 14). 
 
 The 
 
 (14) *• Andfpeak unto him (Jojhua) faying. Thus 
 ** fpeaketh the Lord of hofts, faying. Behold the man 
 " whofe name ia the branch-, and he Jhallgroiv up out of 
 ** his place, and he ihall build the temple of the Lord," 
 ^f. Zech, vi. 12, \ 
 
[ 96 ] 
 
 The crowns were given ^^ for a memo- 
 " rial in the temple of the hord^' . (not of 
 the accomplifliment of this prophecy in 
 the perfon of Jofhua, bat " for a memo- 
 " rial/') of '^\i2Xjldoiild afterwards " co77te 
 ** to pafsy' if the people would diligently 
 chey the voice of the Lord their God (15). 
 Thus we find that Solomon^ Zerubbabel^ 
 ^ndijofjuay as builders of the temple, were 
 types of the Meffiah, the true builder of 
 th^everlaJiijigT^M^h-E of God; I mean, 
 the Holy Catholic Church, properly 
 {it) Jo called, " built upon the founda- 
 
 " tion 
 
 (15) " And the crowns fliall be to Helem and to 
 ** Tobijah, ^r. — for a memorial in the temple of the 
 ** Lord. And they that are far oir ihall come and 
 ** build in the temple of the Lord, and ye fhall know 
 ** that the Lord of holls hath fent me unto you. And this 
 *• Jhall co7m to pafs (CZn.^i H^HI }^V^-:2''^ri S^IQ^'') 
 *^ if ye njoill diligently obey the ^vcice of the Lord your 
 " God:'' Zech. vi. 14, 15'. 
 
 (16) The church of Rome is very improperly crlled 
 the Catholic Church, becaufe fhe caufes a contradidlion 
 in terms, by usurping t ha t^(?».^r^/ title to herfelf alone, 
 when, at the fame time, ihe fcarcely ieems intitled to 
 
 be 
 
[ 97 ] 
 
 ** tion of the Apoftlesand Prophets J Je- 
 " sus Christ himfelf being the chief 
 Part II. N ** corner- 
 
 be ellcemed a part of it. For, notwithftanding that 
 many worthy members of Chrift's catholic Church may 
 have fubmitted to her communion, for want of better 
 information, ferving God by the fiaccrity of their in- 
 tentions, yet, " What agreement hath the temple of God 
 *' ^ith idohV^ (2 Corinth, vi. 16.) Wherefore, 
 *' Corns cut cf her,''' (ye people of God,) *'■ that ye be 
 " not partakers of her fms, and that ye receive not of 
 *' her plagues." Rev. xviii. 4. She hath perverted the 
 la-TV of God (like the Scribes and Phariiees of old) oy 
 her traditions — " forbidding to marryy and commanding 
 ** to abjiain from meats, which God hath created to be 
 ** received nxith tbank/gi-ving of them luhich believe and 
 *' knonx> the truth." — Which St. Paul (i Tim. iv. 1.) 
 exprefsly called doSlrines of denjils. She hath defiled the 
 catholic Temple of God, by building, upon the true 
 foundation, ** ivW, hay, (lubble 'y^ -viz.. infallibility, 
 purgatory, oftentatious penance, mercenary pardons 
 and indulgences, invocation of faints, excrcifms 
 ^" exorcifmus aqua ;'* — ** exorcifmum falls." — ** Ex- 
 ** orcizo te, creatura falis,^^ — '' aqu^Cy" ScQ. Seethe 
 Mijfale, publijked by the joint- authority , of the popes, Pius 
 ^intus, Clement the Sth, and Urban the SthJ of holy 
 water and fait, ben:di£lions of candles, table-cloths, 
 towels, i^c. baptifm of bell?, and fach other fpiritual 
 «if//f^fr^y>—— praying and bowing before images and 
 Ihrines, reverencing dead mens bones, and other fuch 
 abominable things, '^c. l^c. Thefe are no part of the 
 foundation (mentioned above) of the Apojlks and Pro- 
 phets, whofe writings warrant no fuch /rfc?/<^/r)', excrcifms, 
 
 or 
 
« 
 
 [ .98 ] 
 
 ^' corner- ftone J in whom all the build- 
 ing, fitly framed together, groweth unto 
 
 '' an 
 
 or enchantments : and therefore even the Holy Scriptures 
 themfel'ves are prohibited, in the popifti Index Expurga- 
 hriits. This lalt is, indeed, a precaution necelTary to 
 the exigence of fuch dodtrines; for, if the poor delu- 
 ded people were permitted to read the Scriptures, they 
 Would foon be informed that there is but ** One Media- 
 " tor between God and man, the man Chriji Je/us ;" 
 (l Tim. ii. 5.) and that ** there is n^one other name un- 
 ^'' der hea'ven gi'ven among men nvhereby njoe mufl be fa<vedJ** 
 A«5ls iv. 12. O that thofe men, who invoke the «/^<:/i- 
 ^iion cf all faints and angels i (notwithftanding the plain 
 dodlririe of 'St. P^^^r, quoted above,) would coniider 
 what agrofs affront, by this execrable fermcey they oiFer 
 to Chrift, who alone is the nvay, and the truths and 
 the life! Fbr their daily prayers witnefs againll them, 
 that they do not efteem the mediamn of Chriji fufiicidnt 
 for them, otherwife they would riot,Tike the idolatrous 
 Ifraelites of old, invoke " all the hofi of hea-ven.*^ 
 2 Kings xvii. 16. The Church of Rome has endea- 
 voured to cloak this abominable worihip with the fubtle 
 dl5in<rtions of /fl//-z^and^/<//«; but the necelfity of fuch 
 fophiltical arguments proves the reality of that church's 
 backfliding to idolatry. Heathen Rome was not more 
 guilty of this crime, nor hath Ihed more innocent blood 
 in defence of fuch abominati:nsy under the old pagan 
 emperors, than the prefent Church of Rome has done, 
 iince her Bijhops have alTumed their feat; that is, have 
 pofTeffed themfelves of i\iQ temporaly as well as ecclefiafr 
 tical, jurifdidion of that ancient city. So that the 
 Church of Rome may, indeed, be faid to have jncunted 
 
 tEe 
 
[ 99 ] 
 
 " an holy Temple in the Lord:" in whom 
 " you (Ephe(ians) alfo are builded toge- 
 ** ther for ap habitation of God through 
 ^* the fpirit." Ephef. ii. 20, 21, 22. 
 
 Compare the above-mentioned texts 
 
 with I Cor. iii. it. John ii. 18 — 22. 
 
 Luke XX. 17,18. Ads iv. 11. Pfalm 
 
 cxviii. 22. Ifaiah xxviii. 16. 
 
 > 
 It would make a large volume, if I 
 
 were to coUedl all the prophecies which 
 
 N 2 abfo- 
 
 t^it/carlet'coloured heaflyfull of names of hlafphemy ; (Rev, 
 xvii. 3.). and is, accordingly, moft truly defcribed, by 
 St. John, as a nvoman drunken <voith the blood ofthefaitits, 
 and <vjith the blood of the martyrs of Jefus. 
 
 .Archbifhop Cranmer, the bilhops Ridley, Latimer, 
 Hooper, and a great multitude of other worthy Englijh' 
 metiy have fufFered under her diabolical tyranny. 
 
 Indeed, thehiftories of all other European kingdoms 
 are fraught with woful examples of it. la Sully's Me- 
 moirs (chap. V. p. 9.) we read that a popifh prayer- 
 book (" li'vre de grojfes heures^^) ferved as a pajjport a.' 
 mong the bloody mefiengers of popifli vengeance, at 
 the mafj'acre of the Huguenots, at Paris. ** Tue, Tue, 
 •* 6 Huguenot, 6 Huguenot," was the deviliih watch- 
 word ! 
 
 O that the living members o^ that Church may difcern, 
 and repent of, their enormous errors before it be too late I 
 
[ loo ] 
 abfolutely relate to two different and dif- 
 tln6t fubjecfls in the type and antitype, 
 Neverthelefs, I am particularly obliged 
 to take notice of two more of this kind> 
 
 becaufe Dr. W ms has quoted them 
 
 in favour of his hypothefis, notwithftand- 
 ing that, upon examination, they will be 
 found to make much againft it. He fays, 
 (in p. 38,) " It is not pojjible indeed to re-^ 
 *' concile Matthew ii. 15. 23. and per- 
 haps fome other paffages in his gofpel, 
 with any particular prophecy now extant. 
 in the Old Teftament." As to the 1 5th 
 verfe, wherein St. Matthew quotes the 
 Prophet Hofea xi. i . {^^ out of Egypt have I 
 called my fony') the Dr. obferves, that, 
 the paffage in Hofea, where thefe 
 words are found, is not a prophecy of a 
 " future event, but a declaration of an 
 event long pad, and therefore could, 
 not be fulfilled when the child Jesus 
 5* came out of Egypt," 
 
 Now, 
 
 cc 
 cc 
 ce 
 
 cc 
 
[ lOI ] 
 
 Now, in one refpedt, the Dr. is right, 
 viz. that the paffige, with regard to the 
 people cf Ifrael, '' is a declaration of an 
 " event long pafl :' neverthclefs, he has 
 net affigned any reafon why the fame 
 paffage may not, likenvifc^ contain a ^^xo- 
 i^htzy of a future events by being intend- 
 ed, like many other prophecies, to bear 
 a double application. 
 
 Erafmus has affigned a reafon for the 
 error of Julian the apoftate, concerning 
 this text, viz, " that he has too much 
 ** followed the feptusgint edition ; nimi" 
 "» rum fe cuius edit i one m feptiiagintay"^ 
 (fays he,) *' qui locum hunc tranftule- 
 *' runt in hunc modum, quia parvuhis- 
 *^ Ifrael, et ego dilexi eu?7iy et ex ^Egypto 
 " VQC2s\ filios ejus J' (Annot. in Mat- 
 thsum, p. 250.) 
 
 A 
 
[ I02 I 
 
 A mifunderflanding of this text is very 
 excufable, likewife, in the authors of tHat 
 Greek verfion, who could not eafily com- 
 prehend, bejore the event y that the Mef- 
 fiah (hould be called out of Egypt, as the 
 children of Ifrael had been before him j 
 and therefore they rendered the paffage in 
 fuch a manner as they thought would beft 
 point out the application of it to the peo- 
 ple of Ifrael only ; y.oct s^ AiyvTrja {zsje- 
 ZDcXBff-cc'rai reicvoc'civjiSy ** and out of Egypt 
 " have I called bis children." 
 
 But, if the prophet bimfelf had intended 
 the fame thing, and that only^ he would, 
 moft likely, have made ufe of terms 
 more expreffive of a nation^ or people^ 
 than of a Jingle per/on-, (^^ from Egypt 
 <* have I called my fon,'' — ) and then the 
 Greek interpreters would not have been 
 obliged to leave the literal fenfe of 
 the original in order to adapt it, with 
 
 propriety. 
 
[ ^^3 •] 
 prpp.rlely, to the people of IfraHs wJxich 
 proves, that fome fiugle perfon is more 
 particularly pointed a,t, by the prophet, 
 than ibe people of Ifrael. 
 
 There are, indeed, r^iany paflages of 
 Scripture wherein nations are reprefented 
 by fingle perfons: Ezekiel warned the 
 two houfes of IJrael under the figure of 
 t.wp adulterous women, Aholah and A- 
 holibah, ^c. But the text in queftion is 
 very different from many others of that 
 kind ; for the people of Ifrael are not on- 
 ly reprefented therein under the figure of 
 2l, ftfigle perfon y but fome eminent fingle 
 perfon is likewife plainly reprefented, at 
 the fame time, under the ?2ame and figure 
 of the people of Ifrael -y of which the par- 
 ticularity of the flyle affords evident tefti- 
 
 monyj cn^'cni •\^nn)^i'» >i^*^T!:>n^jj id ■'jcib 
 
 ^n^^np " when Ifrael was a little child^ 
 ■\ and 1 loved him, and out of Egypt 
 ?5 have I called myfonJ' But the folkw- 
 
 ing 
 
[ 104 ] 
 ing part of the text, wherein Ifrael could 
 not be a type of the Mcffiah, (I mean, 
 their forfaking God's commandments and 
 facrificing to Baal,) is immediately ex- 
 prefTed \v\ the plural number^ as being ap- 
 plicable to the children of Ifrael only^ 
 and not to Chrift ; cm^SS xz'on id Dd!? 
 itnP rnDP^ o^^osn^unnn D'-^^^b " as 
 
 " they called the^n^ Jo they sstnl from 
 " them : they facrificed unto Baalim, and 
 ** burnt incenfe to graven images." Ho- 
 fca.xi. 2. Thus it is plain that the text 
 is applicable, in the firft place, to the 
 children of Ifrael, who were brought by 
 God out of Egypt, when they Jirji began 
 to be efteemed a nation, and therefore 
 might, as a type of Chrift, be hkened to 
 a little childy being yomg and weak, in 
 comparifon oi their future Jl ate and pow^ 
 er. And, 2dly, it is undoubtedly very 
 applicable to iht Jingk perjon of the Mef- 
 fiah, who was alfo called by God out of 
 Egypt when he was really a little child 
 
 (17). 
 
f 105 ] 
 
 (ly), according to the plftln literal mean- 
 ing of the paflage referred to by St. Mat- 
 thew, who quoted i\\Q fenfe of the Hebrew 
 texty and not that of the Septuagint ver- 
 fion. 
 
 The childy mentioned by Hofea as^j- 
 ving been called (18) out of Egypt, is, 
 indeed, expreflly named Ifrael-, but this 
 is fo far from fetting afide the application 
 to Chrift, that, on the contrary, it affords 
 the ftrongeft confirmation of it : for this 
 name was necelTarily given, in the pro- 
 phecy, that the application might be 
 
 Part II. O double; 
 
 (17) Before he could knonv to refufa the fvil and choofe 
 the good', the land being then forfaken oi both her kings, 
 according to Ifaiah's prophecy, vii. 16. For the an- 
 gel's meffage (or call of Chriil out of Egypt) was deli- 
 vered to Jofeph upon the death of king Herod the Great, 
 at 'which time, precifely, the \2^^ oi the i'wo monar chits 
 was diffolved. 
 
 ■ (18) The prophecy was, indeed, delivered in the 
 perfe6l tenfe^ as a thing already pad ; but this did not 
 prevent the application of it to the future MeJJiahy be- 
 caufe the perfed tenfe is almofl as frequently ufed, by 
 the prophets, in declaring futurity j even as the future 
 itfelf. 
 
[ io6 ] 
 
 double 5 viz» firil to the people of Ifrael, 
 and laftly to the Meffiah. 
 
 The Meffiah is expreflly called Ifrael 
 by Ifaiah, (xlix. 3.) in a prophecy which 
 cannot, at ally be applied to the people of 
 Ifrael, like the former, but muft relate 
 entirely to Chrift : viz, " 7hou art my 
 ^^ fervant, Ifrael, in whom I will be 
 *' glorified." (xlix. 3.) 
 
 Indeed, the true fenfe and application 
 of this paffage does not appear without 
 the context : neverthelefs, I am not for- 
 f y for the neceffity of a long quotation 
 from this chapter, becaufe it will convey 
 a very clear and diftind: idea of the birth 
 and office of the Meffiah, at the fame 
 time that it proves the point in queflion* 
 
 " Liften, O ifles, unto me, and hear- 
 ken, ye people from far \ the Lord hath 
 
 called 
 
I ^^7 ] 
 
 called me from the womb (19), from the 
 boweh of my mother hath he made mention 
 oi my ?2ame {20), And he hath made 
 my mouth like aJJ:arpfword (31)5 in the 
 fhadow of his hand hath he hid me, and 
 made me a poliJJoed Jhajt ; in his quiver 
 hath he hid me, and faid unto me^ Thou 
 art my fervant, O Ifrael^ in whom I will 
 ht glorijied. Then I faid, /have labour- 
 ed in vain, /have fpent my flrength for 
 'naught and in vain, yet furely ;;y? judge- 
 ment is with the Lord, and 7ny work with 
 
 O 2 my 
 
 (ip) — << the angel of the Lord appeared unto him 
 
 ** (Jofeph) in a dream, faying, Jofeph, thou fon tf. 
 
 ** Da'vid, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, 
 
 ** for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy- 
 
 " Ghoft : and fhe fhall bring forth a fon, and thou (halt 
 
 «« call his name 7</«j;" C\\c^-; li?"!^"* a Sa-uiourJ i 
 
 «* foi- he Jball fa^ve his people from their fins." Matt. 
 
 i. 20, 21. 
 
 (20) — " and behold, (faid the angel,) thou fhalt 
 ** conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and 
 «« fhalt call his name Jefus,'' (Luke i. 31.) 
 
 (21) — " he (hall fmite the earth with the rod of 
 *« his mouthy and with the breath ot his lips he Ihr.U 
 «< fay the wicked." Ifaiah xi. 4. See the context alfo 
 
[ io8 ] 
 
 my God. And nov/, faith the Lord, 
 that formed me from the womb to be his 
 fer'vanty to bring Jacob again to him, 
 though Ifrael be not gathered,'' (here is a 
 plain prophecy that blindnefs^ in part^ 
 fioidd happen to Ifrael J " yet {hall I be 
 glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my 
 God fhall be my ftrength. And he faid, 
 it is a light thing that thou fliouldeft be my 
 fervant^ to raife up the tribes of Jacobs 
 and to reftore the preferved of Ifrael 3 I 
 will alfo give thee for a light to the Gentiles 
 (22), that thou may eft be my falvation 
 unto the end of the earth." " Thus 
 faith the Lord, the Redeemer of Ifrael, 
 and his Holy One^ to him whom man def 
 pifeth (23), to him whom the nation ab- 
 
 horreth,. 
 
 (22) '' I, llie Lord, have called thee in righteouf- 
 ** nefs, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, 
 ** and give thee for a conjenant of the people^ for a light 
 *• of the Gentiles, to open the blind eyes," i^c. Ifaiah 
 xlii. 6, 7. ** A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the 
 «f glory of thy people Ifrael." Lukeii. 32. 
 
 (23) ** He is defpifed and rejeded of men, a man of 
 ** forrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid, as 
 
 ** it 
 
[ 1^9 ] 
 
 horreth, to afervantof rulers," &c. — 
 Thus far may, perhaps, be fufficient to 
 fhew the nature and defign of the prophe- 
 cy. Ifaiah has introduced the important 
 fubjed: as the narrative of a dialogue be- 
 tween two di{lin(fl perfons, who are both 
 mentioned in this laft (the 7th) verfe; 
 viz. *' the Lord, (n'\n'«) the Redeemer of 
 " Ifrael," and " his Ho!y Onfy (iT:£;ni:) 
 *' whom man dcfpifethy' and who is ahb 
 called Ifrael, in the former part of this 
 chapter. Now, it is remarkable, that 
 the people of Jfraely or tribes of Jacobs 
 are likewife diftindly mentioned in the 
 fame prophecy ; fo that the perfon, to 
 whom the Lord faid, *' Thou art my fer- 
 " "oaJity OlfraeU" (fee 3d verfe,) cannot 
 mean any other perfon beiides the Mefli- 
 ah himfelf, he alone being the true "//V^?/ 
 ^^ to lighten the Gentiles^ and the glory of 
 
 *' bis 
 
 «* it were, our faces from him ; he was defpfedy and we 
 ** efteemed him noc. Surely he hathborneour griefs," 
 l^c. Ifaiah liii. 3,4. 
 
[ no 3 . 
 
 " bi;s people Is>kael" For, though the 
 ^yewifo Religion was, for many ages, the 
 only true religion, yet the Gentiles were not 
 induced, univerfally, to acknowledge the 
 truth of the holy Scriptures^ by becoming 
 profely tes to Judaifm^ but by being converts 
 to Chrijly by whom alone they have been 
 enlightened according to the Scriptures. 
 If all thefe things be confidered, they 
 will (I doubt not) afford fufficient proof, 
 that the text, quoted by St. Matthew 
 from Hofea xi. i. (though introduced in 
 a context abfolutely relating to the people 
 oj IJrael,) was, neverthelefs, propheti- 
 cally intended to be applied likewife to 
 fome f.ngle perfon^ and that the fame was 
 eminently fulfilled in the perfon oi Jefus 
 Cbriji^ the only begotten Son of God, 
 whom the Father called out of Egypt by 
 his angel. Jacob, and the children of 
 Jfrael, rnay, indeed, be called the Sons of 
 God, bat it muft be in a very different 
 fenfe from the former ; for they are only 
 
 types 
 
[ III ] 
 
 types of the true Jfrael, [Y^rs^y) the 
 Prince of God, who gave this name to 
 Jacob, when he wreftled with him, that 
 he might render him more confpicuoufly 
 a type of himfelf; viz. as one that had 
 " power with God, and with men^ and 
 " had prevailed^" Jacob was fenfible of 
 the divine prefence^ and therefore called 
 the name of the place Penie.l, [^^ ij?^) or 
 (as it is expreffed in the margin) the face 
 of God -y for (faid he) '•' I have feen God 
 " face to face.'^and my life is prefervedr 
 Gen.xxxii. 28, 29, 30. 
 
 I have already faid fo much concerning 
 the nature of prophecy in general, and 
 have quoted fo many examples of two 
 diiFerent fubjedts being referred to by one 
 and the fame prophetical expreflion, that 
 (I hope) I need not any longer urge the 
 reafonablenefs of a double application, 
 likewife, of the text quoted by St. Mat- 
 thew from the prophet Hofea ^ efpecial- 
 
 \ 
 
r 112 ] 
 
 ly as Dr. W ms has not afligned any 
 
 one reafon why it ought to be otherwifej 
 nor any authority whatfoever for his afler- 
 tion, in page 39, that the paffage *' could 
 *^ not be f infilled when the child Jefus came 
 ** cut of Egypt ^'' except, indeed, the au- 
 thority of his own bare word ; which, 
 neverthelefs, feems to have had fufficient 
 weight with the Critical Reviewers, 
 though it is oppofed to the exprefs teftimo-^ 
 ny even of an Evangel fl^ 
 
 The other quotation of St. Matthew, 
 which Dr. W — — ms has called in quef- 
 tion, is given in the 2d chap. 23d verfe : 
 viz, " He fhall be called a Nazarene.'' 
 This is one of the texts concerning which 
 the Dr. affirms, in page 3 8, that ** it is not 
 ** pofjihle io reconcile'' (it) ^' with any par ^ 
 '* tictilar prophecy now extant in the Old 
 " T^efamenty But he is greatly mifta- 
 ken in this \ for the text may certainly 
 be reconciled not only with one prophecy, 
 . - but 
 
[ i'3 ] 
 
 but with many very particular prcphccies 
 ** now extant in the Old I'ejiament ;" and 
 therefore St. Matthew appeals with^r^^^ 
 propriety^ in this cafe^ not to one prophet 
 alone, but to the fenfe of ail the prophets 
 ■ 7n general^ viz. to '^vjdsv Sia rcov Tr^oipi^uv, 
 that '•' which v/2iS Jpoke/i by the prophets^ 
 
 For, though the prophets do not fay 
 expreffly that *' be JJoall be called a Na- 
 " zarene," yet many of them do plainly 
 allude to this appellation. Our Lord was 
 called a Nazarene, notwithftanding: that 
 he was born at Bethlehem, the city of 
 V David, according to the Scriptures (24). 
 He was fometimes called 'Na^cd^ai^ i'^s)} 
 
 Part II. P and 
 
 (24) " But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though 
 ** thou be little among the thoufands of Judah, yet 
 *' out of thee fhall he come forth unto me that is to be 
 *• ruler in I/raeh, whofe goings forth have been from of 
 *' old, from everlaftirg." Micah v. 2. Compare this 
 with Matt. ii. 5. and John vii. 42. 
 
 (25) Mark x. 47, Luke xviii. 37. xxiv. 19. John 
 xviii. 5, xix. 19, and fevQn times in Ads. 
 
[ M4 ] 
 
 and fo me times Nfij^ap?ji/(^ (26); fynony- 
 mous terms for a Nazarene or inhabitant 
 oi Nazareth *y which (as Dr» Hammond 
 expounds it) fignifies " T& City of tlje 
 *' Branchy or where the Meffiah (the 
 " Branch) (hoiild be brought up ; and 
 " accordingly (fays the Dodtor) this be- 
 " comes Ch rift's vulgar title, Na^w^a/©^** 
 
 Now the Meffiah is called nm the^ 
 Branch by Ifaiah iv. 2. Jeremiah xxiii» 5. 
 and Zechariah iii. 8. 
 
 A plant, or branch, is the ufual fcrip- 
 tu re-emblem for a child. > *' Thy 
 
 " children^ like olive-branches y round a- 
 *' bout thy table," fays the Pfalmift in 
 the cxxviiith Pfalm, 3dverfe: and, in 
 Pfalm cxliv. 12. we read — " that our 
 '' fom may grow up as the young plants^* 
 Therefore the prophets very fitly exprefl- 
 
 ed 
 
 (26) Marki. 24. xiv. 67. xvi, 6. and Luke iv. 34.. 
 
[ ii5 ] 
 
 ed the cJoildhood and growth of the Mef- 
 fiah by the word nai' before-mentioned ; 
 for it properly fignifies, not only a Braitcb^ 
 but Germen^ a Bud, or young twigj 
 which Ifaiah farther explains, in the liiid 
 chap. 2d verfe, by the word PJV a ten^ 
 der plant y or fucker -, which is not only a 
 fit emblem of the once ijvfajit Jlate of the 
 Meffiah, but alfo of his gradual increafe 
 in ftrength and wifdom : for " he (hall 
 << grow up before him (fays the prophet) 
 " as a tender plant y and as a root out of 
 '/ a dry ground j'* by which he affigns 
 the true reafon of Chrift's being called 
 the Branch. Indeed this whole chapter 
 contains fo perfedt a defcription of Chrift's 
 human ftate upon earth, that no miracle 
 or demonftration whatfoever can be more 
 capable of affording convidtion ; and, 
 confequently, thofe, who have read it 
 and flill dilbelieve, are inexcufeable. The 
 prophet Zechariah (vi. 12.) fpeaks of 
 the growth of Cbrift, the Branch, in the 
 
 P 2 fame 
 
[ n6 ] 
 
 fame kind of terms, HD^T^ vrinnQi " He 
 '* fiall grow up cut of bis place \' or, as 
 it is properly rendered in the margin, — ^ 
 *' he fhall branch up from under him." 
 Moreover, this prophet foretold, in the 
 fame verfe, that he {hould be named the 
 
 Branch. \a^ HD:; VD^^ HJH •* Be- 
 
 '* hold the man (27), whofe ;7^;?/e is the 
 " Branch j" plainly alluding, by the fenfe 
 (though not the found) of this appella- 
 tion, to Chrift's being furnamed (28) the 
 Nazarene, from Nazarethy the city of 
 the Branch, 
 
 But Ifaiah, in the xith chap, ifl; verfe, 
 not only alludes to the fenfe and meaning 
 
 of 
 
 (27) Zechariali commanded that this prophecy (hould 
 be fpoken to Jolhua (or Jefus) the high-prieft, in the 
 time of Zerubbi'bel ; but 1 have already Ihewn that he 
 was therein only a type of our Lord Jefus, the true 
 branch. 
 
 (28) feceffit (Jofeph) in partes Galilaeae, 
 
 ibique habitavit in urbe Nazareth» unde et Chriftus 
 Nazareni cognomentum accepit, (Matt, ii. 22, 23.) et 
 Nazarenorum Chriftiani. (A£ls xxiv. 5.) y* UJJerii 
 Annalium pars pojieriort /, 536. 
 
[ >'7 ] 
 
 of this furname, but to the very found 
 of it 5 for he intides him T/J Netjer^ a 
 Branch. Now Chrift was really called, 
 in the common Syriac dialedt, |-;-j Net- 
 feriay a Netferian^ or ISazarene^ from Z; j 
 Netferethy (called, from the Greek, Na- 
 zareth J where he had been brought up, 
 {Luke iv. i6.) and where (according to 
 the true meaning of the appellation, 
 Netferian^ or Nazarene, when interpret- 
 ed) he^r^'Z£; up as a Plant or Branch 'y for 
 St. Luke informs us (ii. 40.) that *' tkey 
 " . (viz, Jofeph and Mary, with xhtycung 
 " child) returned into Galilee, to their 
 *' ov;iTiC\iy y Nazareth', znd the chi/d grew, 
 ^' and waxed Jirong in fpirit, filled with 
 *' wifdomj and the grace of God was 
 " upon him," 
 
 And again, in the k^iA verfe. ■ 
 " J^fa^ increafed in wifdom and Jlature, 
 " and in favour with God and man." 
 This exadly correfponds with Jeremiah's 
 
 prophecy. 
 
C 1.8 ] 
 
 prophecy, (xxxiii. 15.) viz. " In thoie 
 *^' days, and at that time, {t]^^T£ nJCjT 
 " nib ^n3:^i) will I caufethe Branch of 
 " righteoufnefs to grow up unto David." 
 
 If all this be confidered, I think the 
 litnefs of St. Matthew's appeal to the pro- 
 phets, concerning the word Na^^y^a^^, 
 cannot be called in queftion ; uniels, like 
 the Critical Reviewers y (fol. 357.) we 
 fhoiild believe, from Dr. W--?— ms's bare 
 word^ that Na^^fai©^ fignifies a Nazorite-y 
 which interpretation would, indeed, ren- 
 der it impoffible '' to reconcile Matthew lu 
 *• 23. with any particular prophecy now 
 ** extant in the Old Teftamentj" accord- 
 ing to the Doftor's alTertion in p. 38. 
 
 For the Do6lor informs us, in the fol- 
 lowing page, (39.) that " the word is not 
 •* N£»^ajai©o, a Nazarene^ but Naf^^a/©^, 
 a Nazorite :'' neverthelefs it is certain that 
 both thefe words fignify the fame things 
 
 viz* 
 
[ "9 ] 
 
 viz. a Nazarene, (or inhabitant of Naza- 
 reth 'J and, likewife, that neither of them 
 can ijgnify a Nazan'u, or (as he fpclls it) 
 Nazorite. 
 
 For, the Hebrew word l^iJi feparatus^ 
 from whence thefe laft (Nazarite or Na- 
 zorite) are derived, is no where in Scrip- 
 ture rendered Na^^^a/©- or Nci^^aooi©^, 
 but is diftingu idled from them by an iota 
 in the fecond fy liable, viz. Na^/^, a Na^ 
 zarite. Judges xiii. 5. and ^ct^i^ocioi^ Na- 
 zarites^ Lamentations iv. 7. Befides, it 
 is very plain, throughout the whol'e New 
 Teftament, that Chrift was not called 
 Na^it;^ai(^ as being a Nazarite^ (for he 
 could not properly be called fo according 
 to the law of Mofes, though" John the 
 Baptift was really fuch,) but on account 
 of his having been brought up at the city 
 of Nazareth, which in the Syriac tongue 
 was called L,^ (not with ). or i as Neze- 
 retb^ but with ^ or ^) Netfereth \ for the 
 
 word 
 
[ 120 ] 
 
 word is plainly derived from H'^J a Branchy 
 the name which the prophet Ifaiah has 
 given to the Meffiah himfelf, (as is before 
 obferved,) and therefore St, Matthew's 
 appeal to the prophets in this cafe is very 
 eaiily reconciled with the prophecies " now 
 " extant in the OUT ejiamenty' though the 
 Dodlor has declared that the fame *' is 
 " not pojjibler 
 
 Even Chrift himfelf condefcended 
 fometimes to prophefy in the fame kind 
 of ftyle that had before been ufed by his 
 fervants the prophets. *' Verily I fay 
 " unto yoUj there be fome {landing here, 
 *' which {hall not tajle of death, till they 
 " fee the Son of man coming in his king;- 
 ** dom." Matth. xvi. 28. And again, 
 «* If I will that he (John) tarry till I 
 " comCy what is that to thee ?'* John xxi. 
 22. Here our Lord makes ufe of " the 
 ** fame words and phrafes' with which he 
 was wont to exprefs his fecotid coming to 
 
 judge 
 
t i2i ] 
 
 judge the world ; fo that his difciples un- 
 derftood that John (hould not die; where- 
 as the event plainly (hewed that he 
 " meant of his comi?ig' (fo often men- 
 tioned in the New Teftament) " in 
 *' judgement upon the Jews at the final 
 ** overthrow of Jerufalem, which St» 
 " John outlived many years." See Dr. 
 Cave on the Life of that Difciple^ Anti- 
 quitates Apoftolica^, p. 158. 
 
 Our Lord likewife " ufed the fame 
 '- words and phrafes' unto thefe two diffe^ 
 rent fubjeBs, viz. his comi?tg in judge- 
 ment upon Jerufalem, and hislafl: coining 
 to judge the world, *' when occafion 
 " was to fpeak of them together," ac- 
 cording to the obfervation before quoted 
 from Aflemblies Annotations ; infomuch 
 that the day of judgement and the end of 
 the world were expeded to follow imme- 
 diately after the accomplifhment of 
 Chrift's prophecies, in the xxivth chap. 
 
 Part II, Q_ of 
 
[ 122 ] 
 
 of Matthew, xiiith of Mark, and xxift 
 of Luke, concerning God's judgement in 
 the dejirudtion of Jenifakm. 
 
 The latter, however, may indeed be 
 confidered as a fign, or type, of the 
 great and lajl day \ and the accomplifli- 
 ment of the prophecies concerning it is 
 undoubtedly a fure pledge of God' s future 
 judgement : juft in the fame manner as the 
 temporary deliverance from Rezin and Pe- 
 kah, promifed to Ahaz and the houfe of 
 David by Ifaiah, was properly the confir- 
 mation and pledge of the future diftant 
 deliverance, promifed in the perfon of 
 
 ImmanueL Therefore, if Dr. W ^-ms 
 
 fuppofes (as he hints in the words of Mr. 
 Collins in page 7.) that this fign flood in 
 need of other figns to manifeft that God 
 would perform it in time, let him confi- 
 der the context once more, and he will 
 find that the fign was not without fuch a 
 manifeflaticn as Mr. Collins and himfelf 
 
 have 
 
[ 123 ] 
 i.dve required. Perhnps it may be faid 
 that I have troubled my readers with a 
 great many more examples of " types^ 
 *« figures^ and fecondary fcnfcs,'' than were 
 neceffary for the point in queftion j but I 
 was induced thereto by the too hady cen- 
 fure paffed on this fort of writings by the 
 authors of the Critical Review in page 
 349. where they feem to condemn all 
 i\peSy &c. whatfoever, indifcriminately, 
 without deigning todifiinguifli the diffe- 
 rence between proper types and imaginary 
 ones. 
 
 ne END of Part II. 
 
DISSERTATION 
 
 O N 
 
 ISAIAH vii. 8. 
 
 P A Pv T 111. 
 
[ 127 ] 
 
 DISSERTATION 
 
 O N 
 
 ISAIAH vii. 8. 
 
 ■ " With'm threefcore and jive years 
 
 *' fhall Ephraim be broken, that it be 
 " not a people." 
 
 THE accomp]i(l:}ment of Ifaiah's 
 prophecy (in confirmation of 
 which he required Ahaz toafk 
 afign) was not '' an event near at handy' 
 
 as Dr. W ms ifuppofes 5 for, no lefs a 
 
 term than fixty-five years was allowed for 
 the accomplifliment of one of the circum- 
 ftances contained in it 5 viz. — ^^ within 
 
 " threefcore 
 
[ 128 ] 
 
 " threejcore and jive years fliall Ephraim 
 *^ be broken^ that it be not a people." 
 Ifaiah vii. 8. 
 
 Neverthelefs, the king, or regal go- 
 vernment of Ephraim, (or Ifrael, for E- 
 phraim in this text feems to be put for the 
 ten tribes of Ifrael as feparated from Ju- 
 dah,) lafted no longer than about twenty- 
 one years after the prophecy Was deliver- 
 ed i for, '^ in the ninth year of Hojhea^^ 
 (the fixih of Hezekiah,) " the king of 
 *^ \^ffyria took Samaria^ and carried Ifrael 
 away into Ajfyria^' (2 Kings xvii, 6.) 
 therefore commentators have generally 
 found it very difficult to account for the 
 number oi fxty-five years mentioned in 
 this prophecy. 
 
 A very learned and juftly-efteemed au- 
 thor (i), in order to folve the difficulty, 
 has applied feveral texts in. the fecond 
 
 book 
 
 (1) Bifiiop Newton on the Prophecies, 
 
[ '29 ] 
 
 book of Kings to an imaginary captivity, 
 or carrying away, by Efarhaddon, which, 
 if the context be carefully confidered, 
 will be found to relate, undoubtedly, to 
 the r^^/ captivity under Salmanaflar. We 
 underftand, indeed, from Ezraiv. 2. that 
 the adverfaries of Benjamin and Judah 
 (the Samaritans) dated the time of their 
 fettlement in the cities of Samaria from 
 " the days of Efarhaddon, king of Ajfur^ 
 " which (as they faid) brought us up hi- 
 ** thcr.'' But there is no neceffity to fup- 
 pofe that Efarhaddon carried any people 
 away into captivity from thence, nor any 
 evidence to fupport fuch a fuppoiition. 
 Was it not poflible for Efarhaddon to plant 
 frefh colonies in the land of Ifrael, where 
 it was^ too thinly inhabited by the former 
 colonies, without having carried awaj* 
 any of the inhabitants into captivity ? 
 Surely it was not only poffible, but moft 
 probable, that this was real ly the cafe; 
 notwithilanding that feveral other learned 
 Part III. R men, 
 
. [ -I30 ] 
 
 men, befides Bp. Newton, have thought 
 otherwife; and particularly Fr. Junius, 
 quoted by Dr. Simfon in his Chronicon 
 Catholicum, (pars 3tia, p. 69.) But the 
 Dodlor himfelf fufficiently accounts for 
 the paffages in Ezra, (ch. iv. 2 and 10.) 
 fo that there is no neceffity to fuppofe 
 another captivity under Efarhaddon : — 
 " Quanquam enim Salmanafar illam co- 
 ** loniam primus deduxerit, tamen cum 
 plurimi incolarum a feris, et forte pefti- 
 lentia, (fie enim ait Jofephus libro no- 
 no,) extindi effent, poftea plures ab 
 Afarhaddone illuc miflbs fuiffe veri- 
 ^^ Jimile eJiJ' And he likewife quotes 
 Nicholaus Brabantinus to the fame pur- 
 pofe : — " Leones enim vaftaverunt mag- 
 nam partem populi quem Salmanaflar 
 miferat : propter quod ifte Afarhaddon 
 mifit alios loco ipforum, et cum iis 
 unum de facerdotibus captivis, qui do- 
 f« ceret eos colere Dominum." 
 
 The 
 
 cc 
 ce 
 <c 
 <c 
 
[ 131 ] 
 
 The prophet does not fay that Ephraim 
 J}:allbe broken from a kingdom in fixty-jive 
 yearSy but that within fuch a time he fhall 
 be broken Jrom a people \ therefore it is 
 plain that the prophecy could not be ac- 
 compliflied by the captivity of Ephraim 
 and the deftrudion of the regal govern^ 
 ment of Samaria by Salmanaflar ; becaufe 
 Ephraim, or the children of Ifrael, might 
 be flill called a people^ or nation, even 
 after their removal into a ftrange country j 
 for they could not be faid to " be broken 
 ** from a people^' until the judgements 
 denounced againft them by the prophet 
 Amos (ix. 4.) (hould be fulfilled, vix^ 
 '* Though they go into captivity before 
 *' their enemies, thence will I command 
 •* the fword, and it fhall flay them.'* 
 
 It appears, from the hiftory of Tobit, 
 that this really came to pafs ; for he fpeaks 
 of the frequent flaughter made of the 
 
 R 2 people 
 
C ^3^ ] 
 
 people of bis nation by Sennacherib, chap, 
 i. 17, 18. *^ for in his wrath be Jlew ma~ 
 " «jV." And, even in the reign of Efar- 
 naddon, ^ho\xt fixty-Jive years after Ifaiah's 
 prophecy, notwithftanding that Achiar* 
 charus, Tobit's nephew, was appointed 
 over all the king's affairs, (aift verfe,) 
 we find an inftance recorded of the conti» 
 nuation of this perfecution. 
 
 For, when Tobit was told (chap, ii, 3,) 
 that one of his nation was ftrangled and 
 caft out in the market-place, he remem- 
 bered (6 th verfe) " that prophecy of Amos ^ 
 " as he faid, (fee Amos viii. 10.) Your 
 *^ feafts fiiall be turned into mourning, 
 *' and all your mirth into lamentation :" 
 for it was then the fea(i of pentecoji^ or 
 feven weeks, and Tobit had fent out to 
 invite fuch of his poor brethren as feared 
 the Lord, that they might partake of the 
 ** good dinner which \nz% prepared -^^ but, 
 in the mean time, he received this me- 
 lancholy 
 
[ ^33 ] 
 
 lancholy account ; (fee ift, 2d, and 3d, 
 verfes ;) which proves the propriety of his 
 quotation from Amos. The fame chap- 
 ter of Amos contains a paflage very fuita- 
 blc to my purpofe, (viii, 2, 3.) 
 
 ** ne end is come upon my people of If^ 
 rael', I will not again pafs by them any 
 *' more. And the fongs of the temple 
 '* (hall be howlings in that day," (fee the 
 10th verfe, quoted by Tobit, — « afidall 
 " your fongs into lamentation,) faith the 
 '^ Lord God, there J]:all be many de^d bo- 
 " dies in every place, tkey Jhall caji them 
 " forth with flence^ I am fenfible that 
 the apocryphal bock of Tobit ought not 
 to be confidered of fufficient authority for 
 the proof of any thing ; yet I hope that 
 the remarkable correfpondence it bears to 
 the fubjecft in queflion will excufe my 
 quotation, 
 
 Mofes 
 
[ '34 ] 
 
 Mofes alfo prophefied that the captives 
 of Ifrael fliould be perfecuted ; — " / 
 *' will fcatter you among the heathen y and 
 " will draw out ajword after youJ* Levit. 
 xxvi. 33. 
 
 So we need not doubt but that, by this 
 and other fuch heavy judgements of God, 
 the captives of the ten tribes of Ifrael 
 would be fo much reduced in number 
 within the term of threejcore and jive years 
 mentioned by Ifaiah, thatEphraim might 
 well befaid lobe broken from a people 5 for 
 we read, in Deut. xxviii. 61, 62. '* Alfo 
 " every ficknefs and every plague which 
 ^* is not written in the book of this law, 
 *' them will the Lord bring upon thee, 
 *^ until thou be deftroyed. And ye (hall 
 " be left few in number y' (which agrees 
 well with the expreflion of Ifaiah con- 
 cerning Ephraim's being ^* broken^ that it 
 ** be not a people^' viz, being now left 
 
 few 
 
r 125 ] 
 
 few in number,) " whereas ye were ns the 
 " ftars of heaven for muhitude/' 
 
 The completion of Ifaiah's prophecy 
 concerning Ephraim is very apparent even 
 in another way ; for, though fome of 
 Ephraim, and of all the other tribes, 
 were afterwards fettled in Judaea and other 
 places ; though we read of a remnant of 
 Ifrael{kQ 2 Chron.xxxiv. 9.) that contri- 
 buted to the repairing of the temple in 
 the reign of Jofiah, king of Judah, long 
 after the completion oi the fxty five years 
 limited by Ifaiah ; and though ManafTeh 
 and Ephraim are expreffly mentioned on 
 the fame occafion ; neverthelefs, this 
 remnant of Ephraim, or Ifrael, could 
 have no pretenfions, as before, to be 
 efteemed a feparate people, or nation, 
 from Judah, becaufe they were once more 
 become fubjed to the laws and regal go- 
 vernment of the tribe of Judah, of which 
 the authority exercifed among them by 
 
 Jofiah 
 
[ i36 ] 
 
 Jofiah is a fufEcient proof; and therefore, 
 notwithftanding that on fome particular 
 occafions they were diftinguiflied by their 
 tribes, yet, as a body, or nation, they 
 were generally afterwards efteemed ^Lpart 
 of the tribe of^udab ; which accounts for 
 . theexpreffion of the hiftorian, (2 Kings 
 xvii. 18.) " T^here was none left but the 
 ** tribe of Judah only -y' that is, there 
 was none left but part of the tribes of 
 Levi, Benjamin, and fuch individuals of 
 the other tribes as lived in (or might have 
 efcaped into) the inheritance of Judah, 
 and confequently were all coniidered as 
 the proper fubjedls of the kingdom of yu- 
 dab, and have ever fince borne the name 
 of that tribe ^ viz. CZl'^lin'' feisos. Thus 
 the title of fews became general about 
 this time to all the other tribes as well as 
 Judah 5 for the kingdom of Ifreel was 
 never afterwards reftored in a feparate 
 ftate from Judah ; and therefore, after 
 the captivity by Salmaaaffar, the land 
 
 which 
 
which Ahaz vexed might be faid to " be 
 '' forfakenof one of** her kings;' {2) 
 or regal governments. 
 
 But the fucceffion of the kings of Ju- 
 dah continued regularly until the Babylo- 
 nifh captivity -, and on account of this in- 
 terruption (or of others afterguards) the 
 land could not be faid to be forfaken of 
 both her kings, if the regal government 
 was to be afterwards reftored for any con- 
 fiderable length of time : and we find 
 that many kings reigned in Judah after that 
 period. I have already obferved, that, 
 when Ephraim was broken from a people^ 
 the national name of Jevjs became o-ene- 
 ral to all the other tribes as well as Ju- 
 dah j but it is likewife remarka^ble, that 
 about the fame time the whole Jewifh 
 nation, (including Judah and Benjamin,) 
 Part III. S ^o 
 
 (2) " For, before the child /hall knowtorefufe the 
 " evil and choofe the good, the land that thou abhor- 
 " reflfliall be foriaken of both her kings." Ifaiah 
 vii. i6. 
 
[ 138 ] 
 
 as defcendants of Jacob, began once more 
 to be called i/r^f/, as they had formerly 
 been before the revolt of the ten tribes. 
 In the fecond book of Chron.xxxv. 3.(3) 
 the Levites, that taught ^//i/r^^/, are ex- 
 horted to ferve the Lord their God, and 
 his people Ifrael ', meaning the whole na- 
 tion. Ifaiah, in the fortieth chapter, 
 (27th verfe (4),) and feveral fucceeding 
 chapters, fpeaks of the whole Jewifh na- 
 tion under the title of yacob and Ifrael : 
 for, though he might write thefe chap- 
 ters before the change that I fpeak of, 
 yet it mufi: be confidered that he is ad- 
 drefling himfeif to the people in the fpirit 
 
 of 
 
 (3) " And faid unto the Levites that taught 
 
 ** all Ifrael, which were holy unto the Lord, Put the 
 
 " holy ark in the lioufe, &c. ferve now the Lord 
 
 " your God and his people Ifrael.''* 2 Chron. xxxv. 3. 
 
 (4) <« Why fayefl ihou, O Jacob, and fpeak^ft, O 
 ** Ifrael, my way is hid from the Lord, and my judge- 
 *< ment is pafTed over from my God?" IfaiahxI. 27. 
 — " But tbouy Ifraely art my fervant, Jacob, whom I 
 " havechofen, the feed of Abraham my friend." Chap, 
 xli. 8. — ** Fear not, thou nvorm Jacob, and ye men of 
 " JfraeL** Verfe 14. See alfo chap, xliii. 
 
[ ^39 ] 
 
 of prophecy, and plainly refers to the 
 latter tiaies. Ezekiel (iii. 4.) (5) was 
 fent unto the hoiife of Ifrael, meaning the 
 Jews that were carried into captivity with 
 Jehoiakim : '* Get thee to them of the 
 " captivity," ^c, (fee the iithvtrfe.) 
 Many of the other prophets expreffed 
 themfelves in the fame m.anner. See 
 Zech. xii. ]. (6j Malachi i. i. (7) Ezra 
 iv.3. ^c. (8). So that the national names 
 of Ifraei and 'Jewi were now confidered 
 as fynonymoLis terms; io^ Epbraim^ the 
 chief of the ten tribes, was now broken 
 jrem a people^ and therefore the name of 
 j/7-^f/ did not generally diflingiiifh them 
 as a feparate nation^ or ptople^ as before ; 
 
 S 2 though, 
 
 (5) " Son of man, go, get thee unto the houfe of 
 ** JJ'raei;' &c. Ezek. iii. 4. 
 
 (6) ** The burden of the word of the Lord for If- 
 " rati;' &c. Zech. xii. 1. 
 
 (7) ** The burden of the Arord of the Lord to Ifraei 
 «* by MaUchi," i. i. 
 
 (8) " But Zerubbabel and Jefliua, and the reft of the 
 «* chief of the fathers of Ifrady' &:c. £zr« iv. 3. 
 
[ 140 ] 
 though, indeed, both Ephraim and the 
 t^wo hcufes of IJrael (the houle of Judah 
 and the houfe of Ifrael) were fometimes, 
 afterwards, on particular occafions, dif- 
 tindlly mentioned; as in the thirty-firft (9) 
 and fiftieth ( ic) chapters of Jeremiah and 
 eighth of Zechariah. 
 
 Neverthelefs, all the nation were the 
 children of Ifrael ! all were yews I and in 
 length of time the remnant of Ifrael was 
 io blended with Judah^ that many intirely 
 loft the diftindtion of their tribes, (Ezra 
 ii. 62. ) ( 1 1 ) and more efpecially after the 
 
 Babylonifh 
 
 (9) " Behold, the days come, faith the Lord, that 
 ** I will make anew covenant with the houfe of Ifrael, 
 " and with the houfe of Judah.^' jerem. xxxi. 3 1 . 
 
 (to) — *' In thofe days, and in that time, faith the 
 ** Lord, the children of Ifrael (haU come, they and th,e 
 *' chJdren of jiidah together, going and weeping ; they 
 ** fhall go, and feek the Lord their God.'* Jer, 1. 4. 
 This was plainly fulfilled after the Babylonifh captivi- 
 ty, as the following verfes teflify : — ** Remove cut of 
 ** the midj} of Babylon,'''' &c. Verfes 8, 9, 10. 
 
 (n ) ** Thefe fought their regifler among thofe that 
 <« were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not 
 «' found." Ezraii. 62. 
 
[ HI ] 
 
 Babylonifli captivity, when the prophecy 
 of Ezechiel fecms plainly to be fulfilled. 
 ** Thus faith the Lord God, Behold, I 
 " will take the flick of Jofeph, which is 
 " in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes 
 ofjfrael his fellows, and will put them 
 with him, e-oen with the Jlick of Judab, 
 and make them one stick, and they 
 fliall be one in mine hand." Chap. 
 xxxvii. \g. And, in the 22d verfe, ** I 
 " will make them one Tuition in the land 
 " upon the mountains of Ifrael, and one 
 '' kifig fhall be king to them all : and 
 ** they fliall be no more two nations^ nei- 
 ^' ther fhall they be divided into /'Z£;^ZvW- 
 " doms any more at all." 
 
 cc 
 
 (C 
 
 Agreeably to this prophecy, the chil- 
 dren of Ifrael were one nation, and under 
 one king (that is, a fucceffion of kings 
 reigning one by one) during the reigns of 
 all the Afmonean princes, as well as that 
 of Herod the Great, until Shiloh (the 
 
 Prince 
 
[ H2 ] 
 Prince of peace) was come, according to 
 the prophecy of the patriarch Jacob, re- 
 corded in Genelis xlix. lo. viz, " T^he 
 " fceptre Jhallnot depart from Judah, nor 
 " a lawgiver from between his feet, until 
 " Shiloh comey and unto him (hall the ga- 
 " thering of the people be." 
 
 rhe END of Part HL 
 
DISSERTATION 
 
 O N 
 
 GENESIS xlix. lo. 
 
 ** The fccptre (hall not depart from Ja- 
 '* dan, nor a lawgiver from between 
 *' his feet, until Shiloh come, and un- 
 " to him ihall the gathering of the 
 ** people be." 
 
 PART IV. 
 
[ 145 ] 
 
 DISSERTATION 
 
 O N 
 GENESIS xllx. 10. 
 
 IN the preceding Diflertation concern- 
 ing Ephraim, I have obferved, that 
 the fceptre was continued in the in- 
 heritance of Judah during the reigns of 
 all the Afmona^an princes. 
 
 And I believe the Jews themfelves will 
 not deny, that the faid reigns include a 
 part of the continuation of the fceptre in 
 Judah, as promifed by the patriarch Ja- 
 cob : therefore, I prefume, irv/ill not be 
 neceflary for me to examine the Jewifh 
 
 Part IV, T hillories 
 
[ 146 ] 
 
 hiftories farther back than the time when 
 the fceptre was tranflated into the family 
 of Antipater; fo that I propofe to begin 
 this Diflertation where 1 left off in the 
 laft ; viz. with the reign of Herod the 
 Great. 
 
 Herod had as much right to be efteem- 
 ed a Jew, or of the tribe of Judah (i), 
 as the Afmonaean princes of the tribe of 
 Levi : for not only the defcendants of the 
 twelve tribes were called Jews, after the 
 Babylonifh captivity, (as 1 have before 
 obferved,) but even the profelytes of the 
 
 Jews, 
 
 (i) The ingenious Mr. Mann, in thelirll fedlion of his 
 6th chapter de anno nafali Chrijiiy endeavours to prove 
 that Herod was really a Jew. There are likewife feve- 
 ral other parts of that learned book which would both 
 illuftrate and confirm many of the points which I have 
 advanced ; neverthelefs, as I cannot entirely agree with 
 him in all his opinions, and as I had iinilhed my re- 
 marks (except a Ihort addition at the end of this Differ- 
 tation) before I had the fatisfadion of reading his 
 work, I Ihall therefore content myfelf with referring my 
 readers to the book itfelf. 
 
[ '47 ] 
 Jews, though they were by birth Gentiles 
 of any other nation whatfoever (2). 
 
 This is ftrongly expreffed by Jofephus, 
 in his account of king Izates, the great 
 Adiabeniin profelyte. See Jewifli Anti- 
 quities, (20th book,) (3) VOfJCi^OJV T£ (XT] OLV 
 
 sr^ccTieiv vjv sroif^^. Which is thus ren- 
 dered by Gelenius : " Cumque exlfti- 
 " ma ret fe non effe perfedium Judceiimy 
 '* nifi circumcideretur, paratus erat et 
 
 " hoc facere." And again i^;c ave^- 
 
 fO"&a/ Tg ficcTiXsvovTog ocvtc^ lisSxia, — " Ne- 
 *' que ullo pado laturos Judaum in regio 
 " folio." The Idumseans, (or Edo- 
 
 T 2 mites,) 
 
 (2) — — YjTs yct^ X^y^^j \ovjMay xat «yro», lov^caoiy 
 vvofjiatoxroa . ri oi £7rtHAv;c7t; ocvrr) tKuvoK; ^iv Hie, oiS o^iv 
 Ti^^ccro yBvsa-^ui, (pB^n h y.on ein Ttf? aM«5 ao^pwuracy 
 03-01 Tcc yo^if^a uvruv, xaicre^ aMosfiyj*^ ovTej, ^ijAscr*. Dio 
 Caffius, lib. 36. p. 37. 
 
 (3) The Orleans edition of Jofephus, printed in 
 j6i I, (fol. 685.) which is referred to as often as Jofe- 
 phus is quoted in thefc remarks. 
 
[ hS 1 
 
 mites,) (4) from whom Herod was de- 
 fcended, were not only profelytes to the 
 Jewlfh religion, but were flill more near- 
 ly connedled with the Jews, by having 
 been governed by the fame princes and 
 laws from the time that they were con- 
 quered by John Hyrcanus, the nephew 
 of Judas Maccabaeus ; fo that from that 
 time they were accounted Jews^ as Jofe- 
 phus teflifies, Antiq. 13th book, 17th 
 chap. fol. 450. KDCK&iv^^ avjoig %ooi/©b 
 VTTTjo^ev, Cfjg-B eivxi ro Xoittov J^Sociovg, And 
 they were afterwards as zealous for the 
 rights and liberties of Jerufalem (which 
 they efteemed their metropolitan city) as 
 the native Jews themfelves. See Jewifh 
 War, book iv. chap. 16. page 887. 
 '—'Koci 'sra.vTsg cog stt eXsv^ma. rvjg ^rUpoTrO' 
 XBct)g rj^TToi^^ov tcc ottXu* Tbus it appears 
 that the Idumasans, as a nation, had 
 certainly a right to be efteemed Jews* 
 
 But 
 
 (4) " Thou ftalt not abhor an Edomite, for he. is thy 
 ** brother.'' Deut. xxiii, 7.—!. e. — The patriarch Edom 
 (which is Efau, feeGen, xxv. 30,) wa; j2Cob*s brother. 
 
[ H9 1 
 
 But king Herod's claim of relatlonfhip 
 did not depend upon this Tingle circum- 
 ftance of his being defcended from the 
 Idumasans: his tonnedlions with the 
 Jews were far greafer than any other Idu- 
 macan could ever boaH: of. His father, 
 Antipater, though an Idumaean, was a 
 perfon of fuch truft and efteem, among 
 the Jews, that he held the greateft offices 
 under their kings. 
 
 He fcrved under their k;ng Alexander 
 as ^cverncr of Idumcea -, (Antiq. book xiv. 
 chap. 2. p. 469.) — under their king and 
 high-prieft Hyrcanus, as governor ofju- 
 daa itfelfy and commander in chief of the 
 Jewijh army. And afterwards he ferved 
 undef Csfar, alfo, as procurator of fu- 
 daa. See the xivth and xvth chapters of 
 the fame book. 
 
 Therefore, not only as an Idumaean, 
 but alfo by thefe continual connedions, as 
 
 well 
 
[ '50 ] 
 
 well as relidence among the Jews, Anti- 
 pater feemed to be entirely naturalized 
 to this people; infomuch that he efteem- 
 cd their intereft as his own ; their coun- 
 try as though it had been his native land I 
 His affiduity and diligence in repairing the 
 wails of Jerufalem, (^cx.vey£i^ei [j(,ev evdvg to 
 TSix^i book xiv. chap. 18.) when he 
 had obtained leave of Caefar to do fo, is a 
 proof of this, as well as Jofephus's man- 
 ner of expreffing that circumftance, Jew- 
 ifo War^ book i. chap. 8. viz* Kott w^oj-^ 
 
 Tcccjeg-^ocfii^iva., Thus rendered by Rufinus : 
 -*«- ** etpraster hoc (Antipater) impetra- 
 ** vit/ut {uhveri^2ipatria mcenia renovare 
 ^* fibi liceret/' And again, Av]i7rocj^og Se 
 
 K-diTocpx nsr^oTTBy.'i^oig bh. rvjg 'Zvpiug, etg I»- 
 
 civcSsifAixjo THX ITATPIAOX vtto Uoi^'TTTji^s 
 Koileg-odfjcf/uevov, Antipater vero, ubi de 
 Syria Ceefarem profecutus eft, in "Judceam 
 
 reverfu?, * 
 
[ 15' ] 
 
 reverfus, ante omnia patri-^^ murci a 
 Pompeio dirutos reparabat. 
 
 If all thefe circumftances are confidcr- 
 
 ed, it will not be cafy to prove, that the 
 
 fin of fuch a perfon ought to be accounted 
 
 a foreigner to the Jews. Herod was born 
 
 a fubject of the kingdom of the Jews, 
 
 and publicly profefied their religion, laws, 
 
 and cufloms, notwithftanding that he 
 
 frequently offended againft them all r 
 
 and, if he did not think himfelf, in 
 
 reality, entitled to be elteemed one of 
 
 that nation, he neverthelefs omitted no 
 
 proper opportunity of claiming relation- 
 
 fliip. A remarkable inftance of this we 
 
 have in his fpeech to the Jews, when he 
 
 propofed to enlarge and beautify their 
 
 temple. «« For (faid he) our fathers 
 
 " built this temple to Almighty God af- 
 
 *' ter the return from Babylon," ^c. 
 
 TOV yotp VOCOV THrOV UKoSofZ71(rOiV fJiSV TU fJti- 
 
 yi^co 3e^ nATEPES 'KMETEPOT, fJiP^cc 
 
 T1lJ¥ 
 
[ 152 ] 
 
 Tviv sic Boi^uXuv^ oivocg-xo-iu, jewifli Antiq. 
 book XV. chap. 14. p. 543. 
 
 There are many other inftances^ in 
 Jofephus, of Herod's exprefiing himfelf 
 in this manner : and indeed the fingular 
 circumftances of this monarch's connec- 
 tions with the Jews rendered his claim of 
 relationfhip fo jufl that it could not be 
 difputed, although he was not defcended 
 of any of the twelve tribes. Jofephus, 
 who called Herod's father (Antipater) an 
 Idumaariy does not deny that he was a 
 Jew, but only that he was not defcended 
 from the chief fewsy who came into fiidcea 
 from Babylon y which had been afferted by 
 Nicholas of Damafcus. Antiq. bookxiv. 
 chap. 2. p. 469. On the contrary, Jofe- 
 phus informs us, that, when the Jews of 
 Csefarea contended with the Syrians for 
 the right of fuperiority in that city, they 
 alledged that the founder, Herod their 
 
 kingy was a few by birth: 01 [jliv yxp la- 
 
 ^ . 
 
 OOClOl 
 
[ ^53 ] 
 
 Sxtoi -uT^ulsveiv yi^tovv, Stoc rov ^ijig'vjv Tr}g Ka/- 
 coc^sixg 'HooSrjv aulcov (iocTiXicx. ysyovevoct to 
 yev^ lOTAAION. Antiq. book xx. 
 ehap. 6. p. 695. And the juftice of this 
 plea, fo far as it related to Herod, ^jDas al- 
 lowed by the Syria?is. Zv^ot Se rcc [^bv stb^i 
 Tov 'H^cdSTjv uf/^oXoyiiv, &c. See alfo Jswifli 
 War, bookii. chap. 12, p. 797. it (!»- 
 Soiioi) fA.iv yccp yj^iav crq^sje^av eivcci rrjv sroXiv^ 
 lOTAAION ysyovevoct tov jcjtg-vjv odjJTjg Xs- 
 yovTzq, r^v Se'H^u)S't]g, ficto-iXevg' 01 Se hs^at 
 (Sufs;) TOV o:xig-7jv f^ev TT^oa-cci^oXoy^v IOT-. 
 AAION, ^c. 
 
 If all thefe things be confidered, I think 
 they muftjuftify my expreffion, that He- 
 rod had as much right to be efteemed a 
 Jew^s the JJmon^an princes pf the tribe 
 of Levi: and, though neither the latter 
 nor Herod (notwithftanding that they were 
 Jews) were really defcended of the tribe 
 of Judah, yet the completion of Jacob's 
 prophecy, concerning the fceptre of Ju- 
 
 Part IV. U dah. 
 
I ^54 1 
 dah^ is not at all affeded by this cir cum^ 
 ftance* 
 
 For the faid prophecy does not (I ap*- 
 prehend) fo much relate to the defcent or 
 genealogy of the individuals, that were to 
 rule in Judah, as to the particular pre- 
 eminence of that whole tribe, from which 
 the fceptre (the fign of its being a diftlnd: 
 kingdom) fhould not depart till Shiloh 
 was come. Therefore, it is not fo very 
 material to my prefcnt purpofe whether 
 Herod was a Jew or not, fince it muft be 
 acknowledged, (be his parentage what it 
 will,) that he was neverthelefs *^ king of 
 ** Judc^ea" as Luke ftiles him, chap. i. 
 verfe 5. viz. king of the tribe and inhe- 
 ritance of Judahy (as well as of the other 
 tribes incorporated therein,) and that he 
 kept his royal refidence in the capital city 
 of that ruling tribe ^ as did all the prece- 
 ding kings of Judahy howfoever defcend- 
 ed. 
 
 An 
 
[ ^55 3 
 
 An objedion has been made to the 
 common interpretation of the word C3\c? 
 or Jcefter^ in Jacob's prophecy ; viz, that 
 ^' it could not, with any fort of propriety, 
 ** be faid. xh^X the fcepter Jhould not depart 
 •* from yudahy when Judah had nofcep- 
 " ter, nor was to have any for many ge-* 
 " nerations afterwards." (5) But the 
 learned author of this objection has not 
 confidered that the fceptre, or regal go^ 
 vernment in Judah, is plainly implied and 
 foretold in the former part of the fame pro-" 
 phecy^ which entirely removes the force 
 of his argument in favour of a different 
 interpretation of that word, '* Judah^ 
 (faid the patriarch,) *' thou art he whom 
 ** thy brethren Jhall praife i' (alluding to 
 the tneaning of his name;) " thy hand 
 •* {hall be In the neck of thine enemies ; 
 *' thy father 5 children fiall bow down before 
 •* theer Qtn, xlix. 8. 
 
 U 2 Now, 
 
 (5) Sec bilhop Newton on the Prophecies, vol. i. p. 95, 
 
[ 156 ] 
 
 Now, notwithftanding the precedency 
 of the tribe of Judah, in the encamp- 
 ments and marching of the Ifraelites in 
 the wildernefs, yet this part of the pro- 
 phecy, '* thy father s children Jhall bow 
 ^' down before thee^' cannot be faid to be 
 fulfilled until all the other tribes became 
 fubjedt to the monarchy of the tribe of 
 Judah under David and Solomon 3 which 
 is obferved likewife by the authors of the 
 Commentary on the Bible, called Aflem- 
 blies Annotations. " This" (fay they) 
 ?*■ w^as literally moft verified in David and 
 Solomon, who were of this tribe ; and 
 fpiritually in Chrift, the lion of the tribe 
 of Judahy Rev. V. 5. to whom all 
 ^' knees fhall bow." Phil. ii. jo. — And 
 they obferve, farther^ that " the courage 
 of Judah is compared to a lion's whelp: 
 fuch was the tribe of Judah in the firft 
 efllays of war, in the time pf Jofhua j 
 *^ afterwards it increafed to the vigour of 
 
 " a 
 
[ 157 ] 
 
 ** a lion at full age, and old in comparifon 
 " of a whelp : fuch it was in David's 
 " time; and, by age and experience, fub- 
 *' tie aswell asftrong; for David, of that 
 *' tribe, was fo wife that Saul was afraid 
 •* of his wifdooi, (i Sam. xviii. 5. 14. 
 ** 15.) and very courageous, (fee 1 Sam, 
 " xvii. from ver. 32 to 51.) as the lion 
 " above other hearts, who, by his cou- 
 " rage and ftrength, is a king over thf.m*' 
 Num. xxiii. 24. Prov. xxviii. i. and xxx, 
 30. Amos iii. 8. Mic. v. 8. 
 
 If all this be confidered, it will appear 
 that oar:;, in this text, mufl be tranflated 
 afcepter ,• which is the opinion likewife 
 of Monf. Martin : — " Qooique le mot 
 " .Hebreu fignifie aufli une verge, et qu'il 
 *' foit employe quelquefois dans un fens 
 ** metaphorique pour la verge des afHic- 
 " tions, la liaifon de ce verfet avec le pre- 
 ** cedent y et toiite la mat i ere contenue dans 
 ** ce textey ne permettent pas d'expliquer 
 
 " id 
 
" ki ce mot autrement que par celiai ds 
 " fceptt^e ; de meme que dans ce paffagc 
 " de Zacharie, chap. x. ii. ou fe trou-^ 
 ** vent en Hebreu les m^mes termes 
 *' qu'ici: le fceptrefedepartirad'Egypte." 
 
 Thus it is plain that, the regul fctpter 
 was not to depart from the tribe of Ju4ab 
 till Shiloh was came. 
 
 Now, the Meffiah was not born until 
 the clofe of king Herod's reign, therefore 
 the fcepter of fudab could not be faid to 
 depart, or begin to depart, (" be depart^ 
 ** ingy* as fome commentators have fan- 
 cied,) before that period. Neither coyld 
 the land which jibaz vexed be faid to ** be 
 " forfaken of both her kingSy' or monar-r 
 chies, whilil Herod continued to reign in 
 Jerufalem. But, immediately after his 
 death, the form of government was en-* 
 tirely altered. There, was no longer a 
 fcepter in the tribe or inheritance of Ju- 
 
 dah! 
 
f »59 3 
 
 dah! The Jews had now no other 
 worldly king but Ccefar-, for the peculiar 
 fceptcr of Judab was departed. They 
 were, indeed, fubjed: to a fcepter, but it 
 was the Roman fcepter ; which could not 
 on this account be called the fcepter of 
 Judab 5 and therefore it is plain, that, at 
 this time, the fcepter departed from Ju- 
 dah. A folemn legation of fifty ambafla- 
 dors, from Jerufalem, (who were backed 
 by eight thoufand Jev/s at Rome,) foli- 
 cited Caefar that their regal government 
 might be changed, and that they oiight 
 be added to the province of Syria, and be- 
 come fubjed: to the Roman commanders 
 that fhould be feat there.— Hi/ It yci<poc\oiiov 
 
 ttvjffic T^g alic^TBOig, (iua-iXaocg koci toiuw Jg 
 cifxcav <x,7TyiXXocx6o(,i, sr^oa-driKriv ^s Evot^g 
 ysyovojag V7ro]aira-i^-Bai to^ ^jceta-e wsf^of^B- 
 ^oig ^^d^yiyo^g. See Antiq. p. 6jl,6l2. 
 See atfo p. 781, 782. where the fame 
 thing is ftrongly expreffcd. 
 
[ i6o ] 
 
 Neverthelefs, Caefar did not, at that 
 time, entirely comply with their requeftj 
 for, as Archelaus was named by his fa- 
 ther Herod to be his fucceffor in the 
 kingdom, Caefar was pleafed to grant him 
 the half of Herod's dominions, but not as 
 c kingdom^ for he allowed him the title 
 only of Ethnarch ; and, as fuch, Arche- 
 laus had no more right to the enfign of 
 royalty^ fpoken of by the patriarch Jacob 
 in the 49th chapter of Genefis, than he 
 had to the title and/ dignity of a king^ 
 which were never conferred on him, 
 though promifed conditionally. 
 
 Kuicrctp Se uTc^cocg SiocXvBt fjLBV to (rvvBo^tov^ 
 oXiycjdV Sb vjf/yBDuv vg-BDou Ao'XBXotov BASIAEA 
 MEN OTK AnOOAINETAI, tod Sb ^p- 
 {Tg©^ TTjg %wpa? TjTrsp 'HouSti VTTBJBXei Bbvcc^-xvi^ 
 zaeig-uTUt, TIMHIEIN AHIflMATI BA- 
 SIAEIAi: 'rniSXNOTMENOS etTTBp Tf}v 
 eig uvJTiV ccDBJ'i'jv 'zs-poor(peooiTO, Antiq. book 
 
 xvii. 
 
[ i6i ] 
 
 xvii. chap. 13. p. 61 i. Fiom this It 
 
 appears, that an ethnarch did iiot diftcr 
 from a king /;; title only* 
 
 '* Ihe dignity of a kingdom' was then 
 merely prom'fed ; which is a proof that 
 the ethnarchy, at that time eftabiifiied, 
 was entirely without fuch dignity: and 
 Archelaus was fo far from obtaining the 
 promifed kingdom ^ that about nine years 
 afterwards he was banifl:ed even from his 
 ethnarchy. See Jewifli War, book ii. 
 chap. 6. p. 784. (6) 
 
 In the mean time Herod Antlpas, ano- 
 ther fon of Herod the Great, was tetrarch 
 of Galilee. It was this Herod who be- 
 headed John the Baptiil: in his territory 
 of Galilee, and whofe crafty, " bafe, and 
 
 Part IV. X felf- 
 
 
f l62 ] 
 
 fe!f-interefted, difpoiition was charac- 
 terized by the Meffiah himfelf under 
 the fimile oizfox: for in deteftation of 
 fuch perm'doiis principles h^ even named 
 him from that wily animal, " Go and 
 " tell that fox,'' 6cc. To this man was 
 Chrift fent by Pontius Pilate; not be- 
 Caufe. Herod Antspashad any judicial au- 
 thority in Jerufalem, but becaufe Chrift 
 was accounted a Galilean^ and therefore 
 Pilate fent hirr?, as being one that be- 
 Jonged unto Herod' s jurifdiBion. See St. 
 Luke xxiii. 6, 7. (7) 
 
 Judssa was, indeed, fpiritually the 
 kingdom of the Mejjiah^ of which many 
 inconteftable proofs are inferted through- 
 out this work, and compared with the 
 predidicns of the prophets \ but, with 
 
 refpedl 
 
 (7) " when Pilate heard of Galilee^ he aflced 
 
 ** whether the man (Jefus) were a Galilean. And, a^ 
 *' foon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod^sjuri/" 
 ** diiiiorii he feni him to Herod, who himfQlf was alfo 
 f^ at Jerufalem at that time." 
 
refpedi to its temporal or civil govern- 
 meni, it was fo far from ieing a kingdoni 
 at this time, that it was onlv confidered 
 as a part of the province of Syria ; and 
 for above thirty years together was go- 
 verned by a regular fucceflion of Roman 
 procurators, (8) until Herod Agrippa ob- 
 tained Judasa and Samaria (in addition 
 to his former dominions) of the emperor 
 Claudius, who likewife confirmed his 
 title of king. This, at firfl: fight, feems 
 a weighty objection to the explanation, 
 which I have offered, concerning the 
 completion of Jacob's prophecy : but, if 
 we confider all the circumftances of this 
 reign, perhaps it will appear oti:;er- 
 wife. Though Agrippa enjoyed the 
 title, pomp, and appearance, of a king, 
 
 X 2 ■ he 
 
 (8) Jofephus informs us, that Valerius Gratus, fuc- 
 ccflbrto Annius Rufus, was the fifih governor of the 
 Jews ; and that he was fucceeded by Pontius Pilate — 
 ** xa« irs/x7r](^ t/r* uCiov -cra^nv lov^ccmq tTrct^x'^* oiuoo^^ 
 " AvHov 'Pov(povy Ovu?.i^i<^ rf«T<^."— nom0- ^^ lh>.ar^ 
 hx^ox<^ (tvTu r.Kst, Aniiq. book xviii. chap. 3. p. 619. 
 
[ i64 1 
 
 he was neverthelefs fubjefted in no fmall 
 degree (as well as his predecefTors the 
 Roman procurators) to the controul of 
 the Roman prefident of Syria. (9) — For, 
 when he had undertaken thoroughly to 
 repair and complete the fortifications of 
 Jerufalem, Marfus, the prefident of Sy- 
 ria, had a watchful eye over him, and 
 fignified his diftruft to Caefar, who caufed 
 him to defift. Antiq. book xix. chap. 7. 
 p. 677. And afterwards Marfus ex- 
 erted his authority as prefident in a very 
 remarkable manner, even in the dominions 
 of Agrippa^ when the king himfelf was re^ 
 Jident thf.rein ; for, being jealous of the 
 friendfhip and unity between Agrippa 
 and feveral of the neighbouring poten- 
 tates, who were come to vifit him at Ti- 
 berias, hefe?it and co^nmandedtbem all to de^ 
 part to their refpedlive government s^ which 
 was a matter of the greatejl mortification 
 
 to 
 
 (9) Antiq. book xviii. chap. 15. p. 615. T^:? h. 
 
[ i65 ] 
 
 to Agrippa.^ EvSvg ouv eaag-ij tuv tTriJji- 
 
 Setcav Tivocg -nref/^TTov ETTSg-eXXev eiri tx socvjis 
 Sixoi fzsXXyja-eug aTTspx^o-^oci, tuvtcc AyptTf^ 
 TTocg ccvtapug i^B^x^o ycoci Motp(Tu fjcev eic nija 
 Sioc(popug e(rx£> Antiq. book xix. chap. 7. 
 p. 678. 
 
 Thefe are proofs that Agrippa*s power 
 as a king was very much circumfcribed 
 in comparifon with that of Herod the 
 Great, Herod was fo far from being fab- 
 jedl to the controul of the prefidents of Sy- 
 ria, that he himfelf was made prefident 
 of all Syria by Casfar ; {xccrsg-yjas ^s ccvrov 
 KOLL STPIA^ 'OAHS EniTPOnON-) who 
 dire(5ted the feveral governors to do no- 
 thing without his counfel and advice. 
 
 TOig ^ STTlTOOTTOig SiOlTCHV, Jewifll Waf 
 
 bock i. chap. xv. p. 746. See alfo Antiq. 
 book XV. chap. 13. p. 541. 
 
 On the other hand, likewlfe, the reign 
 of Agrippa was fo very fhort, in compari- 
 
 ' fon 
 
[ i66 ] 
 
 fon of the lime that the fceptre had been 
 departed Jadah, that, I think, it can 
 fcarcely be coniidered as an exception 
 either to the prophecy of Jacob, or to 
 this of Ifaiah, concerning the two king^ ; 
 efpecially as Agrippawas cut off from his 
 kingdom by a very remarkable interpofi- 
 tion of Divine Providence : for, after he 
 had flain St. James, (the brother of St. 
 John,) imprifoned St. Peter, and other* 
 wife grievoufly perfecuted the Chriftians, 
 he fulfilled the meafure of his iniquity by 
 accepting the idolatrous flattery of the 
 people at Caefareaj " and immediately 
 «* the angel of the Lord/mote himy becaufe 
 *' be gave not God the glory : and he was 
 *' eaten up of worms y and gave up the 
 " ghoft'y* (Adls xii. 23.) having reigned 
 over ]ud2ih only three years, according to 
 Jofephus, who, in the 19th book of his 
 Antiquities, chap. 7. p. 679, confirms 
 the account given by St. Luke, though 
 in fome particulars his relation is differ- 
 
 entr 
 
[ '6/ ] 
 
 ent. TeX€urifi(rc3cg ev Koe^KTocoeioty fjeSuo'i-' 
 XEvxcog fjLiv ETH TPIA, 7!rDOT£oov Se rcov 
 
 TSTOao^iUV TptTiV erepOlS BTiClV oc(pYiy7i(Tx^€~ 
 
 y©-, &V. Jewifli War, book ii. chap, 1 9. 
 P- 791* 
 
 Immediately after his death, (his fon, A- 
 grippa the younger, being only an infant,) 
 the kipgdom was reduced again into a pro- 
 vince, ( jo)and never was any more refto- 
 red ; for the government of the Roman procu^ 
 rators (which had httnonly interruptedhy 
 this Jhadow of a reign after eight or nine 
 perfons had been inverted with that dig- 
 nity) was once more eftablifhed and conti? 
 nued during a regular fucceffion of feven 
 other procurators, until the time of the ge- 
 neral revolt of the Jews, when the juft 
 
 and dreadful vengeance of God was ready 
 
 to 
 
 (io) 'Y»ov ^e £X TU5 av%(; (Cypros) Ay^iwuv y ov 
 nra^yjctv 'Cjoi'naaq tTrH^oTTov itjef/.'/rn KsaTrjof ^uoovf ette* t« 
 
 TtCf^'joj- AXBiocv$^ov, &c. JewifhWar, book ii. chap. 19. 
 P- 793- 
 
[ 168 ] 
 
 to overtake them for their wickednefs 
 and unbelief, according to the exprefs 
 prediction of Chrifl recorded in the Gof- 
 pels; Matt. xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xxi. 
 
 Agrippa the younger afterwards ob- 
 tained the kingdom of Chalcis, (i i) and 
 fome other dominions j but he never had 
 any authority at Jurufalem, except that 
 ecclcfiaftical authority over the temple 
 and priefts, which his uncle and prede-, 
 ceflbr, Herod king of Chalcis, had enjoyed 
 before him 5 for all Judaea (except two 
 (12) cities in Perasa, and two (13) in 
 Galilee, given to Agrippa) were govern- 
 ed by Felix, the Roman procurator. " Etg 
 *' Jg THN AOinHN lOTAAIAN, ^tiXijccc 
 " }co!,T€s"i/}(rev eTTirpoTTov" Jewifh War, 
 bookii. chap. 22. p. 796. Thus it ap- 
 pears, 
 
 (u) Antiq. book xx. chap. 3. p. 690. Jewifh War, 
 book ii. chap. 20. p. 794. chap. 22, p. 796. 
 
 (12) Abila and Julias. 
 
 (13) Tarichaja and Tiberias. 
 
[ 169 ] 
 
 pears, that "Jcrufalcm had ceafed to be 
 the feat of regal government^ from the 
 time of Herod's death to the total de- 
 ftrL!(flion of that city \ except indeed 
 during the three years reign of Herod 
 Agrippa. But it is remarkable, that 
 before this fliort reign the Jews had not 
 only foUicited Csfar by a folemn legation 
 of fifty amballadors, (as I have before 
 obferved in page 159.) that their nation 
 might no longer be governed by kings, 
 but their chief priefts had likewife pub- 
 licly abrogated all pretenfions their nation 
 could have to any peculiar fceptre ^^ their 
 own : for, when Pilate brought forth Je- 
 fus in the prefence of the main body of 
 the people, who were affembled at Je- 
 rufalem on account of the paffover, and 
 faid, -'' Behold your king-,'* and again, 
 ^^ Shall I crucify your king?'' they an- 
 fwered, — We have fio other king but 
 Cafar. St. John xix. 14, 15. 
 
 Part IV. Y \ This 
 
[ '70 ] 
 
 This public acknowledgement of the 
 Jews, that the peculiar fceptre of Judah 
 was then no more ; the limited jurifdiBion 
 as well as brevity ( 1 4) of Herod Agrippa's 
 reign ; and the want of regal fucceJJiGn 
 for a long time before it, and for ever 
 after it ; are reafons, which, I hope, 
 will juftify my fuggeftion, that the faid 
 reign is not to be confidered as a con- 
 tinuation 
 
 (14) Jofephus, in fome parts of his hiftory, ex- 
 
 preffes a very particular refpedl (if it may not be called 
 
 a partiality'^ in favour of the character of Agrippa, on 
 
 account of his zealous attachment to Jiidaifm. Never- 
 
 thelefs, the ItTuitcdjurifdiBion and bre--vily of his rei^n were 
 
 fuch, that even Jofephus himfelf did not confider it as 
 
 a continuaticn of the regal go'vernmtnt ofjudah ; for, in 
 
 the 8th chapter of his 20th book of his Antiquities, 
 
 where he gives a fummary account of the government at 
 
 Jerufalem, under which the ofliceof high priefl fubfifled 
 
 from the time of Herod the Great to ihe deftruction of 
 
 Jerufalem, he obferves, that, after ihe death cf Herod 
 
 and ArcJ?elausy the go-vcrnment (or police) ivas an ariJJo- 
 
 cracy \ and he entirely emits any mention of Agrippa's 
 
 leij.n in this place ; fo that, it is plain, he did not 
 
 think it properly an exceprion to his observation. M/la 
 
 ^£ trtV TifloJV TEAsyli^v, APISTOKPATIA /xav YjV 53 'SriAiTEict, 
 
 book XX.. chap, 8. p. 702. 
 
[ 17' j 
 
 tinuaticn of the fceptre in Judah : and 
 therefore it is mod natural to conclude, 
 that the fame really departed at the death 
 of Herod the Great -y which period corrcf- 
 ponds more exactly to the time pointed 
 cut by Jacob's prophecy than any other. 
 Shiloh, tl:>e Pritjce of Peace, was then 
 come; and Herod (convinced, by *' the 
 '* wife mefif'cm the eaf,' that a child 
 ivas born king of the "Jews) had attempted 
 in vain to cut him off at Bethlehem; (15) 
 Y 2 for, 
 
 (15) The general ccnfent of the chief priefts and 
 fcribes of the Jews, concerning the place of the Meffiafi's 
 biiih, is very reaiaikable j for, when Herod gathered 
 ihem together, ** he demanded of them where Chriil 
 ** fhould be bcrn ? and they faid unto him, in Bethlehem 
 ** of Judaea:*' for thus it is written by the prophet; 
 ** And thou Bethlehem, in the land of judah, art not 
 ** the leall among the princes of Judah : for out of 
 •* thee ihall come a goxen-or thut HiaU rule my people 
 " Ilrael." Mat. ii. 4-6. Now, though the Jews 
 [till deny that our Lord Jefus was the Chriil, yet they 
 mull confefs, ivith their ancejiors^ that :he true Mefliah^ 
 according to the prophet Micah, (v. 2) ought to be 
 bom at Bethlehem. It ii, therefore, a matter of the 
 highefc importance to them, to conhder what expeda- 
 tions they can rcafonably have, now-a-days, of the 
 
 birth 
 
[ 172 ] 
 
 for, like the generality of the Jews, 
 H^rod expeded a temporal prince j and 
 therefore concluded, that his own fceptre 
 and authority was in danger, as it really 
 was, it being then about to depart. For, 
 very foon afterwards, Jofeph, the hufband 
 cf the bkffed Virgin, was warned by 
 an acigel of the Lord in Egy,pt> faying, 
 
 " Arife, 
 
 birth of a Mc^i^h of the feed of Daind at Bethlehem, 
 fince that place for fo many ages has ceafed to he the 
 ciiyofDa--vid? For, inflead of the family and kindred 
 of David, it is now inhabited by *' Turks, Moors, 
 Arabians, and forne poor Chrifians.^^ ^tt Bohu7t^s Geo- 
 
 graphical Di Si ionary^ printed in 1695. -And farther, 
 
 if any perfon hereafter born at Bethlehem fhould pre- 
 tend to be the fon of Dauid, (or of the feed of David,) 
 the Jews ought to confider, whether it is now poffible 
 to trace that royal line down to the prefent time in 
 fo fatisfaftory a manner, that they m\g\itfafely and rea~ 
 fonably give cred ittofuch preteniions. *• But what is 
 •* Bethlehem now ? Where are the thoufands of Judah, 
 *^ of which this was one? What is Jerufalem now? 
 ** Are the tribes preferred ? Has Judah ftill the fcep- 
 *' tre and the lawgiver? Where is its eniign difpiayed ? 
 ** And nvho can noiv prcve their defcent frotn Dcraid? All 
 *' thefigns" ClTjTPn ylD I^D Gem. Sanhedrin. c ii. 
 §. ^1.) *' of the coming of the Mefliah are paft," &c. 
 Dr. Gregory Sharps'* s zd Argument in Defence cf Chrijii- 
 anity, p, 1 46. Oh that the houfe of Ifrael may confjder 
 thefe things before it is too late ! 
 
[ '73 ] 
 
 ** Arife, and take the ycti?:g rM/ and his 
 ** mother, and go into the landof IJrael,'* 
 (mt the land cf Jiuiah only:) ** for they 
 " are dead 'which fought the you fig child's 
 •** life:' Matth. ii. 20. 
 
 Perhaps feme critic may objedl, thnt, 
 as Chrirt: was undoubtedly ki'ng cf Ijracl 
 and Judah^ the fceptre of Judah cannot 
 be faid to depart at the death of Herod, 
 according to the interpretation juft now 
 given of the patriarch Jacob's prophecy: 
 therefore it isnecefTary forme toohfcrvc, 
 that ihtfceptrey fpoken of in thisprophc- 
 -cy, and the ceafing of the two kings or 
 regal governments, fpoken of by Ifaiah, 
 can only be underftood to mean the de- 
 parture of the worldly fceptre and temporal 
 regal authority from Judah and Ifrael, as 
 receffarily to be diftirguiflitid from the 
 jpiritual authority and heavenly kingdom 
 of Chrift; for, as Chriil: v/as " born king 
 '^ cf the Je*ws^*' fo the fceptre of Judah, 
 
 with 
 
[ 174 ] 
 with refpea to him, is not departed, but 
 is evcrlafting, according to the prophecy 
 of the Royal Pfalmift concerning Chrift's 
 kingdom. " Thy throne, God^ is for 
 *' ever and ever : the fceptre of thy king- 
 " dom is a right Jceptre. Thou loveft 
 ** righteoufnefs, and hateft wickednefsj 
 " therefore God, even thy God, hath 
 " anointed thee with the oil of gladnefs 
 *' above thy fellows." Pfalm xlv. 6, 7. 
 
 The other part of Jacob's prophecy 
 concerning Judah, (viz. *' nor a lawgiver 
 ** from between his feet y' ) does not relate 
 (I apprehend) to the fceptre or regal go- 
 vernment of Judah ; for the particle 1 
 (rendered " nor' in the common Eng- 
 lifli verfion, which divides thefe words 
 from the former part of the fentence) 
 feems to point out, that two diftincfl things 
 are here, fpoken of, as Monf. Martin 
 has obferved: " Car cette particule, et^ 
 " marque que c'etoient deux chofes dif- 
 
 ** ferentes, 
 
[ ^75 ] 
 
 " ferentes,/^7r6'/>/rfetlelegiflateur." But, 
 as the accomplilhment of prophecies is 
 always the beft interpreter, I have been 
 chiefly confirmed in this opinion of Monf. 
 Martin, by obferving, that the departure 
 of the lawgiver from Judah was not lefs 
 narkable, in the accomplifhment, than 
 that of the fceptre ; for the prophecies 
 concerning both feem plainly to have 
 been accomplifi:ied in two different per- 
 fons. 
 
 The word ppna mud be underftood 
 in a very inferior fenfe from the ufual ac- 
 ceptation, if the Jewifli Sanhedrin, or the 
 Scribes and Pharifees, are to be efleemsd 
 lawgivers, as fome have imagined. 
 
 The Lord hlmfelf Is called by Ifaiah 
 **-PPna •* cur lawgiver','* xxx'm. 22. 
 And, as it pleafed 'Almighty God to de- 
 clare his will to his people Ifrael, by 
 Mofes and the Prophets, they alfo are 
 
 intitled 
 
C J76 1 
 
 intitled to the name of lawgivers, as be- 
 ing the immediate inftruments of God's 
 revelation. Judah might likewife be pro- 
 perly called a lawgiver, (Pfalras Ix. 7. 
 Gviii. 8.) becaufe the MeJJiah was to be 
 born of that tribe. But the Scribes and 
 Pharifees, or the Sanhedrin, were not 
 fent by God with any farther revelation 
 than what had before been given by 
 Mofes and the Prophets *, and therefore, 
 though they fat in Mofes' feat, (Matt, 
 xxiii. 2.) yet they could not properly be 
 called lawgivers ; being only lawyers, or 
 expounders of the law of Mofes : and, if 
 no perfon among the Jews for above feven- 
 teen hundred years has had a better claim 
 to the title of lawgiver than thefe, it muft 
 plainly appear that the lawgiver (as well 
 as the fceptre) is departed from Judah ; 
 and, confequently, that the MefTiah came 
 before that time. Malachi is the laft 
 perfon whom the Jews acknowledge as 
 a prophet in their canon of the Scriptures ; 
 
 and 
 
[ ^71 1 
 
 and it is remarkable that Almighty God 
 was pleafed to comfort them by this 
 holy mejj'enger (^^^^^a) with the promife 
 of another tnejfengcr or prophet. ** Be-. 
 ^^ bold, I will fend you 'Elijah^ the 
 *' prop/jef, before the coming of the 
 ** great and dreadful day of the Lord," 
 Mai. i\j, 5. This dreadful vifitation of 
 their nation was certainly accompliflied 
 m the deJlru5iion ^ Jerufalem j for, if w^, 
 examine the hiftories of former times 
 ever io minutely, we fliall not be able 
 to find any national affliBions or miferiei 
 whatfoever to be compared with tjipfe 
 which the Jews fuffered at that time. 
 This ought to be a fufficient proof to 
 the Jews of the truth of Chrift's pro- 
 phecy concerning tbemfelves, recorded 
 in Matthew xxiv. 15, 21. (16) Lukexxi. 
 Part IV. Z ^9, 
 
 (16) " When ye therefore fhall fee the abaminatitm 
 *' of difolation fpoken of by Daniel, the Prophet, 
 ** (ix. 27. and xii. ii.) ftand in the holy place, 
 <* ^whofo readcth, let him underftand,) then let them 
 
 ** which 
 
[ 178 3 
 
 20, ^:, 22, 23, 24.(17) and Markxiii, 
 1 9, fo that, as one part of the prophecy was 
 fo pundtually accomplifhed, they may 
 fafely affure theinfelves that fuch great 
 
 tribulation 
 
 f' which be in Judaea flee unto the mountains." — "For 
 ** then (hall be great tribulation^ fuch as was not fmce 
 ** the be-ginning of the wcfrld to this time, no, nor 
 *f ever Ih all be. And,, except thofe days fhould bp 
 ** fhortened, there (hould no flefh be laved : bi;t for 
 ** the eleifts fake thofe days (hall be fliortened.'* 
 
 (17) " And when ye {hall fee Jerufalem compafled 
 •* with armies, then know that the defolation thereof 
 ** is nigh. Then let them which are in Judzea flee 
 *? to the mountains ; and let them, which are in the 
 ** midftofit, depart but ; and let not them that are 
 " in the countries enter thereinto. For thefe be the 
 ** days of<vengeancey that all things which are written" 
 ("Dan.ix. 26, 27. Zech. xi. 1. &c. &c.) " may be 
 ** fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, 
 ^« and to them that give fuck in thofe days : for there 
 *' fliall be great diftrefs in the land, and wrath upon 
 f? this p.eople. And they fliall fall by the edge of the 
 *• fword, and fliall be led away captive into all na- 
 ** tions : and Jerufalem fliall be trodden down of the 
 ♦? Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles he fulfilled.''* 
 Luke xxi. 20-24. ** For in thofe days fliall be af- 
 ** fliflion, fuch as was not from the beginning of the 
 *f creation, which God created, unto this time, nei- 
 «* ther fliall be." Markxiii. i^. 
 
tribulation will never befal them again* 
 according to Chrift's promiie in the fame 
 prophecy. 
 
 Compare the faid prophecy with that 
 of Daniel ix. 26, 27, 
 
 Bat, though this great and dreadful 
 day of the Lord is certainly paft, yet the 
 Jews do not allow that the promifed 
 Elijah is yet come. Neverthelefs they 
 fent Priefts and Levitcs from Jerufalem 
 to enquire of John the Baptift.- — ** Who 
 " art thou? — Art thou Ellas?" and he 
 faith, I am not, *' Art thou that pro- 
 *' phetr" (meaning mofl: likely that pro- 
 phet promifed by Mofes in Deut. xviii. 
 1 5th and iSthverfes, who was afterwards 
 acknowledged by about five thoufand 
 Jews at one time 5 for fo many were 
 joint witnefTes of one of his miracles, 
 being convinced by all their fenfes, of 
 
 Z 2 J^^i^^gi 
 
I i8o ] 
 
 fe^ingy hearifpg^ and tafilng^) and he ali- 
 fwered no. 
 
 But, not withftanding that John was^ 
 a different perfon from Ehjah the pro- 
 phet, according to his own confeffion, 
 yet he was mod certainly the prophet 
 promifcd by Malachi under the pro- 
 |)hetiGal appellation oiElijahy which de- 
 noted the excellency of his fpiritual 
 iiiiffion -y for the angel Gabriel told hi& 
 father Zacharias in the temple, that 
 John (hould go before the Lord in the 
 ^* fpirit and power ofEliasJ^ See St. 
 Luke i. 17. And afterwards Chrift 
 himfelf bore witnefs of him : — ** if ye 
 ** will receive it, this is E/ias{i8) which 
 ** was for to come '^* (Matt, xi, 14.) and 
 in the fame chapter he calls him ^' a pro- 
 ^* phet, yea, and more than a prophet;" 
 lie being the Lord's meffenger promifed 
 'by Malachi iii. i. to prepare hi^ way 
 hefore him, 
 
 John 
 
 (18) See alfo Matthew xvii, io-r3. 
 
[ i8r 3 
 
 John was likewife a lawgiver (ppnc) 
 as well as a prophet and meli'ejiger j for 
 ** there went out to him Jerufalem and 
 ^* all Jiidea^ and all the region round a- 
 •* bout Jordan." Matt. iii. 5. And^ 
 when he warned them to flee from th« 
 wrath to come, ** the people a&ed hkn, 
 ikying, what fhaii we do theia ?" (Luke 
 iiii 10.) and we find by the fucceeding 
 vtrfes that he jnftrudled them accord- 
 ingly, not only with general dodtrine^ 
 but even with particular advice, fuitable 
 to the different clafies of men. Thefs 
 teftunonies of the Evangelifls in favour 
 of John are confirmed in no fmall de- 
 gree even by the Jeivijh hijlorian Jofe- 
 phus, who calls him *' ocyct^ov ocvSpx, a 
 ^^ good man y — for indeed his life and 
 converfarion were fo exemplary and un- 
 blameable, that many of the Jews (as 
 Jofephxis informs us) believed the de- 
 firudlion of Herod's army to be a juft 
 judgement of God for the murder of 
 
 that 
 
[ l82 ] 
 
 xhzi good man. {k)) See JewiQi Andq. 
 bookxviii. 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 obferved concerning the 
 Afmonaean princes and " Herod the 
 •* king of Judea:*' (Luke i. 5.) and 
 he might very well be accounted a law^ 
 
 giver 
 
 (19) ** Of whom Jofephus, in the place above 
 •* quoted, gives us the following charafler : that his 
 ** whole crime was his exhorting the Jews to the love 
 •* and pradice of virtue ; and, firll of all, to piety, 
 •* juftice, and regeneration, or newnefs of life; not by 
 *' the bare abftinence from this or that particular fin, 
 •* but by an habitual purity of mind and body. 
 
 " Now" (continues he) ** fo great was the credit 
 *• and authority of this holy man, as appears by the 
 *' multitude of his difciples, and the veneration they 
 ** had for his doftrine, (for he could do what he would 
 ** with them,) that Herod, not knowing how far the 
 " reputation of a man of his fpirit might influence the 
 *' people tov/ard a revolt, refolved at length to take 
 " him off before it was too late," &c. He adds, " that 
 ** Herod was very unfuccefsful in his war with the 
 ** Arabian king -, all which the Jews looked upon as a 
 ** juft judgement of God upon him for that impious 
 ** murder." Unz'u. Hifi. ^-jol. x./. ^i^. 
 
[ i83 ] 
 
 giver from between thefectof^udab^ for 
 he was born in the hill country of j^m- 
 deay (Luke i. 65.) in a city of yuda, 
 (Luke i. 39.) at a time when that tribe 
 was in full pojjcjjion of its inheritance. 
 
 But the circumftance which more 
 particularly points out the accomplifli- 
 nient of of Jacob's prophecy in this 
 holy Nazarite (20) is, that John was 
 the very laft of the Jewifi lawgivers or 
 prophets. For though, on extraordi- 
 nary occafions, fome prophetical itn^ 
 tences may have been uttered by men 
 adhering to Judaifm, after the coming 
 of Chrift, (fuch as the remarkable pro- 
 phecy of Caiaphas, the high-priefl, 
 concerning Chrift, — " that it was ex- 
 
 ** pedient 
 
 (20) John was a " Naxarite unto God from his 
 ** mother's womb," as Sampfon, one of the ^tt^^/j of 
 Ifrael, had been before him. (Compare Judges xvi. 17. 
 with St. Luke i. 15.) But Chrift could not properly 
 
 be called a Nazarite (as Dr. \V ms fuppofes him to 
 
 be) without a contradidion to the ufual fenfe of that 
 title in thejewifh law. 
 

 r 1S4 3 
 
 pedkj^t that one man fliould die for 
 the pet)pk/* &e. John xi. 50.) (21) 
 yet the Jews cannot prove that a fingle 
 prophet (profeffedly as fuch) has beei> 
 fent to tbem frooi God ever fince the 
 time of John i that is, for above 1700 
 years; except they will condefcend to 
 allow to St. Paul, Agabus, and others 
 of the primitive Chriftians, the title of 
 prophets: but thefe were under the dif- 
 penfation of the New Teftament, after 
 the ceremonial and typical law was an- 
 nulled, 
 
 (21) See what a raanifeft (though unwilling) tefti- 
 pony, even the unhelie'^ing y^ws bare of L'hrift*s hea- 
 venly million. — *' Then gathered the chief priefls and 
 •* Pharifees a eouneil, and faid, IVhat do ^vet for this 
 *' man dosthTnany miracks. If we thus let him alone, all 
 ** men n,vill believe on him ; and the Romans Jhall come 
 ** and ta^e aivay both our place and nation. And one of 
 *' them, named Caiaphas, being the high-priejl that fame 
 ■*' year, faid unto thera, Yc know nothing at all, nor 
 ** coniider that it is expedient for us, that one man^culd 
 ** die for the people f and that the tohole nation perijh not* 
 ** And this fpake he not of himfelf : but, being high- 
 ** prieft that year, he frophifted that Jefus. fhould die 
 ** for that nation,*' &c. Johnxi. 47-51. 
 
[ i8s ] 
 
 nulled, and tlierefore cannot be reckoned 
 among the yewzV/j lawgivers or prophets. 
 
 This was confirmed by Chrlfl: him- 
 felf, (Luke xvi. i6.) *' the law and 
 ' the prophets were until yohny^^h.v\A 
 again, (Matth. xi. 12, 13.) ** for aU 
 
 *' the prophets and the law propkejied 
 *' u?2til yohn'' 
 
 Thefe are fufficient authorities, I 
 hope, to juftify my fuppofition, that 
 the prophet and lawgiver departed from 
 Judah at the death of John the Baptifl; 
 or rather, was gradually departing for 
 feme time before his death : becaufe, as 
 Chrijiincreafedy John decreafed, accord- 
 ing to his own prophecy, recorded by 
 John' the Evangelift, (iii. 30.) *^ Ye 
 *' yourfelves bear me witnefs, that I 
 *' faid, I am jdot the Chriji, "bat that I 
 *' am fent before him. He that hath 
 *' the bride' (that is, thechnrth, or con- 
 
 Part IV. A a gregation; 
 
 ^ 
 
t i86 ] 
 
 gregation ; for John had juft before 
 been told that Chrift *' baptizeth, and 
 *' all men, come to him^ 26th verfe)' 
 " is the bridegroon^: but the friend 
 " of the bridegroom, which ftandeth 
 *' and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly 
 " becaufe of the bridegroom's voice : 
 *« this my joy is therefore fulfilled. He 
 ** rnujlincreafe^ hxx\. I mujl decreafe, {22) 
 " He that cometh from above is above 
 " all: he that is of the earth is earth- 
 <* ly, and fpeaketh of the earth : he 
 *' that cometh from heaven is above 
 <« all. And what he hath feen and 
 <* heard, that he teftifieth ; and no 
 *« man receiveth his teftimony. He 
 ** that hath received his teftimony hath 
 " fet to his feal, that God is true. For 
 ^* he whom God hath fent fpeaketh 
 
 *' the 
 
 (22) *' When therefore the Lord knew how the 
 «« Pharifees had heard ihatjefus made and baptized 
 ** more difciples than John, (though Jefus himfelf bap- 
 ** tized not, but his difciples,) he left Judea, and de- 
 ♦* parted again into Galilee," John iv. i, 2, 3. 
 
[ >87 ] 
 
 " the words of God ; for God giveth 
 ** not the Spirit by meafure (unto him,) 
 *^ The Father loveth the Son, and hath 
 '* given all things into his hand. He 
 " that belicveth on the Son hath evcr- 
 *' lading life : and he that believeth 
 '* not the Son fliall not fee life; but 
 ** the wrath of God abideth on hini." 
 
 Thus far the Evangelift feems to be 
 relating the teftimony of John, the fe- 
 cond Elias. 
 
 In the 5th chapter (31ft verfe) cf 
 the faaie Evangelift, we read, that this 
 remarkable teftimony was afterwards re- 
 ferred to by Chrift himfelf. ** If I bear 
 *' witnefs of myfelf, (faid Chrift,) my 
 " witnefs is not true. "Yh^xt is another 
 " that beareth witnefs of me, and I 
 " know that the witnefs, which he wit- 
 ** neffeth of me, is true. Te fent unto 
 *' ^ohn^ and he bare witnefs unto the 
 A a 2 «* truth. 
 
[ 1 88 ] 
 
 ** truth. But I receive not tejiimony 
 
 *^ from man :'' neverthelefs, our Lord 
 
 condcfcended to give the Jews an op- 
 portunity of being convinced by the tejii- 
 mony of man \ a man, whom they almoft 
 univerfally eflieemed on account of the 
 purity of his life, which I have already 
 {hewn from the authority even of the 
 Jewijh hiftorian, Jofephus. 
 
 The mercy of God, therefore, is ap- 
 parent in this condefcenfion; and, though 
 our Lord himfelf declared, that he re- 
 ceived not *' tejiimony from man,' yet he 
 added, — ** hut thefe things' (relating to 
 John's teftimony) " Ifay^ that ye might 
 *' be favedr 
 
 He then gives a mod lively and com- 
 prehenlive (though (hort) defcription of 
 the holy character of this his harbinger. 
 ** He was'' (fays our Lord) *' a burning 
 ** and a Jhining light ;" — and he reminds 
 the Jews, that they formerly teftified a 
 
 very 
 
[ i89 1 
 
 very particular approbatiorj of this holy 
 perfon : ** and ye were willing* (fays* he) 
 ** for a feafon to rejoice in his light. 
 ^^ But I have greater v/itnefs than that 
 *' oijohn: for >'/6^u'^r^i which the Fa- 
 •* thcr hath given me to finifh, the 
 *• fame works that I do, hear ivitne/s 
 " of me, that the Father hath fent me. 
 ** And theF ather himfelfy which hath fent 
 ** me, hath borne witnefs ofme. Ye have 
 *' neither heard his voice at any time, 
 *' nor feen his fliape. A nd ye have not his 
 'word abiding in you : for, whom he 
 hath fent, him ye believe not. Search 
 the Scriptures^ for in them ye think ye 
 ** have eternal life, and they are they 
 *' which teflify of me." Thus Chrift 
 pointed out to the Jews three incon- 
 leftible indications of the truth of his 
 holy dodtrinc 
 
 I ft. The teftimony of John the Bap- 
 lift, with which \if:indulged\h^m^ though 
 
 the 
 
[ 190 ] 
 
 the fame might be efteemed unnecelTary 
 for the caufe of him, who " receives 
 " not tejlimony from man.*' 
 
 2dly. His own mighty works y daily 
 wrought among them, which, as he 
 faid, *' bear witnefs of me, that the 
 •* Father hath fent me." 
 
 And 3dly. The isoitnefs of the Father 
 himfelff though (as Chrifl expreffed him- 
 felf to the Jews) ** ye have neither 
 ^* heard his voice at any time, norfeen 
 " his (liape j" but he feems plainly to 
 dired: them to that witnefs of God^ 
 which has in all ages been apparent in 
 theaccomplifliment of the word of the 
 Lord by his prophets. 
 
 Even the unbelieving Jews themfelves 
 pretended to believe the Scriptures, and 
 acknowledged them to be the word of 
 God i and therefore Chrift referred them 
 
 to 
 
[ 191 ] 
 
 to the Scriptures, as being the wifnefs 
 of the Father himfelf. '« Search the 
 ** Scriptures,^* occ. But they wilfully 
 negleded to make a right ufe of fuch 
 ample teftimony -, and were, therefore, 
 inexcufable. '* Do not think" (faid 
 Chrifl) '' that I will accufe you to the 
 " Father : there is one that accufeth 
 '* you, eve?! Mofes in whom ye truft. 
 " For, had ye believed Mofes, ye would 
 *' have believed me : for he wrote of 
 *' me. But, if ye believe not /6/j wri^ 
 " tings, how (hall ye believe my words?" 
 
 In the very next chapter (vi, i, 2.) 
 the Evangelifl: relates the accomplifli- 
 ment of one of the circumftances of 
 Jacob's prophecy, as recorded by Mo- 
 fes; vfz. — '' and unto him Jh all the ga- 
 '* thering of the people be.'' 
 
 *' After thefe things" (fays St. John) 
 " Jefus went over the fea of Galilee, 
 
 " which 
 
[ 192 ] 
 " which is the fea of Tiberias, and 
 
 *' A GREAT MULTITUDE FOLLOWED 
 
 *^ HIM, hecaufe they Jaw his miracles y' 
 &c. And again, (14th and 15th 
 verfcs,) ** then thofe men/' (the five 
 thoufand perfons, who were fed by 
 Chrift with five barley loaves and two 
 fmall fiHies,) " when they had feen the 
 *« miracle that Jefus did, faid. This is 
 " of a truth that prophet that fiotild 
 *' cof7ie into the world. When Jefus, 
 ** therefore, perceived that they would 
 *' co\nt2iU A take him by force 9 to make 
 *' him a king^' (for they could not pof- 
 fibly give him a greater proof of their 
 fincerity in gathering to him as the true 
 Shiloh,) '* he departed again into a 
 *' mountain himfelf alone." 
 
 The people of Ifrael (as Mr, Mannpb- 
 ferves in his learned treatife de Anno 
 Natali Chrifti, p. 4.) were not the only 
 people that were to be gathered unto 
 
 Shiloh ; 
 
[ ^93 ] 
 
 Shilo'n ; not ouq nation only is pointed 
 
 at, in the prophecy, iut many nations. 
 
 The patriarch's words were not a^n nipi 
 
 the gathering of this people or nation, 
 
 but in the plural number D^cj; nnpi the 
 
 gathering of the nations \ which has been 
 
 apparently fulfilled : for, the nations 
 
 have at different times almofl: univerfally 
 
 fubmitted to the faith of our Lord Jefus, 
 
 the true Shiloh ; notwithilanding that 
 
 many have fince fallen back into grofs 
 
 ignorance, fupertlition, and unbelief. (23) 
 
 The gathering of the people to impoftors 
 
 does- not at all afFedl the certainty of the 
 
 Part IV. B b fign 
 
 (23) We have a dreadful example of this in the 
 preft-nt ftate of the cnce-enlightcncd Grecian empire, 
 of the greatefl: part of Afia, and of aJmoH: the whole, 
 vaft conti>ient of Africa. Nay, the greateit part even 
 cf Europe itfelf hath long fince refumed the veil of its 
 former darknefs, and the fhadow of death : for, the 
 fuperrtitious vanities of Rome bear too great a refem- 
 blance to the old Heathen idolatries ; and the multi- 
 tude of Atheifts, DeiRs, and of thofe who neglect 
 Chrift'i holy facraments, is an alarming indication of 
 •^falling oJ't\Qn am^'ng ourTclves, 
 
[ 194 ] 
 fign given by the patriarch Jacob, in 
 the gathering of the people to Shiloh. 
 
 Many falfe Chrifts have indeed ap- 
 peared, according to our Lord's predic- 
 tion in Matthew xxiv. 24. (24) Luke 
 xxi. 8. (25) and to fuch the Jews have 
 zealoufly^(2://6d'r^^themfelves: for, *' they 
 ** received not the love of the truth, 
 ** that they might be faved. And for 
 ^* this caufe God fent ihctn Jirong delu* 
 " Jion' (as foretold by St. Paul) ''- that 
 ** they fhould believe a lie." 2 Theff. 
 ii. II. 
 
 The fame people, who rejedled the 
 .truth through hardnejs of heart and want 
 
 (24) " For, there fhall arife falfe Chrifts, and falfe 
 ** prophets, and Ihall fhew great ligns and wonders, 
 ** infomuch that (if it were poffible) they (hall de- 
 •* ceive the very ele^. Behold^ I have told you be-^ 
 *' fore,'' Sec, 
 
 (25) ** Take heed that ye be not deceived ; for, 
 <« many Ihall come in my name, faying, 1 am Chrift ; 
 ♦ * and the time draweth near: go ye not therefote 
 ** after them.** 
 
[ '95 ] 
 
 of faith i very foon afterwards, by a 
 contrary infatuation, rendered them- 
 felves defpicable by the mod ahfurd ere-* 
 dulity. 
 
 Even the Jewlfli hiftorian, Jofephus, 
 gives ample teftimony of the pronenefs 
 of his countrymen to error and falfe 
 dodtrine, and that they were eafily led 
 away by impoflors and deceivers. He 
 relates a very remarkable inftance of it, 
 in their being led out by an Egyptian to 
 the mouiu of Olives ; from whence he 
 had undertaken to fliew them a wonder- 
 ful fpedacle, viz. that the walls of Je- 
 rufalem fhould fall at his command. (26) 
 
 The fame fpiritual blindnefs conti- 
 nued -even after the abomination of defola- 
 tion, notwithftanding the apparent judge- 
 ment of God upon them, in the de- 
 flrudtion of their great (and once holy) 
 B b 2 city : 
 
 (26) Antiq, book XX. chap. 6. p- 695. 
 
f 196 ] 
 
 city: for they have (as readily fince that 
 time as before) acknowledged the in* 
 credible pretenlions of feveral impoftors, 
 who have at different times fet them- 
 felves up for the true Meffiah. For 
 inftance, the infamous Barchocheba, 
 (KaOiDnn or Son of a Star,) in thereiga 
 of the emperor Adrian, was gladly re- 
 ceived, and zealoufly fupported, among 
 the Jews, until an immenfe flaughter of 
 his miferable adherents plainly demon- 
 ftrated that he was more properly intitled 
 Barchozba, («n?1D"i:2) Son of a Lie. The 
 Jews were alfo notably deceived by Sab- 
 bateiSevi, who wickedly took upon him- 
 felf the charader of the Meffiah. But it 
 is remarkable, that it was the Jews alone, 
 and not all the other nations cf the worlds 
 that were gathered to thefe counterfeits ; 
 which ought to demonftrate to the pre- 
 fent houfe of Ifrael the apparent differ- 
 ence between the true Meffiah, and the 
 miferable deceivers above-mentioned. 
 
 Thus, 
 
[ 197 ] 
 
 Thus, I hope, I have fiiewn, that 
 the fceptre did not depart from Judah, 
 nor a lawgiver from between his feet, 
 until Shiloh ivas come ; and that the ga^ 
 thermg of the people (not of one nation 
 only but of the univerfe at different 
 times) has been unto Chrift himfelf, 
 according to the Scriptures. 
 
 ** Bring forth the blind people that 
 " hai^e eyesy and the decf that have 
 " ears. Let all the Jiations be gathered 
 ** together^ and let the people be af- 
 *' fembled : who among them can de- 
 •' clare this, and flievv us former things ? 
 •' Let them bring forth their witnefles, 
 *' that they may be juftified : or let 
 •* them hear y 2inifay, *' It is 'Truth^^ 
 Ifaiah xliii. 8, 9, 
 
 '* Glory be to God In thehigheft, and 
 ** and on earth peace, good- will towards 
 •• men." 
 
 r/6^ END 2/^ Part IV, 
 
A N 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 TO SOME OF THE 
 
 PrincipalArgumentsufedbyDr. W — ms 
 
 I N DEFENCE OF 
 
 HIS CRITICAL DISSERTATION 
 
 O N 
 
 Isaiah vii. 13, 14, 15, 16, &c. 
 
 IN WHICH 
 
 The Opinions of the late Dr. Sykes and Dr. 
 George Benson, concerning Jccommodations 
 of Scripture Prophecy, are brief y confidered. 
 
 PART V. 
 
[ 201 ] 
 
 A N 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 T O 
 
 Some of the principal Arguments ufed 
 
 by Dr. W ms in Defence of his 
 
 Critical Diflertation on Isaiah vii. 
 13, 14, 15, 16, &c. 
 
 I -Have pointed out to Dr. W -ms 
 feveral miftakes in his Critical Dif- 
 fertation on Ifaiah vii. 13, 14, i^, 
 16 i yet he hath not thought proper to 
 acknou^ledge one of them, though he 
 has laboured to dilprove feveral. Some 
 of the principal arguments which the 
 Dodtor has advanced in favour of his 
 hypothecs are confidered in the follow- 
 ing pages. 
 
 Part V. C c But, 
 
t ^02 ] 
 
 Biit, before I proceed to a defence of 
 my remarks, it may be neceffary for me 
 to examine a very important queftion 
 concerning the interpretation of Scrip- 
 ture prophecies, notvvithftanding that 
 
 Dr. W ms apprehends the fame to 
 
 be *' fufficiently and even conclujively 
 ' " decided already^'' viz. Whether any 
 ** allegorical meanings and double fen fes 
 ** of Scripture prophecies are to be al- 
 *^ lov^ed? 
 
 ** It is impoffible (fays the Dcdor) to 
 *' determine when any prophecy is ful- 
 ** filled, if it has more than one fingle 
 " fenfe. If it has tv^^o (fays he) it may 
 ** have two hundred, and all of them 
 '* equally juft." 
 
 For the confirmation of this fentiment, 
 he refers me to Dr. George Benfon's 
 preface to the firfl: volume of his para- 
 ph rafe 
 
[ 203 ] 
 phrafe and notes on St. Paul's Epiftles, 
 and to Dr. Sykes's Connexion of natural 
 and revealed Religion, page 217, &c, 
 
 Thefe I have examined with as much 
 care, I believe, as is necelTary, and find, 
 that the third objedion to Dr. George 
 Benfon's hypothelis, quoted even in his 
 own Introdudion, p. xxxiv. obliges him 
 to make fuch large conceffions concern- 
 ing types and figures, that, notwith- 
 ftanding his great zeal againft double 
 fcnfes, his denying of them feems a mere 
 diftgreement in terms, and not in efFedt, 
 from the general received opinion. 
 
 In his anfwer to the faid objedlion, he 
 allows, p. XXXV. *' That, wherever the 
 •* law or the Prophets have declared, 
 ** that the rites and ceremonies of the 
 " Mofaic conjlitiition were intended to 
 ** point out a moral obligation, or 
 " to prefigure iht MeJJiah, or fomcthing 
 C c 2 "in 
 
[ 204 ] 
 
 *' m the Chriftian difpenfation, there 
 ** that moral intention, or prophetic 
 " prefiguration, is the one true fenfe 
 ** of the text, &c.'* See the Dpdlor's 
 anfwer at length, in p. xxxv. 
 
 Here he plainly allows of a dired 
 application, in fome cafes, to the anti- 
 type; which he calls " the one true 
 *' J^nfe of the text.'' — But how (as a rea- 
 fonable man) he can poflibly avoid ac- 
 knowledging the fiecefl'ary confequence 
 of this his conceffion, I leave all candid 
 readers to judge: for, if there is an 
 allegorical fenfe aUuding to the anti- 
 type, (which he calls " a moral inten^ 
 " tion ox prophetic prefiguratiouy' ) there 
 muft certainly be, likewife, a literal 
 fenfe applicable to the type itfelf 
 
 Indeed the Doftor has in that place 
 refined his argument to fo fmall a thread, 
 that it becomes almoft imperceptible. 
 
 The 
 
[ 205 ] 
 
 The next objedtion, quoted by Dr. 
 
 Benfon, is as follows. Objedl. IV. 
 
 '* Are not many paffages in the New 
 «' Teftament taken from the Old Tefta- 
 ** ment, and ufed in a quite different 
 '* fenfe from what they have as they 
 ** ftand in the original writer? and 
 " muftnot thefe be called double lenfes 
 " of the words of facred Scripture?" 
 
 To this the Do6lor anfwers, .'^ It 
 
 " is acknowledged, that our Lord, and 
 "- his Apoftles and Evangelifts, have 
 '* taken feveral paflages from the Old 
 *^ Te (lament, and ufed them in a very 
 *^ different fenfe from what thev have, 
 " as connedied with the place from 
 ** vvhence they were taken." 
 
 *' But that will not prove a double 
 fenfe of the words. I may quote 
 a paffage from Ho?ner or Virgil^ He- 
 
 
 ** rodotus 
 
[ 206 ] 
 
 ** rodotus or L,ivy^ to exprefs my pre- 
 " fent meaning, and in quite another 
 ** {^ni.^ from what it has in thofe anti- 
 *'^ ent authors ; but that will not prove 
 " that thole antient authors intended 
 " their words {hould be underflood in 
 *' two fenfes. In the original intention 
 *' they had only one meaning. In my 
 ** accommodation ofthem^ they have only 
 " one meaning. And though the fame 
 " words may have different ideas af- 
 " fixed to them ; and be ufed, by fuc- 
 ** ceffive fpeakers, or writers, in vari- 
 ** ous fenfes y yet that does not prove 
 " that, in the original intention, they 
 *' had more than one fignification." 
 
 Now, I readily allow, that Dr. Ben- 
 fon's idea oi an accommodation is certainly 
 true in fuch cafes as he has fuppofed, 
 viz. in quotations from Homer or Vir^ 
 giU (Sc, " To exprefs a prefcnt mean- 
 *' ing in quite another fenfe from what 
 
 '' it 
 
[ 207 ] 
 
 ^' it has in thofe antient authors." And 
 I as readily aflent to a part of Dr. 
 
 W ms's quotation in page 41 of his 
 
 Critical Diflertation, from a very learned 
 author, (i) viz. that when *' paflages in 
 ^* the Grecian poets are cited, or al- 
 " luded to, in the writings of the New'* 
 or Old " Teftanient," the fame *' are 
 " not to be conlidered as prophecies." 
 For indeed they cannot otherwife be 
 efteemed than as *^ a mere acconunoda^ 
 ** tion of phrafes^ 
 
 But, when the word of the Lord iy his 
 prophets^ or (as St. Matthew warily 
 exprefil'S himfelf) " that which was 
 
 *' fpoken 
 
 (1) Dr. Gregort Sharpe. See his fecond 
 
 argument in Defence of Chriflianity, taken from the 
 ancient prophecies, page 349. 
 
 The fentence, which immediately follows the above 
 extract, ought by no means to be omitted when the 
 author's feniiments on this head are quoted, viz. 
 
 ** But, indeed, to an attentive mind, the difference 
 ** will appear very gre^t between the citations from 
 •* prophane authors and the prophets.** 
 
[ 208 ] 
 
 *^ spoken of the Lord by the prophet y* 
 is cited by an evangelift, and declared 
 to he fulfilled^ the idea of "a mere ac 
 '* commodation' becomes highly impro- 
 per, not only in a grammatical, but 
 alfo in a religious, fenfe. 
 
 Therefore, in anfwer to all that has 
 been faid in favour of accommodations y 
 I mufl obferve, that the fulfilling of 
 proverbs and phrafes, or of quotations 
 from poets and hiftorians, by afmilarity 
 of circumjlancesy is fo v^idely different 
 from the fulfilling of a prophecy y that 
 the true meaning of the v^ord fiilfily 
 when applied to the latter, cannot juftly 
 be afcertained by fuch a comparifon. 
 
 The word of a prophet (efpecially the 
 word of the Lord by a Prophet) im- 
 plies a foretelling or promife of future 
 things, which muft in due time be 
 fulfilled 'y as " all things muft he fulfilled'* 
 
 (faid. 
 
[ 209 ] 
 
 (faid our Lord) ** which were written 
 ** in the law of Mofes, and in the pro- 
 " phets, and in the Plahiis, conccrn- 
 " ing me." Luke xxiv, 44,. 
 
 Therefore, when we are told, that 
 " tijre 'word which was fpoken of the Lord 
 ** by the prophet" is fulfilled, we can- 
 not, either with grammatical or reli- 
 gious propriety, (as I have before ob- 
 ferved,) underlland 2iny oiYitv fulfilling or 
 accomplifhment than that which was o- 
 riginally intended by the Holy Spirit to 
 be -prefigured. 
 
 Becaufe we cannot allow, that a fcrip- 
 ture prophecy is accommodated " to a 
 ** particular fnfe^ to which it originally 
 <* had no reference,^ (2) unlefs we allow 
 likewife, that fuch an accommodation is 
 abfolutely a per'verfion of the primary 
 fenfe of the piophet: for readers would 
 
 PartV. D d not 
 
 {2) See page 40. Crit. Di:Tert. 
 
[ 210 ] 
 
 not only be thereby perplexed and mif- 
 led with refpedt to the true accomplifh- 
 nient, originally and fingly intended by 
 the words of the prophet fo cited, but 
 would aifo be naturally led to conceive, 
 that the matters, related by the evan- 
 gelift, were intentionally prefigured or 
 foretold thereby, which would be a de- 
 ception of no fmall difcredit to the evan- 
 gelift, if his comparifon had really no 
 other relation to the prophecy than that 
 ** oi zjimilarity of circumjlances.''' 
 
 So that fuch a mifapplication of fcrip- 
 ture prophecy cannot otherwife be con- 
 fidered than as a deception leading to a 
 double mifconJiruBioriy as above ; which 
 would be as little fuitable to the tefli- 
 mony of an evan gelift, ^* by way of il- 
 ** lujlration" as to the original fenfe of 
 the prophet; whatever Dr. Benfon may 
 
 think of it, or Dr. W ms either* 
 
 See his Remarks,' p. 40. 
 
 If 
 
[ 211 ] 
 
 If all this be duly confidered, I think 
 no one can realbnably fuppofe that an 
 evangelift would attempt to mijlead his 
 readers, by declaring a prophecy to be 
 accompliihed ^ry}/^7/t'^ in ** a particu- 
 '^ lar {^n^LQ to which it originally had no 
 " referenced' See Critical Diflert. p. 40, 
 
 Dr. Benfon, in page xxii. of his 
 introdudion, informs us, that *' if 
 *' the iid and xvith Pfalms can be 
 *^ flievv^ quite throughout to agree to 
 " king David, then they ought to be 
 ** interpreted of him. But if (as fome 
 <* judicious perfons have thought) there 
 *' be in them fome expreffions, which 
 <* are not applicable to king David, then 
 *' they fiiould be interpreted wholly 
 *' concerning the Mefliah j 10 whom 
 ** they do, in every part, very well a- 
 
 •' gree. 
 
 D d 2 Now 
 
[ 2 12 ] 
 
 Now I am of the fame opinion with 
 Dr. Benfon, that thele two Pialms are 
 undoubtedly to be interpreted of the 
 Meffiah, and I do not at all contend for 
 the application of them to David. 
 
 I only objedl, therefore, to the Doc- 
 tor's rule of the interpretation, which 
 he has applied to the faid Pfalms ; be- 
 caufe I think it will be liable, in a great 
 variety of applications, to miflead and 
 perplex thofe perfons who inay happen 
 to adopt it. 
 
 For inftance; the Ixxiid Pfalm, of 
 which he fpeaks in the fame page, is 
 undoubtedly a prophecy of Chrift's 
 kingdom, as Dr. Benfon interprets it; 
 yet his rule feems to lead him into a 
 real difficulty concerning it; becaufe he 
 is thereby obliged to deny the leaft re- 
 ference to king Solomon ; when it 
 
 plainly 
 
[ 213 ] 
 
 plainly appears by the title of the Pfalm, 
 (nobo^ <' ro Solomonrj that the pfalm- 
 ift abfolutely addrefled \\\m(cU to Solo^ 
 vion, who in the beginning; of his reieri 
 was manifellly a type of the fpiritual 
 Solomon or Shiloh, (n^y:? or n'?^) the 
 prince of '' pcacsr {i^) 
 
 Indeed, the Do<flor*s rule can by no 
 means be admitted, if we confider the 
 nature and general flyle of prophetical 
 writings, and the abrupt tranfitions fre- 
 quently found therein ; of which I have 
 given ample and undeniable proofs from 
 the viith, vliith, and ixth, chapters of 
 Ifaiah, See the fecond part of my Re- 
 marks on the Critical Differtaiion. 
 
 Thefe pafTages, and many others of 
 the fame kind, very much confirm what 
 I have written (Part II. p. 104) con- 
 cerning the paiTage quoted by St. Mat- 
 thew 
 
 (3) C^t^V T:? Ifaiahix. 
 
[ 214 ] 
 
 thew from Hofea ; (viz. " out of Egypt 
 *^ have I called fny fan i' ) znd^ I think, 
 muft prove, to all confiderate people, that 
 Dr. Sykes (the other champion for ac- 
 commodations, to whom Dr. W ms 
 
 has referred me) has been much too pre- 
 cipitate in declaring (pages 230 and 231 
 of his Connexion of natural and revealed 
 Religion) " that the prophet (in this 
 text) " is not fpeaking of a?2y future 
 ** event:'' and that the term *^ fulfilled ^ 
 ** cannot imply a prophecy of our Saviour s 
 ** going into Egypt or coming from 
 " thenccy' &c. The fame obfervation 
 may with juftice be made concerning 
 
 Dr. W ms, who boldly afks, (p. 40.) 
 
 " How can it be faid, that any thing 
 *' is fulfilled which was not fpoken 
 *' to be fulfilled?*' as in chap. ii. 15. 
 (Matthew {) '* or notipoken by a pro- 
 ** phet in the fenfe in which it is cited 
 *' by an evangelift?" Alfo the Dodor 
 declares^ in page 39, concerning this 
 
 paffage. 
 
[ ^^5 ] 
 palTage, that it '* could not he fulfilled 
 ** when the child Jfus came out of 
 - Egyptr 
 
 In anfvver to thefe aflertions I muft 
 obferve in the firft place, that they can- 
 not by any means be proved. And, fe- 
 condly, that it is moft rcafonable to 
 believe this text of Hofea to be a pro- 
 phecy of Ch rift ^ becaufe the ftyle and 
 conflrudion of the fentence itfelf is fo 
 peculiarly adapted to the fngle perfo7i 
 of theMeffiah, that the Seventy have 
 thought themfelves obliged to leave the 
 literal fenfe of the original, in order to 
 render it more fuitable, in their tranfla- 
 tion, io the people of Ifrael : all which 
 I have before particularly noted. 
 
 But there are ftill other reafons to be 
 given in favour of it. 
 
 Though the people of Ifrael are here 
 fpcken of infuch a manner, that Dr. 
 
 W -ms 
 
[ 2i6 ] 
 
 W ms thinks he has fufficicnt rea- 
 
 fon to in title it ** a declaration of an event 
 *' longpaji^' yet St. Matthew expreflly 
 quotes it as a prophecy, viz. ^'' that 
 *• which was fpoken of the Lord by the 
 " prophet ;" which exprejiion could not 
 with any propriety be iifed, if the words 
 cf the prophet were merely an hijhrical 
 relation', for they could not, in that 
 cafe, be faid to be *^ fpoken of the Lord'* 
 
 Thus it plainly appears, that there is 
 not the leaft room to fiippofe an accorn- 
 modation. 
 
 So that, notwithftanding all that has 
 been faid by Dr. Sykes, Dr. George Ben- 
 
 fon, and Dr. W -ms, againft double 
 
 fenfes, it muft unavoidably be allowed, 
 that the *' declaration (in this place) 
 *« 9f an event long paf;* prefigured an 
 event to come ; and confequently that 
 this fnglc text affords an indifputable 
 
 proof 
 
[ 2^7 ] 
 proof of the fubliftance of double fenfcs 
 in the Scriptures. 
 
 Though fome Chrlflians have run 
 into errors by turning every thing into 
 allegory, double fenfes, parables, and 
 types, v^hether they v^ere really fo or 
 not, yet this is no juft argument why 
 we (hould indifcriminately reject all 
 conftrudions of this kind. 
 
 And, though I contend for double 
 fenfes in fome cafes, vet I am as averfe 
 to an unnecefTary multiplication of them 
 as Dr. W ms can be ; and there- 
 fore rejedl and protefl: againft the Doc- 
 tor's propofition, (in his MS Reply to 
 my Remarks,) that if a prophecy *' has 
 ** two (fenfes) it may have two hundred; 
 ^' and all of the??! equally jujt.'^ 
 
 li\\t fulfil ling of a prophecy (as I have 
 
 before obfervcd) muft mean the only 
 
 Part V. E e true 
 
true nccompUJhment or completion of it j 
 fo that it cannot juftly be extended or 
 applied to any farther circumftances 
 than thofe particularly and originally in-, 
 tended ; therefore, when an evangelift 
 has declared a prophecy to be fulfilled, 
 though he may have convinced us that 
 the prophet's words referred to are ca- 
 pable of bearing a double fenfe^ (viz. one 
 literal, and one allegorical, or prefigu- 
 rative, which he himfelf points out,) 
 yet, at the fame time, he manifeflly 
 excludes the other one hundred and 
 ninety-eight fenfes, notwithftanding that 
 
 Dr. W ms thinks ** all of them 
 
 " equally jujir For, after a declaration 
 is made (of indifputahle authority) that 
 a prophecy i^ fulfilled^ it would be, not 
 only impertinent, but prefumptuous, to 
 look for a farther accomplijhment. 
 
 It is neceflary, however, for me to 
 obferve, that i\\Q fulfilling of fome par^ 
 
 ticular 
 
[ 219 ] 
 
 ttcular prophecies includes a confiderable 
 length of time as well as a variety of 
 circumftances and places. 
 
 Of this I propofe to give one remark- 
 able inftance, which will afford me, at 
 the fame time, a proper opportunity of 
 fpeaking more particularly to Dr. Sykes. 
 
 The Do<flor, in his Connexion of na- 
 tural and revealed Religion, chap. x. 
 p. 229, affirms, " that our Saviour and 
 '* his apoftles applied the term tofuljil^ 
 ." when there was only a fimilitude of 
 *' circumftances : and (that) they cited 
 *^ the words of the Old Teftament, and 
 " made ufe of that term upon the ap- 
 ** plication of them, where they did 
 ** not defign to exprefs the accomplijld" 
 " ment oi 2i prophecy " ** You have" 
 (fays the Doctor) ** a?2 i'z fiance very clear 
 " in Matthew xiii. 14, 15. where our 
 ** Saviour gives the reafon why he fpoke 
 E e 2 *Mo 
 
[ 220 ] 
 
 *' to the people in parables : becaufe^ 
 ** fays he, they feeing^ fee not ; and 
 *' hearings they hear noty neither do they 
 ^' underjland. And in them is fulfdled 
 *' the prophecy of Efaiasy which faith^ 
 ** by heariitg ye foall hear, and JJ:)all not 
 ** underftand ', and feeing ye fhall fee, 
 ** and fhall not perceive. For this peo^ 
 *' pies heart is waxed grofs, and their 
 '^ ears are dull of hearing', and their 
 ** eyes they have clofed y left at any 
 ** time they fliould fee with their eyes, 
 " and hear with their ears, and fhould 
 " underftand with their hearts, and (hould 
 ** be converted, and I fliould heal them/' 
 
 ** Our Saviour" (fays theDodor) *^ ap^ 
 ** plies thefe words to the Jews in 
 ** Judea, and St. Paul, many years af^ 
 •' terwards, applies the very fame pro- 
 " phecy to the Jews at Rome." ** This 
 ** fliews" (continues he) " that, though 
 *^ the term fulfil^ when applied to an 
 
 " event 
 
[ 221 ] 
 
 event foretold 9 does fignify the ac- 
 complifhment of ^ real prophecy \ yet 
 it was ufed in cafes where there was 
 no accomplifliment of a predidtion, 
 hui Qn\y 2. fimilit tide of circiimjlances % 
 and, confequently, the appHcation of 
 the words of a prophet to a certain 
 particular event, by which they are 
 faid to be fulfilled, does not certainly 
 imply either a double fenfe of prophe- 
 cy or that fjch 2i particular event was 
 foretold :" " But the real meaning 
 of the word muft be determined by 
 other circuix fiances ; fuch as, whe- 
 ther the prophet is fpeaking of a fu- 
 ture event or not, or, in fhort, by 
 thofe means by which one knows 
 whether the words are prophetic or 
 not."^ 
 
 But, before all this reafoning of Dr, 
 Sykes be admitted, we ought carefully 
 
 to 
 
i 222 ] 
 
 to examine the foundation or proof on 
 which it is built. 
 
 This he calls ^' an injiance very clear \* 
 but I hope to convince my readers that 
 it is no injiance at all of this matter ^ and 
 confequently that the Do<ftor*s conclu- 
 fion thereupon is unjuft. 
 
 Were not the Jews one people, and 
 defcended from the fame ftock, whether 
 they lived at Jerufalem or Rome ? 
 
 If this be granted, (and I think the 
 mpft zealous advocates for Dr. Sykes 
 will not deny it,) it muft neceffarily be 
 ^ allowed, likewife, that this remarkable 
 prophecy of Efaias concerning them 
 (viz. '* by hearing, ye fhall hear, and 
 *' fliall not underftand,'* &c. Ifaiah vi. 
 10.) was manifejlly fulfilled vjhtn the 
 Jews rejeded the docflrine of Chrift, 
 whether preached by himfelf at one 
 
 time, 
 
[ ^^3 ] 
 
 time, or by his apoftlcs at other different 
 
 tiinco^ 
 
 CO I ini.ik I iiiayTafely conclude that 
 t'ie two (il'fcrent appUcationSi quoted by 
 j>i'. Syke; Ci this fame prophecy, were 
 not occafidned, as he fuppofes, by a mere 
 *^ fimUhude of circumjlances^'' but by a 
 dire^ accompUJlmejit of the prediction in 
 both cafes. 
 
 Now, as this example cannot any 
 longer fcrve the caufc in favour of which 
 it was quoted by Dr. Sykes; I hope it 
 will not be efteemed an improper ex- 
 ample of a very different argument ^ and 
 therefore I beg leave to claim it, on my 
 fide of the queftion, as *^ nn injlance 
 *' very clear" of the truth of the obfer- 
 vation which I made above, viz. that 
 x!^^ fulfilling of fome particular prophe- 
 cies includes a confiderable length of 
 time as well as a variety of circumftances 
 and places. 
 
 However, 
 
[ 224 J 
 
 However, I muft not leave this text 
 without coming to a farther explanation 
 
 with Dr. W ms concerning it, be- 
 
 caufe he has brought a very heavy accu- 
 fation againft me concerning the parallel 
 account given by St. Mark, chap. iv. 
 II, 12. 
 
 - t * •. i « 
 
 He charges me with refleBing *' fe^ 
 ** verely on the charadler of the blejjed 
 «« Jefus,'' by faying, ** that he taught 
 ** in parables, left they ihould under- 
 " ftand and be faved.'* ** Our Savi- 
 <* our" (fays the Dodtor) ** gave a very 
 " different reafon for his conduft; and 
 <* Mr. S— (hould have rendered the 
 paffage, Mark iv. 12. agreeable to the 
 evangelift's words in the 33d verfe of 
 " the fame chapter : fjuviTroTs (hould be 
 " there tv2infl2itQd if peradventure, as it is 
 *^ in 2 Timothy ii. 25." However, I am 
 not at all confcious (I thank God) of 
 
 having 
 
 
I 22S ] 
 
 having in the leaft refpedt offended a- 
 gainrt: the charadter of our blefTed Lord, 
 
 Neither do I know of any fevere re^ 
 fieStion in this cafe, except the Doctor's 
 own charge againjl my f elf. 
 
 Whatever fenfe the word f/,7}7roTB may 
 bear in other places, yet, in the parallel 
 places of St. Matthew and Mark above- 
 mentioned, it mull neceffarily be con- 
 ftrued *' l^f'y' or to that eff'ed: for, 
 as the fenic of the context muft confirm 
 the true meaning of any particular word, 
 it will be found, upon examination, that 
 the Dodlor's fenfe of thefe paflages can- 
 not poffibly be admitted. 
 
 The words of Chrift, according to 
 the teftimony of both thefe evangelifts, 
 point out the material diftindion which 
 he then made between ihofe that were 
 true believers and the reprobate Jews, 
 
 Part V. F f whom 
 
[ 226 ] 
 
 whom our Lord called " them that 
 '* are without," (fee Mark iv. 1 1 .) to 
 the former it was ^' given to know the my- 
 *^^ Jlery of the kingdom of God^^ Matthew 
 xiii. II. Markiv. ii. but to the latter, 
 fays St. Matthew, " it is not given'' 
 
 Now this neceffary diftindion is en- 
 tirely loft by Dr. W ms's interpreta* 
 
 tion, becaufe there is no fuch diftindtion 
 made in the 33d verfe of the fourth 
 chapter of St. Mark, the fenfe of which 
 the Dodlor propofes to adopt ; for the 
 evangelift is there fpeaking of Chrift's 
 preaching in general to the whole mul- 
 titude, including thofe to whom '* it 
 *' was given to know," as well as thofe 
 to whom it was " not given;" and this 
 is certain, becaufe in the very next ^tx{^ 
 (the 34th) we read, that afterwards, 
 « <when they were alone, he expounded 
 «« all things to his difcipjes." 
 
 Nov/ 
 
[ ^27 ] 
 
 Now It might very well be faid of 
 Chfift's preaching to the whole multi- 
 tude of good and bad together, that 
 " with many fuch parables fpake he 
 ** the word unto them, as they were 
 '* able to hear it i" becaufe Chrift ob- 
 ferved this fame method even when he 
 taught his difciples alone; and at laft 
 declared to them, foon before his paflion, 
 " I have yet many things to fay unto 
 ** you, but ye cannot bear them now'* 
 John xvi. 12. 
 
 But, when the reprobate Jews are ipo- 
 ken oifeparately and dijlin^lly from thofe 
 to whom it was ** given to know,'^ it 
 cannot be underftood that the word was 
 fpoken '* unto them as they were abk to 
 ** hear it^ 
 
 V 
 
 Becaufe, it is apparent that they 
 
 were never abk to hear it or bear it ; ac- 
 
 F f 2 cording 
 
[ 228 ] 
 
 cording to the true fenfe of thefe phrafes ; 
 which imply fuch a comprehenfion of 
 the dodrine, as may produce an affent, 
 or belief; other wife the prophecy of 
 Ifaiah, which Chrift then referred to, 
 could not have been fulfilled. " Be- 
 " caufe feeingy they fee 7iot ;*' (faid our 
 Lord ;) ** and hearing, they hear not^ 
 *^ neither do they underJlandJ* (Which 
 is very different from being fpoken to, 
 
 asDr, W ms w6uld have it, ** as 
 
 ** they were able to hear.") '* And in 
 ** them" (continued our Lord) " isful- 
 ** filled the prophecy of Efaias, which 
 «* faith, by hearing, ye fliall hear, and 
 *^ Jhall not under jland'y and feeing, ye 
 ** {hall fee, and Jhall not perceived 
 (Therefore it is plain that St. Mark's 
 expreffion, chap. iv. 33. cannot be ap- 
 plied to thefe, when diftindly fpoken of 
 from the reft of the congregation.) " For 
 " this people's heart" (faid Ifaiah) " is 
 *' waxed grofs, and their ears are dull 
 
 «* of 
 
[ 229 ] 
 
 '' of hearing, and their eyes they have 
 *' dofed^ left at any time they (hould fee 
 *' with their eyes, and hear with their 
 '* ears, and fliould underftand with their 
 " heart, and fhould be converted, and 
 " I {l">ould heal them" (faid our Lord.) 
 The clofing of their eyes was theirownadl 
 and deed, ** their eyesT\it.Y have clofed, 
 ** LEST they p^ould fee^' ZSc, So that 
 there was no partiality (4) in their con- 
 demnation, they having rendered them- 
 felves unworthy of a clearer revelation 
 by their unwillingnefs to be converted. 
 
 They 
 
 (4) For " the reafon why thefe mylleries are no 
 *' more plainly delivered unto them, (the Jews,) is 
 •* f-r their foregoing obllinacy." See AssExMbly's 
 Annot, on the laid text. 
 
 Dr. Hammond paraphrafes the 15th verfe to the 
 feme efFedl, viz. that ** this is a juft judgement of 
 *' God's upon them, for their obduration and obfti- 
 *• nacy," &c. 
 
 Mor.f. Martin likewife explains this to the fame 
 purpofe. ** C'eft a dire, que Dieu fe cache a, ceux 
 ** qui, I'ayantpu trouver, ne fe font pas mis en etat 
 ** ce le cherchcr, etqu'illivre a leurs prejuges eta 
 *• leur tenebres ceux q»ii ont ferme Ics ycux a la 
 ** verite." 
 
[ 230 ] 
 
 They rejedied fuch evidence as Chrift was 
 pleafed to give them, which would have 
 been amply luflicient, had they not wil- 
 fully p^ut their eyesagainjl it ; for St. John 
 fays, chap. iii. 19, *^ this is the con- 
 ** demnation, that light is come into the 
 ** world, and men loved darknefs rather 
 ** than light, becaufe their works were 
 *' evil." 
 
 Therefore they were Jtijify ejleemed iin^ 
 worthy ** to know the myfteries of the 
 *' kingdom of heaven.** For, ** who- 
 *' foever hath," (faid our Lord,) *' to 
 *' him (hall be given, and he fliall have 
 ** more abundance : but whofoever/6^//& 
 *^ 72oty {xo\Xi\\\m Jhall be taken away even 
 ** that he hath. Therefore, (J'icu t«to, 
 *' fpeak I to them in parables, becaufe 
 ** they, feeing, fee not," &c. 
 
 The words hoc raroy " therefore," 
 plainly refer to the foregoing fentence, 
 
 viz. 
 
[ 231 ] 
 
 vj'z. " but whofoever hath not, from 
 " him fiaH be taken imay" ^c. So 
 that the fcope and tenor of the argu- 
 ment would be entirely deftroyed if Dr. 
 
 ^ ™s's ^enfe of the parallel pa%e 
 
 in St. Mark were to be admitted. For 
 Chrift plainly intended to fhew. that 
 the unbelieving Jews would lofe eve?i 
 ^^■hat little knowledge they had ; fofar 
 v/ould they be from underftanding or 
 receiving his parables. And the cve« 
 plainly proved this ; for they fell from 
 bad to worfe, until the total dearudion 
 of Jerufalem, when the abomination of 
 defolation (fpoken of by Daniel) was ac- 
 complifhed. 
 
 St. Mark dees not, indeed, exprefs 
 the very v^^ords of the prophet Ifaiah, nor 
 mention the quotation made of them by 
 Chnft, but he plainly delivers the full 
 fenfe of them, as they were r^aWy fulfilled 
 in the unbelieving Jews, viz. 
 
 it 
 
 Unto 
 
C 232 ] 
 
 « Unto you" (faid Chrift to his dlf- 
 ciples) " it is given to know the myftery 
 " of the kingdom of God, but, unto 
 •* them that are without ^ all thefe things 
 " are done in parables: that, feeing, 
 «* they may fee, and not perceive \ and 
 " hearing, they may hear, and not un^ 
 " J^r/?^;^^, LEST at anytime they (hould 
 «' be converted, and their fins fliould 
 *« be forgiven them." 
 
 The particle /i/a (" that") followed 
 by verbs in the fubjuncSive mood (.Gastt^o-; 
 %(/A fJLT} idu(riy 6cc.) cannot poffibly be made 
 fenfe of, if the w^ord i^vittots (** lest") 
 is tranflated *' if peradventurei* be- 
 caufe the negative jit-)? (viz. i^vi t^cdo-i, and 
 fjiv} cvvicocTi, " may not fee y and may not 
 " underjiand'' J abfolutely leads to a 
 different fenfe from that propofed by 
 Dr. W — -ms. 
 
 So 
 
[ ^33 1 
 
 So that it Is moft reafonable to con- 
 clude, with Dr. Hammond, that thefc 
 words, Iva. fSxsTovre; " that feeing," &c. 
 " note the obduration of the Ifraelites, 
 ' which feJl on them from God's de- 
 ' fertion, as a punifliment for their not 
 ' making ufe of the talents which he 
 ' had given them J and fo this verfe is 
 ' anfwerable and parallel to Matthew 
 ' xiii. 15. or the end of that place in 
 ' Ifaiah, recited and fet down at large 
 ' in St. Matthew ; but here (and fo 
 
 alfoinLukeviii. io.andjohnxii,4o.) 
 epitomixed and fu?,imed up, f,r,7rolB .h^,, 
 leji they Jliould fee," &c. 
 
 The word ^.yiTrols, therefore, cannot 
 in either of thefe places be conftrued 
 " ifperadventure," without deftroying 
 the propriety of our Lord's quotation 
 from Ifaiah, delivered at length by St. 
 Matthew, and epitomized by St. Mark 
 
 ^'^'■^tV. Gg as 
 
i 234 r 
 
 as above ; for the word ID, in the o- 
 riginal prophecy, is properly rendered 
 p» in the Syriac, and lest in the Eng- 
 lilh tranflations, and cannot poffibly bear 
 any other fenfe agreeable to the context, 
 becaufe the prophet plainly foretold that 
 the Jews would wilfully Jkut their eyes 
 (.l^TjTTOTs) ** LEST they (hould fee with 
 ** their eyes." 
 
 Now, men do not ufuMy Jhut their 
 cye^ in order to fee therewith y or (accord^ 
 
 ing to Dr. W ms*s interpretatation 
 
 of [A^yiTTOTi) ** if peradventure' they 
 may fee with their eyes ; but, rather, 
 that they may notfee^ or, according to 
 the propriety of the Englifh tranflation 
 oi i^yjTTOTs, ** LEST they Jhould fee with 
 ** their eyes," &c. 
 
 The clofing of the eyes, in this place, 
 is indeed a mere figurative expreffion 
 for the infenfibility and wicked obflinacy 
 
 of 
 
[ 235 V 
 of the Jews; yet the fame reafoning holds 
 good, notwithftanding this confidera- 
 tion, and fufficiently proves that the 
 word f/.Yj'TfoTe muft be conftrued nega- 
 
 five/y, and not, as Dr. W ms pro- 
 
 pofes, " \i feradve fit lire i* 
 
 By this example we learn that fome 
 parables were not only difficult to thofe 
 reprobate unbelievers, whom St. Mark 
 calls *^ them that are without,''' but alfo 
 even to the true difciples themfelves; 
 who, by mifunderftanding the parable 
 of the fower, and by defiring an ex- 
 planation of it, (fee loth verfe,) occa- 
 fioned this remarkable anfwer of our 
 Lord, the purport of which is recorded 
 in the two texts confidered above. 
 
 Neverthelefs, there were very many 
 
 cafes, wherein the teaching by parables 
 
 and types was (not only the fafeft and 
 
 mofl prudent but alfo) the fliorteft and 
 
 G g 2 cleared 
 
[ 236 ] • 
 
 cleareft method of conveying a true idea 
 of the propofed dodtrine, as being very 
 fuitable to the genius and cuftoms of 
 the Eaftern nations in general, and of the 
 Jews in particular 5 and alfo becaufe the 
 types and figures themfelves would make 
 a very deep impreffion on the memory, 
 and by their well-known charaders clear- 
 ly illuftrate the allegorical meaning, 
 
 I propofe now to reconfider the prin- 
 cipal fubje(ft of my Remarks, viz. the 
 prophecy of Ifaiah concerning the birth 
 of ImmanueK 
 
 Dr. W ms has aflerted (page 44.) 
 
 *' that the evangelift only alludes to the 
 " paflage in Ifaiah, becaufe it was r^- 
 ** mar kably fuit able to the matter which 
 ** he was relating." 
 
 This occafioned my queftion to the 
 Dodlor, viz. «* If nQ!?:^' does not fignify 
 
 4( 
 
€€ 
 €i 
 
 i( 
 
 it 
 t( 
 
 €C 
 (( 
 <€ 
 
 [ 237 ] 
 
 a virgin, in what fenfe can the text 
 be efteemed remarkably fuit able to the 
 miraculous conception of a virgin by 
 the Holy Ghoft? And in what man- 
 ner could the acco7nmodation of it 
 to that lingular event afliil: the facred 
 hiftorian'* (as he fuppofes) *' by way 
 ofilluJlrationV See Part I. page 63. 
 
 I afterwards obferve, that the Dodor 
 ** has taken great pains to make the 
 ** text remarkably tinfuitable, by iniinua- 
 ** tingthatnab'J^n the YOUNG woman" 
 (as he conftrues it) ** fpoken of in the 
 " text was fo far from being a virgin 9 
 *' that (he was with child, even at the 
 " time when (he was pointed at" (as he 
 devifes in p. 31.) *' by the prophet." 
 
 To which the Doflor replies, *' had 
 " St. Matthew alluded to the birth of 
 " this child, it would have been very 
 '* unfuitabhr 
 
 Now 
 
S ^38 I 
 
 Now this conceffion is fufficient for 
 my purpofe, becaufe the Do(flor's in- 
 finuation, that the evangelift alluded only 
 ** to the name Immanuel,** and not to 
 the other circumftances related by the 
 propliet, muft appear entirely ground- 
 lefs, when we confider the words of St. 
 Matthew. 
 
 For, though the evangelifl: interpreted 
 the name ImmanueU yet this does not 
 prove that he referred merely to this 
 namey but, rather, that no other perfon 
 but the Meffiah himfelf could properly 
 be intitled " God with us i^ and confe- 
 quently that he efteemed the words of 
 Ifaiah to be really a prophecy, and fuch 
 an one as could not htfulfiiled, except in 
 Chrifl: alone, who was truly ** God 
 ** with us. But farther,' — The evange- 
 lift's manner of introducing the quota- 
 tion very clearly fliews that this name 
 
 was 
 
e< 
 
 f 239 ] 
 
 wa5 not the only thing he intended to 
 allude to. 
 
 For he fays, — ^' Now all this 
 
 ** WAS DONE [tuto Js oXov ysyovev) that 
 
 " it might be fulfilled which was fpoken 
 of the Lord by the prophet, behold a 
 VIRGIN fhallbe with child, and (hall 
 
 •' bring forth a fon;' &c. 
 
 The words ^* all this was done" 
 muft refer to the relation, before given, 
 concerning the miraculous conception 
 of the virgin Mary by the Holy Ghoft, 
 and therefore the prophecy of Ifaiah, 
 that a virgin fhould conceive, and bear 
 a fan, was fuitable, not in the name 
 
 only, (as Dodor W ms has infmu- 
 
 ztcd,). but in the whole quotation. 
 
 Another objedion is made, '' that 
 ** the birth of a child from a virgin \^ a 
 " fad offjch a nature, as not to admit 
 
 n 
 
 of 
 
[ 240 ] 
 
 " of proof." *' It is a fad" (fays the 
 Dodor) ** which in the very nature of 
 *' it cannot be a Jign to any per/on but 
 " the mother." 
 
 Neverthelefs, the Scriptures inform 
 us that this^^;^ was clearly proved (i. e. 
 the wonderful event that a virgin had 
 conceived was known with abfolute cer- 
 tainty) even before the birth of the 
 Meffiah; and this, not merely by the 
 teftimony of the mother^ but by other 
 very fufRcient authorities ; which ren- 
 dered the fign as apparent and indubita- 
 ble as any other fign that was ever given, 
 even the moft felf- evident. 
 
 For, after the angel Gabriel had re- 
 vealed to the virgin Mary, that fhe 
 (although a virgin) fhould ^^ conceive 
 '* and bring forth a fon ;" St. Luke i. 31. 
 the fame thing was confirmed to her by 
 her coufin Elizabeth, in the hill country 
 
 of Judea. 
 
 *' Blefi'ed 
 
[ 241 ] 
 
 '' Bleffed is (he that believed," (faid 
 Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Ghoft,) 
 ** for there (hall be a performance of 
 " thofe things which were told her 
 " froni the Lord." Lukei. 45. 
 
 See the whole falutation, and the tefti- 
 mony of John the Baptift, though him- 
 felf at that time was only a babe in the 
 womb; which clearly proves that the 
 abfolute knowledge of the fadt was not 
 , confined to the virgin-'mother alone. 
 
 Afterwards an angel was fent from 
 God -to prevent Jofeph from putting 
 away his efpoufed wife on account of 
 her being with child ; and the angel in- 
 formed him, before the time> that (he ' 
 (hould '^ bring forth a fon ;'' and, that 
 he might the more eff^edtually convince ' 
 him of his wife's purity and virtue, he - 
 affijred him, faying, '* that ivhich is 
 
 Part V. H h '' con- 
 
[ «42 ] 
 
 '* conceived in her is of the Holy Ghoji'* 
 Matt, u 20. 
 
 Therefore, Ihough '* the birtk of a 
 ^* child fom a virgin*' is by Dr. W-^-^-^ms 
 efteemed ** a fa<fl of fuch a nature as 
 *' not to admit of proof," yet nothing 
 hitnpoffible with God, who was pleafed 
 16 give thefe indubitable prioofs of thd 
 long-promifed fign even while the thild 
 Jefus was in the womb> which tnuft 
 entirely obviate the Dodor's objedViorti 
 that *^ this cannot he ajfign to any perfon 
 *' but the mother.'* 
 
 In the fulnefs of time the fign was 
 ttianifefted iii the moft extraordinary 
 riiantier. 
 
 An angel, accompanied with a mul- 
 titude of the heavenly hoft, proclaimed 
 the wonderful birth to the fhepherds 
 %ti \ht field J and a ftar pointed cut to 
 
 4be 
 
[ 243 ] 
 the caftern ftrangers the place where the 
 
 young child lay. 
 
 Undoubtedly, this wonderful circum- 
 ft^nce, that A virgin had brought 
 FQjiTJi A 60N, would, in a little time, 
 be as well known to the haufe of David 
 as thefe miraculous manifeftations and 
 confirmations of the faid fupernatural 
 birth y efpecially as the family of Jo.-' 
 feph, the blefled virgin's hufband, was 
 the chief branch of that royal Jiocky lineally 
 defcended from Zorababel, and fo froqa 
 che iij"^ of Jeflb, 
 
 There is ftill another difficulty with 
 
 Dr. W ms. " I cannot perceive" 
 
 (fays he) *^ what event the birth of 
 ^* Immanuel could be a fign gf, unlefs it 
 
 " could be aji^n ofitfelf^ 
 
 But is it really poflible that Dr. 
 
 W ms ** cannot perceive^ that the 
 
 H h 2 miraeu* 
 
[ 244 ] 
 miraculous birth of the true Immanuel 
 was a fign of fomething more than that 
 event itfelf ? 
 
 Was it not a fign to all thofe, who 
 then waited for ** the confolatton and 
 ** redemption of Ifrael" (Luke ii. 25.) 
 that the kingdom of God was nigh at 
 hand? (Matthew xii. 28.(5) Lukex. 
 
 9, 1 1.) (6). 
 
 Was it not a fign to Jofephy and others 
 ofthehoufeofDavid, that a child, fo 
 born, muft be thelong-promifedMeffiah 
 of ih^feed of Davidy to whom the kijig-- 
 dom was to be rejlored, and in whom 
 (according to Ifaiah's promife to his 
 cotemporaries of the houfe of David) 
 
 it 
 
 (5) " But if I caft out devils by the Spirit of God, 
 '* then the kingdom of God is come unto you." 
 
 (6) ** And fay unto them, the kingdom of God is 
 ** come nigh unto you. — Notwithftanding, be yc furc 
 «« of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh 
 ** unto you." 
 
[ 245 ] 
 it was to be eftablifhed for ever ? Sec 
 Ifaiah ix. 6, 7. 2 Sam. vii. 16. 
 
 But, I find, it is in vain that I urge 
 
 to Dr. W ms the accomphihment 
 
 of the feveral prophecies concerning the 
 eftablifhment of the ** kingdom of Da- 
 vid''' in Chrift \ for the Dodor ftill feems 
 to perfift in his former notion that Na- 
 thaniel '* laboured under a fnijiake' in 
 calling Chrift ** king of IfraelJ* 
 
 He hopes to evade the point, by al- 
 ledging, that *^ not only Nathaniel and 
 the difciples, but the whole Jewifli 
 nation, did actually labour under a 
 great miftake about the nature of the 
 Meffiah's kingdom.'' 
 
 
 Thus he would lead me to a very dif- 
 ferent queftion ; but I am aware that, 
 though the difciples did, for fome time, 
 ** labour under a mijiake" as the Doc- 
 tor 
 
[ 246 ] 
 
 tor obfervcs, concerning ** the nature of 
 *^ the MeJJiah's kingdom^' yet there was 
 not the leaji mijlake, in thofe who truly 
 believed, concerning the main point in 
 queftion, viz. whether or not the Meffiab 
 V)as really a king. 
 
 Notwithftanding that our Lord re- 
 jedled all the temporal authority of a 
 worldly king, and declared that his 
 kingdom was not of this world, he was 
 neverthelefs really a king, ** king of 
 ** Ifraely' (as Nathaniel called him,) 
 and king of Judah, or (which is the 
 fame thing) ** king of the Jews-,** for 
 even Pilate himfelf feemed convinced of 
 Chrift'sjuft right to the title of king, 
 though, like a thorough-paced time-fer- 
 ver, he preferred his own temporal in- 
 tereft to all other coniiderations, and 
 delivered up the King of kings 
 (Rev. xvii. 14.) to be flain, knowing 
 him to be A KING J for, his anfwer to 
 
 the 
 
[ H7 ] 
 
 the chief priefts, concerning the title in- 
 tended to be affixed to the crofs, plainly 
 fliews that he was confcious of this. 
 
 Dr. W -ms charges me with having 
 
 *' brought a vaft number of texts to 
 *' prove, not (my) affcrtion, that Jefus 
 •' was ever called the king of Judab, 
 ** but the truth of (his) aflertion," &c. 
 concerning the miftake of Nathaniel. 
 And he fays, " this will be evident to 
 ** every one who confults the paflages 
 '' cited by me." 
 
 But, if the Dodor will pleafe once 
 more to confult the paflages himfelf, 
 he will find that feveral among them are 
 prophecies which were abfolutely ful- 
 filled Jn our Lord Jefus. 
 
 Therefore, I hope, he will not ven* 
 ture to affert that the prophets likewiii 
 *' laboured under a miftake'* when they 
 
 proclaimed 
 
[ 248 ] 
 
 proclaimed thefe titles of the glorious 
 Meffiah; or that the difciples, and all 
 other Chriftians even to this day, ftill 
 *' labour under a mijlake'' in applying 
 them to Chrift, in whom alone they were 
 or could be fulfilled. 
 
 ** Rejoice greatly, O daughter of 
 *^ Zion 5 fliout, O daughter of Jerufa- 
 ** lem : behold thy king comet h un- 
 ** to thee :" the prophet then proceeds 
 to defcribe this coming of the king 
 of Zion and '^erufalem, fo as exadlly to 
 correfpond with the evangelift's account 
 (Lukexix. 37, 38.)of Chrift's public en- 
 try into Jerufalem, when ** the whole 
 *' multitude of the difciples began to re- 
 " joice and praife God with a loud voice 
 *' for all the mighty works that they had 
 ** feen : faying, blejfed be the king 
 " that Cometh in the name of the hord" 
 &c. For he was certainly a king even 
 when he rode upon the afs, which is 
 
 proved 
 
[ 249 ] 
 proved by the continuation of Zecha- 
 riah's prophecy, (ix. 9.) whereby he 
 points out the charadler and appearance 
 oi the king of Z ion and J eriifalem y men- 
 tioned in the beginning of the fame 
 verfe ; "' he is juft," (faid the prophet,) 
 ** and having falvation, lowly, and riding 
 " upon an afs, and upon a colt, the 
 *' foal of an als/' 
 
 So the prophet Micah declared, that 
 out oi Bethlehem Ephratah (hould *' he 
 ^* come forth that is to be ruler in 
 '^ Iprael, whofe goings forth have been 
 ** from of old, from evcrlafting." (Chap. 
 V. 2.) 
 
 The event proved the truth of the pro- 
 phe't's words, as well as of the evange- 
 h.iVs citation, (Matt. ii. 5 and 6.) for the 
 holy one that was born at Bethlehem, 
 was afterwards undoubtely " ruler in 
 " Ifraely' before the dilloUuion of that 
 
 Part V. I i people 
 
[ 250 ] 
 
 people from an united nation : of which 
 (befides the power of his teaching and 
 his mighty works) his pubhc entry into 
 Jerufalem, and the authority (hewn by 
 him in clearing the temple, are remark- 
 able proofs. 
 
 That Chrift was '* 2^ ruler in IfraeV^ 
 is implied in the preceding words of the 
 fame prophet, (Micah v. 1.) " they 
 " {hall Jmite the judge of Ifrael with 
 " a rod upon the cheek." A ruler and 
 ^ judge are fynonymous terms ; and it is 
 certain that Chrift ^ionoKxx\Q^di judgement 
 againfl Ifrael for their impenitence and 
 want of faith; condemning them (with 
 refped: to their temporal eftate) to a hor-^ 
 rid deftrudlion and defolation : (7) and 
 all this was moft pundually fulfilled (8) 
 upon them ; it is certain, likewife, that 
 the fame ** judge of IfraeW" whom they 
 
 fmote 
 
 (7) St. Matthew, chap, xxiv, 
 
 (8 j See Jofephus's accouB^ of the Jewifh War. 
 
[ 251 ] 
 
 fmote upon the cheek, will ofte day 
 judge them, alfo, in their ettrnaljiate^ as 
 well as all their unhappy defcendarits who 
 perfift in the fame belief. 
 
 If thefe prophecies were really y«/- 
 Jilledm Jefus, they moft certainly prove 
 that the Meffiah was (as he ever will be) 
 A KING, and confequently that his dif- 
 ciples were not miftaken in calling him 
 fo, howfoever they might mifunder- 
 fland the nature of his kingdom. 
 
 Therefore the Dodor's reply upon this 
 point cannot be well edeemed a proof 
 of any thing more than of his ov^n great 
 unwillingnefs to acknowledge that he 
 himfelf (inftead of Nathaniel) labours 
 under a inijlake. 
 
 Another remarkable excufe which the 
 Doctor has offered in behalf of his hypo- 
 thefis, deferves particular notice. 
 
 I i 2 In 
 
[ 252 ] 
 
 In anfwer to my Remarks on Can- 
 ticles vi. 8. (concerning the particular 
 diftindion there made of virgins from 
 queens and concubines,) the Dodor re- 
 plies, that " Hebrew poetry is not Jo well 
 *' under jlood as to enable (me) to deter- 
 ** mine that na^j; in Canticles vi. 8. is 
 ** not ufed inftead of vhwo, for the fake 
 ** of metre'' 
 
 This unexpeded turn of thought may, 
 perhaps, be efteemed ingenious, but it is 
 far from fatisfadory ; for, if critics were 
 allovi^ed to fubftitute the fenfe of one 
 word for another, whenever their argu- 
 ments are reduced to that neceffity, it 
 would be but a vain tafk to difpute with 
 them; and a confufion of language, 
 like that of the builders of Babel, muft 
 ncceffarily fucceed their perveriion of 
 words. 
 
 In 
 
[ ^SZ ] 
 
 In Englifh poetry the Doftor may 
 produce as many inftances of fuch lubfli- 
 tutions as he pleafes, and he may refl: 
 aflured that I fhall never think it worth 
 my while to attempt a confutation of 
 them. 
 
 But, when fuch refined criticifms are 
 apph'ed to any part of Holy Scripture, 
 I think they ought not by any means 
 to be admitted, unlefs the authors of 
 them fliall be able to prove that it is 
 .more juftifiable to adapt the Scriptures 
 to our own private opinions, than our 
 opinions to the Scriptures. 
 
 The END 2/^ Part V. 
 
INDEX 
 
 O F 
 
 Texts referred to in the foregoing Work; 
 
 o F T H E 
 
 Various Topics difcufledi 
 
 AND OF THE 
 
 Different Authors referred to. 
 
C 357. J 
 
 .tt^aV&>t i 
 
 t; N n E :x: 
 
 O F 
 
 K.; 
 
 Texts referred to in tlie foregoing Work. 
 
 Qenesis, 
 
 Chap. "Verfes. Pages. 
 
 iii. 15. 55. 
 
 xxtv. 43. 17. 21 n-. 
 
 xxv^ 30. 148 n. 
 
 XXX. ; 28 to 30. III. •'■ 
 
 xiix. 8. 155. 
 
 • ' . KO. 142. 149. 
 
 •»l* •^^' 174. 179. 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 D£UTER0N6"My.' 
 
 
 11. ^ 
 X.' ■* 
 xxii, > 
 
 Exodus. 
 
 ,8*. 17. 21 n. 
 
 .-^0. 18. 
 
 ■:i'6. 
 
 ■ X r • ■ 
 
 12. 14. 
 
 ,, Leviticus. 
 xxlv, " ^3. 134. 
 
 Numbers. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 xxiii« 
 xxvi. 
 
 8,9- 
 24. 
 
 S9- 
 
 53"' 
 '57- 
 i8. 
 
 Ghap. Veifeg.; Rages, 
 xviii. 15.18. 179. 
 txiu- 21. -i^. 
 
 j '23, 24. 16. 
 
 [ -• ■ '"• '5- 
 
 xxiii. 7. • 148 n. 
 
 txviii. 6i. 62. 1^4, 
 Judges, 
 
 I 
 
 jtiii. 
 pi. 
 
 xvii. 
 xviii. 
 
 Vll. 
 
 5- 
 17' 
 
 119. 
 1830, 
 
 .vt 
 
 K k 
 
 1-Samuel. 
 
 321051. 157. 
 5.14,15.157. 
 
 2 Samuel. 
 
 13, 14. 91. 
 
 16. 56. 245. 
 
 2 Kings. 
 
t m J 
 
 2 Kings. 
 
 xvi. 6. 
 
 " "i6. 
 1 8. 
 
 25- 
 
 128. 
 
 98 n. 
 
 13O. 
 
 l^QjiRONICLJgS. 
 
 xxii. -^•^. 9^. 
 
 2 Chronicles. 
 
 xxviii. 23, 24. 30. 
 xxix. 30 n. 
 
 xxxiv. 9. 135. 
 
 '"^^mzK-k. 
 
 ^ 
 
 ii» '^6^. 
 
 .140 n. 
 
 iv. ^, 
 
 159. 
 
 .3- 
 
 139 n 
 
 .f!^>» JO- 
 
 B'30» . 
 
 ' Esther 
 
 .. 
 
 ij. 2,3 30c; 
 
 'Jon. 
 
 ;^SALM3 
 
 • 
 
 11. 
 
 211. 
 
 xvl. 
 
 21 1. 
 
 xxxvil. 19. 
 
 8S n. 
 
 xlv, 6, 7. 
 
 174. 
 
 Ix. 7. 
 
 176. 
 
 Ixviii, 25. 
 
 16. 
 
 Ixxii. 
 
 92. 2 
 
 cviii. 8. 
 
 176. 
 
 cxviii. 22. 
 
 9P- 
 
 cxxvii. 5. 
 
 88 n. 
 
 cxxviii. 3. 
 
 114. 
 
 P. 
 
 5ALMS 
 
 continueii. 
 
 cxliv. 
 
 12. 
 
 114. 
 
 
 Proverbs. 
 
 xxviii. 
 
 I. 
 
 157- 
 
 XXX. 
 
 19. 
 
 II. 21 n. 
 
 
 26. 
 
 1 3 n; 
 
 
 30- 
 
 ^S-!^ 
 
 
 Canticles. 
 
 .i:;i 
 
 12. 
 
 1. 3. 18. 21 n. 
 
 vi. 8, 13. 19 n, 
 
 14 .: 2 ill 2X3V 
 
 Isaiah. 
 
 IV. 2» 114. 
 
 ^yi. JO. 22^2. 
 
 . 9, 10. 22 y. 
 
 \nh : •: . 7S» 76v; x 
 
 : 80. 213. 
 
 f'n, .. 5,, 6. ,55. 
 
 .-4^ 7- 58. 
 .-4.1.^4^. .-33- 127. 
 
 . 128. 131. 
 
 ; '53-»58. 
 
 13. , 57. 
 • i^ toi6. 7.22.201- 
 
 • •^ V"i4- ^'"- 35- 
 
 i ■" . "^c- 
 ' 141016.47. 81. 
 
 16. 21 to 47. 
 
 ro5 n. 
 t37n. 
 viii. 127.128. 
 
 131. 
 4. 52. 
 
 ••; 3^ 4. 52. 
 4.6,7,8. 76. 77. 
 8. 31. 
 
 Isaiah 
 
[ 259 j 
 
 I.s A I A H continued, 
 
 viii. \x. 31. 
 
 1310 16. 77. 80. 
 
 - - 87- 
 »^- 75- 77. 
 
 80. 89. 
 213. 
 
 • • :. 1 '» 2. 79. 
 
 : , 6. 80.91. 
 
 7- 59- 
 
 6, 7. 244..;.. 
 6.7.9. .'• 
 
 io,M-2i-77n, 
 
 xi. I. 116. 
 
 4. 107 n. 
 xxvili. 10. 13. 81. 
 
 16. 87. 99. 
 
 xxxiii., 22. i 75- 
 
 xl. 27. 138 n. 
 
 xli. 8. 14. i33n. 
 
 xlii. 6, 7. 108 n. 
 
 xliii. 138 n. 
 
 8, 9. 197. 
 
 "xlix. I to 4. loO to 
 III. 
 
 3. 106. 
 
 . , ,^.4 to 7. 1C7 to 
 III. 
 
 liii. 84. 
 
 2. 114. 
 
 ' ' »3, 4. 190 n. 
 
 Jeremiah. 
 
 xxiii. 5. 114.. 
 
 5, 6. 85n. 
 XXX, 9. 8 5 n. 
 xx\i. 22. 5^. 
 
 31. i4on, 
 
 xxxiii. 15. ii8. 
 
 10. tS^ n. 
 
 1. 
 
 J E R EM J A H ^tinned* 
 
 1.4. 8,7 
 
 ^ }• 140 n. 
 
 9. 'o. i ^ 
 
 Lamentations. 
 iv. 7. 119. 
 
 EzEKltL. 
 
 iii. . 4. II. 139. "[ 
 .4. 139"-* 
 
 ^T^Vi 23, 24. 42. 
 
 KXklftu 19, 2 2. * 141. 
 
 , 24. 42. • ', 
 
 Xliv. 22. 15. 19-^^ 
 
 Daniel. 
 
 ix. 26, 27. 178 n. 
 
 179. 
 xii. .II. ^77^' 
 
 Ho SEA. 
 
 xi. 1. 100. iic. 
 
 214. 215. 
 2. 104. 
 
 5- 33- 
 
 Amos. 
 
 iii. 8. 157. 
 
 viii. 2, 3. 133. . 
 
 10. 132. lj>;. 
 
 ix. 4. 131. 
 
 MiCAH. 
 
 V. 1. 250. / "^ 
 
 2. 45.1130. 
 
 I7in.249. 
 8. 157. 
 
 ^2 Hag G AX. 
 
I[ ^€o 5 
 
 J T\* V. 
 
 HkGGAI. - ; 
 
 Matthew centime^. 
 
 '^h . 
 
 92. 
 
 ii. ' 
 
 5, 6. 
 
 249. 
 
 
 5- 93- 
 
 
 15. 
 
 100. 
 
 
 6, 7. 94. 
 
 
 15.23. 
 
 100. 
 
 
 '7* 83.93. 
 
 
 20. 
 
 39- 
 
 
 9- 93- .., 
 
 
 22, 2^, 
 
 116 n. 
 
 
 
 
 23- 
 
 1 12. 
 
 
 Zeghariah. 
 
 iii. 
 
 5- 
 
 181. 
 
 111. ., 
 vi. 
 
 , 6 to 10. 94. ; 
 11 1015. 95. 96 ni 
 
 xi* 
 
 xii,- 
 
 xiii. 
 
 12, 13. 
 
 14. 
 28. 
 II. 
 
 185. 
 
 ■ 180. 
 
 244. 
 
 226. 
 
 ••• • 
 
 ; 1 '?•■: ,r; 9511-115. 
 
 
 11,12, ' 
 
 f 
 
 Vlll. 
 
 ix. 
 
 ■ 140. 
 5- ...32... , ■ 
 
 
 13. J 
 '3» 15- 
 
 ► 230. 
 22.9 n. 
 
 X. 
 
 xi. 
 xii. 
 
 9- 44' 
 >!• 33- 'S^-. 
 I. 17811. 
 I. 139. 
 
 XV. 
 
 xvi. 
 
 14, 15. 
 
 24. 
 28. 
 
 219. 
 
 233- 
 
 43. 
 
 120. 
 
 
 Malachi. 
 
 xvii. 
 
 1 to I 3 
 8. 
 
 . 18011. 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 XIX, 
 
 15- 
 
 1. 
 
 I. 139. 
 
 xxi. 
 
 8. 
 
 43' 
 
 iliv 
 
 I. 1 80. 
 
 xxxiil. 
 
 2, 
 
 .176. 
 
 iv. 
 
 5- ^77' ' 
 
 xxiv. 
 
 15, 21. 
 
 121. i6g. 
 
 177. 
 
 
 TOBIT. 
 
 
 24. 
 
 194. 
 
 1. 
 
 17,18.21. 132. 
 
 xxvii. 
 
 42. 
 
 46 n. 
 
 ii. 
 
 2, 3. 6. 132. 
 
 
 Mark 
 
 * 
 
 
 Matthew. 
 
 i. 
 
 24. 
 
 114 n. 
 
 
 
 iv. 
 
 iotoi3. 
 
 82 n. 
 
 
 
 181023, 60. 
 20. 242, 
 
 
 11,12,7 
 13- j 
 
 82. 
 
 
 20,21. 10711. 
 
 
 33. 
 
 224.226. 
 
 
 22- 207. 
 
 
 
 228. 
 
 c 
 
 22,23. °0' 
 
 
 34. 
 
 226. 
 
 n. 
 
 I, 2. 41. 
 
 X. 
 
 47- 
 
 11311. 
 
 
 2. 171.173- 
 
 xi. 
 
 I5>i6. 
 
 45- 
 
 
 4 to 6. 171 n. 
 
 xiii. 
 
 
 122. r68. 
 
 
 5. Ii3n.i8i. 
 
 
 19. 
 
 178 n. 
 Mark 
 
[ 26. •] 
 
 Mark ccfttinued* 
 
 XIV. 
 
 1. 
 
 11. 
 
 111. 
 iv. 
 
 viii. 
 
 X. 
 
 xvi. 
 
 jiviii. 
 xix. 
 
 xy. 
 xxi. 
 
 XXlll. 
 
 xxiv. 
 
 67. 
 6. 
 
 Luxe. 
 
 1140. 
 1 14 n. 
 
 ]. 
 
 3'- 
 
 32. 
 34- 
 
 65. 
 
 45- 
 10, II. 
 
 25- 
 
 32. 
 
 40, 52. 
 10. 
 16. 
 
 34- 
 10. 
 
 9, II. 
 16. 
 
 37- 
 
 37' 58- 
 381048. 
 
 I-]. 18. 
 8. 
 
 2Ot024. 
 
 6,7. 
 19. 
 
 44. 
 
 John. 
 1. 
 
 154. 182 
 
 183. 
 
 180. 
 
 107 n. 
 240. 
 41. 
 
 54- 
 183. 
 
 183. 
 241. 
 47 n. 
 
 108 n. 
 244. 
 108 n. 
 117. 
 i8j. 
 117. 
 
 1 14 n. 
 
 233- 
 244. 
 
 185. 
 
 1 13 n. 
 
 248. 
 
 ^4. 
 
 99. 
 
 122. 168. 
 
 194. 
 
 '78. 
 162. 
 
 113 n. 
 
 209. 
 
 46 n. 
 
 ii. 
 
 111. 
 
 IV. 
 V. 
 
 John continue J. 
 
 10, 1 1. 83. 
 45,46. Son. 
 49. 48. 
 
 15. 45. 
 
 1 8 C022. 99. 
 
 54- 
 18^. 
 
 186 n, 
 
 85 n. 
 
 187. 
 
 VI. 
 
 vu. 
 
 ix. 
 xi. 
 
 xii. 
 
 xvi. 
 
 xviii. 
 
 xix. 
 
 xxi. 
 
 IV. 
 X. 
 
 xii. 
 
 xxiv. 
 
 xxviii, 
 
 K. 
 
 30- 
 
 1,2,3 
 22, 23 
 
 3'- 
 
 31 1039. 188. 18$, 
 
 45. 46. j ,89. 
 
 1,2.14,1 
 '5- 3 
 
 191. 192, 
 
 42. 
 52. 
 
 50. 
 471051 
 
 13- 
 
 40. 
 
 12. 
 
 5- 
 36. 
 
 14,1s. 
 
 19. 
 
 22. 
 
 42. 
 
 ii3n. 
 80 n. 
 184. 
 184 n, 
 43. 48. 
 
 233- 
 227. 
 
 113 n, 
 
 42. 
 169. 
 113 n. 
 
 I 20. 
 
 Acts. 
 
 1 1. 
 12. 
 
 36. 
 
 23- 
 
 5' 
 
 27. 
 
 ,26,7 
 
 5 
 
 99. 
 
 98 n. 
 47 n. 
 166. 
 116 n. 
 
 220. 
 
 Roman's- 
 
[ 262 ] 
 
 
 Romans. 
 
 
 I TiMOTHT. 
 
 ix. 
 
 32,33. 8711. 
 
 ii. 
 
 5. 98 n. 
 
 
 33. 87- 
 
 iv. 
 
 I. 97 n. 
 
 
 I Corinthians. 
 
 
 2 Timothy. 
 
 i. 
 
 23. * S8. 
 
 ii. 
 
 25. 224. 
 
 Si. 
 
 7, 8. 47 n. 
 
 
 
 iii. 
 
 11. 99. 
 
 
 Hebrews. 
 
 vi. 
 
 2 Corinthians, 
 16. 97 n. 
 
 i. 
 
 2. 41. 
 5. 92. 
 
 I Peter. 
 
 
 EPHESIAKS. 
 
 ii. 
 
 8. 83. 
 
 ii. 
 
 i:r"]99- 
 
 
 Revelation. 
 
 • • 
 
 21. 
 
 Philippians. 
 10. 156. 
 
 V. 
 
 xvii. 
 
 5. 156. 
 3. 99 n. 
 14. 96 n. 
 
 
 11. 47 n. 
 
 xviii. 
 
 4. 97 n. 
 
 
 2 Thsssalonians. 
 
 
 
 ii. 
 
 XI. 194. 
 
 
 
 INDEX 
 
[ 263 ] 
 
 INDEX 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Various Topics difcuffed in this Work. 
 
 A. 
 
 J^LEXANDRUN MS. Stt Septuagifn, 
 
 B. 
 
 Barchochebuy or Barchozba, an impoftor, ig6. 
 Benjcn^ (Dr. Geo.) remarks on his Preface to vol. f, 
 - of his Paraphrafe, &c. 202 & feq. 
 Bill rf Divorce, the feducer of a virgin not privileoed 
 to give one by the Jewifh law, 15. See SeJucn; 
 
 C. 
 
 Chriji. Proved to have been king of Judah and Ifrael, 
 41.246. a flone of Rumbling to the Jews, 83 & feq. 
 his divinity to be clearly proved from the Old Tefta- 
 inent, 85 n. Jehovah Sabaoth, a title of his, 86; 
 why called a Nazarene, and the propriety of that 
 appellation, 113 & feq. two prophecies of his 
 
 explained, 120; not a Nazarite as Dr. W ms 
 
 fuppofes him to be, 183 n. See JS'azarite. Faith in 
 him aimoll univcrfa.iy fubmitted to at different 
 times, 193 ; diltinftion made by him relating to the 
 Jewj?i 226. 
 
 Ckurch of Rome, Improperly called the Catholic 
 Church, 95 n. 
 
 Complutenjian 
 
[264 ] 
 
 Complui enjtan MS. See Septuagint. 
 
 Critical Ke"jienvers, See W ms and Trinitarian 
 
 ^. Coniro'verjy re'vie^wedm 
 
 D. 
 Danjict. The promife, that his throne ifhould be e{^ 
 
 tabUfhed for ev«r-, fulfilled in ChriiH 5-6 &feq.^ 
 DcubltMeanings. v See ScriptuHs and Pnopkecies, i 
 
 .E. 
 
 Edomltes Of IJumofans. Accounted Jews from the con- 
 queft of them by John Hyrcanus, 147. 
 
 Eihnarch, That afiicea: infejior in dignity;, to ^ kiJig/ 
 160. 
 
 Galilee. Pointed out by Ifaiah as the, place where 
 Jmmanuel was chiefly to be manifefted,7g. 
 
 Gentiles. Were not induced to acknowledge the truth 
 of the Scriptures, by becoming converts to Judaifm, 
 buttoChjift, 110. ■ 
 
 H. " • ,,' 
 
 Herod the Great. Had a right to be efteemed a Jew, i\6i\ 
 endeavoured to be proved really fo by Mr. Mann, 
 146 n. never omitted an opportunity of claiming 
 that title, 151 ; which jofephus does not deny, 152. 
 Herod Agrippa. Ssq Shih/^^. Slev/ St, James, and per- 
 fecuted the Chrilliarss, 166 j his dreadful end, 166; 
 Juda::a was never a kingdom after, his death, 167. 
 Hyrcanus (John.) Sec Edmites. ' '■' '•{ _" "^ "'" 
 
 Herod Antipas, tetrach of Galilee. The perfon who 
 beheaded John the Baptift, 161 5 Judaea not a king- 
 dom in his time, i6j. 
 
 I. 
 
 Jerufakm, Dcftru6llon of that city a type of the laft 
 day, and a pledge of the certainty of it, 122. 
 
 jfe^vs. Remain a dillant and peculiar people in the 
 midll of all nations, 58; did not confider that the 
 
 humility 
 
[ 265 ] 
 
 humility cf the Mefliah was foretold by the prophets, 
 83; which they could not reconcile with their ideas 
 of their expeded king, 8^ ; this name became com- 
 mon to all the tribes about the reign of Joftah, 136 ; 
 and likcwife Ifrael, 127 ; loft the diiliniiion of their 
 . tribes after the Babyloni/h captivity, 141; petition 
 Csfar to change their government, 159. 169; folly 
 of their ftill expeding the Mefliah, 171 n. their ex- 
 treme credulity in the time of Jofephus, 195 ; and 
 fince, 196; reprobate Jews not worthy to know the 
 myfteries of the kingdom of Heaven, ajo. 
 
 7o/!hua, See Solomon* 
 
 yohn (St. the Rapti.l). The prophet promTied by Mala- 
 chi by the name of Elijah, 180; a lawgiver, 181 ; 
 and. a Jew, 182. See Laujgi-ver ^nd. Prophet. 
 
 Immnnuil, Dr. ^— ms's afTertion, that Ifaiah's pro- 
 phecy concerning him had' no reference to the Mef- 
 fiah, examined and confuted, 22 & feq. that pro- 
 phecy conrtrued to relate to the Mefliah 279 years 
 before the birth of Chrift, 67 ; which is conHrmed 
 by all the ancient MSS. of the Septuagint, 6S. Sec 
 Galilee, That prophecy confidered", 236. ■■•''' 
 
 Jfa:ah. The birth of his fon, Mahei'-flTalaKhafli-baz, 
 2 proof that his father's prophecy concerning Im- 
 
 - rnanuel related to our Saviour, 51 ;,and a pledo^e of 
 that prophecy^s being fulfiiied', 54 i that prophecy 
 (though fo ftrbn^ and clear,) delivered above 700 
 years before the birth of Chrift, 84 n. 
 
 '^uda'a* Stt Herod AniiJ> lis iii^ Herod Agrippa, 
 
 ^e;ltni(otr s (J^x .^ expedient of fuppofing a corru|)tIon in 
 the Kebrcw text, unneccflary, 13. 
 
 L. 
 
 Lnivgiters, The Sanhedrim, or Scribes and Pha- 
 riices, not to be accounted fuch, 175 ; bt. John the 
 . Ba^uil tb^UU among, the Jews, 18-3; 
 
 L ! M, 
 
1 266 I 
 
 Tlfafjf (St;) defended, 224&feq, 
 
 Mciithe<w (St ) tlis application of tlie prophecy con- 
 cerning Immanuel defended; 60; chap. ii. 15. re- 
 conciled' with Hofcaxi. i. 100 & feq. his applica- 
 tion ot a prophecy, ii. 23. defended, nz. 
 
 Mejfmh. Called Ifrael by Ifaiah, 106. 
 
 wv; N. 
 
 Kathaniel. Defended, 39 & feq. 
 
 Nazarene. Chrifl fo called from th6 city of Najsareth, 
 
 1 1|^, 1 ^g^ . . . : . .,: 
 
 K^izariie. John the Bap'tlft flriflly fo, according to 
 
 the Jewifh law, 113, 119; Chriit 'Improperly Csiled 
 fo by Dr. W— ms^ 183 ri^ " 
 
 
 p 
 
 Parahles, Some difficult to the difciples themfelves, 
 235 ; teaching by them defended, 235. 
 
 Topijh prayer-book. Served as a paflport at the maiTacre 
 of Paris, 99 n. 
 
 Prophecies, Frequently attended with difficulties, 50; 
 thofe in the 7th, 8th, and 9th, chapters of Ifaiah, 
 feem to have been delivered during the invaiion of 
 Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Ifrael, 
 75 & feq. quick and abrupt tranfitions not unufual in 
 them, 81 ; often blended with different fubjedls, 90; 
 and often bear a double conftruflion, 90; perfed 
 tenfe as frequently ufed in them as the future, 105 n. 
 the queftion. Whether allegorical expre{]5ons or dou- 
 ble ienfes are to be allowed in them? difcufled, 
 202 & feq. 
 
 Prophit. None fent from God fince John the Bapiift, 
 184; the meaning of the v.'ord explained, 208. 
 
 R. 
 
 Reafons for writing thefe Remarks, i. See W^ ms. 
 
 ^ S. 
 
[ ^^7 ] 
 
 Sahhatci Sfvl. An impoftor, 196. 
 
 Scripture.'. We ought to afk God^s afliilance that we 
 mav underltand them comfortably, 82 j double fenfes 
 in them proved, 201. 
 
 Seducer of a virgin obliged to marry her, by the Jewiflx 
 law, ?.nd rot allowed to give her a bill of divorce, 15; 
 if of an efpoufed one, to fuffer death, 16. 
 
 Septuagint. See Immanue/. All the tranflations of it, 
 where the Hebrew word, tranflated njirgin in our 
 Bibles, is rendered a youtig ixjomany were made after 
 the birrh of Chrlft, 69. 
 
 5 (Mr.) an alTertion cf his defended, 224. 
 
 Shiloh. The prophecy, that the fceptre fhould not de- 
 part, &c. fulfilled, 14.1, 154; Herod Agrippa being 
 appointed king by Claadius, no objedion to that 
 prophecy, 163 i the other part of that prophecy ex- 
 plained, 174. 
 
 Sohrnon, ZerubbabeJ, and JofmiOy types of the Mefiiah, 
 96. :i"rj^:::i: 
 
 Sykes (the late Dr.) cenfured, 214 ; an obje£lion of his 
 anfwered, 219, 
 
 T, 
 Trinitarian Ccntro'verf; re-vieived. The Critical Re- 
 viewers miftaken in their lecommendatory criticifm 
 of that work, 86 n. 
 
 V. 
 
 Vatican MS. See Septuagint, 
 
 Ve?ietian MS. See Septuagint. 
 
 Virgin bearing a Ton, a fign worthy the birth of Chrift, 
 10; the Hebrew word lb tranflated occurs only feven 
 t.mes, 11, 19 ; the text where the meaning is moll 
 doubtful, 1 1 ; the ccmmon EnoliHi tranflation of 
 that text defended, 12; alfo of Gen. xxiv. 43. and 
 Exod. ii, 8. 17. and Pfalm Ixviii. 25. iB. Cant. 
 i. 3. 18. the Rabbins always underftand it to mean 
 a virgin, 70. 
 
 LI 2 W. 
 
I 268 ] 
 
 w. 
 
 ly tfis (Dr.) his Critical Difiertation on ir^ialf, 
 
 wherein he afferts the Hebrew word tranflated 'virgin 
 feems to mean zyoungnvoman, either a virgin or not, 
 the occafion of thefe remarks, 7 ; approved bv the 
 Critical Reviewers, 8 ; the authors of which have 
 copied almofl all his Difiertation, 3 ; has fet forth 
 his hypothefis to the beft advantage, but not proved 
 his aflertion, 9. See Virgin, Told the author of a- 
 nother writer who agreed with his opinion, but did 
 not know it when he publiihed his Diflertation, ic n. 
 Sec ImmanueU No difficulties in the prophecies fo 
 great as thofe occafioncd by the Dodor's tranfia- 
 tion, 50 ; forgets a former aflertion of his, 63 ; his 
 ovyn miftake caufes the difficulty he fpeaks of, 89 ; 
 miftaking in fuppofing the prophecy of Ifaiah vii 8. 
 was of an event near at hand, 127 & feq. his afjer- 
 tion, that if a prophecy has two fenfes it may have 
 two hundred, confuted, 217 ; an ingenious, bux 
 unfatisfadory criticifm of his, 252. 
 
 Y. 
 
 Toung Woman* See Virgin* 
 
 Z. 
 
 Zeruhhaleh See Solomon* 
 
 INDEX 
 
I 269 ] 
 
 INDEX 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 Different Authors referred to. 
 
 ■r 
 
 A. 
 
 Assembly's annotations, 156. 229. 
 
 Aflembly's Confeflion of Faith examined, ion. 
 Aquila, 28. 69. 
 
 B. 
 
 Barchocheba, 196. 
 
 Barchozba, 196. 
 
 Benfon, (Dr. George,) 202 & feq. zio&feq. 216. 
 
 Bohun, 172 n. 
 
 Brabantinus, (Nicholas,) 130. 
 
 Bragge, (Mr.) 45, 
 
 Bythner, 65. 
 
 C. 
 
 Cove, (Dr.) 121. 
 
 Collins, (Mr.) 122. 
 
 Concordance to the Greek Teftament, 9n. 
 
 Cranmer, (archbifhop,) 99 n. 
 
 Critical DiiTertation on Ifaiah vii. 13, &c. 8. 21. 
 
 209 n. 
 Critical Reviewers, 8. 21. 40, 85 n. 86 n. 112. 118. 
 
 123. 
 Cruden, (Mr.) 5411. 
 
 1>. 
 
{ 270 ] 
 
 'Dio Caffius, 14711. 
 X>oddridge, (Dr.) dz^ 
 
 E. 
 Erafmus, 101. 
 Eufebius, 67. 
 
 H. 
 
 Hammond, (Dr.) 114. 22911. 233. 
 Hooper, (bifliop,) 99 n. 
 Huetius, (P. D.) 76. 
 
 I. 
 
 Jerome, (St.) 45. 
 
 Jofephus, 147. [48. 150. 152. T59, 160, 161. 16311. 
 
 164, 165. 167, 168. 170. 181, 182. i88. 195. 
 
 250 n. 
 Julian the apoftate, loi. 
 Junius, (Fr.) 130. 
 J uitin Martyr, 56. 
 
 K. 
 Kennicott, (Dr.) 12, 28. 29. 
 
 L. 
 
 Latimer, (biihop,) 9911. 
 
 M. 
 Mann, (Mr.) 23. 146 n. 192. 
 Martin, (monfieur,) 157. 174, 175. 229 n. 
 
 N. 
 Kcwton, (bifhop,) 58 n. 128 n. 155 n. 
 r«iicholas ot'Damaicus, 152. 
 
 O. 
 
 Origen, 51. 6']* 
 
 P. 
 
[ 271 ] 
 
 p. 
 
 Pbilo, i^. 
 
 Polvgloti, (London,) 64. 
 
 R. 
 
 Ridley, (birtiop,) gg n. 
 
 Ru£nus, 150. 
 
 S. 
 
 Septuagint, 28. 6S. 70 n. Sj. 95. loi, 102. 105. 
 
 Vatican, Alexandrian, Complutenfian, Ve- 
 netian, MSS. 68. 
 
 S , (Mr.) 224. 
 
 Sharpe, (Dr. Gregory,) 270. 59 n. 6511, 81 n. 840. 
 172 n. 207 n. 
 
 Simfon, (Dr.) 130. 
 
 ^'oiomon's Song, new tranflation, 21 n, 
 
 Storkius, 21 n. 
 
 Sully, 99 n. 
 
 Sykes, {Dr.) 203. 219& feq^ 
 
 Symmachus, 28. 69. 
 
 Syriac verfion, 1 1. 28. 6g, 
 
 T. 
 
 Theodotlon, 28. 69. 
 
 Trinitarian Controverfy reviewed, 86 n, 
 
 U. 
 
 Univerfal Hiflory, 34, 35. 182 n. 
 Uflerius, i].) ii6n. 
 Vulgate Latin, u. 
 
 W. 
 
 Walton, (bifhop,) 69. 
 
 W ms, (Dr.) 8, 9, 10. 19 20. 22, 23. 25. ^^, 34. 
 
 39.42. 48. 50. 52. 60. 61. 65. 67n.68. -71.81.88. 
 
 100. 112. 118. J22. 127. 183. 201. 202. 207. 
 
 210. 214. 215 & feq. 224. 226. 228. 231, 232. 
 
 234 &ftq. 242, 243. 245. 247. 
 
 THE END. 
 

 »u^ 
 
 .88 
 

 S A.