REMARKS

o N

Several very important Prophecies.

IN FIVE PARTS.

REMARKS ON
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.
JI. A Diflertation on the Nature and Style of Prophe
tical Writings, ihewing that abrupt Tranfitions from
one Subject to another are frequently found therein.
The fame being intended to illuftrate the foregoing
Remarks.
III. A Differtation on Ifaiah vii. 8.
IV. A Diflertation on Genefls xlix. lo. ,
v. An Anfwer to fome of the principal Arguments
ufed by Dr. W  ms in Defence of his Critical
Diflertation on Ifaiah vii. 13, 14, 15, 16, &c. in
which the Opinions of the late Dr. Sykes and Dr.
G. EenfoD, concerning Accommodations of Scrip
ture-Prophecy, are briefly confldered.

T

H E

SECONir EDITION.

By

GRANVILLE

SHARP.
4*>

LONDON:
Printed for B..WH ITE, at H o a a c e's-H e a d,
Fleet-Street. M.DCC.LXXV.

This fecond edition having been printed
during the abfence of the author,
feveral txanfpofitions and miflakes
have unluckily been made in the
Hebrew and Syriac quotations, which
the reader is requefted to corredt in
the following pages, viz.
P. 23. 1. 7. for J?p r. '^p
P. 33. 1, 6. r. 13170 J«*in nwsii
P. 64. 1.18. T.r\'^Y^ mn
p. 85. 1. 13 n. r. C=3Dl7a TIT DSil
P. 86. 1. 7. r. wnpn in« nisay nin*' nn
Correft alfo the reference to this in the following
page, viz. for Ifaiah 13-16, r. Ifaiah viii. 13-16.
p. 87. n (i2). 1. 4. r. fSTTO N^
P. 94. 1. 13. r.
n-'DWi nN ToiyiQ ¦'Jsi «^n b^d nn« tj;^
P.96. n. (15). 1.6. X. pyQTun yvya ?« n^m
p. 103. 1. 19. r.
p. 104.1. 7. r. 0117:72^ nniJDa iD^n p nn"? ''!f4'>p
l^^"?"^ ni^DD^i map
p. 107. n. (19). 1. 6. r. WoA.
p. n6. 1. i.r. noy vnnnan
1. 7. for nay r. nay
p. 118. 1. 2. r. npny nay nn^ n^ayt*
p. 119. 1. 5.r. IIJJ
P. 252. 1. 7. r. naV:?

REMARKS O N TH E
Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Verfes,
OF THE
Seventh Chapter of I SAI AH.
IN ANSWER TO
Dr. W  ms's Critical Diflertation on the fame.
As approved and republijhed hy
The Authors of the Critical Review.

Part I.

REMARKS O N T H E
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 fhall give
" you a fign : Behold, a virgin fliall conceive, and
" bear a fon, and ihall call his name Immanuel.
" Butter and honey Ihall be eat, that he may know
"to refufe the evil and choofe the good. For, be-
" fore the child Avail know to refufe the evil and
" choofe the good, the land that thou abhorrefl
" fliall be forfaken of both her kings."
THIS text has in all ages of
Chriftianity been efteemed a
clear and certain predidion of
the miraculous birth of Chrifl j and there
fore thefe remarks upon it would have
been fuperfluous, had not a learned and
ingenious

[. s ]
ingenious gentleman lately attempted to
prove a contrary dodrine ( i j j viz. " That
'* the Prophet (in this text) had no refe-
*' ference to the Meffiah ( 2 ) ." That " /^^
*' wordi of Ifaiah prove only that a young
" woman fiould conceive and briiig forth a
**fon, without intimating any thing mira-
" cukusin her conception," &c. (3) That
'¦^ from the mojl careful and impartial ex-
*' amination, the word" rxc^y (here tran-
" flated a virgin) " doth not appear to fig-
*^ nify JlriSily a virgin-" but that " /V
*^ feemi to mean a young woman in general,
" without fpecifying particularly whether
" Jhe is a virgin or 7iot {^)."
This writer is not Angular in his no
tions, for the authors of the Critical Re
view have publicly profefled themfelves
of the fame opinion concerning this pro
phecy (fee No. 136, fo. 349.) — *^ The
'' rnofi
(i) See Critical Diflertation on Ifaiah vii. 13, 14,
15, 16.
(2) Page 4^ (3) P. 21. (4) P. 23.

[ 9 ]
'"' moji obvious and natural 'explication (fay
•'Vt'hey) h this which Dr.W — -wx (5)
"%as adopted" &c.
I do not find that fti[i?^''ha've obje(^ed
to a fingle parri^'tfie D6^Aor's%oYk ; knd
therefore this 'public d^clkra^dn cfeVfaii^jr
im'akes thern 'ptfrti« W the whole : nk'y',
pfeFhaps I may fay ^\^ jftrftfce, Vh'at 't^i^
^e mo¥e cbWcerned Yn ^iflM^fhing thfe:^
notions to the^'^orlS, ^veA- thari the Mb-
riymous hufhor hitn'felf * for, iiifte^d of
§Mflg ^ Aort "ex^adte^ kcount of the
Work as ^fittar, they ^fetm to have copSfed
th% whole, iali*no^ %t length, fcai-eerjr
oniitting a fingle circumfl:ance.
Now I initjft ackhovfrledge, in juftice
to Dr. W— — his, thai I tHink he has ie't
forth his h^pothefi's to all the advantage
that it is capable of j rieverih'elefs; he does
not make it appear that the v<rotd nD^J?
B in
X'i) tits autfibr 6f i Concordanii^ to the Giribefe Tef-
tament.

[ 10 J
in any other place of the Old Teilament
where it occurs, muA. necejarily fignify a
young woman that was not a virgin; with
out which proof the common acceptation
of the fign promifed by Ifaiah cannot with
juftice be rejeded j efpecially as a virgin
did afterwards conceive and bear a fon -,
a miracle which never happened before
or fince the birth of Chrift 1 therefore it
was certainly a fign worthy of that great
and wonderful event; and, from that
time to this, has by all Chriftians (except
the author of the Critical DiflTertation
and the authors of the Critical Review) (6)
been efteemed the completion of the faid
prophecy. Dr.
(6) pj". W  ms has fince informed me of one athet
luriter of the fame opinion concerning this paflage ;
(viz. the author of " The AJfembly'^ CmfeJJion of Faith
examined" printed in 1 65 1 ;) but at the fame time he
acknowledges that this authority was not known, even
to himfelf, until " feveral months after the D:Jjirfatton
•was fuhlijhed :" and he declares, concerning his own
fentiments of the paflage, that he apprehended them
~ " akogetherneiu" when he" wrote ; "for (fays he) I did
" not then knofui that, ary Chrijiian ivriter had fo explained

Dr.W  msobferves that the word
mD)y occurs only feyen 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 the fignification of
this word is efteemed the moft doubtful,
is in Prov.xxx. J 9. where Solomon men
tions four things that were too hard foi-
him ; in which number (according to the
Englifh tranflation) he includes "the way
^^ of a man with a maid," The fenfe of
this paflTage is very different according to
the Syriac verfion, wherein r— lO^ya is
rendered qiAoVg^Ns^ in his youth, viz.
the way of a man " in his youth," and
not ^^ with a maid," as in the Englifti
verfion. Likewife the Latin vulgate, as
well as the old Latin verfion of St. Je
rome, conforms in fome degree to the
B 2 Syriac,

[ 12, ]-
Syriac, though not iritirely j for they con-
fltue it, in adolefcentta, (not, in adolefcen-
tia ejus,) whith is fuffitlently clear with
out having reeourfe to Dr. Kennicptt's (7)
expedient of fuppofing a corruption in
the prefent Heb. text to enable him to
read" in his youth-" as if it had been
written originally VD^3?3.
NeyerthelefJi it appears; to me.>that the
common EnglKh trajiftttion, of this paf^
fage is to be pr^fprred;/ and that the word:
muft here nfcefTarily., fignify. a maid^'Ot.,
virgin,: fpx the, writer feems to alluda^to.
the fecret artifices and allurements, ufed
by a map in order, to feduce a virgin;
f\ich artifices as are hinted at in Exqdms-
xxii- 16. ( — f* And if a m&a entice a
nj^id," rrvVina^&c). therefore a word<
fi^nifying merely a young woman, or one
that was not eileem^d a virgin, would'
not have been.fo fuitable to the context of
(7) See his fermsn preached before the univerfity of
Oxford in 1765.— Note 8, page 46.

If ^3 I
cff eijher of tljqfe^pafliiges.. The wi^iy, of a
b^rJqt(Vy^..t90j\yiell knowjtjjn.fprmer dayst^
(ajjV^l as. the prelent)' tpbeefli^e^ed a,
nij^i^ery ; and mpch l^fs-a* niyftery tp So-
Ipi^pn, whoha^ '• threfifeore^jieenSjyoz^r-
"fcpre concubines, and vii^gins w-ithput.
"number." (SeeCan;ticlssvi,,8,) But it,
is, not at all. qpnatur^l tp fqppofe that this,
eaftern monarch, with all hjs wif^oqi,,
might fometimes be perplexed with
dpubts ap^^ Jcalpuiliep-^^cpncerriing the vir
tue aj^d p,rivajtf5 cpipidftd,:of,fome af;thesfp,
females^ (a,,?, well virgins as. others), wifh,
refped tpjptjb^er.m^n'. tl^i,s> it-feems, was f
by him • efteepjed .as difi^cnlt. to ,bie, traced
a.s the, way.^of a (hip irJi^the fea, an eagle
in.th5,air, &jp. By,th,e.;fi.n of^theadul-
t?iCG,us, woman (to wbijtjh,, th^ preceding.
fiipilies;allude as , being eq;viaj,ly; uninveftir ,
^bleQ (8.) Splo^ion > r^Pf efents the great.
difficulty
{i} Sttch is the way of an adulterous woman J flie
e^^tl; and wipet^ h«^ mouth, ai;)d,iaith> Ib^v^done'
no wickednefs. Prov. xxx, 20.

[ 14 ]
difficulty of deteding the inconftancy of
any particular perfons in the twO former
claflfcs ; I mean his queens and concu
bines; and he would not find itlefs dif
ficult (for fome time at leafl:) to trace
out the way (or behaviour) of private ad
mirers towards the third clafs of his wo
men, that were efteended -y/r^m In the "
eyes of the world.
In confirmation of this I muft: obferve,
that the ftridnefs 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 oifeducing
a virgin, (fee Exodus xxii. 16.) 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 moft agreeable to the li
bidinous difpofition of the Jews at that
time ; and was allowed them by Mofes only

[ 15 ]
©nly on account of the bardnefs. of their
hearts; {Cec Matthew xix. 8.) I mean the
giving a bill of divorce -, 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. (See Deut. xxii. 28.)
— Apuniftiment 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
maid were really criminal, or only impru
dent, (for either of them may be implied
in the text, ) he would, as rnuch as pof-
fible, conceal it from the world, and
render it as uninvefiigable as the pther
things mentioned in the text to be too
wonderful for Solomon ; atleaft his bed
endeavours
, fo) Kai TO 'matrat exeiyoi; ttTiisfaroy, tr,M Tilt yoijiuii
PiSxmo'n, iat viirojji.ituerit at yvteur-i^ atToij 871 fftitwint.
Fol. 789. Paris Edition, 1640,

V 16 j
fendeavours WOiild ^nOt 'bfe wanlfftfg to
makie it fo.
Neither can we 'fiippofe that the fattte
earneft ehdeavout* would be wanting on
the young wOtnan'fe part to Ponceal her
difgrace from her friends as long as ihe
cdald.'lBut the reafoms for fccirecy 'are
far more obvious in the cit{t of elpoufcd
virgins -, for, according to the law of Mo
fes, (Deut. xxii. 23, 24.) if a man was
bafc enough to feduee one of thefe, an
ignominious death was to be the imme
diate and dreadful eohfequence ofadif-
covery; when both parties muft: iharc
the fanfie wretched fate ( ro). /';-
Now, if all that I have faid fliall not be
thought fufficient to prove that r— in>y
in this paflage muft necefiarily fignify a
maid or virgin, 1 have never thtlefg the
fatisfadion of obferving that the author
of the objedions, in page 20, allows it
to
(lo) Deut. kxii, 23, 24.

[ 17 ]
to b© <* a very obfcure pafage-f" aiid pro-
jMfes tP 'U^ynofir^suponit-" and, ther^?,?
fpre, I think | may fafejy conclude, af
leaft, that it is incapably of proving any
thing agaipft the true fenfe pf the wor^
in the other paflages.
The. fame author obfcrves, in page 19,
that " other^ar f>laces, are abfolutely mr
" pertain -" 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 Robe
kah before her marriage, who in the
fame chapter is faid expreflly to be a vir
gin, (rn^ina) " neither had any man
** known her " (See j6th verfe.)
In the fecond place (Exodus ii. ^.) it
is applied to Mofes's fifter, who watched
her infant btother during the time of his
being expofed in the little ark of bul-
fufhes. C Now

[ i8 ]
Now, it does not appear that Mofes had
any other fifter befides Miriam the pro-
phetefs ; (fee Numb. xxvl. 59. and Exo
dus XV. 20.) and why her chaftity (hould
be called in queftion (efpecially fo early
in life) I know not f ¦
In the third place, (Pfalm Ixviii. 25,)
this word with the context expreflfes the
damfels playing tvith timbrels in the fo-
lemn proceffions of the fanduary j who,
had they been damfels fufpeded of ha
ying " wrought folly in Ifrael," (Deut,
xxii. 21.) (ji) they, furely, would not
have been permitted to Join in this divjne
fervice. The laft of thefe four places, which
the Dodor thinks " abfolutely uncertain,"
is Canticles i. 3. where the fame word is
applied to the virgins that waited on So-
lonwn's
(")  "that file die: becaufe ftie hath lureught
" foUy^ in Ifrael, to play the whore in her father's
" houfe: fo Ihaltthou put evil away from among you."

[ 19 ]
lomon's fpoufe. But this uncertainty is
eafily removed by the other pafiTage in
Canticles, . (chap. vi. ver. 8.) where the
fame' word is happily applied to the fame
perfons j who: muft be undeiftood to be
virginSj becaufe (as Dr. W — ¦. — ms him
felf acknowledges in page 29) (12) they
" are diftinguijhed from queens and concu-
",bines" . kii ¦.  ;
jThls one would fuppofe to be an In-
furmountable obftacle tp the Dodor 's ar-
gurnent ; but he pafl'es very flightly over
the difficulty, and contents himfelf with
informing us, that " this diftindion is no
" proof at all, becaufe the fame, indeed
" afironger, diJiinSlion is niade, Ezek,
",,xliv. 22. in favour of.. — »y">n2."
,. ,,. C 2 -.H-~ :Now,
(12)  " I fliall here add farther, tha: .— >Dl7J?
" occurs only feven tidies in all ; one of which has
" the appearance of " heing deei/ive in the cafe, name-
" ly,' Canticles vi. 8. where viroins are di^tgmjhed
" ftom queens and contubines. But this diflinAion is no
" proof at all, becaufe the fame,, indeed a flronger,
" diftin&ion, is made, Ezek. xtiv. 22. in favour of

[ 2® ]
Now, I hope the Dodor vdiW exoufc my
want of difcernment in riot being able to
difeover the Hiiiightvf this ret^n, ag&ihftfd
ftrong a proof as the diftiridioin in (juef-*
tidn ; beeai*ft» if r-h>"»n2 is jiroved, 6vcr
fo clearlyj to figAify ftrid:ly aivirgin^ (and
indeed I know no reaf&Vkivhy any .per-'
fon fliould doubt of it>) ytt it is no angii-'
ment why the other may not likewife fig-^
nify the Jame thing ; for the word maid,
by having this fignifidatioh ift Eng^ttftij
does not oblige us to give a different fig*
nificatiOn to the Englifli word virgin :
therefore, I think, I may fafety Con-
ciudfe. In the DodOrs'is OWn words, that
thrs laft text " has the app&OrMte of
** being decijive in the cafe-** (fee page
29.) and that the tvord r-^u'jy can
not fignify a young i^oman that Is not
a virgin, becaufe, by the fame <vfii-d
in the plural number, (according to tlifi
author's own obfervafioft,) « vifelns

" are

I 21 ]
** are (13) dilhnguiflied from queens
** and concubines."
I propofe now to examine wJaether we
may fafely acquiefce with the author
of the Critical DiflTertation, fo. 44. arid
the authors of the Critical Review (N". 136,
(rsyi^he ingenious author of the new tranflation of
Solomon's Song obferves. in tus annatacions, p. 6^,
that *' the- Jewifli maidens before marriage were under
" fuc1i ftria confinement, and fo rarely frfffered to ap-
¦" pear in |)ubldc,. th^t the very name for a vitginin
" Hebrew is : — tQ^y hidden.".
This word is well explained by the learned Stockius,
p. 5zo.
*' (i) Geaeratim 8c vi prigiaisnot^t latei^tein."
''' "[i) ^peciaiim (») pfoprie nbl&t iiirginem, quse do-
" mi latitat & continetnr, nee adhuc cum q^'^^^'^
" rem habuit> Ita dicitur de Rebecca, nondum
" propalam nuptam eduAa, Gen. xxiv. de Mirjam,
" qua ndadumrem cum quoqnamhabuetat, -E*. ii. 8.
",'dejpuella Jncorrapta & illibat^, cui vir infidiatur,
«« nt ea potiatur, Prov. xxx. 19. de matre Immanuelis
" ilKbslta & concubittrs igiara, jef. vii. 14."
'* [^&') Metaphorice virginum. nomine veniunt^a^-
" luandi, ad indicandum eorum animi integritatem &
" puritatem, tarn ip do£lrina & culiu diyino, quam in
" vita&'WOribus, Cartti'i. 3. vi. 8," &c. 'Ghrittiani
Stdtkii Cravrs Ling«» fanase Vete*is Teilaimenti ro-
"cabui'orum ffgnificationes tam generaks tnm fpeciales or-
iliite^bncinno exhibens, i^c

[. 22 ]
136, fo. 359.) in their opinion, th«t
Ifaiah, in his prophecy concerning Imma
nuel, in thefeventh chapter, 13th, 14th,
15th, and 16th verfes, ^'^ bad no reference
" totheMeJiah"
Dr. W  ms objeds (in page 9)
that the 16th verfe of the feventh chap
ter of Ifaiah " cannot, in any fenfe, be
" applied to the Me^ah." The words of
this text, according to the Engl.ifli tran
flation, are as follows : " For, before the
" child Jhall know to refufe the evil and
*' choofe the good, the land that thoa
" abhorreft (hall be forfaken of both her
« kings."
This verfe feems to be the principal
caufe of his objedions againft the com
mon interpretation of the two preceding
verfes. Now, though I do not think, with him,
that thefe three verfes muji, ofneceffity.

[ 23 ]
relate to the fame perfon ; yet, I appre
hend, there is a great probability ih^Atbey
may, and that the 1 6th verfe maty feafon-
ably be accounted for, even wfeen appli
ed to the Meffiah. Dr. W—^iins ap
proves of the meaning given to the word
yp in the i6th vej-fe by Mr. Mann, (viz.
that it may -fignify " 'uwi?y?"'inftead of
abhorreji,) " the land which thou (Ahaz)
" WATg/? with thy Idolatry." (Seefo. 34.)
Thus far he favours the explication
v^hich I propofe to give of this pafl!age ;
but then he iuppofes that the land which
jibaz vexed fignifies the land of Judah
only. " The Prophet meant to fayi accord-
" ing to this author, (fays the Dodor,)
" that the land qf Judah, which Ahaz by
.^' . his idolatry and wickednefs had brought
" into trouble and difficulty, fliould be
^' delivered from both thefe kings", ( fo. 3 5. )
by which the Dodor refers to Refin king
of Syria, and P^^/7/& the fon of Remaliah
king of Ifrael, who at that time were con-
'i ' federate

[ «4 ]
federate, againft Judab, and ^^ went up to-
" wards yerufakmto war againft it" See
the firft part of the fame chapter.— The
Dodor repeats the fame thing in page
37 — ^viz. — xheliCDA (of JudiUt) which
thou (Ahaz) vexeft, &c. This throws
great diificulty 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 kings," requires us to underftand
that both the kings there ipoken of (hould
be kings of that land which Ahaz vexed :
n'3^0 ij'.I? " both her kings."
Now, Pekabking of Ifrael cannot be un-
derftood to be one of thefe, if the land,
which Ahaz vexed, fignified the land of
Judah alone j fiar, in what fenfe could be
be called one of the kings of the land of
yitdab, who was not a Conqueror, (for the
true king ftill maintained his rPyjal feat
and tide,) but a declared enemy and dif-
turber, and king only of Ifrael?

I 25 1
?. Neither could Refin king of Syria be
properly faid to ba either king of Judah
or Ifrael ; for he was only an invader of
Judak, adlng as an ally to the king of
Krael. .
'-Thov^^ indeed he had rather more
rig^t to be accounted one pf the kings jf^
Judah than the king of Ifrael had, be"
caufe about (hat time he had taken pof-^
feffion Q^EIath^ a City ^ Judah : but this
could not really intitle him to be called a
l^ingoflhatlandx becaufe, from the tim?
that the city was taken, it ceafed to be a
part of Judah, and was accounted a part
of the kingdom (>f Syrian for it is expreifa-
ly faid in 2 Kings xvi. 6. that " Re^
" ^i^^g tf^yria recovered Elath to Syria,
« and drave the Jews from Elath : and
"the Syrianj came to Elath, and dw^it
" there unto this day." Dr. W-  ms
pbferves in a note (page 37.) that " Refin
D " and

[ 26 1
*' and Pekah are, perhaps, here called
" the kings of Judah, becaufe they were
" then in po(reffion of all the country,
" Jerufalem excepted ;" but the Dodor
furely did not confider, that Ifaiah was
fent to confirm Ahaz, that he (hould not
fear " the two tails of thefe fmoking fire-
" brands," (viz. Refin and the fon of Re
maliah,) and to aflTure him, that their evil
council of fitting up a king in Judah.
fhould " not ftand" ¦'^Taat — " come topafi."
It is not likely, therefore, that the pro
phet (hould call either or both of thefe
kings kings of Judah, becaufe it would
have been abfolutely a contradidlon to
his meifage, which was to encourage and
eftablifh the then reigning king of Judab^
defcended from the houfe of David.
Even the Dodor himfelf feems fo fenfible
of the infufficiency of his interpretation,
that he afterwards, in the fame note,
propofes another expedient, (though a
dangerous

[ 27 J
dangerous (14) onCj) 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
correded. This is efteemed a much eafier thing,
now-a-days, than for a critic to give up
a favourite opinion, that happens to be
cbntradidory to the Holy Scripture.
" Suppofe (fays the Dodor) that we
" (hould read cZ3"»D^a for n^D^Q her
" kings ? Jhall be forfaken of both kings"
T-rthls indeed is cutting the knot, but it
D 2 will
(14) " Thus it happens with thefe facred books as
" with prOphane authors, that, vAitnt\L^ medica manus
" tritieoriwi is to perform an operation upon the tex%
<* it is often diflocated and maimed, and rendered al-
" moft incurable by improper applications. But, what-
« ever may be done with the hiftorical books, we hav^e
" no right to indulge any conjedtiiral emendations in
••* the prophecies : it looks too much like tampering
" with evidence. If they are faulty, they muft even
<' remain fo ; and we muft take the evidence as it
•« .comes to us."
Dr. Gregory Sharpe's zd Argument in Defence
of Chriftianity, p. 265.

E 2» J
V^iU not enable the Dodor to come off'
con^eror, like the Grecian hefo. If the
dtnifiion of the word avTijs in the Sep*-
tuag^ht tranflation (hould even be allow
ed to affiard fufficient grounds for fiKh a
fuppofition ; yet " Dr. Kennicott's truly
" important work" is not likely to fux-
ni(h various readings from MSS. equal
in authority and antiquity with thofe from
which Aqaila, Symmachus, and Theo-
dotion were taken. Thefe were, manl-
feftly, according to the prefent Heb. text
in this paflage -, for it is rendered by all
thefe tran^ators;, ruv Svo t»<rtKet«v avrvt?^
f^her two kings, or of both her kings.
The ancient Syriac veriron, likewife,
•Confirms the text j oua^>a ^;Z loth her
iitigs. It would have been time enough
to have quoted Dr. Kennicott's various
reading, when it was known that any
fijch fubfifted— for it is not fair dealing
to wound the credit of the holy text with
a mere

[ 29 ]
a mere ^^ perhaps^' (15) and for 00 other
purpofe (if I may ufe die Dodor's own
words) than to " ftreti^ben a conjee
" ture." In (bort, I would advife the
Dodor to let the text remain as he found
it ; for this unjuftifialde mediod of (blving
difficulties is a broken reed, whith fel-
dom fails to wound the hands of thofe
who ufe it.
Now the difficulty ceafes, if it be ad-'
mkted that the land which Abcz vexed
^goified the land or inheritance of the
Cwdve tribes of Ifi^l, including Judah ;
which conftrudion the drcumftaiices of
thofe times will enable it to bear.
Ahaz had interrupted the (acrifices of
atonement ufually offered up for all Ifrael
in the temple at Jerufalem, which was
common to Jews and Ifraelites ; and
therefore
i(*5) •* Dr. Kennicott's truly important work may,
" perhaps, hereafter ftrengtben this cotgeaure." In a
note, fo. 37.

[ so ]
therefore might truly be faid tp vex the
land of Ifrael as well as Judah : for he
not only *' facrificed unto the gods of Da-
*' mafcus," (2 Chron. xxviii. 23.) but he
" cut in pieces the veffels of the houfe
" of God, &nd Jhuf up the doors of the
" houfeof the Lord" {2^thverk). King
Hezekiah (16) (who opened again the
doors of the houfe of the Lord, and
caufed the priefts and Levites to cleanfe
all the houfe from the abominations
of Ahaz) was confclous 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
(i6) See 2 Chron. xxix.

C 31 1
He likewife " fent to all Ifrael and
" Judah, and wrote letters alfo to Ephra-
" im and Manaffeh, that they (hiould
" come to the houfe of the Lord at Je-
" xuiaXexa, to keep the palTover unto the
" L-ord God of Ifi-ael." 2 Chron. xxx. i.
And we read, in the nth verfe of the
dnae chapter, that " divers of A(her and
" Maoafleh, and of Zebulun, humbled
" themfelves (accordingly) and came
" to Jerufalem ;" and " did eat the paff-
" over" (See i8th verfe.) Now, as It
appears that ^e land of all the other Tribes^
as well as the land of Judah, was real
ly vexed by the apoftafy of Ahaz, there
is reafon to fuppofe that the land of Im-
manueft mentioned by Ifaiah (viii. 8.)
might fignify (not only the land of Judab ,
but) the land of both the houfes of If
rael, '~^i?TO™ ^02 UTiy, mentioned in the
1 4th verfe of the feme chapter ; and that
the two kings of the land, mentioned in
the

[ 32 I
the feventh chapter, may mean the kings,.
or fiparate regal powers, of thefe two
houfes of Ifrael, which were both to dafe
before the child (Immanuel) y^wA/ ibjtfW
to refufe the evil and choofethe good. The
word ^!7Q or king, in a figurative way
of fpeaking, may very well be under-
ftood in fome paffages (not to mean
merely the perfon of one particular king,
but in a more general fenfe) to fignify a
Jticce^ion of kings, or rather the regal con-
fiitution of a fiate", and the failure of
fuch royalty in fome cafes ferves as a dif-
tingui(hing mark of conqueft or fubjec-
tion to a foreign power. " The king fiiall
" perijh from Gaza, and AfhkelonfisaU jiot
" be inhabited," fays the prophet Zecha-
riah, (ix. 5.) by which is plainly un-
derftood (not the deftrudion of a fingle
king, but) the ceafing of the regal go
vernment of the city of Gaza. It is a
fynonimous term with the departing of
tbefceptre : " The pride of Affyria (hall
" be

. I 33 ]
•i* be5>roag^t down, and tbf fi^tre <f
" Egypt (hall depart away," fays the
fame prophet in the nth verfe of the
^cceeding chapter. The prophet Hofea,
•ilkewife, ufes the word •j^Q in the fame
general fenfe (jd. 5.) N^n -|i^«^ ^D^D —
« the Affyrian (or Affur) (hall be his
** king:" one AJfyrianking only cannot here
be meant i but the fucceflion of kings
deigning in A%ria during the captivity of
Ifrael. Therefore, I prefiime, there is
fome ground for my fuppofition, that Ifai-
^h's expreffion in the feventh chapter,
n'3l?C "^ys, niay fignify the two feparate
regal goruernments of Judah and Ifrael,
((called, in the twenty third chapter of
TEzechiel, Aholah and Ahollbah,) and
.iiot merely two fingle kings.
When I firft wrote this opinion, and
.communicated the MS. to Dr. W— ms, I
apprehended that the thought was intirely
n£^ .^.^^ Uttie 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 Chrifli, " appears to be of
" the fame opinion." I had likewife the
fatisfadion, afterwards, to be informed
by another gentleman, (a worthy friend
of mine,) that the fame interpretation is
recommended in the Univerfal Hiftory,
vol. IV. oftheOdavo, p. 154, with the
note K,
Now, that the opinion of the learned
author may more clearly be underftood,
I will fet down at length the whole that
he wrote upon the text in queftion.
Having mentioned the fubjed of Ifai-
ah's meffageto Ahaz, he adds— ^" Here
« the king, whether out of refped or def-
" pondencyand unbelief, — refufing to afk
« the promifed fign, the prophet affured !' him

t 35 ]
^' him from the Lord, that — before that
" time came, a virgin (hould conceive
*' and bear a fon, and call his nameHim^^
" manuelj or God with us j and fo on."
(K). Upon this opinion he farther explains
hitnfelf in the following note.
" (K) This we take to be a much
" more natural fenfe of that prophecy,
" than to fuppofe, as (bme have done,
** that fuch a miraculous child was really
" born in Abac's time, to affure him oi
" the promifed deliverancej for, as there
" is not the leaft mention of fuch an ex-
" traordinary birth, fo neither do we fee
" that there was any neceffity for it, in
** order to convince the defpon ding 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
" (pring of the lineage of David. Biit
F 2 " what

r 36 T
" what ftaggered Aha;s's faith, and-mad^
" him feat that the regal power was go-
" ing to depart from- his family, was,
" that his two enemies had combined to-
" fet a (hanger on his throne. AH,,
" therefore, that was wanting to difpel-
" his prefent fears about it, wis for the
" prophet to affure him from God,, that
" this Shiloh, promifed to Jud^ and
** David,, who was to fore-run the total'
*' excifion of theJewKh polity, wastobcr
" born in a miraculous manner and with
*^ a divine eharadcr, and other remark-.
" ablecircumftances, fuch as, he m\ght
" be eafily 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 this wbn-
*' derful child fhall know good from evil,
" the land which thou dbhorrefi fisall be
" forfaken of both her kings :" We think
" that.

t 37 I
** «h««, if It he righWy tondfefftood, it will
•^ rather tonfirtaxiur fenfe of the ptophe-
** 'by, and that the words otlght to be
" thus rendered. For (or rather, asriie
*^ particle fi&r 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 givefb up for
** loft, (hall be bereaved of both her
** kings J by which, we think, ought to
** be tifiderflrood, not the kiogfe of Syria
** and Ifra^, ^r the former could not be
** c&lkd her (Catkau's) king j ^i^ the
** lafter had but a &^xt in it at beft -, bUt
** ^e kir^'cf Ifrael 'oXi'AJkdtth, asitreal-
" ly was before the cofning of the Mejf^
«* fiak"In order to eoiifirm this opinion, J
Kave annexed' to thefe remarks two dif*
tind dilferlations : one on the prophecy
©f Ifaiah vU. 8. (— — " and withi»
" threefcore:

t 38 ]
" threefcore and five years (hall Ephralm
*' be broken that it be not a people") j
and the other on the famous prophecy of
Jacob, concerning the fceptre of Judah*
In the former I (heW, that the regal
government oitht houfe of Ifrael, as a fe
parate ftate from Judah, was put an 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 or
worldly kingdom of Judah) ceafed pre->
cKely 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 refufe the evil and choofe
" the good." For,

[ 39 ]
For, Herod the Great, ona careful
examination, (I believe) will be found to
have been the laft king oiibe whole land
oi Ifrael and Judah, which Ahaz vexed j
and it is remarkable, that Chrift, the
true Immanuel, was a young child in the
arms of bis mother at the time of this mo
narch's death j foon after which, Jofeph,
the hulband of the bleffed virgin, was
warned 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~4and of
Judab only,) " for they are dead which
*' ioM^tihe young child' sWSs." Mat.iI.2o.
But Dr W — ms in a note (page 32)
obferves, thatthe child Immanuel " could
" not be Chrifi, becaufe he is never called
" the king of Judah." And he thinks
that Nathaniel, when he called him the
king of Ifrael, " laboured under the fame
** miftake with all his countrymen, who
" expeded

[ 40 ]
« expeded a temporal Meffiah.** The
Dodor obferves, in the fame noite, that
•« Chrift tt king of the whole earth j"
which heleemstoaffign as a reafon why
*' he is never called the king ^ Judah."
And indeed it does not appear that the
Dodor had any other foundation foe his
cenfure of Nathaniel -, though this argu^
ment is (p far from bebg conclufive ia
favour of the Dodor 's opinion, that it
rather proves the contrary ; for he that is
king of the whole earth moft neceffifOy, ia
a general fenfe, be king of Ifrael and Ju
dah ; thefe titles being moft cert^nly
included in the former, even fuppofing
the peculiar fceptre of each kingdom to he
departed. Neverthelefs, the argument (fuch as it
is) is admitted and approved by the Cri
tical Reviewers 1 for they quote the DocN
tor*5 words at length, (fee N* 136, fo,
;jj6.) without offering any thing to jufti- fy

[ 41 ]
fy Nathaniel from the charge of labouririg
\imder a miftake^
It (hall therefore be my buGnefs to
prove, that the mifiake does not refi 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 aU things.
(Heb. i. 2.) The angel CJabrlelteftifi-
ed that Chrift (hould reign over the houfe
of Jacob (which is Ifrael) forever. See
St. Luke i. 32. And the wife men of
the Eaft went to Jerufalem and inquired,
" Where is he that is born king of the
" Jews ? for we have feen his ftar in
" the Eaft, and come" (that is, to Jeru
falem, the capital of his kingdom) " to
" worfiiip him." See Matth. ii. i, 2.
Therefore the Dodor's objedion, that the
child Immariuel could not be Ghrift be
caufe be is never called the king of Judah,
feems to be intirely groundlefs j for, the
F dominion

[ 42 ]
domiinionoflhekfldoflmmanwel (mea-
tioned in the eighth chapter of Ifaiah)
may moft certainly be attributed with
more propriety to the Meffiah, who was
king and fisepherd 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 Judah
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,
and take him by force to make him a king j
(fee John vi. 15.) and farther, becaufe
he even dedared that his kingdom was
not of thi^ world. See chap, xviii. 36.
But all this feems to relate only to the
manner of his government, which, in
general, was merely fpiritual. He was
neverthelefs king of Ifrael, being fent in a
particular manner to the loft (lieep of the
houfe

[ 43 I
houfe of tfrael; (fee Matth. xv. 24.) ¦
and, for a time, Jerufalfena was the fiat
of his king^nt, when he went up fo the
feafl ;. and a very great multitude^ fprea4
their garments in the way,, (a greater mark
of fiabmiffion than vs ever paid' to tena^>€M)ailr
princes,) and others cut down branches
from the tiases, and ftrawed them in the
way, (fee Matth. xxi. 8.) aiid cried,^
Hofanna, BleJ^d is the King op Israel,
that Cometh in the name of the Lord.
John xii. 13.
Chrift did not tell the multitude that
ibey " laboared mder a mifiake" m caf^
hi^ him KING OF Israel ; on the con
trary, it appears thathe apf«'Ove^ufthe
voice ai the people j which could not
have been the cafe, had he not been really
iing ofJfi-ael: for, when tihe Pbarrifees faid
unto him^ Mafter, rebuke thy i^i&^f^i,
he anfweyetJ and faid unto «h^33y " Itett
" you, that, if thefe flioold kB their
F 2 " peace.

[ 44 ]
" peace, the fiones would immediately cry
" out." Luke xix. 38,39, 40. Thus
was the Mefliah not only " called" but
proclaimed, king of Ifrael; and as fuch he
received the homage of his people ; yet,
in fuch a manner, as beft fulted the facred
charader of him, who hzdrejeSleda world
ly kingdom : for, inftead of royal apparel
and a triumphal car, he was " cloathed
with humility^' and fitting on an afs, that
the prophecy of Z<echariah might be liter
rally fulfilled.
" Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zionj
^' (hout, O daughter of Jerufalem : be-
^' hold, THY KING Cometh unto thee :
*' he isjuft, and having falvation, lowly^
" and riding upon an afs, and upon a colt
" the foal of an afs." (Zech. ix. 0.)
But, though Chrift profeffed that his
kingdom was not of this world, yet there
was no worldly man hardy enough to re-
fift or oppofe his will, when he was
pleafed

[ 45 ]
pleafed to exert his divine authorky over
them i for, " he eaft 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 fuffer that any man (hould
" carry any veffel through the temple."
Mark xi. 15, 1 6,
And St. John Infornis us (chap. ii.
1 5.) that he made a fcourge of fmall <;Drds,
and drove them all (all fuch as are above
mentioned) out of tlie temple.
Of all the extraordinary things which
Chrift did, St. Jerome thought this to be
the moft wonderful, as Mr. Bragge re
marks in his Pradical Obfervations upon
the Miracles. This perfonal authority and
dominion of Chrift in Ifrael was exprellly
. foretold by the prophet Micah, (ch, v. 2.)
" But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though
*' thou be little among the thoufands of
f' Judah, yet out of thee (hall he come
" forth

{ 46 ]
'" fi2)fth uMo me^ that Is to beitiiLERiN
" Israel >whofipgoiags forth have been
" Iromcrfold (*/) from everlafliuig." I
never read any paffege of Scripture which
was capable of affording the leaft counte
nance or foppoct tothe contrary dodrine,
that Chrifi was not the king of Ifiraek In
deed, the enemies and perfecutora of our
Lord, at the timeof his crucifixion, expreff-
ed their di(belief of his being king of Ifra
el (18), becaufe they did not think him
to be the true anointed, or Mefliafi . Ne
verthelefs, when the feveral extraordinary
and miraculous circumftances, relating to
the births life, death,, and perfecution, of
that moft holy perfon (Jefus of Nazareth)
are candidly examined and carefully com
pared
(17) " In the beginning was the Word, and the
" Word was with God, and the Word was God. The
" fame was in the beginning' with God." Joha i. i.
(18) '-^Ifhe he the iing of Ifrael, (^{sidtkey,) lerhim
«« now come down from the crofs, and we will believe
" hinv." Matth. xxvii, 42.

j: 47 ]
pared with the prajdieliciti dsdaxiskms
amcesma^ the pcotnifed Mesfilah, it ma^
nifidlly appears, that daene were very,
fufficient reafons for ackmowledgi-ng that
peiC>n to be both LwdandChr^ (19) »
andconfequeja-^ " king of Ifrael^' rmthe
.(Iridcft fenfe, net only during his bod jly
refidence on earth, but to all eternity.
Wherefore,

:(J9) •• Thjrre&re let ali the house vfifrtd know
" affuredly, thatGod bath made that fame Jefus tuhom
" je have crucijied'hoih Lord and Chrift." Aflsii. 36.
" And 'the anged iaid uinto .them, (the fhejtberds,')
" Fear not: for, behold^ I bring unto jroujgQod tidings
" of. great joy, Whicli ihall be to all people. Far, un-
'«* to you is 'bom "diis .day, ^u the city utfj^atsd^ a.fe«i-
" our, 'iiibids is Chrift the Lord." Xuke ii. le,- 1 1.
" The Word which God fent xxnio {ine children of Tf-
" tmI, piearfrittg-peace by Jtifits Ghrijl, (hi isLnrdsi
" all)." A&s X. 36,
"-^Bat we fpeak the wifdom of God in a myftery,
" [even) dte Mdden (witTdom) wihicii God OTiadined
" before the world unto our glory, Whiqfe none of
«• the princes of this world knew } for had they known
" (it) they would not have crucified the L«r</^j^/or;'."
I Corinth, it. 7. 8.
"—That every tangue-fljould confeli that Jefijs C&rift
" is Lord, to the gldry of God the father." Philip.
ii. II.

[ 48 ]
Wherefore, we ought moft certainly to
acquit Nathaniel, and other faithful Ifra-^
elites, of the mifiake which they have
lately been fuppofed to " labour under,"
when they declared our Lord Jefus Chrift
to be " the king of Ifrael." (John i.
49. xii. 13.)
Thus far have I ventured to fuggefi,
in anfwer to Dr. W  nis's declaration
in page 9,  that " the 26th verfe"
(of the feventh chap, of Ifaiah) " can-
" not in any fenfe be applied to the Meffiah ;",
I hope I have proved that it may j never
thelefs I muft obferve, that even the com
mon interpretation of this paffage is not
fo unreafonable as Dr. W  ms feems
to imagine ; though, indeed, the inter
pretation before given appears to be
much lefs liable to exception.
The Dodor animadverts very fcverely
on the opinion of thofe, who fay, that
the paffage contains two diftind prophe-- cies>

[ 4P ]
ties J— "viz. that the vetfe* 14 and 15 re
late to Chrift, but the i6th to Ifaiah*^
fon. " Is not this {iiyi he) very unna-^
" turalf andi if lam not mifiaken, very
" unujualT'
But the authors of the eld CoMmentary
on the BiblCj cortimOnly called Affemblies
Annotationsj Were of a Very different o-
pfnion. They obfervey 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 fubjedsi where
" occafion is to fpeak of them together :"
and therefore they were of opinion, that
the child mentioned in the i6th verfe was
" no other, in all likelihood, than
" Shearjafhub, the prophet's child,
" whom, to this purpofe, God hath
" comftxanded him to take along with
G " him."

[ 50 }
« him." How far this was an ufual
thing with Ifaiah, may be feen even in
prophecies which were delivered on the
fame occafion as the text in queftion.
For the farther illuftratlonof 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 fubjed to another are frequently
found therein j and that the Holy Scrip
tures afford many examples of prophecies,
which are blended and interwoven with
other fubjeds that are intirely different,
both as to the matter and the time of ac-
complifliment. We muft 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 oecafioned by Dr. W  ms's in
terpretation of it. " This prophecy" (fays he,)

[ 51 1
he,) " as I take it, relate? to one perfon
*' only, and that was the fon of a young
" woman then prefent ; which fon was af-
*' terwards to be born."5 See page 4.
^'- Now I may afk, with Origen, (20)
contra Gelfum, pag. 28, Cambridge edi
tion, idyy,) — " Who was born in the
*' time of Ahaz, of whofe birth this is
" faid, — Emanuel ? that is, God with
" us. For, if no one is found, it is ma-
" nifeft, that what was faid of Ahaz
*' was'addreffed to the houfe of Day id ^
" according to that which is written : —
*' viz. — of the feed of David a Saviour is
* ' ' horn accordi?ig to the fiejh. "
Indeed, we read, in the eighth chap
ter, of a fon, which the prophetefscon-
G 2 ceived
¦'•'y' \r :,; ¦; ' /> \J' :
(20) " A^raiTno-o/xEv jiara TS5 %go»S{ tb A;ga^T4; tyimasv,
" i<f' a TD yviKTii "Siyita-i to, ^j/.fi.ava'nX, 5 er* MEff" i/*uf a
" 0£O{ ; Et yaj sJei; ei^eSno'STai, ^ii^oir on to t« A}(a^ "gl-
" jAssot, T6) oixa EigjjTKi Aa?i?, Ji» TO in' inrsfi^ar®^ Aii&if
*' cilrayiffei^Bcit rot SiuTUga yzyovivon To y.aTa O'afiix. j

[ s* ]
ceived and bare unto Ifaiah ; and like-
wife, that Ifaiah was careful to take unto
him FAJTHFUL WITNESSES TO RECORD
concerning him : " For, (faid he,) be-
*• fore the child (hall have knowledge to
'' cry, My father and my mother, (which
*• muft be within two years^) the riches
" of Damascus and the spoil of Sa»
*' MARIA ihflll be taken away before the
" king pf AfJyria." Therefore, this
child was certainly the temporary
«IGN of the promifed deliverance from
the two powers of Damascus and Sa
maria ! but, unfortunately for Dr.
W— «»-ms'6 hypothefis, the faid child was
NOT CALLED Immanuel, but Maher-
shalal-ihash-baz } Ji ten ^^tu mu
properly fignifying and prefiguring the
near approach of the fpoiling of Damafcus
and Samaria. Now, we do not read of
any other child, born at that time as a
fign J and therefore Dr, W  ms's
opinion, concerning Immanuel, is not
only

,[ 53 ]
only i^ mre fuppqfitiQnt but a very Impro-
hable one $ fince it is not at all likely
that TWO CHILDREN were then born,
one Maherrfbalel-h{ifi)-bq&, and the other
Immanuel, and both of them intended as
MERE TEMPORARY SIGNS OF THE
SAME THING.
The Dodor will find» on a farther
examination of the text, that the birth of
Ifaiah's fon is only an allufion, or imper-
feSl imitation^ of the former remote
SIGN, mentioned in the feventh chapter,
{yiZ' of Immanuel's birth,) in the fame
manner as the brazm ferpent (2l)» Hjied up
(21) " And the Lord faid unto Mofes, Make thee
" a fiery ferpent, and fet it upon a pole j and it fhall
•' come to pafs, that every one that is bitten, when
¦" he loeketh apan it, Ihall live. And Mofes made a
" ferpent pf br;}f^, and put it upon a pole ; and it came
" to pais, that if a ferpent had bitten any man, when
" he beheld the ferpent of brafs, he lived." Numb.
yxj,, 8, 9. — " And as Mofes lifted up the serpent
" in the wildernefs, even^fo mufl the son of man
?• SE HFTjiD up; that whofpever belie veth in him
•• SHOVLP NOT PERISH, but have eternal life." Joh» ijj.

t 54 1
vp in the wildernefs, was an imperfcft
imitation, or type, of Chrifi: crucified ;
and that the temporary deliverance
from tlie two king^ (of which the birth of
Ifaiah's fon was the temporary sign)
cannot rightly be confldered as the ac-
complilhment of the prophecy, but rather
as a confirmation and fure pledge of the
faid Ri:MoTE SIGN, as I have before, ob-
fervcd. ** But, when the fulness of time
" was come," the angel Gabriel was fent
from God to Nazareth, with a fartmkr
REVELATION of the thcu approachiug
SIGN of the redemption promifed by
Ifaiah. The blefied virgin anfwered, (Luke i.
34.) " II010 fhall this be, firing I ktioio
" not a man ?"
That
iii. 14, I 5. — See Mr. CmJcn's excellent icmniks on
thefe texu, under the word bl'.RPENT, in his Con
cordance.

[ 55 1
That " a woman fiould compafi a mart*
(viz. conceive and bear a fon with
out the knowledge of man) was an
event fcarcely to be expedled or compre
hended by man ; it being the new thing
which God had created in the earth, fpo-
ken of by the prophet Jeremiah xxxi.
22. (22) So that it was plainly the feed
of the woman which bruifed the fe'rpent's
head, as promifed in Genefis iii. 1 5. (23).
The occafion 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-
¦" fliding daughter? (the virgin of Ifrael): for the
" Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, a
" WOMAN fhall COMPASS A MAN." Jerem. xxxi. 22.
(23) " And I will put enmity between thee and the
f woman, *and between thy feed and her seed; if
" SHALL BRUISE THY HEAD, and thou Ihalc bruifc
?« his heel." Gen. iii. i;.

[ 56 ]
« have taken evil counfel againft thee,
" (Ahaz,) faying, Let us go up againfl:
« Judah, and vex it ; and let us ttiake a
" breach therein for us, and fit a kiug
" IM THE MIDST OP iT, cven the fon
" ofTabeal." But " thus faith the Lord
*' God, It Jhall not fiand, ' 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. " Thihe houfe and thy kifig-
" dom (hall be eftabliflied for ever before
« thee : thy Throne fhall be eftablifii-
« ed for EVER.". -
Therefore, as Juftin Martyr obferves
(24), if the prophecy, " Behold, a vir-
" gin
(24.) K»y« e^^fr " Tpi(fmt «i ^n x«l t%1 •HfofWeix't,
in iXfn UtTMotf, s (pr,(fi itriofj rot UKot ra Aa&i^, thi ii '^a^iitoi
tt yarft f.v^tt»*r a,1<M, ti7fti irifon ttxov rut iuhxa (pv^ut,
jcruf av airofiat ii)^e ro Wfayfta* eiruSti h xai avrn Jj woofflfl-
ftia Wpu; TOP oixo» AcifciJ eif»fira,i, up etpfij/.iroii ^pjj AaJsiS uira
&t(iv i> fiairiifiif, Arf Hcaia in; t/nifAi yiwrf-Sat t^tiy^^. Juf-
th»i Dialogus cum Tryphtme Judseo, pag. 293, Par2#
Edition, 1636.

[ 57 ]
^* gin Jhall conceive," had not been fpo-^
ken to the houfe of David, but to ariy
other houfe of the twelve tribes, the af
fair might have been doubtful 5 but the
fign was really given to the house of
Davibj (fee 13th verfe — ^** Hear yd
** now, O houfe of David j") and, ag
no man was e^er born of a virgin except
the Messiah, who, on account of this
birth, was called the Son of David,
therefore- it was furely the propereft
fign that could be given," to aflvire them
that the houfe and the kingdom of Da-
yiDjhould be eftablifhed for ever, and that
the evil counfel of Syria and Ephraim
Aould not ftand. The hqufe and the
kingdom of David cannot he eftablifhed
FOR EVER, in the perfon of any of Da
vid's defcendants; except the Mefliah
himfelf J for (with refped: to the prefent
times) the worldly kingdom of David
ceafed very many ages ago, and his peo-
|>le, the children of Ifirael, being moft
V H '" ' defervedly

[ 5« 1
defervedly eje<3:ed (on accovjtxt of their
wickednefs and unbelief) frow.tbwr old
inheritance, the land of Canaan, have
ney^f fince ohtwi^ed *ny other as a pof-
feffiof), hut, for near feventsefi hundred
years, have been difperf«di throughout
the whole world : a'Dd yet, by the roani-
feft providence (35) of God, they remain,
to ^hisday, in the midft of 4II natiaits, a
diftind and peculiar pe^e i fo that their
prefent ftate is an authentic and undeni
able voucher of the truth of the Holy
Scriptures (06), and themfelves a living
teftimony
(25) See bifhop Newton's Differtation on thfc Pro-
pbe(;iea, iflvol. p. zijto 238, where that learned au^
thor treats very fully and pa^thetic^Uy concerning the
remarkable providence of God in the pref^rvation of
the Jew?. .
(z6) " What i& <)ccflfionally faid, by Mofes and
" other prophets, concerning the future flateftfGpj^'s
"people, the Jews, "is, ' alone, fufKcient to eftablijl^
" the divine authoiity of the hoJy wntingt. The pfo-
" roifes made to thpm are Uterially fulfilled » t&e ven.
« geance denounced againfl them is literally yiflifted,
** Gaptires tiiey wWre frequently made; wanderers
•' they became j and fuel? thejr continue to be at this
«' day.

t » J
teAimonyof GcJd*«juitj©dgefiiem, wiicb
iheyfiill lie under, until they Jhall r^pmf. '
But TChrift's fpiritual kingdom of Ifiaeh
into Which we are adopted, is everlafiirigj^
and the prophet Ifaiah g'av^'Ahaz, and^
his coternporaries of the.houfi of JD.avid^
the ffrongeft aflhrances that it fhould be
fo. — *' Of the increafe of his government
" xmdpeace" (fays he^ in the ninth chap
ter, which riiave already fliewn to have
been delivered nearly at the fame time
with the feventh chapter) " there Jhall
" ^^ NO END, Upon the throne of David,
" and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to
" eftablifh it with judgement and with Juf-
" fice, from henceforth even for ever :
Ha " the

" day* fojottfnhig in the midft of all fiadons, united
" widi none ; pecuQars every where, and by no hn-
** man means to be again confolidated : nuhich is alte-
" gether ns' Hblfhderfia as if the 'ujatits of any one parti'
"tutor river -fftuid remain in d^/liifil glahuies, though
" fcaiieriH through the 'whole ocean." Dr.' Gregory
^iftrpe's zd Argument in Defence of Chriftianity, ^<'.
pag. 4 and 5.

i 60 3
" the zeal of the Lord of hofts will pcr-
« form this."
In page 37, Dr. W  ms fays,
« The laft objedlion which I kjiow, 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 hypothefis.
Now, that we may thoroughly under
ftand the text in queftion, it wiU.be ne-
ceflTary to confider St. Matthew's ajppli-^
cation of it.
He informs, us, that " the birth of
" Jefus Chrift was on this wife : When,
« as his mother Mary was efpioufed to
.*' Jofeph, before they came together, « ihe

[ 6 1 I
Mjhewas found, ^ith child (f \tbe Bt>l$
"^Ghofi, th^i^ Jofeph," herhuiband, be-
" ingajuft.man,and notwilling to make
"her a ptiblie- example,; w^S'-lhinded to
** put her away privily. ., Bitf, iwhile he
*' thought on thefe things, behold,' the
^'. afigel-ofthe-ljOrTd appeared; ;yntO: Himi in
'" a dream, faying, Jof^hi th,ou som
" OF DaviDj} fear npj tp |ak^ upto thee
" Mary, thy wife j,- fo? th^ ^Mchls con-^.
" ceivedinhe^f i&.OF.THEftaLY Ghosti
" and flie fliall,-bring- forth a fon, and
," thou flialt call his name Jefus, (yVvpi) t
" for he fhall ^'y^ his ^yp^iiJ.,from their
*' fins. NoWALL THIS-W^ i/(?«^, tlia£.
" it mights,, be- fulfilled .which was
** fpoken .of , the Lord by the pro-
" phet, feyingj ^ehol4> a virgin fliall
".be with child, and flaall bring forth a
" fon, and they .ihall call l»s n^meEM^^
" Manuel, which, being interpreted, is,,
" God with us.]' ,\ Now, Dr. W— — ms
, hopes to excufe himfelf and his hypothe fis.

iis byalledging, (feejpage 40,) that this
is only " an oceommodation (by' Way of il-
"ktftfdtti^^''' hot proof) of a'pafiiageto
•• a particular fertfe, to which it origi-
.1* iuMybad no reference." ';'
But fliould we not feem to pay very
little fcgfard tti Oofpel teftittiony, (I now
^ak aS' to -Chi-iftians;)" if we were to
fuppofe, that the prophebf ottginally had
iio reference ttf tbli' eveht, When an apol'-'
tle exprefily afjirms 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 ? viz: *•* This way of
" procecdihjg will make the Scriptures
" the moft uncertain writings in the
«« world." But now let us fee how this
notion of 'dn avcommodatimmW fuit with
the reft of the Doftor's hypothefis . * * ¦
^ t-' ^ He

I 63 ]
He fays, (page 44,) " I think that
*• -the prophet had no r^erence to the Mefi
" fiah, and that the evaogeUft only al^
" ludes to this pafiTage in Ifaiah, becaufe
" it was remarkably fuitable totbe matteir
" which he was relating." Now the Dr.
feems to have forgot his former opinion,
in page 23, vtz. *' that the word nD^p
« doth not appear to f^vify firi&ly a
" vtrgtn. . . r :
For, if this were true, that HD^y doth
not fignify a virgin, in what fenfe could
the text be efteemed remarkably fuitable
to the miraculous conception of a virgin
by the Hoi.^y Ghost ? And in what man
ner could the accommodation of it to that
fingular event afijft the facred hiftorian
*' BY WAY OF illustration'^? (See
page 40.)
Nay, the Dodor has even taken great
pains to render the text remarkably UN-

T 64 ]
unsuitable! for he would have us
underftand that nal>j?n the young Wo
man, (as he cohftrues it,) fpoken of in
the text, wis'fo far from being a virgin
that (he was with child (" is concei-
*« viNG and BEARING a SON," fays he,
iripage 37) even at the time when (he
was pointed at (as he fuppofes, in page
3 1 ) by the prophet. Thefe words {viz.
" IS coi^CEiviNG and bearing a son")
are a part of what he has given us, in
page 37, as a " literal tranffation of the
" original;" but itisfofar frbmb6lngfo,
that the true fenfe of the letter, or text,
feems to be exchanged for tliat of the in-
terlineaiy verfion, of the London Polyglot,
which renders it " pragnans^ pariens."
But the words r-nlV>^ n"in are not
participles adlive, but are in,'the perfedt
tenfe j yet there needs no apology for the
Scptuagint and pther tranflations in ren
dering them as if they were of the future tenfe,

[ 65 ];
tenfe, 4>e,C3W'e the ,fpQtei?ce, to whic^b
they .belong,, is plainly the predidion pf
^fmurA.^y^nf. (27) ;; for^ in prophetical
writic^g^ ; the perfe^. js frequently .ijfed
fprrth&^/«r^ tenfe. " Apud prophetas
*.* a^uem .freberrime (prsteritum) pro
*.' fi^<ii;o.ufiirpatur, qypres certo fjitura
" fignificetur, perinde ac fi Jam evenif-
**,,fet: ut .puer i^i natus eft nobis, pio
" nafeetur*" JB-YTHiiER. Inftitutio L^a-
guae SandlsB, p. ip. E)r. W< — -nis's
literal tranflation (as he calls it) of the
perfeSi. tenfe into ^e 'participle aftivecgn-
not (1 believe) be fo eafily vindicated.
Would it not be very unnatural to fup-
pole, that the prophets have been intirely
filent concerning this moft remarkable
fign of the Mefliah, (viz. his being born
I OF,
(27) — ** It is .a well known obfervation, of the
" Chriftian and Jewilh doftors, that the prophet, fee-
*' ing in his mind's eye the events he foretels, often
" ^jeaks -of Aera as already paft." Br. Sharpe's id
Jrgument in Defence of Chriftianity, '^, 309. — In a note.

[ 66. ]!
OF A VIRGIN,) infomuch, that an cvan-
gelift fhould be obliged to accommo
date, to this^«^«/<»r circumfiance, a
pafliage, which, originally, had " no re-
" ference to the Messiah ?" And that
he fliould attempt to pafs fuch a merk
ACCOMMODATION upon the world for
the genuine fenfe of the prophet, by fig
nifying, in the ftrongeft tertns, that this
text was fulfilled by the circiitnflrianccs
which he there relates ?
The cvangelift thus cxprcfi*cs himfelf:
" Now, ALL THIS WAS DONE, that It
" might bejulfilled which was fpoken of
*' the Lord by the prophet," ^c. thto
Ss oXov yifovBv iva. wkfipcaSii to prjSsv Ctto t»
KVpus Sia. TK 'arpo<pviTys XiyovTog, &C, Which
implies, that, if all this had not come
to pafs, the word of the Lord, by the pro
phet, would not have been fulfilled : there
fore, this cafe is by no means fimilar to
the inftanccs of ACCOMMODATION drawn from

[ 67 I
firomithe Grecian poets (28), In
page 41. ^^*ft (. - -»A.
But why fliould any one attempt, now-
a-days, to explain .away_ the genuine
meaning of a prophecy, fo literallyfuljilled
by the miraculous birth. of Chrift, when
even, the Jewijh interpreters, near 300
years (i. e. according to.the Chronicon,
of Eufebius, 279 years)4before that won
derful event, had ccnftrued the fame
prophecy iafiicha nianner, that it, could
not poflibly be applied; to any perfon
whatfoever except the prom.ifed Meffiah,
who ALONE WAS BORN OF:A VJRGIii I
, This-teftimony of, the Septuagintwas
taken notice of by Origen, (contra Cel-
I 2 fum
(28) The learned author, whom Dr. W-  Bis
has quoted in page ^\ , has made a yery neceffary re?
ferye on this head, which the Doftor ha3. omitted in
his quotation : 'viz. " But,- indeed, to. an a»«pptive
" mind, the difference will appear very great between
" the citations from prophane .authors .and, the, pro-
" phets." I

ftim (29), p. 27,) and is certainly of
greater authority, in favour of the^ true
fenfe of the word rtD^J^rt (rendered by
thetn wuf,$svog, 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, teftify the truth of this
reading j of which four, in particular, are
of confiderable authority, on account of
their very gfeat antiquity j viz. the Va
tican, Alexandrianj- Complutenfian, and
Venetian, MSS. And, thbiigh tnany
copies of the Scptuagint muft have been
in the hands of Jews, as well as others,
both before and after the birth of Chrift,
'- yet
(29) £«> ^ lu^ixi^ ivfia-tXnyu)!, to I^ i waffiinO., ^,)
yjIf«pSa» Aifii, aM.' an avrn, I^ i mam" fwai*» wooj
avroy, on i juif ^l|l^ i A'Kj/.a,, riv 01 ^» iCJo|W.))Ko>Ta /xiriiXij-
<pa<n «rpO{ T»i» wapSfCon, Uc, Quod fi Judxus, vocabul^
excutiens, negct fciiptum, Eccc 'virginem, kA Eece ado-
lefcentula, diclmusibi legi Vocem AlIha, (juant Septu-
aginta interpretes verterunt virginem, l^c. Cambridge
edition, 1677, p. 27.

E ^9^ 1 ^
yet I never heard that any perfon ever
produced B copy v^ch dbntradidted this
original reading j for, ^s the -Septuagint
v^S the common tranflation ufed in the
fynagogues, throughout all Afia, Greece,
and Egypt, (fee bifliop Walton's Prole
gomena ix. p. 60. N*. 15,) any alteration,
in fo remarkable a text as this, would
very foon have been difcovered.

.iii

And it, muft alfo be remen^bered, that
the feveral Greek tranflations, wherein
the word JID^JJH is rendered "vsavts, a young
woman, (vix. that of Aquila, Theodo-
tion, and Symmachus,) were' all made
i^er the birth of. Chrifi, when the unbe
lieving Jews were defirous of perverting
the true meaning of the prophecy.
- The ancient Syriac verlkm expreffes
n!2l7yn by the very -woxd^' (viz. jAikoAa,
from r^^Wia) which the Dodtqr fets up
inoppofitlon tpitj and which^ hejuftly
obferves.

I 70 ]
obferves^,muft . fignify ftridly a virgin.
(50). And, laftly, St. Matthew, ..whe-.
ther he quoted the original or Septuagint.
was certainly convinced that th^ true
fenfe of the word was isrpfp&evos, a virgin,,
and he hath accordingly left us his tefti
mony of.it J ,whi.ch proves, that the Doc
tor's application of this vvord, to the
mother of Ifaiah's fon, 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 avirgin-, zk^ bcr
C2Mk the _event itj elf (by which. the pro
phecy is beft underftood) has proved tHis
truth beyond all contradiction. Wherefore,
(jo) The Rabbins, always by n'ymj mean's kiir-
gin : that they well underftand their own language
tfannot be denied; Sa'A p. '20. — See alfo p. 25, wherej
Ipeaking of the S^tuaigii\t tra,nflation of Efther iii 2.,
he adds, '^. 'whence.it muft undeniably appear, that they
•v:»*%?o»i nutria 'Va »/«« a virgik, ih'theftria'eft
" fenfe of the •word."

[ 71 I
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
" S,T. Matthew," and, of courfe,
that the Dodor is indifpenfably bound to
yield up his hypothefis to the fuperior au
thority of the evangeliji.

The END of Part I.

A
DISSERTATION O N T H E
NATURE and STYLE
OF
PROPHETICAL WRITINGS:

SHEWING

That abrupt Tranfitions, from one Subjedl 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-

[ 15 ]

DISSERTATION

OK THE

NATURE and STYLE

O F

Prophetical Writings, ^c,
TitE prophecies, contained in the
fcventh,eighth, and ninth, chap
ters of Ifaiah, feem to have
been delivered during the general confter-
nation of the houfe of David, oecafioned
by the invafion pf Rezin, king of Syria,
and Pekah, king of Ifrael ; becaufe feve
ral circumftances, relating to the faid
kings and their refpedive 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 with the tranfa<ftions
of the (then) prefent times, that it would
not be eafy to diftinguifli the real differ
ence, in point of chronology, if the ap
parent accomplifliment of thefe feveral
prophecies did not remove the difficulty.
Rezin and Pekah are both particularly
mentioned in the 7th chapter, wherein
the extraordinary birth of the child Im
manuel is given as a fign. The fpoiling
of their refpedtive cities is promifed in the
8th chapter (2), wherein the birth of the
child
(i) Septimum, oflavum, et nonum, Ifaix caput in
eodem fere verfantur argumento, i^c. P. D. Huetii
Demonftratio E'vangelica, p. api.
(2) " For, before the child (Maher-ftjalal-haflj-haz)
ihall have knowledge to £ry, My father and my mother,
the riches of Damajcus and x!&c fpoil of Samaria fliall be
taken away before the king of Affyria." viii. 4. «' For-
afmuch as this people refufisth the waters of Shiloah,
that go foftly, and rejoice in Rexin and Remaliah' 3 fon;
now, therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth upon them the

t n \
child Maher-flialal-hafli-baz, the fon of
Ifaiah, is foretold, as the temporary fign
of the fame : and,- notwithftanding that
the greateft part of the faid chapter relates
to thofe times, yet the prophet introduces,
in the very midft of it, a plain reference
to the times of the Mefliah j fee 1 3th,
14th, J 5th, and 16th, verfes, which
Ihall be hereafter confidered. In the 9th
chapter, the prefumption of Ephrai7n and
the inhabitants of Samaria (3) is repro
ved, and God's judgements are once more
expreflly denounced againji Rezin, ^ as i£
thefe
the waters of the river, ftrong and many, even the
king Mi Affyria" i3c. — " And the ftretching out of
his wings fhall £11 the breadth of thy land, O Im*
manael." viii. 6, 7, 8.
(3) " And all the people ikall know, even Ephraim
and the inhabitants of Samaria, that lay, in the pride
and ftontnefs of heart. The bricks are fallen down,
but we will bniid with hewen ftones," tiff. ix. 9, ¦ 10.
" Therefore the Lord fliall fet up the adverfaries of
.R«a» againft him," {5'f. ix. 11. Thefe three verfes,
qth, loth, and 1 ith,.and alfo the 2lfl^, plainly ailude
to the fubjeS of the 7th chapter, wz. the evil counfel
and confederacy of Syria and Ephraim, and God's pro
mife that the fame (hould not ftand.

[ 78 1
thefe things were to happen after the
birth of the child that was to " be called
" Wonderjul, Counjellor, the mighty God,
" the everlafting Father, the Prince of
" peace, of the increafe of whofe govern-
" ment and peace there ftiould be no end,
" 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 ; 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
hiftorical circumftances, befides what are
already mentioned concerning Syria and
Ephraim j and thefe had either then late
ly happened, or were very fliortly to come
to pafs, notwithftanding that the allufion
is blended with a very diftant prophecy
concerning the preaching of Chrift, The

I 79 1
The circumftances, which I fpeak of,
are the Affyrian conqueft and t:aptivlty
of -Zebulun and Napthali, which hap
pened in the days of Pekah, king of If
rael (4). This was the affliction (5) ly
the " way of the fea, beyond Jordan, in Ga-
" //7^^,of thenations,"mentionedbyIfaiah,
ix. 1 . by which he expreflly points out
the very fpot, Galilee, where Immanuel
was chiefly to be manifefted 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
Tiglathpilefcr, king of Aflyria, and took Ijon, and
Abel-beth-maa-chah, and Janoah, and Kedelh, and
Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Nap
thali, and carried them captive to Aflyria." 2 Kings
%v. zg. ^ ,
(5) '* Neverthelefs, the dimnefs Ihall not be. fuch
as was in her vexation, when at the firft he lightly af-
flifted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Napthalit
and afterward did more grievoufly afflict her, by the
way of the fea, beyond Jordan, in Galike, of the na
tions." Ifaiah ix. I . " The people that walked in
^arknefs have feen a great light," i^c. ix. z.

[ 8o ]
*' darknefs (6) have feen a great light i
" they.that dwell in the land of the iha-
'• dow of death, upon them hath the light
*' Jhined." And afterwards, in the 6th
verfe, he renews the fame promifes, gi
ven in the 7th chapter, concerning the
birth of a divine child, whofe attribute?
and dignity are here fo fully exprefTed,
by the prophet, that they can by no
means agree with the character of any
other child but that which was truly Im-r
manuel, or. Gad with us. Therefore, it
is plain, that the prophecies of the 8tK
and 9th chapters were delivered nearly
at the fame time with thofe of the 7 th
chapter, which are farther explained and
(6) This correfponds with the prejudice which the
Jews conceived againft their brethren the Galilacans.
The chief Priefts and Pharifees anfwered Nicode-
mus, faying, " Search and .look; for out^of Galike
arifeth no prophet." John vii. 52. In like manner an-
fweted Nathaniel, when Philip told him, " We have
found him of whom Mofes, in the law, and the Pro
phets, did write, Jefus pf Nazareth, the fon of Jofeph."
And Nathaniel faid unto him. Can there any good thing
come out of Nazareth ? John i. 45, 46.

[ 8, 3
and cpnfirtned thereby j fo that, if Dr,
W- — -ms will carefully examine all thefe
three <:hapteFf, hft wiU find, that it is not
mufual {fi, in prophetic writings, to
?nak^ quick and abrupt tranfitions from
one, ftil^e^ to another, nor mnatwal,
that a very ^diftant prophecy fhould be
blended with others that were foon to be
accomplifljed j becapfe it is the natyre of
prophecy to be delivered in this myfterious
manner. For (fays Ifaiah, xxviii. lo.)
" precept muft be (or hath been) upon
** precept, precept upon precept, line up-
Part IL h " on

(7) See Dr. W  ms's comment on the opinion of
thofe who fay that the 14th, 15th, and 16th, verfes of
,tl>e viith chap, of Ifaiah contain two diftinfl prophecies.
•' Is not this (fays he) 'very unnatural ? apd, if I ain
not greatly miftaken, fiery unufual ?" p. 9.
But an experienced writer, who, on many Acca£oit«,
has given ample proofs of great learning and fcripture-
knowledge, infoFms us, that " it is •pery statural and.
"¦ 'very ufual, with the prophets, to make a tranjiiion
" from one great deli'verance to another, as alfo from one
"great deftrudion io another:" — and he afterwards
gives feveral remarkable inftatices of it; See Dr. Gre
gory Sharpe's zd 4rgumen,t in Defence of Chriftianity,
p. 255.

f 82 3
" on line, line upon line, here a little
" and there a little. For with ftammer-
" ing lips and another tongue will he
" fpeak (or he hath fpoken) to this peo-
¦' pie." 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 exprefTed in St. Mark's Gofpel
(8), iv. u, 12, 13. Wherefore, it is
our duty to afk God's affiftance, when we
read the fcriptures, that we may under
ftand them to our comfort, left they
fhould be a ftumbling-block to us, as
they
^8) " And, when he (Jefus) was alone, they ths^t
were about him with the twelve aiked of him the para
ble. And he faid unto them. Unto you it is given to
know the myftery of the kingdom o% God ; but, smia
fheia that are ivilhout, all thefe things are dent inparablts ;
that, feeing, they may fee apd not perceive ; and,
hearing, they may hear and not underftand; left at any
time they fliould be converted, and their fins fliould he
forgiven them. And he faid unto them> know ye not
this parable ? and how then will you know all para
bles i The fo wer foweth," is'c Mark i v. 10—13.

[ 83 J
they were to the unbelieving Jews. But
not only the fcriptures, even Chrjft him
felf, became a ftone of ftumtling to tlie
jews : for, about the time of his coming,
they univerfally expedted a glorious and
triumphant Meffiah to riile over them j
infbmiich, that Herod the Great was ex
ceedingly alarmed with the apprefienfion
of fo powerful a dompetitor/or the throne
of David. But, when " the defire of all
" nations" (fee Haggai ii. 7.) was really
come, his humble appearance, meeknefs,
and difinterefted, though interefiing^ doc
trine, did not in the leaft correfpond with
their worldly imaginations ; fo that " he
*' was in the world, and the world was
** made by him, and the world knew him
*' not : be came unto his own, and his own
*' received , him not."., John i. 16, ii.
For the Jews did not then confider (any
more than they do at prefent) that the
humility of the Meffiah was as expreflly
foretold by the prophets as his glory.
L 2 "'m»

[ 84 ]
" tJ^ho hath believed our report T' fays
Ifaiah, in chap. liil. when he is about to
defcribe the humility, afflidions, and
death, of the Mefliah. " He hath no
" form nor comelinefs ; and, when we
" fhall fee him, there is no beaaty that
*' we fhould defire him : he is defpifed
** and rejeSled of men," &c. Sfee the
whole chapter (9).
The Jews could not reconcile this ttn->
expiefted humility with that glor ipus cha-»
rafter which they fo long looked for and
dcfired, viz. " a king that Jhmdd reign
" andprrfper j" whom " th lard" (Je
hovah)
(9) " who can read th« oracle and not allow Ifaiah
" to have been, v/hat he is fometimes called, the
•' EvanjjelicM Prophet ? Is tot this-pfophecy, in evt-
<* ry part, as applicable to Jefus as is the account gi-
" ven of him by the holy Evangdilts ? Couli it have
*' been expreflediftftrongei^or clearer terms ifvwitten
" after the event I And yet it was delivered above 700
«' years before the birth of Jefiis." I)r. Gregory 'Sharpest
•»4 Argtimnt in Defence of Chriftiahity, p. 2J2.

C 85 ]
hnvah) promifed by Jereittiah (10) t<s
" raife up unto Ddvidy' and who islike-
wife
(10) " Behold tie" days come, faith the Lord,
fnirp'5'«8«*«l,y that twill raife ttfrto Bavid! a l'fg^^»
ttoilB brakch, and a hi^Jlrtdl reign andpra^r, and fl^aU
execute judgement and juftice in the earth. I« his
days Jtcdah fliall be lived, And Ifrael fliall dwell
fafely : and tl^ is his Iftme whereby he fliall be called,
The Lord (Jehrvab \\'\\V'') cr righteoitfnefs." Jeremiah
xxiii. 5, 6. Se% alfo xxxiii. i6. — Where the fame
title (mrP) is given to the Branch wf rrghteoofhefs
mentioned in the preceding verfe. — <^pmpare with
thefe chap. xix. 9. — " And the^ lliall feWe the tord
tbeit God Qi^tVTfM iX\W) and' Ban/id ihtirM^,"
(' I'^^p ^^ nSI) ."whom I will Mife up nnt©
them." — The comparing of thefe texts fogether has
oecafioned the foHowiftg rems^i which I find wrote
with a pencil in the margin of my Hebrew Bible, J- fup.
pofe, by fome former owner of it. " MelSas voca-
'« bitnr Diivid fetundnm carnem, Java fcgpundam di-
" vinitatem." — i.e. " Chrift fliall be called UstoV
" with relpeft to hi/hQifian nature, ziii. JdtiPOdBsfiith
" rdped tx> his divinity." — The divinity of the Met
fiah may be clearly proved, by a multitude of other
pafl^ages, even in the Old Teftament. Thwefore* it
behoves the authors of the Critical Re'oienja ferioafly to
confider how thofe men can be jnftified who refufe the
Swi of God the honour due unto his name ; fince " the
F^ber hath committed, alljudgtmtnt unto tl» Son, that ai
menjhtuld honour the Son ewn as th^ honour the Father.'^
Johnv. 12, 23.

[ 86 ]
wife called (as a name the moft fuitabltf
to the only begotten Son of God) " the
" Lord" (Jehovah) " our righteoufnefs."
This unfortunate mifapprehehfion was
plainly foretold by Ifaiah, when he warn
ed the people to "fanBify the Lord of
" hofis himfelf," (iTonpn inN n^wy mnr
Dn) i and (fays he) " let him be your
*' fear, and let him be your dread."
Now, what perfori could the prophet
mean by this glorious title (mfcOy nirT*
Jehovah Sabaotb) if not the Meffiah ? for
he Immediately adds, " and he fhaH be
" for a fenftuary, but (or, rather, and)
*• for a ftone of ftumbling, and for a
" rock of offence, to both the houfes of
" Ifirael, fot agin and for a faare to the
" inhabitants
A do&rine very 6ppofite to this is approved and
tommended in the loth article of the Critical Refviezo
for May, 1 760 ; whereby it appears that the author oi"
Authors of that recommendatory criticifm were not fuf-
ficiently armed againft the dangerous and- pernicious doc-*
rines of the book which they undertook to recommend,
viz. 'The Trinitarian Contrmitrfy re-vie'wed; or a Defence
of the Jppealto the Cammon-Senfe of all Chriftian People^

[ 87 ]
^*i inhabitants of Jerufalem. And many
." among them (hzWfiumble and fall, and
?• be broken, and be fnared, and be taken.
" Bind up the tefiimony, feal the law a-
*• mong my difciples." Ifaiah 13-!— 1 6.
We have the teftimony of St. Paul, In his
Epiftle to' the Romans, ix. 33. ( 1 1 ), that
this text relates to Chrifi j for he has there
blended a part of it with another quota
tion from Ifaiah xxviii. 16. (12). St.
Peter
(11)  " for xhey ftumbled zt \hatftumbling-ftonei
<' as it is written. Behold, I lay in Sion a fumbling
'f ftone zad'roci of offence: and \yhofoever helieveth oa
•' him ftiall not be aft)dmed." Rom. ix. 32, 33.
(12) " Therefore, thus faith the Lord God, Behold,
'« I lay in Zion, for a foundation, ay?ea«, a. tried ftone,
«« a precious corner ftone, a fure foundation : he that
«• believeth fliall not make -&<«/??," (TDTT N^) thatis,
he fliall not be fubjeft to that kind of hafte which is
commonly the effeft of fear. Therel'ore the Syriac-
yerfion has rendered it W^^^ \1 pall not be afraid %
which is very' expreffive of' the Prophet's meaning.
The LXX have rendered it a /^ij y.a.ra.ta-^vv^7i ; and St.
. Paul, a xaraia-xvi^i'Tiia't that is, ftjall n:t be aftiamed;
which is ilill more expreffive of a ratan^'s being free from
|hat hafte or confufion caufed by fear. JVo/ fo be apame4

[ 88 )
Feter likewife quotes it, in his firft Epif-
thi'iu 8. (13), and applies it to Chrift.
And indeed it can mean no other than
" Qnfi crucified" who (as St, Paul in
forms us) was ^* to the Jews a fiumkH^ig
" block, arid unto the Greeks foolifhnefs."
I Cor. i. ^3. But, notwithflanding thefe
plain teftlmonies. Dr. W*- — -.^ras is of a
very different opinion. *' Ifaiah does not
" feem" (fays the Dr, in a note, p. 32)
" to fpeak of the Mefliah 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 reafon? againft
the common interpretat'ion of the viith
chapter
is frequently put for nut to far,. They fhajl not be
aJhaTued \n xhs e-vil time, fays the Pfalip'fti xxxvii. 19.
and again — they fliall not be aftjamed, but thl^y fll^'l
fpeak with the enemies in the g^ta. Pfalm cxxvij, 5.
This I hope is fufliciient to reconcile the feemipg dif-
agreeroetit between theprjgiijal and St. Paul's ijuotatioii.
(13) " And a. ftone of ftumbling, «nd a rock of offfiifee,
" even to them which ftumble at the word, being di&«
" bedient, whereunto alfo they were appointed."

[ % I
cba^Jter (on a'ccount of •* the prefent ordeP,
" and abrupt tranfitkn" which he com*
plains of in p. lo) were at all ceneltffi'Oe,
the fame would hold good likewife againft
the common interjMretation of this kth
chapter; wherein the /r^^^fz'iWM from one
fiibjecS to another are equally abrupt, 2tvA
the remote events, cencerning the birth
and preaching of the Meffiah, are fere*
told, even before other events, *! which
" were immediately, or very Jhortly, to
^^ happen.". (Seep. 9.)
The Dr. may be right enough in his
eb&rvation, that there are »o inftane^
** of remote figm to prove the aocomplifh-
" ment of an event near at hand:" (fee
pages 9 and lo.) But it is plainly his
own miftake which chafes the dtffieulty
that he fpeaks of ; for the fi^, given by
Ifaiah, of the birth ol Immanuel, (^iz. be
hold, a virgm fhall tcmcSre, &c.) was
not a remote fign of an event near at hand.
Part II. M (as

[ 9° l"
(as the Dr. fuppofes,). but a remote fign p^
aremfitfevent, 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, -, different, I fayi both
with refpedt to the matter and the time of
accomplifhment. . J
There are alfo piany inftances of pafTa^
ges which bear a double conftruftion, be
ing partly . applicable to fome particular
perfon, expreflly mentioned, thbugh they
.ultimately, and chiefly relate to ^nothet
very different pbrfpn. , .1. "
The prophecy of Nathan, concerning
vSolomon, is of this kind. " He fhall
*f build an^oufe for my name, apd I vyiU
f* eftablifh tjtie throne of his kingdom fop
f ,' ever. I -will be- his , father, and he

r 91 I
*' fhall be my fon." 2 Sam. vii. i^,' 14*
King David hiiiifelf explained this more
particularly to:his fon Solomon, and ap
plied it to him, I Chron. xxii. 9. faying,
" for his name fhall be Solo'mon," (fee
the margin '.nob^ " peaceable ^,1 agrceabld
to Chrift's title, mentioned in the ixth
chapter of Ifaiahj viz. czDiyvT? "iix; Prince
o£ peace,) " "and I vv'ill give peace and
*' quietnefi unto Ifrael in his days. He
" fhall build an houfe for my nam6, and
" he fhall be'^yy^owi and I will hehisfa-
" ther, and I will eftablifh the throne of
" his kingdom over Ifrael j^r everT But
where has the throne of Solomon been
eftablifhed, for near 1800 years laft paftj
if not in Jefus Chrifi, the fpiritual Solo
mon and prince of peace f . For, though
this prophecy plainly, related to Solomon,
yet it referred to a farther accomplifh'-
ment in the Meffiah, by whom alone
it could be perfectly fulfilled j and there
fore apart of it is applied immediately to
M 2 Chrift,

r 92 ]
Ohfift, by. St. Paul, in his Epiftle to the
Hebrews, i. 5, " V v^ill be to him A
« father, and be fhald be tome a fon."
Of the fame kind is the ixxiid pfahn,
dedicated to Soltfmon. '* They fhall fear
" tbee as long as the fun and moon endure,
** throughout all glnermion^' This is, in
deed, applied to Solomon -, but, as the
reign of that monarch was merely ten^o-
r^l, the prophecy cannot be faid to be
fttlfilled In any other ptrfbn befides the
Meffiah hmi^; the true nfi^UJ (Solo
mon) who reigns, according to the Pfa^Im-
ift's ejcpreffion, " fhrm^hout all germvi'
" ticns." The prtjpijet Haggai, schap. n. promi
fe ZerubbdM, gmkrmf- -(f Judah, md
yojhaa, the high-priefi, in the name ^
'the Lord iiphofis, «hat'"/;&^ defire df all
** nations Jhall come," and that 'he (the
Ld*^d of hofts) « ^llf^l fhis'hcufe" ¦ (tlisHt is.

f 93 ]
is^ the houfe which they were ^stndeted to
build) " with glory." v, 7. And he
adds, in the 9th verfe, " The glory of
** this latter houfe fhall be greater than
" of the former, faith the Lord Qffe<als :
" and in this |>l«ce will I ^give p^ce
" (C3"i^y3|nfc») faith the .Lord of h®fts.''
Neverthele^ in the former part of the
fame chapter, the prophet appeals to
thofe who had feen the " houfe in J^r
" ^rft glory. And how^(fays he) do you
" fee it now ? Is it not, in your eyes,, in
" comparHbn of it, as Jioiiiing?" v. 3.
Thus it is plain that the glogr>of the fecond
houfe did not confift either in the grandeur
of the building laid out by Zerubbabel
and Joftiua, or in the prefence.of thofe
great and holy men, notwithftanding that
the prophecy is addreffed to them both,
and that Zerubbabel is fpoken to by God
in a Very remarkable manner;, at the con-
clufion of the fame chapter, vhs. " I will
" take

t 94 ]
•' take thee, 0 Zerubbabel, my ferv'ani,
" the fon of .Shealtiel, faith the Lord j
" and wilt make thee as a fignet; for I
" have chofin'ihee, faith the Lord of
" hofts." But the glory was manifeftly
to confift in the " future coming, &c. of
" the defire of .all nations." For, as the
promife was made to Zerubbabel and Jo-
fhua themfelves, the prophecy muft ne-
CefTarilv be underftood to have a more
diftant accomplifhment j which, indeed,
the beginning of the fentence fufficiently
proves, ^iz. 0«Dy;i? Dt* ^y^j^lC UNi nti
cya nnti niy Tet once, it is a little while,
and I will Jhake the heavens, &c. Hag
gai ii. 6, J.
The prophet Zachariah likewife pro
mifes great things to Zerubbabel and Jo-
Ihuai which he applies perfoaally to
them, as builders of the temple, though
the fame relate ultimately to Chrift. See
chap. iv. 6 — lo. See

[ 95 I
. See alfo chap. vi. ii, iz, 13, wherein
Jolhua, by his name, (^Tum"' which the
LXX. render Iij<r»?, Jefus, fignifying a S^'
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 branch, of whom he
foretold, that he fhould " grow up out
" of his place," and- " build the temple
" of the Lord."
Jofhua might, indeed, be faid to build
the temple, as well as Zerubbabel, but he
could only be a type of the branch there
promifed, becaufe the real branch was
yet to grow up out of his place ( 14).
The
(14) '^ And fpeak unto him (Jofljua) faying. Thus
*' fpeaketh the Lord.of hofts, laying. Behold the man
" whofe name is the ^/-<z«^j& ; a.ni. he Jhall^rotu up out ^
". kiiP^''."^ and he Jh^ll baild the temple of the Lord,"
i^c. Zech. vi. 1 2.

[ 96 ]
The crowns were given "/flr a memo-
" rial in the temple of the Lord" (not of
die accomplifhment of this prophecy in
the perfon of Jofhua, but "for a memo-
" rial,") of whzt Jhottld afterwards " come
*'¦ topafi" if the pe&^e would diligenify
obey the voice of the Lord their God (15).
Thus we find that Solomon, Zerubbabel,
^ndjojhua, as builders of the temple, were
types of the Meffiah, the true builder of
thefwr/dT^m^TEMFLE OF GoDj I mean,
the Holy Catholic Church, properly
{it) fo called, ** built upon the founda-
" tion
(i ;) " And the crowns fliell be to Helem and to
•« Tobijah, fcff. .r- for a memorial in the temple of the
« Lord. And they that aw far oS fliall come and
« build in the temple of the Lord, ^and ye fliall know
" that the Lord of hofts hath fent me unto you. And this
" ftiall comi to p»ii (csi* iTm njjc^n swd©)
" if ye •will diligently obey the 'voice of the Lord your
" Gvd." Zech. vi. 14, 15.
. (i6)- The clbrch of Rome if very impnperly caKed
the CathtUt Church, becaafe fteeanfes a contradiflion
ia terms, by afurpiBgthat^mr«/ title to herfelf alone,
when, at the feme titnc, iSfe ftSiicely feem* intUled to
be

[ 97 ]
" tion of the Apoftles and Prophets ; Je-
" sus Christ himfelf being the chief
Part II. N " corner-
be efteemed 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 fincerity of their in
tentions, yet, " What agreement hath the temple of God
" ivith idols?" (2 Corinth, vi. i6.) Wherefore,
"¦ Come out cf her," (ye people of God,) " that ye be
" not partakers of her fins, and that ye receive not of
" her plagues." Rev. xviii. 4. She hath perverted the
laiu of God (like the Scribes and Pharifees of old) by
h&x traditions — " forbidding to marry, and comma?iding
" to abftain from meats, which God hath created to be
" received luith tbankfgi'ving.of them luhich belie've and
" knonja the truth." — Which St. Paul (i Tim. iv. i.)
exprefsly called doSrines of de'uils. She hath defiled the
catholic femple of God, by building, upon the true
foundation, " •wood, bay, JiMle;" 'viz. infallibility,
purgatory, oftentatious penance, mercenary pardons
and indulgences, invocation ef faints, exorcifms
(" exorcifmus aqme ;" — " exorcifmum falis." — " Ex-
" orcizo te, creatura falis," — " aqu^e," See. Seethe
Miffak, publiflied by the joint-authority of the popes. Pius
^inius, Clement the Sth, and Urban the SthJ of holy.
water and fait, benediftions of candles, table-cloths,
towels, (Sff. baptifm of belh, and fuch other fpiritual
•witchcraft-  praying and bowing before images and
flirines, reverencing dead mens bones, and other fuch
abominable things, i^c. &c. Thefe are no part of the
/oa«rf'tf/j»a '(mentioned above) of the Apoftles and Pro
phets, wBofe writings warrant no fuch idolatry, exorcifms, or

[ 98 1
•• corner-ftorie j in whom all the build-
" ing, fitly framed together, grbVveth unto

or enchantments : and therefore evtn the Holy Scriptures
themfel<ues are prohibited, in the popifli Index E'xpurga-
torius. This laft is, indeed, a precaution neceflkry to
the exiftence of fuch dodrinee; for, if the poor delu
ded people were permitted to read the Scriptures, they
would foon he informed that there is but " One Media-
" tor between God and man, the man Chrift Jefut j"
(l Tim. ii. $.) and that " there is ttone other name av-
" der hea'yen gi'ven among men 'whereby t/ie muft befa'ved."
A£ls iv. 12. O that thofe men, who ihVoke tht medi
ation of all faints and tmgels, (notwithftanding the plain
doflrine of $t. Peter, quoted above,) woiild confider
vhat a grofs affront, by this execrable fer¬vice, they offef
to Chrift, who alone is the nvay, and the truth, and
the life/ For their daily prayers witnefi againft them,
that they do not efleem the mediation efVirffi fufficient
for them, otherwife tfaey would not, like the idolatrous
Ifraelites of old, invoke <' all the hoft of heanien."
zKingsxvii. i6. The Church if Rome has endea
voured to cloak this abominable worfliip with the fubtle
diftinflionsof/o/WaandtAi/M; but the neceffity of fuch
fophiftical arguments proves the reality of that church's
backfliding to idolatry. Heathen Rome was liot more
guilty of this crime, nor hath Ihed more innocent Mood
in defence oi fuch abamiuathnt, under the old pagan
emperors, than the prefent Church of Rome has done,
fince her Bijhops have affumed their fiat-, that is, have
poileiTed themfelves of the temporal, as well as eccleftaf-
tical, jurifdiftion of thiit ancient city. So that the
Church of Rome may, indeed, be faid to haw mounted the

[ 99 1
*• an h^ly temple in the Lord :" in whom
" you (Epfe*fians) alfo are builded toge-
" ther for an habitation of God through
" the fpirit." Ephef. ii. ao, aij 22.
Goroparc the above-mendoned texts
with I Cor. fii. 11. John ii. 18 — 22.
Luke XX. 17,18. A(as iv. 11. Pfalm
cxviii.22. Ifaiah xxviii. 16.
|t would make a large srolume, if I
were to icpl|e<3: all the proj^cies which
N _2 abfo-
^MfcarLt-toloured htatft,full of names of ^Ic^^emy j (RpT^
xvii. 3.) and is, ^ccordipg^y, mofl truly defcribed, ^y
St. JiBim, as a. 'woman drunken •with the blood ef the faints,
and •with fk' tjfo^ of the martyrs of Jefus.
Archbifhop Cranmer, the bifliojps Ridley, Laitimej*,
Hooper, anda great multitude of other worthy tnglifti-
meu, have fufiered under her diabolical tyranny. '
Indeed, the hifiories of all other European kingdoj^s
ju« fraiight with wofiil examples of it. In Sully^ Me
moirs (cli^.-v.'^ 9.) we read that a popfii praye^>
book {" ti-vre de gicoffes hejires") ferved as a paffport a-
mfiHg the ^loedy meffengers of ptjpift: vengeance, at
the maffacre of the Huguenots, at Paris. " TuS, TuS,
" 6 Huguenot, 6 Huguenot,** was the devilifti watch
word !
O that the living members oithat Church may difcern,
and repent of, their «ffsrn«»/ errors before it be too late!

[ loo ]
abfolutely relate to two different and dif-
tin<3: fubjedls 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 \&'not pofflble indeed to re-
*' concile Matthew ii. 15. 23. and per-
" haps fome other pafiages in his gofpel,
" with any particular prophecy now extant
" in the Old Teftament." As to the 15th
verfe, wherein St. Matthew quotes the
Prophet Hofeaxi. i. {** out of Egyptbave I
" called my fin,") 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 paft, and therefore could
« not be fulfilled when the child Jesus
came out of Egypt." Now,

cc

[ loi ]
• Now, in one refped:, the Dr. is right,
viz. that the paffage, with regard to the
people of Ifrael, " is a declaration of an
" event long pafi" neverthelefs, he has
not affigned any reafon why the fame
paffage may not, likewife, contain a i^xo-
^ec^ of a future event, by being intend-
edi like many other prophecies, to bear
a double application.
Erafmus has afljgned a reafon for the
error of Julian the apoftate, concerning
this text, viz. " that he has too much
*' followed the feptuagint edition ; nimi-
*' rum fecutus editionem fiptuagintaf
(fays he,) " qui locum hunc tranftale-
" runt in hunc modum, qaiz parvulus
" Ifrael, et egodilexi eum, et ex ./Egypto
'* vocavi filios ejus." (Annot. in Mat-
thffium, p. 250.)

I 102 3
A raifunderftanding of this text is very
excufable, likewife, in the a»thor6 of that
Greek verfion, who coulct not eafily com
prehend, before the event, that the Mef
fiah flufold be palled out of JEgypt, as the
children of 10*^1 had been before him }
and therefore they* rendered the pafiT^geln
fuch a manner as they thought vt^ould bpft
point out the application of it to the peor
pie of Ifrael only ; »«« e^ Kiy\m\\t lAejsr-
»«6Xs<r« Tfit Tsxvct eajjst, " and out of Egypt
" have I called his children"
But, \ft!l:ieprophef^fnfelfhzdinttt^ed
the fame thing, and that unly, he .would,
moft likely, have made ufe of term^
more expreffive of a nation, or pet^k,
than ©f a finglfi perfin -, {"from Bigyp^
" have I called nfyfon," — ) ^nd th^n the
Greek interpreters would not have been
obliged to leave the literal fenfe of
the original ivf- order to adapt it, with
propriety.

propriety, to the people ef Jfiael; which
proves, that fonie fingle peifon is more
patticularly pointed at, by the prophet,
than the people of Ifrael.
There are^ indecdi many plffages tS
ScT0>ture wherein nations are ft?pfe&nted
by fingle perfons: Ezekiel warned the
tw^ boifes of Ifr-ael under the figtire oF
two adulterous women, Aholah and A^
h<£bah, &c. But the text in queftion is
very diflPercnt from many others of that
kmd ; for the pec^le of Ifrael are not on
ly reprefented tiicrein under the figure of
a Jingle ferjhn, but fome eminent fing?e
perfen is likewife plainly reprefented, at
the fame time, under the name SinA figure
of the people of Ifrael ', of which the par-
ticalarity of the fb^Ie affords evident tefti-
monys onyDDi vnan&fi ^tti^** nw '•3 'Jisb
TiNTP ** when Ifrael was a little child,
" and I loved him, and out of Egg^t
?* have I called my fin." But the follow ing

[ I04 3
irg part of the text, wherein Ifrael could
not be a type of the Mefliah, (I mean,
their forf^king God's commandments and
facrificing to Baal,) is immediately ex
prefTed in the plural number, as being ap
plicable to the children of Ifrael only,
and not to Chrift j onODD t2^n?3Dn!?
"ifcJtP jiTDP' 0'!70B^i inap o^^ya^ " as
" they called them, Jo . they vfeni from
" tbem: /i6^ facrificed unto Baalim, and
*' burnt incenfe to graven images." Ho
fea 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 firfi began
to be efteemed a nation, and therefore
might, as a type of Chrift, be likened to
a little child, being young and weak, in
comparifon of their future fiate and pow
er. And, adly, it is undoobtedly very
applicable to the flngle perfon of the Mef
fiah, who was alfo called by God out of
IB^gypt when he was really a little child
('7)>

(ly), according to the plain literal mean
ing of the paffage referred to by St. Mat
thew, who quoted. the fenfi of the Hebrew
text, and not that of the Septuagint ver
fion. The child, mentioned by Hofea ziba-
ving been called ( 1 8) 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 neceffarily given, in the pro
phecy, that the application might be
Part II. O double;
.(17) Before he could ino'w to refufe the lint and choofe
the good ; the land being then forfaken of both her tinge,
according to Ifaiah's prophecy, vii. 16. For the an
gel's meflage (or call of Chrift out of Egypt) was deli
vered to Joleph upon the death cf king Herod the Great,
at which time, precifelj, the laft of the t'wo monarchies
was difiblved.
(18) The prophecy was, indeed, delivered in the
perfea tenfe, as a thing already paft ; but this did not
prevent the application of it to the future Meffab, be-
caafe the perfea tenfe is almoft as freqiiently nfed, by
the prophets, in declaring futurity, even a; the future
itfclf.

[ io6 ].
dpuble; vii^. firft to the people of Ifrael,
and laftly to the Mefliah.
The Mefliah is expreflly cgUed Ifrael
by Ifaiah, (xlix. 3.) in a prophecy which
cannot, at all, be applied to the peo/de of
Ifrael, like the former, but muft rdate
entirely to Chrift : viz. " ^bou art my
" fervant, O Ifrael, in wdiom 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 fer
ry for the neceffity of a long quotation
from this chapter, becaufe it will ccmvey
a very clear and difhn(^ ideaof the birth
and office of the Meffiah, at the flame
time that it proves the point in queflion.
" Liften, O ifles, unto me, and hear
ken, ye people from far -, the Lord hath
called

t 167 ]
calleJme fr;om the womb (19), from the
bowels of my mother hath he made mention
6{ my name [20). Arid he hath made
my mouth like ajharpjword (21 ) j In the
fhaddw of his hand hath he hid me, and
made me a polijhed Jhaft ; in his quiver
hath he hid me, and faid unto me, 'thou
art my fervant, O Ifrael, in whom I will
be glorified. Then \faid, /have labour
ed in vain, /have/pent my ftrength for
naught and in vain, yet furely k/j judge
ment is with the Lord, and my wprk with
0,2 my
" (ig) — <« the angel of ths-Lord appeared unto him
" (Jofeph) in a dream, faying, Jofeph, thou fon of
" Da'vid, fear not to take untb thee Mary thy Wire,
" for that which is conceived in her is of the' Holy-
" Ghoft : and flie fliall bring forth a fon, and thou (hah
" call his name Tc/a.;;" (Wow«; yiTD' a Sa'viourJ ;
" for he. ftiall fd-ve .A/j -people from their finsi" Matt.
i. 20, 21.
(20)  " and behold, (faid. the angel,) thou flialt
«' conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and
« flialt call his name 7«/««" (Luke i. 31.)
(21) — « he ftiall finite the earth wiih the rod of
" his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he ftiall
" flay the wicked." Ifaiah xi. -^. See the context alfo.

[ io8 ]
my God. And now, faith the Lord,
that formed me from the womb to be his
fervant, to bring Jacob again to him,
though Ifrael be not gathered," (here is a
plain prophecy that blindnefs, in part,
fiould happen to Ifrael,) '• yet fhall I be
glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my
God fhall be my ftrength. And he faid,
it is a li^ht thing that thou fhouldeft be my
fervant, to raife up the tribes of Jacob,
and to reftore the preferved of Ifrael ; I
will alfo give thee for a light to the Gentiles
(22), that thou mayeft 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 wliom the nation ab-
horreth,
(22) " I, the Lord, have called thee in righteouf-
" nefs, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee,
" and give thee ioc a co'venant of the people, for a light
" of the Gentiles, to open the blind ryes," fjc. Ifaiah
xlii.- 6, 7. " A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the
" glory of thy people Ifrad." Lukeii. 32.
(23) " He is defpifed iXii. rejeded of men, a man of
«' forrows, and acquainted with grief ; and we hid, as
.. it

[ IC9 ]
horreth, to a fervant of rulers," &c. —
Thus far may, perhaps, be fufficient to
Ihew the nature and defign of the prophe
cy. Laiah has introduced the important
fubjed as the narrative of a dialogue be
tween two diftinft perfons, who are both
mentioned in this laft (the 7th) verfe;
viz. " the Lord, (nwj the Redeemer of
« Ifirael," and « his Holy One, (ir-.-ip)
" whom man dtjpifeth," and who is ahb
called I/rael, in the former part of this
chapter. Now, it is remarkable, that
the pec^le of Ifrael, or tribes of Jacob,
are likewile di;liad;ly mentioned in the
fame prophecy ; fo that the perfon, to
whom the Lord fiid, " Uku art my fer~
" I-.?;/'', O frci!" (fee 3d verfe,) cannot
mean any o.her perfa;i ' cfides the Mefli
ah himfelf, he a'cne bsing the true "light
" to ligttdn the Gcfitiks, an 2 the ghry if

bis

" it were, oar feces f.: n him ; ie ws? c{f-z'iJ, acd ^e
' ** efteemed him n:'.. £ irely he ii5c^ borne c 17 griefs,"
iSc. lisiah liiL 3, 4.

« his pioplehR AEL." For, though thd
Jnoijh Religion was, for many agdsi »hft
only tmt religion, yet tha Gentiles wer« not
induted, univei'fally, to acknowlftd^c tit*
trtith df the holy Scriptures, by becoming"
profelytfts to Judaijki but by beifig convvNi
to Chrifi, by Whoiti alone th«y have been
enlightened accof'dirig to tlie Scriptures.
If all thofe things be torifldered, thcjf
will (I doubt not) afford foflicient prsof,
that the textj quoted by St« Matthew
frotn Hbfea xi. i. (though introduced In
a context abfolutely relating tb the pedpli
of IJraelj) was, heverthelcfs, pfdjihcti-,
idlly intended to be applied liketfVife to
iome fingle perfon, &nd diat the falntt wa«
eminently fulfilled in. the perfoh of JeJili
ChHJl, the Only begotten Son of God^
Whom the Father cdlled out bfE^ypt by
his angel. Jacob, and the children of
IJrael, may, indeed, be called the Sons of
God, but it muft be in a very different
fenfe from the former ; for they are only
types

f III ]
iypis .of the true Ifraeh (btil^') the
Prince pf Godj who gave this name t^
Jacob, when he wreflijed with him, tljaf
he might render him more confpjcuoufly
a type of himfelf j viz. as one that had
" power with God, a^d with meny and
"¦ lifd prevailfd." Jacob was fenfible of
the 4i'oine frefinc^y and therefore called
the name of the place Peniel, {^m ijs) or
(as it is exprefled in the naafgin) the face
of God; for (faid he) ¦' 1 have feen God
" face to face, and my Irfe is preferved."
Gen. zxxii. 28, 29, 30.
I have already faid fb much concerning
the nature of prophepy in general, and
have quoted fo many examples of two
different fubjeSs being referred to by one
imd the fame prpphetical exprpfilon, that
(I hope) I need not any longer urge the
reafbnablenefs of a double application,
likewife, of the text quoted by St. Mat
thew from the prophet Hofea j efpecial-

r 112 ]
ly as Dr. W  ms has not affigned any
one reafon why it ought to be otherwife ;
nor any authority whatfoever for his affer-
tion, in page 39, that the paffage " could
" not be fulfilled when the child Jefus came
" out 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 tefiimo-r
ny even of an Evangelifi.
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 fiall be called a Nazarene."
This is one of the texts concerning which
the Dr. affirms, in page 3 8, that " it is not
" pofiible io reconcile" (it) "with any par-
" ticular prophecy now extant in the Old
" Tefiament." But he is greatly mifta
ken in this ; for the text may certainly
be reconciled not only with one prophecy, but

[ ^'3 ]
but with many very particular prophecies
" now extant in the Old Tefiamenty and
therefore St. Matthew a^ppeals vfith great
propriety, in this cafe, not to one prophet
alone, but to the fenfe of all the prophets
in general, viz. ro '^iti^sv Stx~ tuv -jr^o^i^av,
that " which wzsjpoken by the prophets"
For, though the prophets do not fay
exprefHy that " he fiall he 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
David, according to the Scriptures (24).
He was fometimes called N»^«^a<(^ (25),
Part II. P and

(24) " But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though
¦ " thoa be little among the thoufands of Judah, yet
••¦ out of thee fliall he come forth unto me that is to be
" ruler in Ifrael; whofe goings forth have been from of
" old, from everlafting," Micah v. 2. Compare this
with Matt. ii. 5. and John viL 42.
(25) Mark X. 47. Luke xviii. 37. xxiv. 19. John
xviii., 5. x,ix. 19. and feven times in ^its.

[ "4 ]
and fometimes Na^a/jijv®- (26) ; fynony-
mous terms for a Nazarene or inhabitant
oi Nazareth; which (as Dr. Hammond
expounds it) fignifies " The City of the
" Branch, or where the Mefliah (the
" Branch) fhould be brought up ; and
" accordingly (fays the Dodlor) this be-
" comes Chrift's vulgar title, Na^w^ «<©'"
— — " Na^aaiji/®-," £?<;.
Now the Meffiah is called nnv the
Branch by Ifaiah iv. 2. Jeremiah xxiii. 5.
and Zechariah iii. 8.
A plant, or branch, 15 the ufual fcrip-
ture-emblem for a child. ¦ " Thy
" children, like olive' branches-, round a-
" bout thy table," fays the Pfalmift in
the cxxviiith Pfalm, 3d verfe: and, in
Ffain? cxliv. 12. we read — " that our
" fins may grow up as the young plants"
Therefore the prophets very fitly expreff-
* ' ed
(26) Marki. 24. xiv.67. xvi.6. and Luke iv. 34.

[ ti5 ]
ed the childhood and growth of the Mef
fiah by the word wyi before-mentioned j
for it properly fignifies, not only a Branchy
but Germen, a Bud, or young twig;
which Ifaiah farther explains, in the liiid
chap. 2d verfe, by the word PJi' a ten
der plant, or flicker ; which is not only a
fit emblem of the once infant fiate of the
Meffiah, but alfo of his gradual increafe
in ftrength and wifdom : for " he fhall
" grwo up before him (fays the prophet)
" as a tender plant, and as a root out of
" a dry ground ;". by which he affigns
the true reafon of Chrift's being called
the Branch, Indeed this whole chapter
contains fo perfed a defcription of Chrift's
human ftate upon earth, that no miracle
or demonfhation whatfoever can be more
capable of affording conviftion ; and,
confequently, thofe, who have read it
and flill difbelieve, are inexcufeable. The
prophet Zechariah (vi. 12.) fpeaks of
the growth of Chrift, the Branch, in the
P 2 fame

[ n6 ]
fame kind cf terms, r.-Z'r vrvnnCA " He ,
•* Jhall grovf up cut of bis phcc ;" or, as
it is properly rendered in the rnargin, —
«' he ftiall i;ru!;cb ftp from under him."
Moreover, this prophet foretold, in the
fame veril-. that lie fhould be named the
Branch. —  '-O r]L): ^\< HJH " Bc-
" hold the man (27), \\ho(cfsawe\s the
" Branch;" plainly .lUuding, by the fenfe
(though not the found) of this appella-
t on, to Chrift's being furnamcd (28) the
Nazarene, from Nazareth, the city of
the Branch.
But Ifaiah, in the xith chap, ift verfe,
not only alludes to the fenfe and meaning -^ of
(27) Zechariah commanded that this prophecy fliould
be fpoken to Jofliua (or Jefus) the high-prieft, in the
time of Zerubbabel ; but 1 have already fliewn that he
>v.Ts therein only a type of our Lord Jefus, the true
iraiieh. (i8)  fcceflit (Jofepli)'in partes Galilaes, 
ibique habitiivit in uibe AnKarrth, uhde et Chriftus
A'.<s."""" cognomenliim accepit, (Matt. ii. 22, 23.) et
Nazarttiorum Chriftiani. (Afls xxiv, 5.) y. Ufferii
JiiHalium pars pnjteritr, p. 53£>.

I n; 1
.of (his furname, but to the very foun^l
of it ; for he intitles him nS'J NetJer, a
branch. Now Chrift was really called,
in the common Syriac dialedt, j..;_i Net-
feria, a Netfirian, or Nazarene^ from Z'ra
Netfereth, (called, from the Greek, Na
zareth^) where he had been brought up,
(Luke iv. i6.) and where (according to
the true meaning of the appellation,
Netfirian, or Nazarene, when interpret-
jed) he grew up as a Plant or Branch; for
St. Luke informs us (ii. 40.) that " tkey
." fviz. Jofeph and Mary, with the young
" childj^ returned into Galilee, to their
* ' own city , Nazareth ; and the child grew,
*' and waxed firong in- fpirit, filled with
" \yifdom; and the grace* of God was
**^ upon him."
And again, In the 52d verfe. 
« Jefus increajed in wifdom and fiature,
" and in favour with God and man."
This exadly correfponds with Jeremiah's prophecy.

[ i«8 ]
prophecy, (xxxiii. 15.) viz. " In thofe
days, and at that time, (nPn? nay
" Tnb nnys) will I caufe the Branch of
righteoufnefs togrow up unto David."

<(

cc

If all this be confidered, I think the
fitnefs of St. Matthew's appeal to the pro
phets, concerning the word Na^w^a;®*,
cannot be called in queftion } urtlefs, like
the Critical Reviewers, (fol. 357.) we
fhould believe, from Dr. W  ms's bare
word, that T^ial^ea^xii^ fignifies a Nazorite;
which interpretation would, indeed, ren-^
der it impoflible " to reconcile Matthew ii.
" 23. with any particular prophecy now
*• extant in the Old Teftament;" accord
ing to the Dodor's affertion in p. 38.
For the Dodlor informs us, in the fol
lowing page, (39.) that " the word is not
" Na^a^a<(^, a Nazarene, but 'Soc^a^eni^,
a Nazorite" neverthelefs it is certain that
both thefe words fignify the fame thing, viz*

C 119 ]
viz. a Nazarene, (or inhabitant of iV"^2;a-
reth i) and, likewife, that neither of them
can fignify a 'NUzarite, or (as he fpells it)
Nazorite. ' . ' -
For, the Hebrew word yu fiparatus,
from whence thefe laft (Nazarite or Na
zorite) 2se derived, is no where in Scrip
ture . rendered Na^«^a<(^ or Na^aa at*©*,
but isdiftinguifiied from them by an iota
in the fecond fyllable, viz. Na^/g, a Na-
zarite, Judgesxiu.'5. and Na^ff!a<o<, A'iz-
zarites. Lamentations iv. 7. Befides, it
is very plain, throughout the whole New
Teftament, th'at Chrifi was not called
Na^wfai©^' as being a Nazarite, (for he
could not properly be called fo according
to the law of Mofes, though John the
Raptift was really fuch,) but on account
of his having been brought up at the city
of Nazareth, which in the Syriac tongue
was called Z;-j (not with 1. or 7 as Neze-
retb, but with j or y) Netfereth; for the
word

[ 120 ]
word is plainly derived from *T/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
eafily reconciled with the prophecies " 7tow
" extant in the Old Tefiamcnt," though the
Dodior has declared that the fame " is
" not pofiible."
Even Chrift himfelf condefcendcd
fometimes to prophefy in the fame kind
of ftyle that had before been ufed by his
fervants the prophets. " Verily I fay
" unto you, there-be fome ftanding here,
*' which fhall not tafie 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
" come, what is that to thee ?" John xxi.
22. Here our Lord makes ufe of " the
" fame words and phrajes" with which he
was wont to exprefs his fecond coming to
judge

¦i

i 121 ]
judge the world j fo that his difciples un^
derftood that John fhould notdie ; where
as the event plainly fhewed that he
" meant of his coming" (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 Difiiple, Anti-
quitates Apoftolicas, p. I5<8.

Our Lord likewife " ufed the fame
** words andphrjzjes" unto thefe two difie-^
rent fubjeBs, viz. his coming in judge-*
ment upon Jerufalem, and his laft coming
to judge the world, " when occafion
<* was to fpeak of them together," ac
cording to the obfervation before quoted
from Affemblies Annotations ; infomueh
that the day of judgement and the end of
the world were expefted to follow imnie.^
diaiteiy after the accomplifhment of
Chrift's prophecies, in the xxivth chap*
Part IL Q_ of

[ 122 ]
of Matthew, xiiith of Mark, and xxift
of Luke, concerning God's judgement in
the deJhruBion of Jerufalem.
The latter, however, may indeed be
confidered as a fign, or type, of the
great and lafi day ; and the accomplifli
ment of the prophecies concerning it is
undoubtedly a fure pledge oi 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 ftood in
need of other figns to manifeft that God
V, Guld perform it in time, let him confi
der the context once more, and he will
find that the fign was not without fuch a
manifeftaticn as Mr. Collins and himfelf have

[ »23 ]
nave required. Perhaps it may be faid
that I have troubled my readers with a
great many more examples of " types,
" figures, and fecondary finfes" than were
neceffary for the point in queftion j but I
was induced thereto by the too hafty cen
fure paffed on this fort of writings by the
authors of the Critical Review in page
349. where they feem to condemn all
types, &c. whatfoever, indifcriminately,
without deigning to diftinguifh the diffe
rence between proper types and imaginary
ones.

The END of Part II.

DISSERTATION

O N

ISAIAH vii. 8.

PART IIL

[ 127 3

DISSERTATION O N
ISA I A H vii. 8.

— — " Within threefcore and five years
" fhall Ephraim be broken, that it be
*• not a people.'.'
THE accomplifhment of Ifaiah's
prophecy (in confirmation of
which he required Ahaz to afk
a fign) was not " an event near at hand,"
as Dr. W  ms fuppofes j for, no lefs a
term than fixty-five years was allowed for
the accomplifhment of one of the circum
ftances contained in it} viz. — "within
" threefcore

I 128 ]
*' threefcore and five years fliall Ephraim
*' be broken, that it be not a p^opk.''^
Ifaiah vii. 8,
Neverthelefs, the, king, or regal go-
vern^aent of Ephrai^, (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 wa» deliver
ed i for, " in the ninth year of Hofiiea^'
(the fixlh of Hezekiah,) '* the king of
" '4/fy''^^ ^^^ Samaria, and carried Ifrael
away into Aflyria" (2 Kings xvii. 6.)
therefore commentators have generally
found it very difficult to account iior the
number oi fixty-five years mentioned in
this prophecy. .. ...,
J A very learned and jufUy-eftecmed au
thor (1), in order to fol ve the difficulty,
has applied feveral texts in the ''fecond book
(1) Biftop Newton on the Prophecies.

[ lip ]
book of. Kings to an imaginary captivity,
or carrying awayi !^ Efarhaddoti, vvhicfi,
if the context be carefully confidered,
will be found to relate, undoubtedly, to
the realczptivsty under SalmanafiTar. We
underftand, indeed, frond Ezi-aiv.^. that
the adverfaries of Berijartiin and Jiidah
(the Samaritans) dated the timd bi their
fettleiftent in the cities of Samaria from
" the days of Efarhaidbn, king of Affur,
" whick (as tfieyfaid) brought us up hi-
** ther." But there is no neceffity to fup
pofe that Efarhaddon carried any people
away bto captivity from thence, nor any
evidence to fupport fuch a fuppofition.
Was it not pofiible for Efarhaddon to plani
frefh colonies in the land of Ifrael, wherS
it was too thinly inhabited by the former
colonies, without having carried awaw
any of the inhabitants into captivity?
Swrely it was not only poffible, but moft
probable, that this was really the cafe j
notwithftanding 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
Dodor 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
" plurimiincolarum aferis, et forte pefti-
" lentia, (fie enim ait Jofephus libro no-
" no,) extindi efifent, poftea plures ab
" Afarhaddojie illuc mifibs fuiffe veri-
" fimile efi." And he likewife quotes
Nicholaus Brabantinus to the fame pur
pofe : — " Leones enim vaftaverunt mag-
" nam partem populi quern Salmanaffar
" miferat : propter quod ifte Afarhaddon
" mifit alios loco ipfbrum, et cum iis
" unum de facerdotibus captivis, qui do-
*' ceret eos colere DominumJ' The

C 131 ]
, The prophet does not fay that Ephraim
Jhall be broken from a kingdom in fixty-five
years, but that within fuch a time he fliall
be broken from a people; therefore it is
plain that the prophecy could not be aCr
complifhed by the captivity of Ephraim
and the deftrudion of the regal govern'
ment of Samaria by Salmanaffar j becaufe
Ephraim, or the children of Ifrael, might
be ftill called a people^ or nation, even
after their removal into a ft!;ange country ;
for they could not be faid to " he broken
" from a people," until the judgemerits
-denounced againft them by the prophet
Amos (ix. 4.) fhould be fulfilled, viz*
" Though they go into captivity before
" their enemies, thence will I command
" the fword, and it fliall flay them.''
It appears, firom the hiftory of Tobit,
that this really came to pafs j . for he fpeaks
of the frequent flaughter made of the
R 2 people

C »32 1
people of his nation by Sennacherib, chap.
i. 17, ,18. " y&r «? /5/j wrtf/^ <&tf /(W ma-
" ny." ' And, even in the reign of Efar
haddon, about flxty-five years after Ifaiah's
prophecy, notwithftanding that Achlar*
charus, Tobit's nephew, was appointed
over all the king's affairs,- (21ft verfe,)
we find an inftance recorded of the conti-
BU-ation of this perfecution.
Fc«-, when Tobit was told (chap. ii. 3.)
that one of his nation was ftrangled and
eaft out in the market-place, he remem
bered (6th verfe) " that prophecy of Amos,
" as he fdid, (fee Amos viii. 10.) Your
" feafts fhall be turned into mourning;
*' and all your mirth into lamentation :"
for it was then the feafl of pentecofi, 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 ^^% prepared-" but,
in the mean tlmci he received this me
lancholy

[ »33 ]
lancholy account J (fee ift, 2d, and 3d,
verfes ;) which proves the propriety of his
quotation from Amos. The fame chap
ter of Amos contains a paffage very fuita
ble to my purpofe, (viii. 2, 3.)
" The end is come upon my people of If-
" rael; I v^^ill not again pafs by them any
" mor^. And the fongs of the temple
*' fhall be howlings in that day," (fee the
loth verfe, qwoted by Tobit, — " and all
" your Jongs into lamentation^) faith the
" Lord God, there Jhall be many dead ba-
" dies in ^very place, they fiall cafi them
*^ forth with JUenee." I am fenfible that
the apocryphal book of Tobit ought not
to be confidered of fufficient^uthority for
the proof of any thiflg ; yet I hope that
the remarkable correfpondence it bears to
the fubjed in queftion will excufe my
qijotation. Mofes

[ »34 ]
Mofes alfo prophefied that the captives
of Ifrael fhould be perfecuted ; — " /
" will fiatter you among the heathen, and
'* will draw out a fword after ycu." Levit.
XX vi. 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 threefcore and five years
mentioned by Ifaiah, that Ephraim might
well be faid to be broken Jrom a people ; for
we read, in Deut. xxviii. 61, 62. " Alfo
" "every ficknefs and every plague which
" is not written in the book of thislaw,
*' them will the Lord bring upon thee,
** until thou be deftroyed. And ye fhall
" be left few in number^' (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

[ 135 1
few in number,) ^'whereas ye were as the
" ftars of heaven for multitude."

The completion of Ifaiah's prophecy
concerning Ephraiiii is very apparent even
in another way; for, though fome of
Ephraim, and of all the other tribes,
were afterwards fettled in Judasa and other
places ; though we read of a remnant of
Ifrael {fee 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 fixty-five years
limited by Ifaiah ; and though Manaffeh
and Ephraim are expreflly 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

[ J36 ]
Jofiah is a fufficient proof; and therelt)re,
notwithftanding that on fome particular
occafions they were diftinguifhed by their
tribes, yet, as a body, or nation, chey
were generally afterwards efteemed zpart
of the tribe ofjitdah ; which accounts for
the exprcflSon of the hiftorian, (2 Kings
xvii. J 8.) " There was none left but the
" tribe of Judah only ;" that is, there
was none left but part of the tribes of
Levi, Benjamin, and fuch individuals of
the other tribes as lived in (of might have
efcaped into) the inheritance of Judah,
and confequently were all confidered as
the proper fubjeds of the kingdom of Ju
dah, and have ever firice borne the name
of that tribe, viz. C=}>lin^ Jews. Thus
the title of Jews became general about
this time to all the other tribes as well as
Judah ; for the kingdom of Ifrael was
never afterwards reftored in a feparate
ftate from Judah ; and therefore, after
the captivity by SalmanaflTar, the- land
which

[ '37 I
vhich Ahaz vexed might be faid to " be
*' forfaken of " one of" her kings," \z)
qr regal governments.
But the focceffion of the kings of Ju
dah continued regularly until the Babylo-
nifh captivity ; and on account of this in-^
terruption (or of other? afterwards) 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, fBat,
when Ephraim was broken from a people,
the national name of Jews became gspe-
ral to all the other tribes as well as Ju
dah J but it is likewife remarkable, that
about the fame time the whole Jewlfh
nation, (including Judah and Benjamin,)
Part III. S as
(2) " For, before ihe child fhall know to refufe the
" evil and choofe the good, the land that thoa abhor-
*' reft ihall be forfaken of both hek Kincs." Ifaiah
VH. ifi.

[ 13^ ]
as defcendants of Jacob, began once moi-e
to be called Ifrael, as they had formerly
been before the revolt of the ten tribes*
In the fecond book of Chron. xxxv. 3.(3)
the Levites, that taiight aHffiael, are ex
horted to ferVe the Lord their God, and
his people Ifrael ; meaning the MVhole na
tion. Ifaiah, in the fortieth chapter,
(27th verfe (4),) and feveral focceeding
chapters, fpeaks of the whole Je\*ifh na
tron u'nder the title of Jaccd> and Ifrael:
for, though he might write thefe chapf-
ters before the change that I fpeak of,
yet it muft bfe confidered that he is adv
drdfing himfelf to the people rn the fpirit of
(3)  " And faid nnto the Levites that taught
" aB Ifrael, which were holy unto the Lord, Pat die
" holy ark in the houfe, &c.  ferve now the Lord
" yohr God and his people Ifrael." z Chron. xxxv. 3.
(4) " Why fayeft thou, O ^acob, and fpeakeft, O
" Ifrael, my way is hid from the Lord, and my jodge-
" ment is paffed over from my God ?" Ifaiah xl. 27.
— " 'iatthott, Ifrael, art my fervant, Jacoli, v.'imtn I
" havechofen, the feed of Abraham my friend.'*' Chap.
xii. 8. — " Pear not, xhcivi miorm yarob, axtdytmenof
" Ifrael." Verfe 14. See alfo chap, xliii.

I »29 ]
«f prophecy, and plainly refers to tlj?
latter times. Ezekiel (jii. 4.) (5) was
fent unto the bmfi ^ Ifra£l, meaning the
Jews that were carried into captivity with
Jehoiakim : " Get thee to th^m of the
"captivity," iSc. (fee the nth verfe.)
Many of the other prophets exBFfffed
themfelves in the fame manner. See
Zech. xii. I. (6) Malachi i. i. (7) Ezra
iv.3. ^c- (8). So that the national names
oi Ifrael and Jews were now confidered
as fynonyraons terms; iox Ephraim, the
chief "of the ten tribes, was now broken
Jrom a people, and therefore the name of
Jfriiel did not generally diftinguifli them
as a feparate nation, or people, as before j
S' 2 though,
(5) "Son of man, go, get thee unto tht houfe of
" Ifrael," &c. Ezek. iii. 4.
(6) " The burden of the word of the Lord for If
" rael," &c. Zech. xii. i.
(7) " The burden of the word of the Lord to Ifrael
" by Malachi," i. i.
(8> " But Zerubbabel and Jefliua, and the reft of the
" chief of the fathers of Ifrael^" &c. gzra iv. 3.

[ 14© ]
though, Indeed, both Ephraim and the
two houfes oJ Ifrael (the houfe of Judah
and the houfe of Ifrael) were.fonietimes,
afterwards, on particular occafions, dif-
tindly mentioned; as in the thirty-firft (9)
and fiftieth (10) chapters of Jeremiah and
eighth of Zechariah.- .

*o*

Neverthelefs, all the nation Were the
children of Ifrael I all were Jews I and in
length of time the remnant of Ifrael was
fo blended with Judah, that many intirely
loft the diftindtion of their tribes, (Ezra
ii. 62.) (i i) and more efpecially after the
Babylonifh
(9) " Behold, the days come, faith the Lord, that
" 1 will make a new covenant with the houfe of Ifrael,
" and with the houfe cf Judah." Jerem. xxxi. 31.
(10) — " In thofe days, and in that time, faith the
«' Lord, the children of Ifael (hall come, they and the,
" children of jfudah together, going and weeping : they
" ftiall go, and feek the Lord their God," Jer, 1. 4.
This was plainly fulfilled after the Babylonifli captivi-'
ty, as the following verfes teftify : — " Remove out of
" themidft of Babylon,"' dz. Verfes 8, 9, 10.
(11) " Thefe fought their regifler among thofe that
*• were reckoned by genealogy,- but they were not
»' found." Ezraii. 62.

[ 141 ]
Babylonlfli captivity, when the prophecy
of Ezechiel feems plainly to be fulfilled.
" Thus faith the Lord God, Behold, I
" will take the ftick of Jofeph, w^i/ci' is
*' in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes
*' of Ifrael his fellows, and will put them
" with him, even with the fiick of Judah,
" and make them one stick, and they
" fhall be one in mine hand." Chap.
xxxvfi. 19. And, in the 22d verfe, "I
" will make them one nation in the land
'• upon the mountains of Ifrael, and one
"king fhall be king to them all: and
*' they fhall be 90 more two nations, nei-
" ther fhall they be divided into two king-
" domi any more at all."
Agreeably to this prophecy, the chil
dren of Ifrael were one nation, and under
bne king (that is, a fucceflion 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

I H2 ]
Prince of peaqe) was come, according to
the prophecy of the patriarch Jacob, re
corded in Genefis xlix. lo, viz. " The
*' fceptre Jhall not depart from Judah, nor
" a lawgiver from between his feet, until
" Shiloh come, and unto him fhall the g%r
" thering of the people be."

The END of Part III.

DISSERTATION O N
GENESIS xlix. ' lo.
" The fceptre fhall not depart from J u-
" dah, nor a lawgiver from between
" his feet, until Shiloh come, and un-
" to him fhall the gathering of the
" people be."
PART IV.

[ 145 ]

DISSERTATION ON
G E N E S I S xlix. lo,
IN the preceding Differtation concern
ing Ephraim, I have obferved, that
the fceptre was continued in the in
heritance of Judah during the reigns of
all the Afmonzean 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, it will not be
neceffary for me to examine the Jewifh
¦ Part IV. T hifiories

.[ 146 ]
hiftories farther back than the time when
the fceptre was tr an flated into the family
of Antipaterj fo that I propofe to begin
this Diflertation where I left off in the
laft J viz. with the' reign of Herod the
Great. Herod had as moch right to be efteem
ed a Jew, or of the tribe of Judah ( i ),
as the Afmonasan princes of the tfibe of
Levi :• for not only the defcendants of the
twelve tribes were called Jews, after the
Babylonifli captivity, (as I have bef6te
obferved,) but even the profelytes of the
Jfew^,
(i) The ingenious Mr. Mann,, in the firft leffion of his
6th chapter de anno natali Chrifi, endeavours to prove
that Herod was really a Jew. There are iikewife feve
ral other parts of that learned book which would both
illuftrate and confirm many of the points whJch I have
advanced ; neverthelefs, as I cannot entirely agree with
him in all his opinions, and as I had iiniftied my re
marks (except a fliort addition at the end of this DilTer-
tation) before I had the fatisfaAion of reading hi»
work, I ftiall therefore content myfelf with referring my
readers to the book itfelf.

[ m ]
Jews, f,hou^h they were by birX^h Qentfki
of any p_ther.n&J;^op whatfoever (2).
, Tl^'s i§ ftro»jgly j?;xpi;eflrsd by Jofephus,
|,0 his ^f^Q,unt pf Jcing Jzates, ,t)je great
Adiabewn profelyle. See Jewifh Anti
quities, (s^oth b,9.Qk,) (3) yo(^i^(»v re ftij «v
•23-^Dirjetv fiv f7e<ft^. Which is thus, ren
dered by G^lpnius: " Cumque exifti-
" m.aret fp non effe perfeElum Judaum,
" nifi circumclderefur, paratus erat et
" ^bc facefe." And again  ««; ^'^^-
f,T^^i TS iSoifTiXsupv^og auTu la^txta,-—" Ncr
*' que uUo pa^to laturos Judceurri in regio
fplio." The Idumasans, (or rEtiO'-
T 2 njiites,)

mofia^arai . i h" iiriyJKniTti auTv exeivsi; fiiii an oi^'^eh
siflaTo yiKir^ca, (pe^a ' h y.a.i uri raj atWiaj ai&pu'sra^,
eo-oi Ta tofiiiisi »vriJ«, it^i'ore^ «MQ^KEi; ami, QnTiSffi, Die
C^flitts, lib. 36. p. 37.
(3), The Orleans edition 9f J9fephus, printed in
i6( I, (fol. 685.) which is referred to as often as jpfe-
phjis is quoted in thefe remarks.

u

[ 148 1
mites,) (4) from whom Herod was de
fcended, were not only profelytes to the
Jewifh religion, but were ftill more near
ly connedted 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
cf Judas Maccabaeus ; fo that from that
time they were accounted Jews, as Jofe
phus teftifies, Antiq. 13th book, 17th
chap. fol. 450. xa-Aiiv^ avjotg ^jov©*
CvrriO^ev, ug-e etvxi to Xoittov laoatovg. 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.
— X.M T3-avTig ug ett BXivdeoia. rvjg f^'^poTre-
Xeeag r)Mroil^ov rot, otrXot. ThuS it appears
that the Idumseans, as a nation, had
certainly a right to be efteemed Jews. But
(4) " Thou flialt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy
" brother." Dent, xxiii. y.^-i, e.— The patriarch Edoip
(whici is Efau, feeGen. xxv. 30.) was Jacob's brother.

[ H9 1
But king Herod's claim of relationfhip
did not depend upon this fingle circupi-
ftance of his being defcended from the
Idumaeans: his connexions with the
Jews were far g re afer than any other Idu-
mjean could ever boaft of. His father,
Antipater, though an Idumaean, was a
perfon of fuch truft and efteem, among
the Jews, that he held the greateft officea
under their kings.
He ferved under their king Alexander
as governor of Idumcea ; (Antiq, bookxiv.
chap. 2. p. 469.) — under their king and
Jiigh-prieft Hyrcanus, as governor efju-
dcea itfelf, and commander in chief of the
Jewijh army. And afterwards he ferved
under Casfar, alfo, as procurator of Ju-
daa. See the xivth and xvth chapters of
the fame book.
Therefore, not only as an Idumaean,
but alfo by thefe continual connexions, as
well

well as refidence among the Jews, Anti
pater feemed to be entirely natyraliged
to this people; infomuch that he efteem
ed their intereft as his own ; jhcir coun.-
try as though it had been his native land I
His a,fliduity* and diligence in repairing ti^e
walls of Jerufalem, (^xyeyet^^i ^tv euQug to
Tux^, booik x;iv. chap. 18.) when he
had obtained leave of Caefar to do fo, is a
proof of this, as well as Jofephys's man
ner of expreffing that circumftance, Jew-
ifh War, book i. chap. 8. viz. kki ts-^oo--
f7r<7i//^aji/e< ra, Tf<%ij Trjg wjiiTp.i^&^ avoixjurat
jtctjs5-^iii[A,fAev». Thps rendered by Rufinus :
— " et praeter hoc (Antipater) impetra-
" vit, ut fubverfa patriae moenia renovare
" fibi liceret." And again, AvjiTrc^^og Ss
'Kciura^/n nz-^oirBfi^xg ex Tnjg I,v^{(x,g, aj Its-
^utav C-rre^os^sv, kui ts-^uIoh (A£v to T5tx<^
eKV'JsifiOilo TH£ IIATPIAPS vyro Uof^ir^'ip
Kc^eg^af^l^ivov. Antipater vero, ubi de
Syria Czefarem profecutus eft, in Judceam
reverfus.

[ 151 ]
reverfuSj aMe omnia PATRi-aE muros a
Pompeio dirutds reparabat.
If all thefe df cumftandes are confider
ed, it will not be ealy to priStci that the
fon of fuch a perfon otight to be accounted
a foreigner to the Jews. Herod was born
a fobjeX of thie kingdom of the Jews,
and publicly prbfeffed their rtligtofr, law*;
and cuftoms, notwithftanding that he
fi-equently bflfended againft them all:
and, if he did not think hinifelf, in
reality, entitled to be efteemed one of
that nation, he neverthefefs oOiltted flA
proper opportunity of claiming relation
fhip. A remarkable inftance of this we
have in his fpedch to the J^Ws, when he
projJofed to enlarge and beautify their
tempfe.^ ** For (faid he) our fathers
" built this temple to Almighty God af-
" ter the return from Babylon," &c.
TOP yop irttov ratov ti'iCoiofMi&dv p,£v ~ia fli-
yigc^ 0e« UATEPES 'HMET£l*Or, ft(\ce. TVJ

[ 152 ]
Tijv ex BuovXuv^ uvx^x(rtv. Jewlfh Antjq.
book XV. chap. 14. p. 543.
There are many other in fiances, in
Jofephus, of Herod's expreffing himfelf
in this manner : and indeed the fingular
circumftances of this monarch's connec
tions with the Jews rendered his claim of
relationfhip fo juft that it could not be
difputed, although he was not defcended
of any of the twelve tribes. Jofephus,
who called Herod's father (Antipater) /?/j
Idumaan, does not deny that fie was a
Jew, but only that he was not defcended
from the chief Jews, who came into Judcea
from Babylon, which had been afferted by
Nicholas of Damafcus. Antiq. bookxiv.
chap. 2. p. 4^9. On the contrary, Jofe
phus informs us, that, when the Jews of
Caefarea contended with the Syrians for
the right of fuperiority in that city, they
alledged that the founder, Herod their
king, was a Jew by birth: ot,[^ev yxp la-
oottot

[ 153 ]
S&iot "Sr^cSleviiv •^^low, Stcn. tov 'iijig'riv.Tvig E«l-
ira^eiKg 'H^aoijv ctvjuv (itxa-iKza yiyovsvou re
yev<^ IOTA AXON. Antiq. book xx.
chap. 6» p. 695. ,^ And the juflice ofthis
plea, fo far as it related to Herod, was air-
lowed by the Syrians. 2u^o« Js t« fisv ¦w$i^i
tov 'H^w^ijv af^oXoyav, C^c. See alfo Jfcwifh
.War, book ii.'. chap. 12, p. 797. i< (la-
auiot) [ABV yotp ri^aiv' (r(pe}6B0iv bivou Trjv -woXiv,
lOTAAIQN . y$yov£iieii tov xltgyjv ocuj'jjg Ae-
yovTsg, r,v Se 'HpaJijf, 0 l2ec(rl\evg'-_ot Se Itsmi
(Suooj) TOV oiKig'Vjv [isv 7tpo(ru[jU)koyisv lOT-
AAION, &c.:: ,o^% mH

If all thefe things be confidered, I think
they muft juftify my expreffion,' that He
rod had as much right to be dfteemed a
Jew as the Ajmoficean princes, of the tribe
of Levi: and, though neither the latti^r
nor Herod (nbtv^Ithftanding that they wer'e
Jews) were really defcended of the tribte
of Judah, yet the completion'of Jacob's
prophecy, concerning the fceptre of *Ji^-
. Part IV. U ^ dah.

i m ]
dahs is not at all aflbdted by thi^ circum^
ftance^ For the faid prophecy dtifes not (I ap--
prebend) fo much relate to the defcent or
genealogy of the individuals^ that were to
rule in Judah, as to the particular {Miei-
eminence of that vvhole tribe, from which
the fceptre (the figft ofits being a diflinia
kingdom) fhoaM not depart till Shiloh
was come. Therefore, it is not fo very
material to my prefent purpofe whether
Herod was a Jew or not, firite it muft be
acknowledged, , (be his parentage what it
wUl,) that he was nevertihekfs " king of
" Judcea" as Luke ftiles him, chap. i.
verfe 5. viz. king of the tribe emd inhe
ritance of Judah, (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 Judah, howfbever defcend
ed. ' An

f •« 3
An obje<ai&i has been made t@ the
common interpretation of the word ua^
ovfcepter, in Jacob's prophepy ; viz. that
* ¦ it could. not, with any fo;t of propriety,
** be faid, that the fcepierfhmiU not depatri
** fifom Judah, when Judah had no ^p-
** ter, nor was to have any for many gfr*
<? nerations afterwards." (5) But ife?
learned author of this et^diion has net
confldered that the fbepCre, or regal gor
vernment in Judah, is plainly implied aftd
foretold in the former part of the fame pro-r
phecy, which entirdy removes the force
of his argument in favour of a dii^fent
kiterpret^ion of that iaward. " J^dfh^
(faid the patriarch,) ^* thou art be whom
^* thy bretbres Jhall praife i" (all^^iflg to
the meaitiflg of his naibe;) '^ i^y hai}t|
»* fliall be In the neck of thine efljenlies j
*• thy fatiei^s children Jhall how down b^re
«» theey Gen. xlix. 8.. -
U 2 Now,
(5) Seebiihop 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 fathers children Jhall bow
** down before thee" cannot be faid to be
fulfilled until all the other tribes became
fubjefl: to the monarchy of the tribe of
Judah under David and Solomon ; which
is obferved likewife by the ailthors of the
Commentary oh the'^ible, dialled Affemr
blies Annotations. " This" (fay they)
" was literally moft Verified in David arid
•' Solomon, who were of this tribe ; and
" fpiritually in Chrift, the /w» of the tribe
¦* if J^dah^ Rev. v. 5. to whom all
*' knees fhall bow.'' Phil. ii. 10. — Arid
they obferve, farther, that "the courage
»' of Judah is compared to a lion's whelp:
" fuch was the tribe of Judah in the firft
" eflays of war, in the time of Jofhua j
i< afterwards it increafed to the vigour of
•• a

[ 157 ]
" a lloii at full age, and old in comparifon
^' of a whelp : fuch it waS in David's
" timej and, by age and experience, fub-
" tie as well as ftrohg"; for David, of that
•" tribe, was fo wife that-Saul was afraid
^* of his wifdom, (i Sam. xviii. 5. 14,
*-• 15.) and very courageous, , (fee I Sam.
" xvii. from ver. 32 to 51.) as the liori
'' above other beafts, who, by his cou-
f* rage and ftrength, is a king over thf.m."
Num. xxiii. 24. Prov. xxviii. i. and xxx.
30. Amos iii, 8. IVIic. v. 8.
' If all this be confidered, it will appear
that oat?, in this text, muft be tranflated
a fcepter ; which is the opinion likewife
of Monf. Martin T — " Quoique le mot
" Hebreu fignifie aufli une verge, et qu'il
" foit employe quelquefois dans un fens
" metaphorique pour la verge des'^fflic-
?• tions, la liaifon de ce verjet avec le pre-
** cedent, et toute la matiere contenue dans
f * ce texte, ne permettcnt pas d'expliquer

[ 153 J
" ici ce mot autrement que par celK«i ^
« fceptre ; de meme <jue dans ce pafl^^
" de Zacharie, chap.x. U- oij fe trovH
•• vent en Hebren les m^mes termes
<* qu'ici; le fceptre fedepartlrad'Egyplie."
Thus it is plain that the regal fcepter
was not to depart firm the tribe f/' jKd(d^
till Shiloh was come.
Now, the Meffiah was not born untU
the clofe of king Herod's reign, therefore
the fcepter of Judah could not be faid to
depart, or begin to depart, (" bedepart-
*• ing," as fome commentators have fan«
cied,) before that period. Neither could
the land which Aha% vexed be faid t9 *' be
•' forfaken of both her kings," or monar-»
cbies, whilft Herod continued to reign in
Jerufalem. But, immediately after bit
death, the form of government was en»
tirely altered. There was no lon^r a
fcepter if) the tribe or inheritan<?e of Ju-
dahl

t H9 3
dah! The Jews had now no other
"wdr Idly king but Ce^)^ i for the pecuUar
Jieptsr of Jadah WAS Spatted. They
wfere, indeed, fiibje^ to a fiepter, but it
was the Roman fcepter ; .which could : not
«n this account be called the fcepter xf
Judab ; and there^e it is plaiti) that, at
thifitimfe, the feepter departed from Ju'-
¦dah. A folemn legation of fifty ambaffa*-
dore, from Jerufalem, (who were backed
by eight thoufand Jews at Rome,) foii-
cited Caefar that dieir regal governmeia
migh* be changed, and that tfaey ttiighit
be ^ded to the province of Syria, and be
come fubjedt to the Roman commandetB
that fhould be fent there. — Hv Se xeipotXouov
(O^mg Ttig ct^icixreug, (iouriXaocg aoci Totuv Jg
«p%«» -etffrijXKa^Squ, ¦sr^e(r$i]K^v , as Xmieig
jyeyov^ctg W7r^(W6fl'-flaj To*g -exatFe <i^i_f.i/jr^Sr-
voig e^ahayng. See Antiq. p. 6/1,612.
See iblfo p. f^i, 782. wliere the fame
thin^ is fi:roBgly exprefted. ,./,'- t • ;
-' Ne-

[ i6o ]
Neverthelefs, Caefar did not, at that
time, entirely comply with their requeft j
for, as Archelaus was named by his fa
ther Herod to be his fucceflfor in the
kingdom, Caefar was pleafed to grant him
the half of Herod's dominions, but not as
a kingdom, for he allowed him the title
only of Ethn arch ; and, as fuch, Acchef
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.
KacKTap oe uKutrag oiocXvet [/,ev to iruveSptov,
oXtyuv Se vif/,e^m vge^ov h^-x,eX»ov BAZIAEA
MEN OYK AnOa>AINETAI, tou Se if^i-
fl-£©o Trig %i;f af ^Vep 'U^uSi^ VTrejeXet £&vupx»iv
xxdig'oiTKi, TIMHSEIN AHIXIMATI BA-
ZIAElAS 'rniSXNOTMENOS amp tviv
&g av%v a^^Tiv w^9<r(pe^oiTO. Antiq. book xvii.

[ i6i ]
xvii. chap. 13. p. 61 1.  Fi'om this it
appears, that an ethnarch did not differ
from a king in title only.
" Ihe dignity of a kingdom" was then
merely promifed j which, is a proof that
the ethnarchy, at that time eftablifhed,
was entirely without fuch diS"^ty : and
Archelaus was fb far from obtaining the
promifed kingdom, that about nine years
afterwards he was banijhed even from his
ethnarchy. See Jewifh War, book ii.
chap. 6. p. 784. (6)
In the mean time Herod Antipas, ano
ther fon of Herod the Great, was tetrarch
of Galilee. It was this Herod who be
headed John the Baptift in his territory
of Galilee, and whofe crafty, bafe, and
Part IV. X felf-

fimfMl, tun laoCKtu i.a^o^un, ov fMna loV^aiot;, oiKXa xcn
Et{ ^nnoit, otoXhi tij; r»AaT(«;, osul®', &C.

{ l62 ]
felf-interefted, difpofition was charac
terized by the Mefliah himfelf under
the fimile of a fox : for in deteftation of
fuch pernicious principles he even named
him from that wily animal. " Go arid
" tell that fox," &c. To this man was
Chrift fent by Pontius Pilate; not be
caufe Herod Antipas had any judicial au
thority in Jerufalem, -but becaufe Chrift
was accounted a Galilean, and therefore
Pilate fent him, as being one that be
longed unto Herod's jurifdi£lion. See St.
Luke xxiii. 6, 7. (7)
Judasa was, indeed, fpiritually the
¦kingdom of the Meffiah, oi which many
inconieftable proofs are inferted through
out this work, and compared with the
predidions of the prophets j but, with
refped
(7)  " when Pilate heard of Galilee, he aflted
" whether the man (Jefus) were a Galilean. And, as
" foon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod' sjurif-
" diSion, he feni him to Herod, who himfelf was alfo
" at Jerufalem at that time."

i 163 ]
refpedt to its temporal or civil' govern-
trieni, it was io far frorii being a kingdo/H
at this time, that it was only coniidered
as a part of the province of Syria ; and
for above thirty years together was go.^
verned by a regular fucceflion of Roriiatt
procurators, (8) until Herod Agrippa ob
tained Judcea and 5amaria (in addition
to his former dominions) of the emperor
Claudius, who likewife confirmed his
title of king. This, at firft fight, feems
a weighty objedion 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 other-
wife. Though Agrippa enjoyed the
title, pomp, and appearance, of a king,
X 2 he
(8) Jafephus informs ns, thatValeriusGratus, fuc-
ceflbr to Annius Rufns, was the fifth governor of the
Jews; and that he was fucceeded by Pontius Pilate—
," xat -ete/abI®. vir avlov anx.^ lov^atoi; bttci^X®'' ^f'^^'X^
" Avyiov 'Potripou, Ot/aPkigf©- TfCiT^." —Uom®' h iltAaT©-
J,«f«j^@. Kvrar,y.eu Antiq. book xviii.chap. 3. p. 619. i

[ 164 1
he was neverthelefs fubjeded in no fmall
degree (as well as his predeceflTors 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-
fident thfrein ; 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, he fent and commanded them all to de
part to their refpeSlive governments, which
was a matter of the greatefi mortification to
(9) Antiq. book xviii. chap. 15, p. 615. Tdj h
AQ^pMov x^S^S t^cTE^ouf 'B!^<>anik-fi^uai)% rv, ^Ev^ut, See.

[ i65 ]
to Agrippa. " Euflt/j ow exagta tuv. efrtl^-
Sauv Tivotg TSSfA'jrtav e-ffe^BXXev btti t« eecuja
ct^a jneXXijff'swj a7repj^so"^a<. TavTOi AyptTC^
irug avietptag e^eSex^o xott Mapa-u jt*sv ex t^x
SioKpoptag e(t-x,e. Antiq. book xix. chap. 7.
p. 678.
Thefe are proofs that Agrlppa's power
as a king was very much circumfcribed
in comparifon with that of Herod the
Great. Herod was fo far from being fub
jed to the controul of the prefidents of Sy
ria, that he himfelf was made prefident,
oi all Syria by Caefar ; [xxTe^'^a-e Se uvtov
xoti STPIAE '0AH2 EniTPOnON") who
direded the feveral governors to do no
thing without his counfel and advice.
'Hg fiviSev e^etvcu, Si^en Tiqg exavd im^^^Xiag,
To'ig eTTiTpoTToig Swixav. Jewifh War,
bock i. chap. xv. p. 746. See.alfo Antiq.
book XV. chap. 13. p. 541.
On the other hand, fikewlfe, the reign
of Agrippa was fo very fhort,,in compari fon

[ 166 ]
fon of the lime that the fceptre had been
departed Judah, * that, . I think, it can
fcarcely be confidered as an exception
either to the prophecy pf Jacob, or to
this of Ifaiah, concerning the two kings ;
efpecially as Agrippa was 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 Caefarea; " and immediately
** the angel of the Lord fm<ae him, becaufe
" he gave not God the gkry : and be was
" eaten up of worms, and gave up the
" ghojl-f (Ads xii. 23.) having reigned
over JxidaiciO'c^y three years, according to
Jofephus, who, in the 19th book of his
Antiquities, chap. 7. p. 679, confirms
the account given by St. Luke, thbugh
in fome particulars his relation' is differ^- ent.

• [- 167 f
ent, TeXevTVKrixe ev Kxia-ac^aoi, jGsSor*-
Xivxc^g f/,ey ETH TPIA, , •st^ots^ov Se tuv
xeT^oi^X"^^' r/3(Tii' eTepotg eTtiriv a:,<pyiyi^(ra[jt£-
v^, &c. Jewifh War, book ii, chap, 1 9,
P-793- Immediately ttfter his death, (his fon. A*
jgrippa the younger, being only an infant,)
the kingdom was reduced again into a pro
vince, ( io)'and never was any more refto-r
red } for the government of the Roman procu
rators (whi£;h had been only interrupted hy.
thisjhadow^ a reign after ^ight or nine
perfons had been invefted with that dig
nity) was once more eftabfifhed and conti"
nued'during a regular fucceflion of feven
other procurators, until the time of the ge
neral revolt of the Jews, when the juft
apd dreadful vengeance ©f God was ready to
(lo) 'twv h EX Tij; auli); (Cypros) ¦Ay^iir^a.s, ou
'aufla'Ttaa-it oil®' tui^is, '<aa?^tr Taj ^aso-iPiEtasj lOMVot®^
ETrapviccv 'Zisoi^aaq urtlpo'jTov 'srifAitei K^a'nioii 0aoov, eiist T«
T&ew A>.i^!tyS^ot, &t. Jewifh War, bookii. chap. 19,
p. 793.

[ 168 ]
to overtake them for their wickednefs
and unbelief, according to the exprefs
predidion of Chrift recorded in the Gof-
pels; Matt. xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xxi.
Agrippa the younger afterwards ob
tained the kingdomi of Chalcis, ( n ) and
fome other dominions ; but he never had
any authority at Jurufalem, except that
ecclefiaftical authority over the temple
and priefts,- which his uncle and prede-
•ceflTor, Herod king of Chalcis, had enjoyed
before him j for all Judsa (except two
(12) cities in Peraea, and two (13) in
Galilee, given to Agrippa) were govern
ed by Felix, the Roman procurator. " Eig
" Se THN AOinHN lOTAAIAN, ^fiX,x»
" xuTeg-Tja-ev einTpoTrov." Jewifh War,
bookii. chap. 22. p. 796. Thus it ap
pears,
(n) Antiq. book xx. chap. 3. p. 690, Jewifh War,
book ii. chap. 20. p. 794. chap. 22. p. 796.
(12) Abila and Julias.
(13) Taxichsea and Tiberias.

[ 1^9 ]
pears, that Jerufalem .bad ceafed to be
the feat oi regal government, from the
time of Herod's death to the total de
ftrudion of that city J except indeed
duripg the three years reign of Herod
Agrippa. But it is remarkafcd e, that
before <his fhort reign the Jew? had not
onlyfolJicitedCsefar by a folemn, legation
•of fifty ambaflad-of€, (as I have b^efore
obferved In page 159.) thatjtfaeiir n^Jtion
might no longer be governed by kings,
but their chief priefts had likewife pub
licly abrogated all prete.ofifi»J3S their natron
could have fo any peculiar fiepre of th^ic
own : for, when Pilate brought forth Je
fus in the prefence of the main body of
the people, who were aflembled at Je-
rufelem on account of the paflbver, and
faid, " Behold pur king;" and again,
^'- Shall I crucify , your kingf" they an
fwered, — We have no other king but
Ccafar. St. John xix. 14, 15.
Part IV. Y This

[ 170 ]
This public acknowledgement of the
Jews, that tht peculiar fceptre of Judab
was then no more ; the limited jurifdiSiioa
as well a& brevity ( 14) of Herod Agrlppa's
reign ; and the want of regal fuccejjion
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-
prefTes a very particular refpeft (if it may not be called
'a partiality) in favour of the charafter of Agrippa, on
account of his zealous attachment to Judaiftn. Nevfer-
thelefs, the limited jurifdiHion and breniily of his rei^n wefe
fuch, that even Jofephus himfelf did not confider it as
^ continuation of the regal gtmernmtnt of fudah; 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 office of high priefjt fubfifted
from the time of Herod the Great to the deftruftion of
Jerufalem, he obferves, that, after the death of Herod
and Archelaus, the government (or police) nxias an arijlo-
cracy ; and he entirely omits any mention of Agrippa's
reign in this place ; f6 that, it is plain, he did not
think it properly an exception to his obfervation. Msla
h TDf tbIw» sAivlr.v, APISTOKP^TIA fjLtn yit ri BroAtTsia,
Tiif Js •ar^sr*"'''*!' Tot/ EGmuf 01 ajj(;ifjE({ ¦jrjirirEn'?!). Antiq.
book XX. chap. 8. p. 702.

[ 171 J
tinuation of the fceptre in Judah : and
therefore it is moft natural to conclude,
that the fame really departed at z^^ death
of Herod the Great ; which period corref
ponds more exadly to the time pointed
out by Jacob's prophecy than any other.
Shiloh, the Prince of Peace, was then
come ; and Herod (convinced, by '* the
" wife'men Jrom the eafi," that a child
was born king of the Jews) had attempted
in vain to cut him off at Bethlehem ; (15)
Y 2 for,
. (15) The general cpnfent of the chief priefts and
fcribes of the Jews, concerning the place of the Me Jiah's
birth, is very remarkable ; for, w^hen Herod gathered
ihem together, •' he denjianded of theni where Chrift
•* fhould be born I and they faid unto him, in Bethlehem
"- of Judaa:" for thus it is written by the pro'phet;
" And thou .Bethlehem, in the land of Juda^, art not
" the. leaft among the princes of Judah: for out of
" thee itall come a governor that fhall rule my people
" Ifrael." Mat. ii. 4-6. Now, though the Jews
ftill deny that our Lord Jefus was the Chrift, yet they
Diuft confefs, •with their anceftors, that the true Mefliah,
according to the prophet Micah, (v. 2) ought to be
born at Bethlehem. It is, therefore, a matter of the
hi^heft importance to them, to confider what expefta-
tions they can rcafonably have, now-a-days, of the
birth

for, like the generality of the Jews,
Herod expeded a temporal prince ; and
therefore concluded, that his ow/n fceptre
and authority Was in danger, as it really
tvas, it being then about to depart. For,
very foon afterwards, Jofeph, the hufband
of the bltfled Virgin, was warned by
an angel bf the Lord in Egypt, fayingj
" Arife,
birth of a ^ei&ahifthe feed 'cf DAvid at Bethkheffl,
fince that place for fo many ages has ceafed to be the
city of David ? For, inftead of the family and kindred
of David, it is now inhabit(*d by " Turks, Moors,
Arabians, and fome poor Chrijiians." See Sohun's Geo
graphical DiSionary, printed in 1695.  And farther,
if any perfbn hfefeafter born at Bethleheta fhould pr^*
tend to be theftn of David, (or cf tht feed Of David,)
the JtfwS ou^ht to confider, whether it iS nOW JJoffiblfe
to trace that royal line doWn to the prfefent tifne iii
fo fatisfaftory a rtiahrier, that thty laigiitfifhly &tid rca
fonably give cred it to fuch pretehWbils'. •« But What is
" Bethlehem now ? Where are the thoufands of Judah,
" of which this was one? Whit is Jerufalem now .>
«' Are the tribes preferved ? Has Judah K\\\ x\ie {ce^-
" tre and the lawgiver? Where is its enfign difplayed?
" And luho can nolv prove their defcent from David? All
" the figns" Cjv/pp ^Z) 1^3 Gem. Sanhedrjn. c iJ.
§. 31.) " of the coming of the Mefliah are paft," &c.
Dr. Gregory Sharpens id Argument in Defence of Chrifi-
dtiiiy,'-^. 146. Oh that fhfe houfe of If rati may cOnflder
thefe things before it is too late!

[ 175 ]
** Arife, and take the ydung child and hi^
" mbther, arid go into thela>idoffjriiel,"
(not the land of Judah only :) *' for th^
" are dead which fought ihe'youti^ child's
*• lije." Matth. ii. 20.
Perhaps fome critic may pbjed, that,
ais Chrift vvas undoubtedly )l/«j' of tjrael
and Judab, the fceptre of Judah cannot
be faid to depart at the deatn of Herod,
according to the interpretatipn juft now
given of the patriarch Jacob's prophe'ey;
therefore it is neceffary for me to obferve^
that the fceptre, fpoken of in this prophe
cy, and the ceafing of the two kings or
fegal governments, fpoken of by Ifaiah,
can only be linderftood to mean the de<-
partufe of the worldly fceptre and temporal
regal authority ituva ]nd&h and. Ifrad^ as
rjecefiTarily to be diftinguifhed from the
fpiritual authority and heavenly ' kingdom
of Chrift ; for, as Chrift was •' htfrn king,
" hfthe JeHbs," io the fceptre of Judah, with

[ 174 ]
with refped to him, is not departed, but
is everlafting, according to the prophecy
of the Royal Pfalmift concerning Chrift's
kingdom. " Thy throne, 0 God, is for
*' ever and ever : the fceptre of thy king-
" dom is a right fceptre. Thou loveft
'.' righteoufnefs, and hateft wickednefs;
" therefore Qod, 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," ) does not relate
(I apprehend) to the fceptre or regal go
vernment of Judah ; for the particle 1
(rendered " nor" in the common Eng
lifh verfion, which divides thefe words
from the former part of the fentence)
feems to point out, that two diftind things
are here fpoken of, as Monf. Martin
has obferved: " Car cette particule, et,
" marque que c'etoient deux chofes dif-
'* ferentes.

[ >75 3
" ferentes, lefceptreetle legiflateur." But,
as the accomplifhment 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
remarkable,- in the accomplifhment, than
that of the fceptre ; for the prophecies
concerning both feem plainly to have
been accomplifhed in two different per
fons. The word ppna muft be underftood
in a very inferior fenfe from the ufual ac
ceptation, if the JewifhSanhedrin, or the
Scribes and Pharifeesi are to be efteemed
lawgivers, as fome have imagined.
The Lord himfelf is called by Ifaiah
IJppnQ *' our lawgiver-" xxxiii. 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

[ 176 3
intitled to the name of lawgivers, as be
ing the immediate inftruroents of God's
revelation. Judah might likewife be prO"
perly called a lawgiver, (Pfalms Ix. 7,
cviii. 8.) becaufe the Mefiiah wa? 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 thercforej
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 j
and, confequently, that the Meffiah came
before that time. Malachi is the laft
perfon whom the Jews acknowledge as
a prophet in their canon of the Scriptures; and

{ 177 ]
ttrA it is remarkable that Almighty'God
Was pleafed to comfort them by thi$
holy mefehg^ (i3m^h]^ with the promife
of another /tef^«|-^r or prophet. *! Be*
*' hold, I will fend you Elijah, the
*' prophet, before the coming of the
*' gfeat and dreadful day of the Lord,"
.Mai. iv, 5. This dreadful vifitation of
their nation was certainly accomplifhed
in the defirj0ion ^Jervfalem j for, if we
examine the hiftories of former tlnies
ever fo minutely, we fhall not be able
to find any national affli^ions or inijeriei
whatfoever to be compared with thpfe
which the Jews fufFered at that titti^.
This ought to be a fufficient proof to
the Jews of the truth of Chrift's pro
phecy conoerniog themfelves, tecoi^ed
in Matthew xxiv. 15, 21. (16) Luke xxi.
Part IV. Z so,
(16) " when ye therefore fhall kc the etbcHntnaiion
" of deflation fpoken of by Daniel, the Prophet,
" (ix. 27. and xii. 1 1 .) ftand in the holy ptaCe,
" (whofo readeth, let him underftand,) then let them
*« which

[ i/S ]
20, ar, 22, 25,. 24. (17) and Markxiii,
1 9, fo that, asoBC part of the.prophecy was
fo pundually accomplifiied, they may
fafely affure themfelves that fuch great
, ,, tribulation

" which be in Judaea flee unto the mountain?." — "For
?' then Ihall he great tribulation, fuch as was not fince
" ihe45Cg5hning of the world to this "time,' no, nor
" ever ihall be. And, except thofe days fhould be
" fhdrtened, there fhould tio flefh be faved : but for
" the elefts fake thofe. days fliall be fliortened."
,(;;) ".And when ye fhall fee Jerufalem compafTetl
" with armies, then know that the defalation thereof
f» is'nigl?. Then let them which are in Judsea flep
'f to the mountains ; and let them, which are in the
" midft of it, depart out; and let not them that are
'f in'thecpuntrips enter thereinto. For thefe be the
" days of vengeance, that all things which are written"
(Dan.ix. 26, 27. Zech.'xi. 1. &c, &c.) " may be
f< fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child,
«« ^nd to tliem that give fuck in thofe days : for there
"fhall be great diftrefs in the land, and wjath upon
»' this people. And they fhall fall by the edge of the
" fword, and fhall be led away captive into all na-
f« tions : and Jerufalem (hall be trodden down of the
" Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."
l.nke xxi. ap-24. " For in thofe days fhall be af-
" flJQion, fuch as was not froqi the beginning of the
. " creation, which God created, unto this time, nei-
f ther fhall be." Markxiii. ig. .

[ i7^ }
tribulation will never befal them againV
according to Chrift's promife in the fame
prophecy. . - .
Cornpare the faid prophecy with that
of Daniel ix. "26, 27.
But, though this great and dfeadfal
day of the Lord is certainly paft, yetlhe.
Jews do not allow that the proniifed
Elijah is yet come. . Neverthelefs . they
fent Priefts and Levites <it(?m JerufaJ^nl
to enquire ©f John the Baptift. — ¦ ' Who
*• art thou?— Art thou Elias?" and- be
faith, I am not. " Art thou that pro-
*' phet?" (meaning moft likely that pro
phet promifed by Mofes in Deut. xviii.
15th and 1 8th verfes, who was afterwards
acknowledged by about five thoufand
Jews at one time ; for fo many were
joint witneflTes of one of his miracles,
being convinced by all their fenfes, of
Z 2 feeing.

[ i8q ]
feeing^ hearing, ^^dtafiifig'tj and he an-
f^red no. j^i^ .
But, notwithftanding that John was
a diflferent perfon from Elijah the pro
phet, according to- his ow^h confeffion,
yet he was moft certainly the prophet
promifed by Malachi under the pro
phetical ap^lattotf of Elijah, which Ae-
nmtd the eieeHency of his fpiritual'
mifficm ; for the angel Gabriel told hh
ftither Zacharias in the temple, that
John fho6ld go before the Lord in the
** Jpirit and power of Elias." Sise.St.
Lnke i. 17. • And afterwards Chrift
himfelfbore witnefs of him: — « if yt
** will receive it, this is Elias {iB) *a}hic%
** was for to come " (Matt. xi. i4»)and
in the f^me chapter he calls hitn ** a pr«-
« phet, yea, and more than aproptiet;'*
he being the Lord's meffengfer pfomifeA
by . Malachi iii. i . to prepare his way
before him. John
( 1 8) See alfo Matthew xvii. 10-13.

[ j8i 3
John was likewife a lawgiver (ppnis)
as well as a prophet and ipefifen^; §ot
" there went out to him Jerufalem 'and
*• alljudea, and all i he region round a-
** boat Jordan*" Matt. iii. 5. , Andi
when he warned them to/flee from the
wrath CO come, " the people afked him,
feying, what fhall we do then f" (Lube
Mi. I a.) and we ifind by the. fi^ccee^ng
verfes that he inftrudied t|iem ac^cord*-
mgly, not only with general dodrine,
but even with particular advice, fjjitable
to the different cla&sof men. Thefe'
teftirnonies of the 'EvangeUAs in favour
of John are confirmed in no fmall de
gree even by the Jewijh hijiarian Jofe
phus, who calls him •* tcyetBov oivSpoc, a
** good man ;"— rfbr indfced his life and
convcrfation were fb exemplary and un-
b^^neable, that many of the Jews (as
Jofephus informs us) befieved the de-,
ftrudion of Herod's army to he a juft
judgTement of God for the murder of
that

[ i82 ]
that good man. {ig) See Jewifh Anfiq.
book.xviii. cj.
John was not, indeed,- of the tribe of
Judab, yet it cannot be denied but that
he was a Jew, according to what has
been before obferved concerning the
Afmonasan 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- charai^er : that his
" whole crime was his exhorting the Jews to the love
" and praAice 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 pf 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 toward a revolt, refolyed 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
" jufijudgement of God upon him for that impious
" murder." Uuiv. Hif. vol. x. /. 538.

[ J§3 I
giver from betweenthe feet of Judah, for
he was born in the hill country of Ju
dea, .(Lukei. 65.) in a city of Juda,
(Lukei. 39.) at a time when that tribe
was in full pofieffion ofits inheritance.^
But the circumftance which more
particularly points out the accomplifh
ment of of Jacob's prophecy in this
holy Nazarite (20) is, that John was
the very laft of the Jewifh lawgivers or
prophets. For though, on extraordi
nary ocicafions, fome prophetical fen-
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-prieft,
concerning Chrift, — •* that it was exr
" pedient
(20) John was a " Naxarite unto . God from bis
'' mother's womb," as Sampfon,, one of the jWj-« of
Ifrael, had been before him. (Compare Judges xvi. 17.
w.jth St. Luke i. 15.). But Chrift could not properly
be called a Naizarite;(as Dr. W . ms fuppofes him to
be) without a contradi£bion to the ufnal fenfe of that
title in the Jewifh law.

f 184 ]
** pedient that one man fhould die for
•* t^e people," &c. John xi. 50.) (21)
yet the Jews cannot prove that a fingle
prophet (profcffedly as fuch) has been
fent to them from God ever fince the
time of John; thatis, for above 1700
years J except they will cdndefcend 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,
(it) See what a tranifeft (though unwilling) tefli-
jaoay, ev€a the unbelieving Jews bare of Chrift's hea
venly miflion.^" Then gathered the chief priefts and
•• Pharifees a council, and find. What de HtieP for this
" man doethmeny miracles. If We thus let him alon«, tdl
" men nuill believe on him; and the Romans _/J«// fow^
" amd take atuay both our place and nation. And one of
" them, named Caiaphas, being the high-prieft that fame
•• year, faid unto them. Ye know nothing at all, nor
" confider that it is expedient for us, that one manjhoald
" die for tht people, and that the <o/bole nation peri/h not.
" And this fpake be not of himfelf: but, being high-
*• prieft_ that year, he prophff^d that Jclos flionld die
" for that nation," &c. Joiinxi. 47-51.

[ j85 3
nulled, and therefore cannot be reckoned
among the Jewi/h lawgivers or prophets.
This was confirmed by Chrift him
felf, (Luke, Xvi. 16.) " the law and
*' the prophets were until John."— And
agaijO, (Matth. xi. 12, 13.) " for all
" the prophets and the law prophefied
" until 'John."
Thefe are fufficient authorities, I
hope, to juftify my fuppofition, that
the prophet and lawgiver departed from
Judah at the death of John the Baptift ;
or rather, was gradually departing for
fome time before his death : becaufe, at
Chrifi increafed, 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 not the Chrifi, but that I
" am fent before him. He that hath
" the bride" (thatis, the church, or con-
Part IV. A a gregationr

[ i86 ]
gregation ; for John had juft before
been told that Chrift " baptizeth, and
" ell men come to him" 26th verfe)
" is the bridegroom : 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
" mufi increafe, but 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 j 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 .hat Jefus made and baptized
" more difciples than John, (though Jefus himfelf bap.
" tizednot, but his difciples,) he left Judea. and de.
•• parted again into Galilee." John iv. 1,2 3

[ i87 1
" 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 believeth on the Son hath evcr-
" lafting life : and he that believeth
" not the Son fhall not fee life j but
*' the wrath of God abideth on him."
Thus far the Evangelift feems to be
relating the teftimony of John, the fe
cond Ellas.
Lithe 5th chapter (31ft verfe) of
the fame 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. There is another
" that beareth witnefs of me, and I
*• know that the witnefs, which he wit-
" neffeth of me, is true. Te fent unto
" John, and he bare witnefs unto the
A a 2 *' truth.

[ i88 ]
** truth. But I receive not tefiimony
'* from man ;"  neverthelefs, our Lord
cbndcfcended to give the Jews an op-
portumty of being convinced by the tefii
mony of man ; a man, whom they almoft
univerfally efteemed on account o-i the
puiity of his life, which I have already
fhewn from the authority even of the
Jewijh hiftorian, Jofephus.
The mercy of God, therefore, is ap
parent in this condefcenfion J and, though
our Lord himfelf declared, that he re
ceived not " tefiimony from man" yet he
added, — " but thefe things" (relating to
John's teftimony) ** I fay, that ye might
" be faved:"
He then gives a moft lively and com-
prebenfive (though fhort) defcription of
the holy charader of this his harbinger.
" He was" (fays our Lord) " a burning
" and ajhining light ;" — and he reminds
the Jews, that they formerly teftified a
very

[ i89 ]
very particular approbation of this holy
perfon : " andye were willing" (fays he)
" for a feafon fo rejoice in his light.
" But I have greater witnefs than that
*' oijohn: iot the works ^hifHi tht ¥a-
*' ther hath given me to finife, the
" fame wotTks that I do, bear witnefs
" of me, that the Father hath fent me.
'* And the Father himfelf, which hath fent
*• me, hath borne witnefs ofnae. Ye have
" neither heard his voice at' any time,
** nor feen bis fliape. An^-^e have vnothis
" word ahiding in you: for, whom he
" hath fent, him ye believe not. Search
*' the Scriptures, for in then*- ye think ye
" have eternal life, and they are they
?* which teftify of me." Thus Chrifi
pointed out to the Jews three incon-
teftible indications of the truth of his
holy dodrine
¦ ift. The teftimony of John the Bap
tift, with which he indulged them, thoug-h the

[ 190 1
the fame might be efteemed unnecefTary
for the caufe of him, who " receives
" not tefiimony from man."
2dly. His own mighty works, daily
wrought among them, which, as he
faid, " bear witnefs oi me, that the
?• Father hath fent me."
And 3dly. The witnefs of the Father
himfelf, though (as Chrift exprefTed him
felf to the Jews) " ye have neither
*' heard his voice at any time, nor feen
" his (hape ;" but he feems plainly to
dired them to that witnefs of God,
which has in all ages been apparent in
the accomplifhment 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; and therefore Chrift referred them to

[ 191 ]
to the Scriptures, as being the witnefi
of the Father, himfelf. '• Search the
" Scriptures,'' &c. But they wilfully
negleded to make a right ufe of fuch
ample teftimony ; and were, therefore,
inexcufable. " Do not think" (faid
Chrift) " that I will accufe you to the
" Father : there is one that accufeth
** you, even Mofes in ivhom ye trujl.
" 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 fhall ye believe my words ?"
In the very next chapter (vi. i, 2.)
the Evangelift relates the accomplifh
ment of one of the circumftances of
Jacob's prophecy, as recorded by Mo
fes j viz. — " and unto him Jhall 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, becaufe they faw his miracles,"
&c. And again, (14th and 15th
verfes,) " then thofe men," (the five
thoufand perfons, who were fed by
Chrift with five barley loaves, and two
fmall fifties,) " when they had feen the
" miracle that Jefus did, faid. This is
" of a truth that prophet that fio^ild
" come into the w,orld. When Jefus,
*• therefore, perceived that they would
" come and take him by force, 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. Mann ob
ferves in his learned treatife de Anno
Natali Chrifti, p. 4.) were not the only.
people that were to be gathered unto
Shiloh J

[ »93 ]
Shiloh ; not one nation only is pointed
at, in the prophecy, but many nations.
The patriarch's words were not Dj7n nnp'
the gathering of this people or nation,
but in the plural number 0^23; nnp' the
gathering of the nations j which has been
apparently fulfilled : for, the nations
have at different times almoft univerfally
fubmitted to the faith of our Lord Jefus,
the true Shiloh ; notwithftanding that
many have fince fallen back into grofs
ignorance, fuperftitlon, andunbelief.(23)
The gathering of the people to impoftors
does not at all affed the certainty of the
Part IV. B b fign

(23) We have a dreadful example of this in the
prefent ftate of the once-enlightened Grecian empire,
of the greateft part of Alia, and of almoft ihe whole.
vaft continent of Africa, Nay, the greateft part even
of Europe itfelf hath long fince refumed the veil of its
former darknefs, and the fhadow of death: for, the
fuperftitious vanities of Rome bear too great a refem-
blance to the old Heathen idolatries; and the multi
tude of Atbeifts, Deifts, arid of thofe who negleifl
Chrift's holy facranients, is an alarming indication pf
^falling eleven ^monj ourfelve?.

( 194 ]
fign given by the patriarch Jacob, m
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^fl//6^r(?^ themfelves: for, " they
'* received not the love of the truth,
" that they might be faved. And for
*' this caufe God fent them firong dehi-
•' fion" (as foretold by St. Paul) " that
*• they fliould believe a lie." 2 Theft".
ii. II.
The fame people, who rejeded the
truth through bardnefs of heart and want of
(24) " For, there fhall arife falfe Chrifts, and falfe
" prophets, and fhall ftiew great figns and wonders,
•' infomuch that (if it were pofiible) they fliall de.
" ceive the very eleft. Behold, I ba-ve told you be,
?' fore," &c.
(25) " Take heed that ye be not deceived ; for,
« many ftiall come in my name, faying. 1 am Chrift ;
M and the time draweth near i go ye not the.efore
•' pfter them,"

[ ^95 ]
tf fqitb, very foon afterwards, by a
contrary infatuation, rendered them
felves defpicable by the moft abfurd cre
dulity. Even the Jewifh hiftorian, Jofephus,
gives ample teftimony of the pronenefs
of his countrymen to error and falfe
dodrine, and that they were eafily led
away by impoftors and deceivers. He
relates a very remarkable inftance of it,
in their being led out by an Egyptian to
the mount of Olives J from whence he
had undertaken to fhew them a wonder
ful fpedacle, viz. that the walls of Je
rufalem fhould fall at his command. (26)
The fame fpir-hual blindnefs conti
nued even after the abomination ofdefola'
tion, notwithftanding the apparent jgdge-
ment of God upon them, in the de
ftrudion of their great (and once holy)
B b 2 city :
(26) Antiq. book XX. chap, 6. p. 695.

[ 196 }
city.' for they have (as readily fince that
time as before) acknowledged the in
credible pl-etehfions of feveral itiipoftors,
who have at different times fet them
felves up for the true Mefiiah. For
inftance, ~ the infamous Barchocheba,
(NatJisna or Son of a Star,) in the reign
of the emperor Adtlan, was gladly re
ceived, and zealoufly fupported, among
the Jews, until an immenfe flaughter of
his miferable adherents plainly demon-
ftratedthathe was more properly intitled
Barchozba, (si3T"iD*)3) 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 of the world,
that were gathered to thefe counterfeits j
which ought to demon ftrate to the pre
fent houfe of Ifrael the apparent differ
ence between the true Meffiah, and the
miferable deceivers above-mentioned. Thus,

[ 197 I
Thus, I hope, I have fhewn, that
the fceptre did not depart from Judah,
nor a lawgiver from between his feet,
until Shiloh was come ; and that the ga
thering 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
** have eyes, and the deaf that have
f ears. Ijet all the nations he gathered
" together, and let the people be af-
*' fembled : who among them can de-
*' clare this, and fhew us former things ?
*' Let them bring forth their witneffes,
*' that they may be juftified : or let
" them hear, and fay, "It is Truth"
Ifaiah xliii. 8, 9.
" Glory be to God in thehigheft, and
*' and on earth.peace, good- will towards
" men." TheE^Yi of Part IV.

A N
ANSWER TO SOME OF THE
Principal Arguments ufed byDr. W — ms
IN 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 Jccommodatiom
of Scripture Prophecy, are briefly confidered.
P A R T V.

[201 ]

A N
A N S W E R
T O
Some of the principal Arguments ufed
by Dr. W  ms in Defence of his
Critical DiflTertation 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, 15,)
16 J yet he hath not thought proper to
acknowledge one of them, though he
has labotired to difprove feveral. Soma
of the principal arguments which the
Dodor has advanced in favour of his
hypothefis are confidered in the follow
ing pages.
Part V. C c But,

[ 202 J
But, befere 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, notwithftanding that
Dr. W  ms apprehends the fame to
be " fufficiently and even concliifively
" decided already;" viz. Whether any
^* allegorical meanings and doublefenfes
" of Scripture prophecies are to be al-
*' lowed?

*• tt is Impoffible (fays the Dcdor) to
^ determine when any prophecy is fql-
** filled, if it has more than one fingle
« fenfe. If it has two (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 firft volume of his para-
phrafe

[203]
phrafe and notes on St. Paul's E-pIfUesi
and to Dr. Sylces's Connexion of natural
and revealed Religion, page 217, Sec.
Thefe I have ex^drined With fis tMdk
care, I believe, as is neceffary, and find,
that the -third objeditin td Dr. t?eorge
Benfon's hypothe-fis, q«of^ even in hf*
own Intrdrfudioit, p. xxJcif . dbfigefe hifti
to make fuch large conceffi^wis^oftCJ^n-
ing types and figures, that,- not With-'
ftanding hi« great zeal againfi doabfe
fenfes, his denying of theni feems a merd
dffagrecment in terms, andnoYin effe^,
from the general received' opiniblf.
In his anfWer to the faid objtdion, he
allows, p. xxxv. "That, wherever the
*' law or the Prophets have declared,
" that the rites and ceremonies of the
" Mofaic confiitution Were intended to
" point out a moral obligation, or
*• to prc^gure the MeJ/iah, or fomething
C c 2 "in

[ 204 ]
if in the Chriftian difpenfation, there
'« that moral intention, or prophetic
" prefiguration, is the one true fenfe
" of the text, &c." See the Dodor'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
" fenfe of the text." — But how (as a rea-
fonable man) he can poffibly avoid ac-^
knowledging the neceflary confequence
pf this his conceffion, I leave all candid
readers to judge: for, if there is an
allegorical fenfe alluding to the anti
type, (which he calls *' a moral inten-
" tion ov prophetic prefiguration.," J there
muft certainly be, likewife, a literal
fenfe applicable to the type itfelf.
Indeed the Dodor has in that place
refined his argument to fo fmall a thread,
that it becomes almoft imperceptible. The

[ 205 1
• The next objedion, quoted by Dr.
Benfon, is as follows. — — Objed. 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
" muft not thefe be called double fenfes
" of the words of facred Scripture?"
To this the Dodor anfwers,-  " It
" is acknowledged, that our Lord, and
" his Apoftles and Evangelifts, have
" taken feveral paffages from the Old
" Teftament, and ufed them in a very
" different fenfe from what they have,
*• as conneded with the place from
" whence they were taken.
" But that will not prove a double
" fenfe of the words. I may quote
'* a paffage from Homer or Virgil, He-
" rodotus

[ 2o6 ]
** rodotus or Livy, to exprefs my pre-^
" fent meaning, and in quite another
** fenfe from what it has in thofe anti-
** ent authors : but that will not prove
" that thofe antient authors intended
" their words fhould be underftood in
*' two fenfes. In the original intention
*' they had only one meaning. In my
" accommodation of them, they have only
" one meaning. And though the fame
** words may have different ideas af-
" fixed to them j and be ufed, by fuc-
" ceffive fpeakers, or writers, in vari-
" ous fenfes ; 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
gil, Gfc. " To exprefs a prefent mean-
" ing in quite another fenfe from what " it

f 207 I
*** 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 Differtation, from a very learned
author, (i) viz. that when *^ paffages in
** the Grecian poets are cited, or al-
" luded to, in the writings of the New"
or Old "Teftament," the fame "are
•* not to be confidered as prophecies."
For indeed they cannot otherwife be
efteemed than as ^' a mere accommoda-
¦' tion efphrafis."
But, whenthewardaftheLcfrdby his
prophets, or (as St. Matthew warily
expreiTes himfelf) " that which was
" fpoken
,(i) Dr. GaEffGRT Sharpe.  See his fetnnd
argument in Defence of Chriftianity, taken from the
ancient prophecies, page 349.
The, fentence, which immediately follows the above
extraft, ought by no means to be omitted when the
aat&or's.&niiimeats on'tMs heaid are quoted, viz.
'** Eus,, indeed,, to.an attentive mind, the difference
*' will appear very great between the citations from
'* piȣiiane authors and the prophets."

f 2o8 ]
*' Jpokeh of the Lord by the prophet,"
is cited by an evangelift, and declared
to be 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 oi accommodations,'
I muft obferve, that the fulfilling oi
proverbs and phrafes, or of quotations
from poets and hiftorians, by afimilarity
of circumfiances, is fo widely different
from the fulfilling of a prophecy, that
the true meaning of the word fulfil,
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; as " all things muft be fulfilled" (faid

[ 209 1
(faid our Lord) " which were written
" in the law of Mofes, and in the pro*-
*' phets, and in the Pfalms, concern-
" ing me." Luke xxiv. 44.
Therefore, when we are told, that
" the word which was fpoken of the Lord
" by the prophet" is fulfilled, we can
not, either with gramrhatical or reli
gious propriety, (as I have before ob
ferved,) underftand any othev fulfilling or
accomplifiment than that which was Ot
riginally intended by the Holy Spirit to
be prefigured.
Becaufe we cannot allow, that a fcrip-
ture prophecy is accommodated " to a
" particular fenfe, to which it originally
" had no reference f (2) unlefs we allow
likewife, that fuch an accommodation is
abfolutely a perverfion oi the primary
fenfe of the piophet: for readers would
Part V. D d not
(z) See page 40. Crit. Differt.

[ 210 3
not only be thereby perplexed and mif
fed with refped to the true accomplifh
ment, originally-and fingly intended by
the words of the.prophet fo cited, but
would alfo 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 afimilarity of circumfiances," t
So that fuch a mifapplication of fcrip-
ture prophecy cannot otherwife be con
fidered than as a deception leading to a
double mifconfiruBion, as above ; which
Virould be as little fuitable to the tefti
mony of an evangelift, " by way of il-
" tufiration," 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

[ 2U 3
If all this be duly confidered, I think
no one can rcafonably fuppofe that an
evangelift-would. attempt to mifk^^d his
readers, by declaring a pcophecy tP be
accomplilhed or fulfilled in " a particu-
" lar ienie to which it originally had no
" reference." SeeCritjca/ Pjfl^ert, p.40.
Dr. Benfon, in page xxii. of hif
introdudion, informs lis, that " if
" the iid and xvith Pfalms can be
" fhewn quite throughout to agree to
" king David, then they oqghjt to be
" interpreted of him. But if (as fome
*' judicious perfons have thought) there
" be in them fome expreflions, which
" are not applipable to king David, then
" they fhould be interpreted wholly
" concerning the Meffiah -, to whom
" they do, in every part, very well a->
" gree. D d 2 Now

[ 212 ]
Now I am of the fame opinion with
Dr. Benfon, that thefe two Pfalms are
undoubtedly to be interpreted of the
Meffiah, and I do not at all contend for
the application of them to David.
I only objed, 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 may 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 j when it
plainly

[ 213 ]
plainly appears by the title of thePfalm,"
(nab^V "To Solomon,'') that the pfalm
ift abfolutely addreffed himfelf i?o Solo
mon, who in the beginning of his reign
was manifeftly a type of the fpiritual
Solomon or Shiloh, (na^W or rt^^') the
prince of " peace." (3)
Indeed, the Dodor's rule can hy no
means.be admitted. If we confider the
nature and general ftyle of prophetical
writings, and the abrupt tranfitions fre
quently found therein ; of which I have
given ample and undeniable proofs from
the viith, viiith, and ixth, chapters of
Ifaiah. See the fecond part of my Re
marks on the Critical Differtation.
Thefe paffages, and many others of
the fame kind, very much confirm what
I have written (Part II. p. 104) con
cerning the paffage quoted by St. Mat thew
(3) d3lVw y^ Ifaiah ix.

[ 214 ]
thew from Hofea J (viz. " out of Egypt
" have I called my fon i' ) and, 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 any future
" event " and that the term "fulfilled,
" Cannot imply a prophecy of our Saviour s
" going into Egypt or coming from
" thence," &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. i^.
(Matthew;) " or not fpoken by a pro-
*' phet in the fenfe in which it is cited
" by an evangelift?" Alfo the Dodor
declares, in page 39, concerning this"
paflage.

[ 215 ]
pafl*age, that it " could not be fulfilled
" when the child Jefus came out of
" Egypt."
In anfwer to thefe afTertlons I muft
obferve in the firft place, that they can
not by any means be proved. And, fe-
condly, that it is mofl reafonable to
believe this text of Hofea to be a pro
phecy of Chrift; becaufe the flyle and
conftrudion of the fentence itfelf is fo
peculiarly adapted to the fingle perfon
of the Meffiah, 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, to 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
fpoken of in fuch a manner, that Dr.
W  ms

[ 2l6 ]
W  ms thinks he has fufficient rea
fon to intitle it " a declaration of an event
" longpafi;" yet St. Matthew exprefily
quotes it as a prophecy, viz. " that
'• which was fpoken of the Lord by the
" prophet ;" which expreffion could not
with any propriety be ufed, if the words
of the prophet were merely an hifiorical
relation; for they could not, in that
cafe, bs faid to be "fpoken of the Lord."
Thus it plainly appears, that there is
not the leaft room to' fuppofe an accom
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)
*' af an event long paft" prefigured an
event to come ; and confequently that
this fingle text affords an indifputable proof

E 2^7 ]
proof of the fubfiftance of double fenfes
in the Scriptiires. ',
Though fome Chriftians have run
into'errors by turning every thing into
allegory, double fenfes, parables, .and.
types, whether they were feally fo or
not, yet this is no juft argument why
we fliould indifcriminately rejed all
coflflrudions of this kind. .
And, though I contend for double
fenfes in fome cafes, yet I am as averfe
to an unnecefTary multiplication of them
as Dr. W  -ms can be ; and there
fore rejed and proteft againft the Doc
tor's propofition, (in his MS Reply to
my Remarks)) that ii a prophecy " has
" two (fenfes) it may have two hundred;
*' and all of them equally jufi."
The fulfilling of a prophecy (as I have
before obferved) muft mean the only
Part V. E e true

E 218 }
true accomplifhment or completion of it ;
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-
ratlve, which he himfelf points out,)
yet, at the fame time, he manifeftly
excludes the other one hundred and
ninety-eight fenfes, notwithftanding that
Dr. W-  ms thinks " all of them
" equally jufi." For, after a declaration
is made fof indifputable authority J that
a prophecy is fulfilled, it would be, not
only impertinent, butprefiimptuous, to
look for a farther accomplifhment.
It is neceflary, however, for me to
obferve, that the fulfilling of fome par
ticular

[ 219 ]
ticular 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 Dodor, in his Connexion of na
tural and revealed Religion, -chap. x»
p. 229, afiirms, " that our Saviour and
*' his apoftles applied the term tofulfil^
" when there was only a fimilitude o,f
" 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 accornplifi-
" ment oi a prophecy ." "«You have"
(fays the Dodor) " an infiance very clear
" in Matthew xiii. 14, 15. where our
*« Saviour gives the reafon why he fpoke
E e 2 "to

[ 220 ]
" to the people in parables : becaufe,
" fays he, they feeing, fee not ; and
" hearing, they hear not, neither do they
" underfiand. And in them i% fulfilled
" the prophecy of Efaias, which faith,
" by hearing ye fiall hear, and fhall not
" underfiand; and feeing ye fiall fee,
" and Jhall not perceive. For this peo-
" pies heart is waxed grofs, and their
" ears are dull of hearing, and their
" eyes they have clofed ; left at any
" time they fliould fee with their eyes,
" and hfcar with their ears, and fhould
*' underftand with their hearts, and fhould
" be converted, and I fhould heal them."
" OurSaviour" (fays the Dodor) "ap-
** plies thefe words to the Jews in
'« Judea, and St. ?aul, many years af-
" terwards, applies the very fame pro-
" phecy to the Jews at Rome." " This
" fliews" (continues he) " that, though
" the term fulfih when applied to an
" event

{ 221 1
" event foretold, does fignify the ac-
" compHfhment of ^ real prophecy : yet
" it was ufed in cafes where there was
'* no accomplifhment of a predidion,
" hut only a fimilitude of circumfiances;
** and, confequently, the application 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 fuch afarticular event was
*' foretold:" " But the real meaning
" ofthe word muft be determined by
" other circumfiances ; fuch as, whe-
*' ther the prophet is fpeaking of a fu-
" ture event or not, or, in fhort, by
".thpfe means by which one knows*
** whether the words are prophetic or
" not."
But, before all this reafoning of Dr.
Sykes be adniitted, we ought carefully to

[ 222 ]
to examine the foundation or proof on
which it is built.
This he calls " an infiance very clear-"
but I hope to convince my readers that
it is no inftance at all of this matter, and
confequently that the Dodor'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
moft 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
" ftiall not underftand;" &c. Ifaiah vi.
lo.) was manifeftly fulfilled when the
Jews rejeded the dodrine of Chrift,
whether preached by himfelf at one
time.

[ 223 ]
time, or by his apoftles at other different
times. So I thiqk I niay fafely conclude that
the two differeiii applications, quoted by
0r. Sykes of this fame prophecy, were
not oecafioned, as he fuppofes, by a mere
" fiifntitude of ctrcurnfiances" but by a
direSl accomplifiment of the prediSlion In
both cafes.
Now, as this example canntot any
longer ferve the caufe in favoiir of which
it was quoted by Dr. Sykes^.? I hope it
will not be efteemed. an improper ex
ample of a very d^&rent argument, and
tbo-eforc I beg leave to claim itt, on my
fide of the queftion, as " an infiance
" very clear" of the.truth ofthe obfer
vation which I made above, viz. that
ine fulfilling of fome particular prophe
cies includes a confiderable length of
/time as wellas a variety of circumftances
and places. However,

[ 224 i
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 againfl me concerning the parallel
account given by St. Mark, chap. iv.
II, 12.
He charges me with refieBing " fe-
" verely on thechafaSierofthe'ibleffed
«* Jefus" by faying, " that he taught
*'. in parables, left they fhould under-
" ftand and be, faved." " Our Savi-
" our" (fay« the Dodor) " gave a very
" different reafon for his condud; and
" Mr. S  fhould have rendered the
" paffage, Mark iv. 12. agreeable to the
*• evangelift's words in the 33d verfe of
" the fame chapter : /itijTroTE fhould be
" there tvanHatsd if peradventure, as it is
" in 2 Timothy ii. 25." However, I am
not at all confcious (I thank God) of
having

[ 225 ]
having in the leaft refped offended a-
gainft the charader of our bleflTed Lordi
Neither do I know of any fever e re-
fieSiion in this cafe, except the Dodor's
own charge againfi myfelf.
Whatever fenfe the word (A.vi'TroTB may
bear in other places, yet, in the parallel
places of St. Matthew and Mark above-
mentioned, it muft neceffarily be con-
ftrued " lefi;" or to that efFed: for,
as the fenfe of the context muft confirm
the true meaning of any particular word,
it will be found, upon examination, that
the Dodor's fenfe of thefe paffages 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 thofe that were
true believers and the reprobate Jews,
Part V. F f whom

[ 226 ]
whom our Lprd called " them that
" are without," (fee Mark iv. 1 1 .) to
the former it was " given to know the my-
" fiery ofthe kingdom ofQod^' Matthew
xiii. II. Markiv. ii. but to the latter,
fays St. Matthew, " it is not given."
Now this neceffary diftin<3;ion is en
tirely Ipft by Dr. W  ms's interpreta-'
tion, becaufe there is no fuch diftip^JQi}
n^iade in the 33d verfe of the fourth
chapter of St. Mark, the fenfe of vwhich
the Dodor propofes to adop.t ; for the
evangelift is there fpeaking of Chrift'a
preaching in general to the whole mul
titude, including thofe to whom " jt
*' was given to know," as well as thofe
to whom it was " not given ;" and this
is, certain, beca^f? in the very next verfe
(the 34th) we read, that afterwards,
" when they were alone, he expounded
" all things to.his difciples." Now

[ ^^1 1
Now It might very well be faid of
Chrift's preaching to the whole multi
tude of good and bad together, that
" with many filch parables fpake he
" the word unto them> as they were
" able to bear it " becaufe Chrift ob
ferved this fatoe method even when he
taught his difcjples alone j and at laft
declared to thetoi foon before his paffibrt*
*' I have fet nfany things to fay unto
" yt)u, biit yk cannot bear them now"
John xvi. 12.
Buti when the reprobate JeWs are fpo-
keh oifeparately and difiiltBly ivom thofe
to whom it Vvas " giiitti' to knoio,'* it
cannot be underftood that the word was
fpoken " unfo them as they were able io
" bear itT
Becaufe, it is appaffent that they
were never able to hear it dr bear ii ; 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; otherwife the prophecy of
Ifaiah, which Chrift then referred to,
could not have been fulfilled. " Be-
" caufe feeing, they fee not ;" (faid our
Lord ;) " and hearing, the'^ hear not,
*' neither do they underfiand." (Which
is very diflferent from being fpoken to,
as Dr. W  ms would 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 fhall hear, and
" Jhall not underfiand; and feeing, ye
" fhall fee, and fiall not perceive."
(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 ofthe 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
^' clofed, leji at any time they fl:iould fee
" with their eyes, and hear with their
** ears, and fhould underftand with their
'* heart, and fhould be converted, and
" I fhould heal them" (faid our Lord.)
Theclofing of their eyes was their own ad
and deed, " fheir eyes they have clofed,
" LEST they Jhould fee" &c. 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 myfterles are no
" more plainly delivered unto tbem, (the Jews,) is
" for their foregoing obftinacy." See Assembly's,
An NOT. on the laid text.
Dr. Hammond paraphrafes. the 15th verfe to the
fame effeft, viz. that " this is a juft judgement of
" God's upon them, for their obduration and obfd-
'• nacy," &c.
Monf. Martin likewife explains this to the fame
purpofe. " C"efl: a dire, que Dieu fe cache a ceux
" qui, I'ayantpu trouver, ne fe font pas mis en etat
" de le chercher, et qu'il livre a leurs prejuges eta
" leur tenebres ceux qui ont ferme les yeux a la
»« verite."

[ 230 ]
They rejeded fuch evidence as Chrift was
pleafed to give them* which Would have
been amply fuflicient, had they not tbil-
fullyjhut their eyesdgainfi if ; for St< Johtt
fays, chap. iii. 19. " this is the con-
" demnation, thatlight is come into the
*• world, and men loved darknefs rather
" than light, becaufe their wofks were
« evil."
Therefore they vjtxt Juftly efitemed un
worthy " to know the myfteries of the
" kingdom of heaven." For, " who-
" foever hath," (faid our Lord,) •' to
*' him fhall be given, and he fliall have
*' mote abunuance : but whofoever hath
" not, from him fiall be taken away even
*' that he hath. Therefore, J/a xK-fb,
" fpeak Ita them in parables, becaufe
" they, feeing, fee not," &c.
The words het tsto, " therefore,"
plainly refer to the foregoing fentence, viz.

C 231 ]
viz. " but whofoever hath not, from
," hi^n Jhoill k^ taken a^ay," •&«. So
that the feope aod tenor of the argu
ment we«ld be entirely deftroyed if Dr.
W . - iBs's fenfe of the par alkl pafllage
in St. Mark were \q be admitte4 For
Chrift plainly intended to ifefw, that
the unbelieving Jews would lofe evef>
what little knowkdge they h^d > fo far
would they be from underflanding or
receiving his parables. And the event
plainly, proved this ; for they fell from
bad to worfe, until the total deftrudion
of Jernfalem, wh^n tlie ab,ommatim^ of,
defalation (fpoken of by Datpiel) was ac
complifhed. St. Maris does not;, indeed, exprefs,
the sexy words of the prophet Ifaiah, nor
mention the quotation made of th^m by
Chrifi:, but he plainly delivers the full
fenfe of them, as they were veHf^fnyilkd
in the unbelieving Jews, viz. " Unto

[ 232 ]
« Unto you" (faid Chrift to his dif
ciples) " it is given to know the myftery
" ofthe 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-
" derfiand, lest at anytime they fhould
*' be converted, and their fins fhould
** be forgiven them."
The particle <!/«(" that") followed
by verbs in the fubjundive mood {fiKzirtatTi
Ttat fjivi tSu<rt, &c.) cannot poffibly be made
fenfe of, if the word [^i^'^ore (" lest")
is tranflated " if peradventure ;" be
caufe the negative jLtij (viz. fi-^ t^co<n, and
[/.yj (Tvviucri, " may not fee, and may not
" underftand" ) abfolutely leads to a
different fenfe from that propofed by
Dr. W  ms.

So

[ 233 1
So that It is moft reafonable to con
clude, with Dr. Hammond, that thefe
words, Iva l3\e7rovTes " that feeing," &e.
" note the obduration of the Ifraelites,
" which fell on them from God's de-
** fertion, as a punifhment for their not
" making ufe of the talents which he
*' had given them ; 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
** alfo inLukeviii. 10. and John xii. 40.)
" epitomized and fummed up, (jLviirol^ i^u<re,
" lefi they fiould fee," &c.
The word [^wols, therefore, cannot
in either of thefe places be conftrued
" if peradventure," without deftroying
the propriety of our Lord's quotation
from Ifaiah, delivered at length by St^
Matthew, and epitomized by St. Mark
Part V. G g as

[ 234 3
as above ; for the word JD. in the o-
riginal prophecy, is properly rendered
\i» in the Syriac, and lest in the Eng
lifh tranflations, and cannot poffibly bear
any other fenfe agreeable to the context^
becaufe the prophet plainly foretold that
the Jews would wilfully fiut their eyes
{fifiTitiTs) " LEST they fhould fee with
" their «yes."
Now, men do not ufually fiut their
eyes in order to fee therewith, or (accord
ing to Dr. W  ms's interpretatation
©f i^^irere) " if peradventure" they
may fee with their eyes ; but, rather,
that they may not fee, or, according to
the propriety of the Englifli tranflatiOfP
oifiTiTTOTe, " LEST they fhould fee with
" their eyes," &c.
The clofing of the eyes, in this place;
is indeed a mere figurative expreflion
for the infenfibility and wicked obftinacy of

[ ^^5 1
df the Jews; yet the fame reafoning holds
good, notwithftanding this confidera-
tion, and fufficiently proves that the
'^vord ptypro^e muft be conftrued jtega'4
tkiely, and not, as Dr. W ' mi pro
pofes, " ii peradventure."
By this example we learn that fome
parables were not only difficult to thofe
reprobate unbelievers, whom St. Mark
calls " them that arewiihrmt," but alfo
even to the true difciples themfelves;
#ho5 by mifunderftanding the parable
of the fower, and by defining an ex
planation of it, (fee I oth verfe,) oeca
fioned this remarkable anfwer of our
Lord, the purport of which is jfecorded
m the two texts confidered above.
Neverthelefs, there were very many"
cafes,, wherein the teaching by parables
and types was (not only the faffeft and
moft pfudent but alfo) the ftiorteft and
G g 2 cleareft

[ 236 ]
cleareft method of conveying a true Idea
ofthe propofed dodrine, as being very
fuitable to the genius and cuftoms of
the Eaftern nations in general, and of the
Jews in particular; 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 fubjed of my Remarks, viz. the
prophecy of Ifaiah concerning the birth
of Immanuel.
Dr. W  ms has aflerted (page 44.)
** that the evangelift only alludes to the
*' paffage in Ifaiah, becaufe it was re-
" markably fuitable to the matter which
** he was relating."
This oecafioned my queftion to the
Dodcr, viz. " If nn^y does not fignify

[ 237 ]
" a virgin, in what fenfe can the text
•* be e^eemtd remarkably fuitable iothe
" miraculous conception of a virgin by
*• the Holy Ghoft? And in what man-
** ner could the accommodation of .it
" to that fingular event affift the facred
** hiftorian" (as he fuppofes) " by way
" ofilhiftraiion?" See Part I. page 63.
I afterwards obferve, that the Dodor
** has taken great pains to make the
** texX remarkably unfuit able, byinfinua-
** ting that naV^rn the YOUNG woman"
(as he conftrues it) "fpoken of in the
" text was fo far from being a virgin,
" that fhe was with child, even at the
*• time when fhe was pointed at" (a« he
devifes in p. 3 1 .) " by the prophet."
To which the Dodor replies, "had
" St. Matthew alluded to the birth of
" this child,- it would have been very
," unfuit able" Now

i: n^ I
Now this conceffion is fufficient for
my purpofe, becaufe the Dodor'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. I
For, though the evangelift interpreted
the name Immanuel, yet this does not
prove that he referred merely to this
name, but, rather, that no other perfon
but the Meffiah himfelf could properly
be intitled " God with us-" and confe
quently that he efteemed the words of
Ifaiah to be really a prophecy, and fuch
an one as could not he fulfilled, except in
Chrift alone, who was truly " God
*' with us. Butfarther,^-The,evange-
lift's manner of introducing the quota
tion very clearly fliews that this name was

[ 239 ]
was not the only thing he intended to
allude to.
For he fays, — " Now all thi«
'** was done (tuto h oXov yByovBv) that
" it might be fulfilled which was fpoken
" ofthe Lord by the prophet, behold a
** VIRGIN fiall be with child, and ftiall
bring forth a fon," &c.

tt

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, Cas Dodor W-— — ms has infinu-
ated,) but in the whole quotation.
Another .objedion is made, " that
" the birth of a child from a virgin is a'
** fad of fuch a nature, as not to admit " of

[ 240 ]
" of proof." " It is a fad" (fays the
Dodor) ** which in the very nature of
" it cannot be a fign to any perfon but
?' the mother."
Neverthelefs, the Scriptures Inform
us that ^\%fign 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 fufficient 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 i' 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

[ HI ]
« BlefiTed is flie that believedi" (faid
Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Ghoft,)
** for there fliall be a performance of
" thofe things which were told her
" from 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
ahfoluteknowledgeof the fad was not
confined to the virgin-mother alone 4
 '^ ' i
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 fhe
fliould " bring forth a fan ;" and, that
he might the more efFedually convince
him of his wife's purity and virtue, he
afthfed him, faying, '* that which is
w-Part V. H h *' con-

*' conceived in her is of the Holy Chofi'*
Therefofe, f hough *' the birth of 'a
w child fom aA'irgin" is 'oy Dr. W— — ms
efteemed '* a fad of fuch a nature as
?' not to admit of proof," yet nothing
is impoMble with God, who was pleafed
to give thefe indubitable proofs, of the
longrprotnifedfign even while the chUd
Jcfiis was in the womb, which muft
entirely obviate the Dodor's objedion,
that "..this eannat be (fjigm to any p&rfm
" bift the mother."
In tfee fpJnefp of tiipe the %n waj
Hftaii\ff(^ed ift the mftii ?3ftraprdinaj[y.
An'angel, accompanied vsrith a mul
titude of the heavenly hoft, proclaimed
the wonderful birth to the fhepherda
jatheftsldii anda ftar poiate^ out tq
the

t m 1
the eaftern ftratigets fbe f\ii6t wlktii iht
fating child Uy.
Undoubtedly, this wonderful circum-
fitince, chat A VIRGIN HAET BRdtOHT
FORTH A s€m, woirldy in 4 Ktfle titft^i
be as well kidovvB to the haufe ^IMvid
a« thefe mttaetdous nMAiifefiafic^hs a«d
eosfirmatiOAs of the faid ftfpernattffal
birth; efpecially as the family of JeN^
feph, the bleffed virgin's hufband, was
fhecMefhrtin&hofthat f^atfiock, fineially -
&fcdaded froii* Zofafba&dl,, at*d fo froiM
the fon of Jeflfe.
There is ftrll irtotfier ^ffifctiiiy wlt6
Df. W^— ms.. " 1 dantiot perceive"
(fays- he) ** tehat event t^f biiirh of
*f Immanuel could be a fign of, unlefs it
" £OuJdbe a fign of itfelf"
But is k xeiWy poffiibte' rfialf Dr.
W— ^ — ms " cannot perc&ive^ t^at th©
H h 2 ffiirtfea-

[ 244 ]
piiraculous birth of the true Iminamifel
was a fign of fomething more than that
event itfelf?
' Was it not a fign to all thofe, who
then waited for " the confolation and
•*• redemption of Ifrael" (Lukeii. 25.)
that the kingdom (f God was nigh at
handf (Matthew xii. 28.(5) Lukex.
9, 1 1.) (6).
Was it not a fign to Jofeph, and others
ef the houfe of David, that a child, fo
born, muft be the long- promifed Meffiah
of the feed tf David, to whom the king
dom was to he refiored, ai^d in whom
(according to Ifaiah'i promife to his
coternporaries of the houfe of David) it
(5) «• But if I eaft ont devils by the Spirit of God,
*' then tht kingdom oi God is come unto you."
(6) "¦ And fay unto them, the kingdom of God it
•' comef^^ unto you — Notwithftanding, be ye fur*
** bf this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh
". tinto you."

I ^45 3
it was to be eftabliflaed for ever'?' See
tfatah ix. 6, 7. 2 Sam. vii. 16.
But, I findi it is in vain that I urge
to Dr. W  ms the accompUfhment
ofthe feveral prophecies, concerning the
eftablifliment of the ** kingdom of Da
vid" in Chrift ; for the Dodlor ftill feems
to perfift in his former notion that Na
thaniel " laboured under a mifiake" iii
calling Chrift " king of tf rael"
- He hopes to' evade the point, by al-
ledging, that " not only Nathaniel and
*' the difciples, but the whole Jewifh
" nation, did adually labour under a
" great miftake about fhe nature oi the
** Mefliah'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 mifiake f as the Doc tor

[ 24<5 ]
tor obferves, concerning " the nature of
" the Mefiiah' s kingdom," yet thtrewas
not the leafi miftake, in thofe who truly
believed, concerning the main pdint in
queftion, viz. whether or not the Meffiah
was really a king,
Notwithftanding that our Lord re
jeded 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
" Ifrael," (as Nathaniel called him,)
and king of Judah, or (vdiich is the
fame thing) *' king of the Jewi;* for
even Pilate himfelf feemed convinced of
Chrift's juft right to the title of Mng,
though, like a thorough-paced time-fer-
ver, he preferred his own temporal in-
tereft to all other confideratiorasy and
deKvered up the Kin& op kTINGS
(Rev. xvi?. 14.) to be flain, kw<SHrjB'|
him to be a king ; for, his afffwet to
the

[ H7 \
the chief priefts, concerning the title in
tended to.be affiled to the crofs, plainly
fbews that be was confeious of this.
Tit. W-^-^-ms charges me with having
*• brought a vaft number of texts to
prove, not (my) affertion, that Jefus
was ever called the king of Judah,
but the truth of (bis) aflertion," &c»
concerning the miftake of Nathaniel.
And he fays, " this will be evident to
", every one who eonfults thje paffages
" cited by me."
But, if the Dodor will pleafe once
more to confult the paffages himfelf,
he will find that feveral among them are
prophecies which were abfolutely ful-
fmed ia our Lord Jefos.
Therefore, I hope, he will not ven
ture to afiiert that the prophets hkewifa
<« laboured under a mifldke^'' when they
proclaimed

i 248 ]
proclaimed thefe titles of the, glorious
Meffiah; or that the difciples, and all
other Chriftians even to this day, ftill
" labour ««^,?r a miftake" in applying
them to Chrift, in whom alone they were
orcould be fulfilled.
" Rejoice greatly, O daughter of
" Zion ; fliout, O daughter of Jerufa-
" lem : behold t.hy king cometh un-
" to thee" the prophet then proceeds
Xa deiev\}Qe this coming of tiAt. king
of Zion and Jerufalem, fo as exadly ^ to
correfpond with the evangelift's account
(Luke xix. 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, bleffed be the king
" that cometh in the name ofthe Lord"
&c. For he was, certainly a king even
when he rode upon the afs, which -is*
proved

[ H9 1
proved by the continuation of Zecha-
riah's prophecy, (ix. 9.) whereby he
points out the charader and appearance
oi the king of Zion and Jerufalem, men
tioned in the beginning of the fame
verfe ; " he is juft," (faid the prophet,)
" andhavingfalvation, lowly, and riding
" upon an, afs, and upon a colt, the
^' foal of an af&,",,
So the prophet Micah • declared," that
ont oi -Bethlehem Ephratah^^o\i\d "• be-
" ^ome forth that is to be ruler in
" Ifrael, whofe goings forth have been
** from of old, from everlafting." (Chap.
V. 2.) The event proved the truth ofthe pro
phet's words, as well as of th^ evange
lift's citation, (Matt. ii. 5 and 6.) for the
holy one that was born at Bethlehem,
Was' Afterwards undoubtely " ruler in
" Ifrael," before the difTolution of that
Pa-Kt/V. I i people

[ 250 ]
people from an united nation : of which^
(befides the power of his teaching and
his mighty Works) his public entry into
Jerufalem, and the authority fhewn by
him in clearing the temple, are remark
able proofs.
That Chrift was "a ruler in IfrAeV^
Is implied in the preceding Words ofthe
fame prophet, (Micah v. i.) " they
" fhall fmite the judge of Ifrael with
" a rod upon the cheek." A rtder and
a judge are fynonymous terms; and it is
certain that Chrift pronouncedjW^^w^w^
againft Ifrael for their impenitence and
want of faith; condemning them (with
refped to their temporal efiatej to a hor
rid deftrudion and defolation : (7) and
all this was moft pundually fulfilled (8)
upon them; it is certain, likewife, that
the fame " judge of Ifrael," whom they
fmote
(7) St. Matthew, chap. xxiv.
fS) See Jofephui's accouatof the Jewifti War.

¦[ 251 J
fmote upon the cheek, will one day
judge them, alfO| in theiv. eternaffiate, as
well as all their unhappy defcendants who
perfift in the fame belif^f.
If ft^e^e , prophecies were really ful
filled in Jein^, .'^^^y, O^o^ certainly prove
that the Mei^ah was (as h^ ever wi)l.be)
A J^iNG, and confeiquently ^h,at hisdifr
ciples were not miftaken in calling hiq:}
-fo, howfoever they might mifunder-
ftand the nature oi his kingdom.
Therefore the Dodor's reply upon this
point cannot be well efteemed a proof
of any thing more than of his own great
unwillingnefs to acknowledge that he
himfelf (inftead of Nathaniel) labours
under a mifiake.
Another remarkable excufe which the
1])odor has dft^ered 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 fronj
queens and concubines,) the Dodor re
plies, that " Hebrewpoetry is not fo well
" underfiood as to enable (me) to detcr-
" mine that nn^j? in Canticles vi. 8. is
" not ufed inftead of xy}-\T\l for the fake
" of metre."
This unexpeded turn of thought may,
perhaps, be efteemed ingenious, but it is
far from fatisfadory ; for, if critics wee
allowed to fubftitute the fenfe of one
word for another, whenever their argu
ments are reduced to that neceffity, it
would be but a vain talk to difpute with
them ; and a confufion of language,
like that of the builders of Isabel, muft
necefl^arily fucceed their perverfion of
words. In

[ 253 ]
In Englifh poetry the Dodor may
produce as many inftances of fuch fubfti-
tutions as he pleafes, and he may reft
affured that I fhall never think it worth
my while to attempt a confutation of
them. But, when fuch refined critlcifms are
applied to any part of Holy Scripture,
I think they ought not by any means
to be admitted, unlefs the authors of
them fhall be able to prove that it is
morejuftifiableto adapt the Scriptures
to our own private opinions, than our
opinions to the Scriptures.

The END of Part V.

INDEX O F
Texts referred to in the foregoing- Work;
o P T H E
Various Topics difcuffed;
AND OF THE
, Different Authors referred to.

[ ^^3^ I

I N Dj E X

OF

Texts referred to in tlie foregoing Work.

Genesis.

D

EUTERONb'My;

Chap.

Verfes.

Pages.

Chap.

Verfes. - Pages.

iii.

>S«

55-

xviii.

,15.18. 179-

xxiv.

43-

17. 21 ti.

xxii.

21. 18.

xxv.

3°-

14811. .

23, 24. 16.

xxx.

28 to 30.

III.

28. 15.

xlix.

8.

>SS-

xxiii.

7. ' 148 n.

10.
114Z. 145.
174. 179.
*xviii.
61.62. 134.
Judges.
Exodus
.
xiii.
5. 119.
4*
11.
8.
17. 21 n.
xvi.
17. 18311.
X.
20.
18.
xxii.
16.
12. 14.
I Samuel.
Leviticus.
xvii.
321051. 157.
xviii.
5.14,15.157.
xxiv;
33«
134.
2 Samu£l.
Numbers.
vii.
13, 14. 91.
xxi.
8,9.
53 "•
16. 56.245.
xxiii..
24.
«S7-
xxvi. '
59-
i8.
•I,
¦7. KlNfSS
C ^^^ ]i

2 Kings

.

P

SALMS con

tinned.

xvi.

6.

25-

cxliv.

12.

114.

xrii. ¦

6.

128.

i6.
98 n.
Proverbs.
i8.
136.
• >•
XXVIII.
1.
«57-
xxx.
.9.
11. 21 n.
1
Chroniclbs. i
20.
13 n.
xxii. -
9'
91.
3<5.
»S7-
2
Chronicles.
Canticles.
xxviii.
23,24.
30-
i.
3-
18. 21 n.
xxix.
30 n.
vi.
8.
13. 1911.
24.
30.
2in 252.
xXx.
I.11.18
•31.
xxxiv.
9-
»3$-
Isaiah
.
xxxv.
3-
138.
iv.
2.
114.
Ezra.
Vi.
10.
9» "o*
222. 228.
ii.
62.
140 n.
vii.
7i' 76..
iv.
2.
129.
80. 213.
3-
139 n.
vii.
5, 6.
55-
2. 10.
130.
4, 7-
8.
58. 33- J27-
Esther
.
128.131.
ii.
2i
30 n.
'3- ,
153.158.
57-
Psalms
•
i3toi6.
7.22.Z01.
,
14.
2in. 35.
u.
211.
80.
xvi.
211.
14 to 16.
47.81.
xxxvii
19.
88 n.
16.
21 to 47.
ro5 n.
xlv. Ix.
6, 7.
174.
7-
176.
»37 «•
Ixviii. Ixxii.
25-
16.
Viii.
127.128.
92. 212.
I3«.
cviii.
8.
176.
4-
52.
cxviii.
22.
99.
3, 4'
S^'
cxxvii.
5-
88 n.
4.6,7,8.
76. yj.
cxxviii
•3-
114.
8.
3'-
Isaiah
[ JS59 ]

JsAiAfl continued.
viii. 14. ,3,,
i3toi6f 77. 86.
.87.
«. , 7i- 77-
80. 89.
213.
. ,1 1, 2. 79, ;
• : / 6,- . : 80.9 J.
7- ,19- I
6, 7. Z44.
-6.7.9, 10,11.21.77 n,
XI. r. 116.
. .i 4. 107 n.
xxviii, I'o, ij. 81.
.: ' 16. , 87. 99.
xxxiii, 22. 175. J
xl. ; 27, . 138 n.
xii. ,8. (4, i38n.
xiii. t, 7. . 108 n.
xliii.. 138 n.
8, 9. 197.
xlix. 1 to 4. 1 06 io
III.
. 3. - 106.
;.^^4to7, iQ J': -.¦IP-
Ill.
Jiii. ' 84.
2, 114.
'. ' 3» 4- " '9° "•
.Jeremiah.
Xjdiji -5. 114.
,; 5, 6. 85 n.
XXX, 9. 85 n.
XXKi. .•22. 55.
31, i4on.
XKiiiiii 15. 118.
-, : lb. 85 n.

]EK\\i.ffiff^C^tinued.
1. - 1.4.8,7
..9.'o.:r4on.
.^, Lamentations.
iv. 7. 119.
Ezekiel.
iii. 4. II.- 139.
4. 139 "•
xxxivj 23; 24. 42.
xxxvii, 19, 22V ¦ 141.
24. 42.
xhv.- .22. ¦ ' 15. 19.
- - Daniel.
ix. . ; 26, 27,1 178 n.
179.
XU. .-Jl. 177 !»•
HOSEA.

XI.

I. .100. lie.

214. 215.

2.- • 104.

5'.,..; -33-

Amos.
iii.
8.. 157.
viii.
2».3,- '33-
10.^ 13Z. 13^.
ix.
4. 131.
Micah.
V.
I. .. , 250.
2. 45.1130,
17111.249.
.«. iS7'
t 2
Haggai.
l -jsesb "U

'< "-''H'AceAi.'^ ¦ . !
'^' oil''' •^•'9^' ¦¦'•
%• ' <^93- ;
6, 7. 94.
¦'¦t':n -'''¦'¦¦ 83- 93- 1
. :9- . 93- .vii I
Zechariah. !
"¦¦ vf.8-... ...'«4-.;:i;
6 to 10. 94. I
r II to 15. 95. 960!
,.;i2., pigSn-i'S'
.• - •40' '
!"1'5- ["^ 32-. •
9- 44-
,M. .Q 33- 158-
¦ I. I78n. ;
¦Jt: I. I .'"-^ 139. .1

III.
iv. vi.viii
ix. ;
X.xi. xii. .11
i.
iii.iv.

cMal

ACHI.

I.ii.

I.

U.

I. 139.
I."' - 180,
• 17,18.21. 132.
2, 3. 6. 132.
. Matthew.
' 181023,60. ZO. 242.
20,21. 1070.
22. 207. '
22,23. 60.
I, 2. 41.
2. 171. 173,
4 to 6. 171 n.
5. 1130.181.

M-atthew totitinued,
ii. -155, 6. »-.n- i^/
s 15-

•249.
' IOC.
•';" 15. 23. 100.
¦ ' ¦?'s 20. 39.
v'' ' 22, 23. ii6n.
•l^^ 23. 112.
iii. •» : 5. •" -' 181.
xi.v.J-'' 12, 13. ' 185.
• 'iJ 14. ¦''180.
xii.-. i - 28. '^ 244.
xiii. 1 1. •" ¦s)226.

' Vs 11,12,7
•<"" 13. i

230.

'I V ' 13, 15. 229 n.
•' 14, 15. 219.
.-- • J- 15. 233.
XV. -i" • 24. -- 43.
xvh ^28. ' 120.
xvii. Iotoi3.^i8oii.
xix. i>i 8. C 15. .1-
xxi.' 8. 43, "'¦
xxxixi< 2. 176.
:^v. ' 121. 168.
¦ 1-^15,21. 177.
'01 24. 194.
xxvii. 4a. 4611.
¦•-''¦ Mark.' .'tl;!

1. Cf) 24. 11411.
iv. 101013.820.

82.

X.
xi, xiii.

H,I2.7 ,
n- I
33. 224.226. 228.
34. 226.
47- iiin.
15. i6- 45. 122.168.
19. 1780.
Mark

{ 26 1 :]

Mark continued.

John continued.

xiv.

67. .

( 1 14n.

i. •

IO,JI. 83. -

xvi.

.6.

1140,

.; 45,46, Son.
• 49. 48.

Luke

;

ii. •

15. 45.:

i. ¦

5- '5-
17.

154.182.
-183. )8o.

iii.. iv.

18 t02Z. 99.
14,15. 54.
30. 185.
1, z, 3. 186 n.

*

.3'-

:. 107 n. ; '•
-240.

V.

22, Z3. 850.
31. 187.

32.
41.
311039. I 88. 189.
34»
,39- 65.
54-
, 183.
,83.
vi. ¦
45' 46. Kg
47- 1 ^
!;"'''} '91.^92
15. 42.
42. 1130.
/
45-
241.
ii.
10, II.
25-
47". 108 n.
vii.
_..Li ^
244.
jz. Son.
,ti
32- .
lo8n.
ix.
50. 184.
jii. IV.
40, 52,
10.16.
.II7- 181.117.
xi. xii.
471051. 184 n.
13. 43.48.
40. 233-
34-
11411.
xvi.
12. 227.
viii.
10.
233-
xviii.
5. 1130^
X.
9, "•
244.
36. 42.
14,1;. 169.
xvi.
16.
185.
xix.
xviii.
37-
113 1.
19. 1130.
22. 120.
xix.
37>38-
248.
xxi.
38 to 48
44.
XX.
17, 18.
99-
xxi.
8.
122.168.
194.
Acts.
20 to 24
.78.
iv.
II. 99.
xxiii.
6,7-
162.
12. g8 n.
xxiv.
19.
113 n.
X.
36. 4711.
44.
Z09.
xii.
xxiv.
23. ]6&.
5. 116 n-
John.
xxviii
27. 5
i.
1.
4611.
Romans.
[ 262 ]

KOWAKS.

1 TiMOTHT.

ix. 32,33. 87 n.
ii' .87.

ii.
iv.

5. 980
I. 97 n

1 Corinthians.

2 Timothy.

j- 23. 88.
»: 7. 8. 47 n-

ii.

25. 2Z4.

111. 11. 99.

Hebrews.

2 Corinthians.

i.

2. 41.

vi. 16. 97 n.

5. 92.
EpHESlANS.
ii- 20, 21,7
22. ^99-
ii.
I Peter.
8. 88,
RfiVELATION.
Philippians. ;
li. 10. 156.
n. 47 n.
V,
xvii.
xviii.
5- 156-
3- 99 n-
14. ¦ 96 n,
4' 97 n-
2 Thessalo^ians.
ii> II. 194. 1
INDEX
[ 263 ]

INDEX OFTHE
Various Topics difcuffed in this Work.
A.
JilEXAlUDRiAN MS. ^et Septuagint.
B.
Barchocheba, or Barehoxha, an impoftor, ig6,
Benjon, (Dr. Geo.) remarks on his Prefece to vol. f.
of his Paraphraie, &c. 2&2&feq.
Bill of Divorce, the feducer of a virgin hot privileged
to give one by the Jewilh law, 15. Ste Seducer.

Chrift. Proved to have been king of Judah and Ifraef,
41.246. a ftone of ftumbling to the Jews, Sj&feq.
his divinity to be clearly proved from the Old Tefta
ment, 85 n. Jehovah Sabaoth, a title of his, 86 ;
why called a Nazarene, and the propriety of thar
appellation, 113 & feq. two prophecies of his
explained, 120 ; not a Nazarite as Dr. W.^  ms
fuppofes him to be, 183 n. See Nazarite. Faith in
him almoft univerfally fubmitted to at different
times, 193 ; diftindlion made by him relating to the
Jews, 226.
Church of Rome. Improperly called the Catholic
Church, 9&n. Complutenftan

See
.Contraverfy re'jieiued.

Complutenfian MS. See Septuagint.
Critical i^eiiietuers. See fF  ms and Trinitarian

D.
Da'vid. The promife, that his throne fliould be ef-
tabKflied for ever, fulfilled in Chrilfj y6 & fsq.'
Double Meanings. See Scriptures and Ptii^ecies. ^
E.
Edomites or Idumaans. Accounted Jews from the con
queft of them by John Hyrcanus, t47.
Ethnarch. That tflBcet inferior in dignity: to a. kihg,
160. G.
Galilee. Pointed out by Jfaiah as the place where
immanuel was chiefly to be manifefted, 79.
Gentiles. Were not induced to acknowledge the truth
ot the Scriptures, by becoming converts to Judaifm,
but to Chi ift, no. H.
Herod the Great. Had a right to be efteemed a Jew, 146}
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. S^e Shiioh. Slew St. James, and per
fecuted the Chriftians, 166; his dreadful end, 166 ;
Judxa was never a kingdom after his death, 1&7.
Hyrcanus (John.) See Edomites,
Herod Antipas, tetrach of Galilee. The perfon who
beheaded John the Baptift, 161 ; Judseanot a king
dom in his time, 163. I.
Jerufalem. Deftru£lion of that city a type of the laft
day, and a pledge of the certainty; of it, 1 22.
Jfws. Remain a diftant and peculiar people in the
midft of all nations, 58 j did not confider that the
humility

humility of the Meffiah was foretold by the prophets,
83; whfch they, could nor 1-econciie with their ideas
of their expefled king, ,84 ; ,this name became com^
mon to all the tribes about the reign of Jofiah, 1 36 ;
afad likewife Ifrael,. 127 ; loA the diffinfltion of their
tribes after the J^ahyloniih captivity, 141 ; petition
Csefar tachange tbeir govermnent, 159. 169; folly
of their ftill expefiing ^he MeiEah, 17 1 n. tfieir ex.
treme credujity in the time'of jofepnus, 195; siiJ
fince, 1 96 ; reprobate Jews not worthy to know the
myfteries ofthe kingdtviibfHeayen, 230. , ,
Jojhua. See Solomon. 1,' . \
John (St.' the Baptift). The pfephetpfbrnifedby Mala.'
chi by the name of Elijah, 1.80 ; a lawgiver, i?! ;
and a Jew,' j'82. &ee Lakuei'v'er'znd Prophet.  '"
Immanuel. -Dit W^-^^tn^s iffeffibh,_that"Ifaiab'spio-
phecy concerning him had nO relerence to the Mef
fiah, examined and confuted, zz & feq. that pro
phecy conftcued.to relate to tbe, Meffiah 2^9 yeap
beforeth'e birth of Ch'rift, 6^; which Ts cdnflrtitfed
by all tl\e ancient MSS. of thft' Septuagint, 68'. See
Galike. That prtjphecy cowfid^red, 236.
Jfaiah. The birth of his fon, fi^aheri^flfaaaUhafti-baz,
a proof that his father's propHecy cbncerning Im-
manu^ reHted-to -oar Savicruv^i S.ahd a pledgi of
• that pfophety's beiT.g fulfilled, 54. ; that prophecy
(though fd ftrong arid clear,)' delivered' abbVe ;^oo
years befo're the birth of Chtttf, S^it. - '¦• ' ^ ' ;.
Judiea, -^t^Hertfi Antipas ¦3Afi{irodA^rfpfd.-^\ ;'
'K.'-'':' ¦-¦ ,:
Kennicott's (Dr.): expedient of fiippojing i ?crrupti6fi in
the Kebrew text;' "unneceflary"; lY. ' , ,
¦ "''. . ^ L. \,: '; ¦' ';'¦*' . /''"
La'wgi'ver's. Tht Sanhedrim, Or Scribes arid ?ha-
rilees, not to be accounted fuch, 175; St. John the
Baptift'.the laft among th&Jews, i8j.
LI M.

[ 266 ]
M.'
Mari (St.) defended; 2^24 & feq. '
Matthew (St.) His application of the prophecy con
cerning Immariuel nefended ; 6o;cHap.ii. 15. re
conciled with Hofeaxi. i. ioo & feq. his applica-
' tion ot a prophecy, ii, 23, defended, 11 2-
Me^ah. Called Ifrael by Ifaiah, ' 1 06.
,^; N. ;;'^
Nathaniel. Deftnded/'j'g & feq. 
Nazarene. Chrjft fpcaljed from tTie city of Nazareth,
' 113, 119.
Nazarite. John the Baptift ftridly fo, according to
the Jewilh law, 1 13, 119; Chiift improperly calie4
fo by Dr. 'W— ;— mC, iSjn. "
;¦ . ¦ "-'¦ f^- :¦
ParahL'S. Some difiicuit to the dilfiples themfelves,
235 ; teaching by thepi defended, 235.
Popijh prayer-hook. Served as a paffport at the maffacre
of Paris, 99 n.
Prtlphecies. Frequently, attended with diiRculties, ^o;
thofe in the .7th, 8th, and 9th, chapters of Ifaiah,
feem to have been delivered during the invafion of
Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, kipg of, Ifrael,
75 & feq. quick and ajbrupt tranfitions not unufnal in
them, 81 ; often blended with difierent fubjefls, go;
and often bear a double conftrufiion', 90; perfeft
tenfe as frequently ufed in them as the future, 105 n.
the queftion. Whether allegorical expreflions or ao^-
ble fenfes are tb be allowed in them ? difcuffed,
202 & feq. ¦ ' . - 1 ,
Prophet. None fent from God fince John the Baptift,
184; the Reaping of the word explained, 208.
R.
Reafons for writing thefe Remarks, i. See 'W— — ms.

[ ^t-J ]

s.
Sahbatei Send. An impoftor, 196. — /
Striptures.. We ought to alk God's affiftance that We
may underftand them comfortably, 82 ; double fehfes
, in them proved, .20 1. '
Seducer of a virgin obliged to marry her, by the Jewifti
law, and not allowed, to give her a/bill of divorce, 15;
if of an efpoufed one, to fuffar death, 16.
Septuagint. , See Immanuel. All the tranflations of it,
where the Hebrew word, tranflated niirgin in our
Bibles, is rendered a young luoman, were made after
the birth of Chrift, 69.
S— — (Mr.) anaffertion of his defended, 324.
Shiloh. The prophecy, that the fceptre fliould not de
part, &c. fulfilled, 141, 154; Herod Agrippa being
appointed king by Claudius, no ob}e<5lion t to that
prophecy, 163 ; the other part of that prophecy ex
plained, . 174.
Solomon, Zierubhabtl, and Jojhud, .ty^e,% of the Mefliah,
96. - ..¦¦¦ . : -;. '-• :.¦ .- _:-
Sykes (the late Dr.) cenfured, 214 j an objcftion of bis .
anfwered, 219. T. ' '
Trinitarian Ccntronjerjy reviewed. The Critical Re
viewers miftaken in their lecoramendatory critieifjn
ofthac work, "S5 n. V.
Vatican MS. See Septuagint.
Venetian MS. See Septuagint.
Virgin bearing a fon, a fign worthy the birth of Chrift,
io;_ the Hebrew word lb traoflated occurs only feven
times, 11,19; the text whe.-e the meaning is moft
doubtful, 1 1 J the common Englifti tranflation of
that text defended, 12 j alfo of Gen. xxiv. 43. and
Exod. ii. 8. 17. and Pfalm Ixviii, 25. 18. Cant.
i. 3.18. the Rabbins always underftand it to mean
a virgin, 70.
L2 2 W*

i 268 }

w.
fV  ms (Dr.) his Critical Differfaiioh on Ifaiah,
wherein he aflerts the Hebrew word tranflated virgin
Uevnstom^fiTt.fiyoung'woman, either a virgin or not,
the occafion of thefe remarks, 7 ; approved bv the
Critical Reviewers, 8; the authors of which have
copied almoft all his Differtation, 3 ; has fet forth
his hypothefis to the beft advantage, but- not proved
iis affertiom, 9. See Virgin. Told the author of a-
«other writer who agreed with his opinion, but did
not know it when he publifliied his Differtation, ion.
See Immanuel. No difficulties in the prophecies fo
great as thofe oecafioned by the D4}£ior's tranfla-
ition, 50 ; forgets a former affertion of his, 63 ; his
own miftake caufes the difficulty he fpeaks of, 89 j
miftaking in fuppofing the prophecyi of Ifaiah vii 8.
was Of an event near at hand, izy&feq. his affer
tion, that if a prophecy has two fenfes it. may have
two hundred, confuted, 217 ; an ingenious, but
unfatisfaftory criticifm of his, 25 2.
y.
Toung Woman. See Virgin. Z.
Zerubbabel. See Solomon.

INDEX

[ 7.hx) ^l

I N D E: ::s
OFTHE
Different Authors referred X.&.

A.'
Assembly's annotations, 156. 229.
Affembly's Confeffion of Faith examined, loii.
Aquila, 28. 69.

B.
Barchocheba, 196.
Barchozba, 196.
Benfon, (Dr. George,) 262 & feq. 2iO&feiq. 216.
Bohun, 172 n.
Brabantinus, (Nicholas,) 130.
Bragge, (Mr.) 45.
Bythner, 65. C.
Cove, (Dr.) 121.
Collins, (Mr.) 122.
Concordance to the Greek Teftament, 9 n,
Cranmer. (archbiftiop,) 99 n.
Critical Differtation on Ifaiah vii. 13, &c. 8. 21.
Z09 n.
Critical Reviewers, 8. 21. 40. 85 n. 86 n. 112. 118.-
123. '
Cruden, (Mr.) 54 n. D.

t 270 ]
D.
Dio Caffios, 1+7 Jf.
Doddridge, (Dr.) 62. E.
Eraiitius, lai. ^-T
Eufebius, 67> 'H.
Hammond, (Dr.) 114. 229 n. 233.
Hooper, (bifliop,) 99 n.
Ijluetius, (P. D.) 76. I.
Jerome, (St.) 45.
Jofephus, 147. 148. 150. 15Z. 159, ifio, 161. i6}.n.
164, 165.. 167, 168. 170. 181, 182. 1&8. 195.
250 n.
Julian the apoftate, 101. 1
Junius, (Fr.) 130. "
Juftin Martyr, 56. r
K.
Kennicott, (Dr.) 12. 28. 29.
^-
Latimer, (bilhop,) 99 n. M.
Mann, <Mr.) 23. 146 n. rpz.
Martin, (monfieur,) 157. '174, 175. 229 n,
N. ' ' ' '
Newton, (biftiop,) 58 n. 128 n. 155 n.
.Nicholas of jpajiiafcus, 152.
... O.
Origen, 51. 67.

[ 2?! ]
P.
Philo, 15.
Polyglott, (London,) 64. R.
Ridley, (bifliop,) 99 n.
Rufinus, 150. S,
Septuagint, 28. 68. yon. 87. 95. loi, 102. 105.
 Vatican, Alexandrian, Cbmplutenfian, 'Ve
netian, MSS. 68.
S  , (Mr.) 224.
Sharpe, (Dr. Gregory,) 27 n. 59 n. 65 n. 81 n. 840,
172 n. 207 n.
Simfon, (,Dr.) 130.
Solomon's Song, new tranflation, zi n.
Storkius, 21 n.
Sully, 99 n.
Sykes, (Dr.) 203. 219 & feq,
Symmachus, 28. 69.
Syriac verfion, 11. 28. 69. T.
Theodotion, 28. 6g.
Trinitarian Controverfy reviewed, 86 n.
U.
Univerfal Hiftory, 34, 35, 182 n.
Ufferius, Q.) ii6n.
'Vulgate Latin, 11. W.
Walton, (bifliop,) 69.
W— — ms, (Dr.) 8, 9, 10. 19 20. 22, 23. 2y. 33, 34.
39. 42. 48. 50. 52. 60, 61. 65. 67n. 68. 71. 81. 88.
IGO. 112. 118. 122. 127. 183. 201. £02. 207.
210. 214. 215 & feq. 224. 226. 228. 231, 232.
234&feq. 242, 243. 245. 247.
THE END.

By the fame AutHOR.'
I. A Short Treatife on the Englifti Tongue. Being
I\. an Attempt to render the Reading and
Prottonciation of the fame more eafy tb Foreigners.
1767.
II. A Reprefentation of the Injnftice and dangerous
Tendency of Tolerating Slavery ; or of admitting
the leaft Claim of Private Property in the Pei-fons
of Men in England. Being in Anfwer to an Opi
nion given in the Year 1729, by the (then) Attor
ney General and Solicitor General concerning the
Cafe of Slaves in Great-Britain. 17 6g.
III. Remarks concerning the Encroachments on the
River Thames near Durham-Yard. 177,1 .
IV. Remarks on the Opinions of fome of the moft
celebrated Writers on Growu Law, refpediing the
due Diftinflion between Manftaughter and Murder.
»773-
V. In two Parts, i . A Declaration of the People's
Natural Right to a Share in the Legiflature ; which
is the fundamental Principle of the Britijh Conftitu-
tion tf State. 2. A Declaration or Defence of the
thefam DoSrine, when Applied particularly to The
People of Ireland. 1774'.
VI. The Law of Retribution ; or a ferious Warning
to Great-Britain and her Colonies, founded on un-
qneftionable Examples of God's temporal Vengeance
againft Tyrants, Slave-holders, and Oppreffors.
The Examples are felefted frcim Predidtions, in the
Old -Teftament, of national Judgements, which
/ (being compared with their aftual Accomplifliment)
demooftrate " the fure Word of Prbphecy," as well
as the immediate Interpofition of divine P.rovidence,
to recompence impenitent Nations according to
their Works. 1776.
Printed for B. WH ITE, at Ho r a ce's-He a d,
Fleet-Strebt. M m Tracts

Tracts by the Jame Author.
Now in the Prefs for Publication, by B. Whi^e, in
Fleet-Street, and E. and C. Dilly, in the Poultry.
I, A Traft on the Lavs cf Nature, and Principles
f\_ of Aftion in Man.
II. The Case of Saul; befng an Appendage to
the former Trad, wherein t}ie compound Nature
aod v&r'ious Princijiles of ASiion in Man (with the
Reality oi fupernatural fpiritual Influence, hoth gpod
and badj are proved by unqueftionable Examples
from the Hiftory of that unfortunate Monarch, and
alfo from many other Parts of Scripture.
III. The juft Limitation of Slavery in the Laws of
Cod, compared with the unbounded Claims of the
African Traders and Britifli American Slaveholders.
With a copious Appendix, containing, — An An
fwer to the Rev. Mr. Thompfn's Tradi in Favour of
the African Slave-Trade. Letters concerning the
lineal Defcent of the Negroes from the Sons of Ham.
The Spanijh Regulations for the gradual Enfran-
chifement of Slaves. A Propofal on the fame Prin
ciples for the gradual Enfranchifement of Slaves in
America. Reports of Determinations in the feveral
Courts of Law againft Slavery, &c.
I'y. The Law ofpajjive Obedience ; or, Chriftian Sub-
miffion to perfonal Injuries. Wherein is fliewn that
thefeveraf Texts of Scripture which command the
entire Submiffion of Servants ' or Slaves to their
Mafttrs, cannot authorize the latter to exadl an
involuntary Servitude, nor in the leaft Degree juftify
the unbounded Claims of modjgrn Slave-holders.
V. "The Law of Liberty," or (as it is called in
Scripture by way of Eminence) " the Royal Law,"
by which all Mankind will certainly be judged !

3 9002 08561 5285

,*%«1^

•A

•S*'"'^'''V,>.-

M

¦ -Vi *

,^fii£^i ^-.

i*<*!i/