15

F

';--:.^ '::M^^.m'^-.

i^-z_

-'i

BS1^I5 .8.S53

\

LIBRARY
or THE
Theological Seminary,
PRINCETON, N. J.
Cfifip, ._^CL-C— K- niu.
> •■ ""^ -^"T". .^""T U!.y.ii)it„	"•>■
Book, No,

Y^*^

I've

V

REMARKS

O N

Several very important Prophecies*

IN FIVE PARTS.

REMARKS

O N

Several very important Prophecies.

IN FIVE PARTS.

I. Remarks on the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Verfes of the Seventh Chapter of

Isaiah, in Anfwer to Dr. W ms's Critical Dif-

fertation on the fame, as approved and republifhed by the Authors of the Critical Review,

II. A Diflertation on the Nature and Style of Prophe- tical Writings, Ihewing that abrupt Tranfitions from one Subjeft to another are frequently found therein. The fame being intended to illuftrate the foregoing Remarks.

III. A Differtation on Ifaiah vii. 8.

IV. A Differtation on Genefis xlix. lo.

V. An Anfwer to fome of the principal Arguments

ufed by Dr. W ms in Defence of his Critical

Differtation on Ifaiah vii. 13, 14, 15, 16, &c. in which the Opinions of the late Dr. Sykes and Dr. G. Benfon, concerning Accommodations of Scrip- ture-Prophecy, are briefly confidered.

THE SECOND EDITION.

By GR ANVI LLE ^SH AR P.

LONDON:

Printed for B. WHITE, at H o r a ce's-He ad,

Fleet-Street.

M.DCC.LXXV.

REMARKS

ON THE

Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Verfes, OF THE

Seventh Chapter of ISAIAH.

IN ANSWER TO

Dr. W Ms's Critical Diflertatlon on the fame.

As approved and republijhedhy

The Authors of the Critical Review,

Part I.

REMARKS

O M THE

Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Verfes of the Seventh Chap- ter of Isaiah, &c.

«* Hear ye now, O houfe of David, is it a fmall thing ** for you to weary men, but will you weary my <* God alfo ? Therefore the Lord himfelf Ihallgive ** you a fign : Behold, a virgin (hall conceive, and «* bear a fon, and ihall call his name Immanuel. ** Butter and honey Ihall he eat, that he may know '* to refufe the evil and choofe the good. For, be- «* fore the child (hall know to refufe the evil and <* choofe the good, the land that thou abhorrell <* ihall be forfaken of both her kings.'*

THIS text has in all ages of Chriftianity been efteemed a clear and certain predidion of the m'^aculous birth of Chrift; and there- fore thefe remarks upon it would have been fuperfluous, had not a learned and

ingenious

[ 8 ]

ingenious gentleman lately attempted to prove a contrary dodrine (i)-, viz. " 7'haf ^ the Frophet (in this text) had no refe- ' ferencetothe Me£iah{7.):' That ''the * words of Ifaiah prove only that a young ' woman fiould conceive and bring forth a ^ fon, without intimating any thing mira- ' culousin her concept iony' &c. (3) That 'from the mojl careful and impartial ex- '- aminatiouy the word'' nti^y (here tran- ' flated a virgin) " doth not appear to fig- ' nfy JlriBly a virgin ;" bat that ** // ' feems to mean a young woman in general ^ ' without fpecifying particularly whether ^ Jhe is a virgin or not (4)."

This writer is not lingular in his no-^ tions, for the authors of the Critical Re- view have publicly profeffed themfelves of the fame opinion concerning this pro- phecy (fee No. 136, fo. 349.) — " TZv

*^ mojl

(i) See Critical Differtation on Ifaiah vii. 13, 14, 15, 16. (2) Page 44. (3) P. 21. (4) P. 23.

f 9 ]

** mo/l obvious and natural explication (fay

" they) is this which Dr, W ms (5)

" has adopted I' &c.

I do not find that they have objeded to a fingle part of the Doctor's work ; and therefore this public declaration certainly makes them parties to the whole : nay, perhaps I may fay with juftice, that they are more concerned in publifhing thefe notions to the world, even than the ano- nymous author himfelf; for, inftead of giving a fliort extracted account .of the work as ufual, they feem to have copied the whole, almoft at length, fcarcely omitting a fingle circumftance.

Now I muft acknowledge, in juftlce

to.Dr. W ms, that I think he has fet

forth his hypothefis to all the advantage that it is capable of 5 neverlhelefs, he does not make it appear that the word XXQ^"^

B in

(^) The author of a Con^cyrdance to the Greek Tef- tament.

[ 10 ]

in any other place of the Old Teftament where it occurs, muft necejfarily figmi^^ a young woman that was not a virgin j with- out which proof the common acceptation of the fign promifed by Ifaiah cannot with juftice be rejected ; efpecially as a virgin did afterwards conceive and bear a fon ; a miracle which never happened before or fince the birth of Chrifl ! therefore it was certainly a fign worthy of that great and wonderful event j and, " from that time to this, has by all Chriftians (except the author of the Critical Differtation and the authors ofthe Critical Review) (6) been efteemed the completion of the faid

prophecy.

Dr.

(6) Dr. W ms has fince informed me of one other

nvriter of the fame opinion concerning this paffage ; (viz. the author of ** The AJfemhlf^ Confejfion of Faith examinedy^^ printed in*i65i ;) but at the fame time he acknowledges that this authority was not known, even to himfelf, until ** federal months after the D:JJeri at ion nvas publijhed :^^ and he declares, concerning his own fentiments of the paffage, that he apprehended them " altogether nenAj'^ when he wrote ; ^* for (fays he) I did " 7:ot then knotM that any Cbrifian ^writer had fo explained

C " ]

Dr. W ms obferves that the word

: — »Q^:i? occurs only feven times in all ; and therefore, I hope, it will not take up too much of my readers time, if I at- tempt to examine the context of thefe fe- veral places,, in order to afcertain the true fenfe of the word.

The text, wherein thefignification of this word is efleemed the moft doubtful, is ia Prov. XXX. 1 9. where Solomon men- tions four things that were too hard for him ; in which number (according to the Englifli tranflation) he includes '^ the way " of a man nvitb a maid^' The fenfe of this paffage is very different according to the Syriac verfion, wherein ,'— ^^^y:i is rendered aiZoa^l^!:^, 171 his youths viz. the way of a man *' in his youih^' and not " ix^ith a inaid^' as in the Englifh verfion. Like wife the Latin vulgate, as well as the old Latin verfion of St. Je- rome, conforms in feme degree to the

B 2 Syriac,

[ 12 ]

Syriac, though not intirelyj for they con- ftrue it, in adoJefcentia^ (not, in adolefcen- tia ejus J which is fufficiently clear with- out having recourfe to Dr, Kennicott*s (7) expedient of fuppofing a corruption in the prefent Heb. text to enable him to read ** in his youth -y' as if it had been written originally ^^Q^3?a,

Neverthelefs, it appears to me that the common Englifli tranflation of this paf- fage is to be preferred, and that the word muft here neceffarily fignify a maid or virgin : for the writer feems to allude to the fecret artifices and allurements ufed by a man in order to feduce a virgin j fuch artifices as are hinted at in Exodus xxii. 16. (— " And if a man entice a maidy' : — i^ina &c.) therefore a word fignifying merely a young woman, or one that was not efteemed a virgin, would not have been fo fuitable to the context

of

(7) See his fermon preached before the univerfity of Oxford in 1765. —Note 8, page 46.

[ »3 ]

of either of thefc paffages. The way of a harlot was too well known in former days (as well as the prefent) to be efteemed a myftery s and much lefs a myftery to So- lomon, whohad ** threefcore qucens,yo^r- ^^fcore concubines^ and virgins without "number." (See Canticles vi. 8.) But it is not at all unnatural to fuppofe that this eaftern monarch, with all his wifdom, might fometimes be perplexed with doubts and jealoufies concerning the vir- tue and private condud: of fome of thofe females (as well virgins as others) with refped: to other men : this, itfeems, was by him efteemed as difficult to be traced as the way of a (hip in the fea, an eagle in the air, &c. By the fin of the adul- terous woman (to which the preceding fimiiies allude as being equally uninvefti- gable) (8) Solomon reprefents the great

difficulty

(8) Such is the way of an adulterous woman j fhe cateth and wipeth her mouth, and faith, I have done no wickednefs. Prov, xxx. 20.

[ '4 ]

difficulty of detecting the inconftancy of any particular perfons in the two former claffes ; I mean his queens and concu- bines; and he would not find it lefs dif- ficult (for fome time at leaft) to trace out the way (or behaviour) of private ad- mirers towards the third clafs of his wo- men, that were efteemed virgins in the eyes of the world.

In confirmation of this I muft obferve, that the flridlnefs of the law of Mofes rendered the obfervance of fecrecy abfo- lutely neceffary to offenders in this way : for, if a man was found guilty oi /educing a virgin^ (fee Exodus xxii. i6.) he was obliged not only to pay a heavy fine to the young woman's father, and to take her for his wife, but was likewife de- prived of an indulgence, which, of all others, feemed mod agreeable to the li- bidinous difpofition of the Jews at that time; and was allowed them by Mofes

only

[ '5 ]

only on account of the hardnefs of their hearts', (fee Matthew xix. 8.) I mean the givi72g a bill of divorce y for, in this cafe, (when a man was obliged to marry one whom he had feduced,) he might not put her away all his days, (SeeDeut.xxii.28.) — A punifliment of greater mortification to the Jews than any other, which the learned Philo (though himfelf a Jew) candidly acknowledges (9).

This certainly was a fufficient caufe for fecrecy on the man's part ; fo that, whether his way (or behaviour) with a ?naid were really criminal, or only impru- dent, (for either of them may be implied' in the text J he would, as much as pof- fible, conceal it from the world, and render it as uninvefti gable as the other things mentioned in the text to be too wonderful for Solomon ^ at leaft his bed

endeavours

fp) Ka« TO 'uTavTwv exejjoig u.r,<ji<ra.TQiy rri» loov yay.xit

Fcl. 789. Paris Edition, 1640.

[ 16 ]

endeavours would not be wanting to make it fo.

Neither can we fuppofe that the fame earned endeavours would be wanting on the young woman's part to conceal her difgrace from her friends as long as (he could. But the reafons for fecrecy are far more obvious in the cafe of efpoufcd virgins ; for, according to the law of Mo- fes, (Deut. xxii. 23, 24.) if a man was bafc enough to feduce one of thefe, an ignominious death was to be the imme- diate and dreadful confequence of a dif- covery 5 when both parties muft fliare the fame wretched fate (10).

Now, if all that I have faid fhall not be thought fufficient to prove that mQ^ii? in this paflage muft neceflarily fignify a maid or virgin, 1 have neverthelefs the fatisfadion of obferving that the author of the objedions, in page 20, allows it

to

(10) Deur."xxii. 25, 24,

r '7 ]

to be ^* a very obfcure pajjage \' and pro- ieffes to *' lay nojlrejs upon it\^ and, there- fore, I think I may fafely conclude, at Jeaft, that it is incapable of proving any thing againft the true fenfe of the word in the other paflages.

The fame author obferves, in page 19, that " othtr four places are ahfoliitely un- " certain i" but they appear in a very dif- ferent light to me.

In the firft of thefe places, (Genefis xxiv. 43.) the word is applied to Rebe* kah before her marriage, who in the fame chapter is faid expreffly to be a i;/r- gin^ (m^^nri) *' neither had any man ** known her J' (See i6th verfe.)

In the fecond place (Exodus ii. 8.) if

is applied to Mofes's fifter, who watched

her infant brother during the time of his

being expofed in the little ark of bu!-

ruflies.

C Now

[ »8 3

Now, It does not appear that Mofes had any other fitter btfides Miriam the pro- phetefs 5 (fee Numb. xxvi. 59. and Exo-^ dus XV. 20.) and why her chaftity (hould be called in queftion (efpecially fo early in life) I know not !

In the third place, (Pfalm Ixviii. 25.) this word with the context expreffes the damfels playing with timbrels in the fo- lemn proceflions of the fanduary ; who, had they been damfels fufpeded of ha- ving " 'wrought folly hi Ifraely' (Deut. xxii. 21.) (li) they, furely, would not have been permitted to join in this divine feryice.

The laft of thefe four places, which the Doftor thinks ** abfolutely uncertain^' is Canticles i. 3. where the fame word is applied to the virgins that waited on So-.

lomon's

(11) — — .<< that ftie die : becaufe Ihe hath ivrought *' folly in Ifraely to play the whore in her father's " houfe: fo fnalt thou pat evil away from among you,"

[ 19 ]

lomon's fpoufe. But this uncertainty is eafily removed by the other paffage in Canticles, (chap. vi. ver. 8.) where the fame word is happily appUed to the fame perfons ; who mud be underftood to be

virgins, becaufe (as Dr. W ms him-

felf acknowledges in page 29) (12) they " are dijiinguijlxd from queens and concii-^ " bines y

This one would fuppofe to be an in- furmountable obftacle to the Do(ftor*s ar- gument J but he paffes very flightly over the difficulty, and contents himfelf with informing us, that " this diftindion .is no « proof at all, becaufe the fame, indeed " ajironger, dijiin^lion is made, Ezek. *' xliv. 22. in favour of r-n^inn."

C 2 Now,

(,2) -— ." I (hall here add farther, that r—^Dbj? «* occurs only feven times in ail 5 one of which has " the appearance of " being decifi-ve in the cafe y name- «< ly. Canticles vi. 8. where virgins are dijlinguijhed «* frcm queens and concubines. But this dillinaion is no " proof at all, becaufe the fame, indeed a ftronger, •« diftind'tion, is made, Ezek. xliv. 22, in favour of

[ 2P 3

Npw, I hope the Dodor will excufe my

waat of difcernment in not being able to difcover the weight of this reafony agaiaftfo ftrong a proof as the diftindtion in quef- tjon ; becaufe, if m^tna is proved, eyer fo clearly, to fignify ftridtly a virgin^ (ancj ipjj.e^d I know no reafon why any per'* fan fhould <]oubt of it,) y^t it is no argu- ment why the other may not likewifijig-' nify the fame thing ; for the word maid^ by having this fignification in Englifh, does not oblige us to give a different fig- nification to the Englifli word virgin : therefore, I think, I may fafely con- clude, in the Dodors's own words, that this laft text " has the appearance of ^* being decifive in the cafe -,* (fee page 29.) and that the word r-nD^3^ can- not fignify a young woman that is not a virgin, becaufe, by the fame word in the plural number, (according to the author's own obfervation,) *^ virgins

" are

f 21 ]

^' are (13) diffinguiflied from queens " and concubines."

I propofe now to examine whether wc may fafely acquiefce with the author of the Critical Diflertation, fo. 44. and the authors of the Critical Review (N".

136,

(13) The ingenious author of the new tranflation of Solomon's Song obferves in his annotations, p. 69, that ** the Jcvvifli maidens before marriage were uader ** fuch flridl confinement, and fo rarely fufFered to ap- " pear in public, that the very name for a virgin in " Hebrew is : — i^^y hiddenr

This word is well explained by the learned Stockius, p. 820.

** ( I ) Qeneratim & 1;/ originis notaf l^tentemJ*

** (2) Speciatim («) proprie notat 'virgimm., qu:e do- ** mi latitat & continetur, nee adhuc cura quoquam ** rem habuit, Ita dicitur de Rebecca, nondum ** propalam nuptam edu6la. Gen. xxiv. de Mirjam, ** qua nondum rem cura quoquam habuetat, Ex. ii. 8. ** de puella incorrupta & illibata, ciii Vir infidiatur, " ut eapotiatur, Prov. xxx. 19. de matre Immanuelis ** illibata & concubitus ignara, Jef. vii. f4.'*

" (^) Mctaphorice njirginum nomine veniunt pit fa,' ** luandiy ad indicandum eorum animi integritatem & " puriiatem, tam in do6lrina & cuhu divino, quam in «* vita & moribus. Cant, i. 3. vi. 8," &c. Chriftiani Stockii Clavis Linguse fandae Veteris Teflamenti vo- cabulorum fignificationes turn generaks i\im/peciales or- dine cencinno exhibens, ^c.

[ 22 ]

136, fo. 359.) in their opinion, thafr^ Ifaiah, in his prophecy concerning Imma- nuel, in thefeventh chapter, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 1 6th verfes^ ^^ bad no reference " fo the MeJJiah:'

Dr. W ms objeds (in page 9) that the i6th verfe of the feventh chap- ter of Ifaiah " cannot^ in any fenfe^ be *< applied to the MeJJiahJ' The words of this text, according to the Englifli tran- flation, are as follows : " For, before the " child Jhatl know to refufe the evil and " choofe the good, the land that thoa " abhorreft (hall be forfaken of both her " kings/'

This verfe fcems to be the principal caufe of his objections againft the com- mon interpretation of the two preceding verfes.

Now, though I do not think, with him, that thefe three verfes mujl^ ofnecejjity^

relate

[ 23 ]

relate to the fame perfon ; yet, I appre- hend, there is a great probability i\\2iitbcy may ; and that the 1 6th verfe may reafon- ably be accounted for, even when appli- ed to the Meffiah. Dr. W ms ap- proves of the meaning given to the word 5?P in the i6th verfe by Mr. Mann, (viz. that it may fignify '^ vexeft' inftead of abhorrejl,) ** the land which thou (Ahaz) ' " i;f;c^ with thy idolatry." (See fo. 34.) Thus far he favours the explication which I propofc to give of this paflage ; but then he fuppofes that the land which Ahaz vexed fignifies the land of Judah only, " The Prophet meant to fay, accord - " ing to this author, (fays the Dodlor,) that the land ofjudahy which Ahaz by hijs idolatry and wicked nefs had brought into trouble and difficulty, fliould be delivered from both thefe kings :*\fo. 25-) by which the Dodlor refers to Rej^n king of Syria, and Pekah the fon of Remaliah king of Ifrael, who at that time were con- federate

[ 24 ]

federate agalnft yW^>&, and ^^ went tip to^ *^ wards Jerufalem to war againji itT See the firft part of the fame chapter. — The Doctor repeats the fame thing in page 2^7 — viz. — the land (of Judah) which thou (Ahaz) vexeft, &c. This throws great difficulty upon the text, which in- forms us, that the land which Ahaz vex- ed {hould " be forfaken of both her kings." The conftrudion of the word, rendered " her kingSy' requires us to underftand that both the kings there fpoken of fliould be kings of that land which Ahaz vexed ; yf»3^D \TO " both her kings.'*

Now, Pekahking of Ifrael c2innoihe un-

derftood to be one of thefe, if the land,

which Ahaz vexed, fignified the land of*

Tudah alone ; for, in what fenfe could he

be called one of the kings of the land of

Judah, who was not a conqueror, (for the

true king flill maintained his royal feaf

and title,) but a declared enemy and dif-

turber, and king only ofjfrael?

Neither

[ 25 ]

Neither could Relin king of Syria be properly faid to be either king of Judah or Ifracl; for he was only an invader of Judah, ading as an ally to the king of Ifrael.

Though indeed he had rather more right to be accounted one of the kings oj Juddb than the king of Ifrael had, be- caufe about that time he had taken pof- feffion oi Elatb, a City of Judah : but this could not really intitle him to be called a king of that land, becaufe, from the time that the city was taken, it ceafed to be a part oijudahy and was accounted a part of tne kingdom of Syria \ for it is exprefs- ly faid in 2 Kings ;cvi. 6. that " Refn *' king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria ^ " and drave the Jews from Elath : and *' the Syriam came to Elath, and dwelt

" there unto this dayT Dr. W ms

obferves in a note (page 37.) that " Refin

D '' and

[ 26 ]

*' and Pekah are, perhaps, here called *^ the kings of Judah, becaufethey were " then in poffeflion of all the country, *' Jerufalem excepted /' but the Dodtor furely did not confider, that Ifaiah was fent to confirm Ahaz, that he fhould not fear " the two tails of thefe fmoking fire- *' brands^' (viz. Refin and the fon of Re- maliah,) and to aflbre him, that their evil council of fitting up a king in ^udah. jhould *' not ft and" — nor — ** come to pafi^ It is not likely, therefore, that the pro- phet fhould call either or both of thefe kings kings of fudah^ becaufe it would have been abfolutely a contradiction to his meflage, which was to encourage and eftabli(h the then reigning king of Judahy defcended from the houfe of David. Even the Dcdlor himfelf feems fo fenfible of the infufficiency of his interpretation, that he afterwards, in the fame note, propofes another expedient, (though a

dangerous

[ 27 ]

dangerous (14) one,) in hopes of folving the difficulty ; for the text not being ca- pable of ferving his purpofe as it ftands at prefent, the prophet himfelf muft be Gorredted.

This is efteemed a much eafier thing, now-a-days, than for a critic to give up a favourite opinion, that happens to be contradidtory to the Holy Scripture.

<(

Suppofe (fays the Dodlor) that we " fhould read czb'^o^a for n'^j^n her " kings ? JJoall be forfaken of both kings' —this indeed is cutting the knot, but it

D 2 will

(14) " Thuj it happens with thefe facred books as »• with prophane authors, that, when the medica manus •* crittcorum is to perform an operation upon the text, ** it i? often diflocated and maimed, and rendered al- ** moft incurable by improper applications. But, what- ** ever may be done with the hiftoiical books, we have ** no right to indulge any conjectural emendations in " the prophecies : it looks too much like tampering «* with evidence. If they are faulty, they mud even ** remain fo ; and we mull take the evidence as it ** comes to us.'*

Dr. Gregory Sharpens 2d Argument in Defence of Chriilianity, p. 265.

[ a8 ]

will not enable the Doftor to come off conqueror, like the Grecian hero. If the omiflion of the word avtTjg in the Sep- tuagint tranflation fliould even be allow- ed to afford fufficient grounds for fuch a fuppofition ; yet " Dn Kennicotfs truly ** important work!' is not likely to fur- nifh various readings from MSS. equal in authority and antiquity with thofe from which Aquila, Symmachus, and Theo- dotion were taken. Thefe were, mani- feftly, according to the prefent Heb. text in this paffage , for it is rendered by all thefe tranflators, tcov Svo Qua-iXeav aDTfjgi of her two kings, or of both her kings.

The ancient Syriac verfion, likewife, confirms the text ; ousLi^q ^;Z ioth her kings. It would have been time enough to have quoted Dr. Kennicott's various reading, when it was known that any fuch fubfifted— for it is not fair dealing to wound the credit of the holy text with

a mere

[ 29 ]

^ mere ^^ perhapSy* (15) and for no other purpofe (if I may ufc the Dodor's own words) than to ^\ftrengthen a conjee- ** ture.'' In (hort, I would advife the Dodor to let the text remain as he found it; for this unjuftifiable method of folving difficulties is a broken reed, which fel- dom fails to wound the hands of thofe who ufe it.

Now the difficulty ceafes, if it be ad- mitted that the land 'wkich Aoaz vexed fignified the land or inheritance of tl^e twelve tribes of Ifrael, including Judah ; which conftrudion the circumftances of thofe times will enable it to bear,

Ahaz had interrupted the facrifices of atonement ufually offered up for all Ifrael in the temple at Jerufalem, which was common to Jews and Ifraelites ; and

therefore

(15) ** Dr. Kennicott's truly important work may, *• perhaps y hereafter Jlrengthen this ccnjedure.''* In a note, fo. 37.

r 30 3

therefore might truly be faid to ^uex the land of Ifrael as well as Judah : for he not only *' facrificed unto the gods of Da^ " mafcusy" (2 Chron. xxviii. 23.) but he " cut in pieces the veffels of the houfe " of God, 2inAJhut up the doors of the •' houfe of the Lord'' (24th Verfe). King Hezekiah (16) (who opened again the doors of the houfe of the Lord, and caufed the prrefts and Levites to cleanfe all the houfe from the abominations of Aha^) was confcious that his fa- ther, by the interruption of divine fer- vice before-mentioned, had 'vexed Ifrael as well as Judah; and therefore made all the amends that lay in his power. He caufed " an atonement to be made ^^ for " all Ifrael:'' for the king " comman- " ded that the burnt-offering and the *' fin-offering (hould be made for all If " raeL' 2 Chron. xxix. 24*

He

(16) See 2 Chron. xxix.

[ 3' 1

He likewife " fent to all Ifrael and *' Judah, and wrote letters alfo to Ephra- im and Manaffeh, that they (hould come to the houfe of the Lord at Je- rufalem, to keep the paffover unto the Lord God of Ifrael'' 2 Chron. xxx. x. And we read, in the nth verfe of the fame chapter, that " divers of Alher and " Manaffeh, and of Zebulun, humbled " themfelves (accordingly) and came •* to Jerufalem ;" and ^' did eat the pajf" *' over.'' (See 18th verfe.) Now, as it appears that the land of all the other Tribes^ as well as the land of judahy was real- ly vexed by the apoftafy of Ahaz, there is reafon to fuppofe that the land of Ln- mamiely mentioned by Ifaiah (vili, 8.) might fignify (not only the land offudaby but) the land of both the houfes of If- rael, ^-^ibiT^:?^ Tin ''.3TI;, mentioned in the 1 4th verfe of the fame chapter ; and that the t'wo kings of the land, mentioned in

' the

[ 32 ]

the feventh chapter, may mean the kings, ot feparate regal powers^ of thefe two houfes of Ifrael, which were both to ceafe before the child (Immanuel) Jhould know to refufe the evil and choofe the good. The word ^^D or king, in a figurative way of fpeaking, may very well be under- ftood in feme paflages (not to mean merely the perfon of one particular king, but in a more general fenfe) to fignify a fucce£ion of kingSy or rather the regal con-- flitution of a Jlate ; and the failure of fuch royalty in fome cafes ferves as a dif- tinguifhing mark of conqueft or fubjec- tion to a foreign power. " T^he iingjhall " perififromGaza^andA/hkelonfhalhiot " be inhabited^'' fays the prophet Zecha- riah, (ix. 5.) by which is plainly un- derftood (not the deftruftion of a finglc king, but) the ceafing of the regal go- vernment of the city of Gaza. It is a fynonimous term with the departing of the fceptre : *' The pride of AiTyria fhall

'' be

T 33 1

** be brought down, and the fceptre of *' Egypt (hall depart away/* fays the fame prophet in the nth verfe of the fuccecding chapter. The prophet Hofea, likewife, ufes the word ^^Q in the fame general fcnfe (xi. 5.) tiin li^Mi ^d^Q — " the Aflyrian (or Aflur) fhall be his '" ]fL\ng\" one AJfyri an king only cannot here be meant ; but the fucceflion of kings reigning in Afiyria during the captivity of Jfrael. Therefore, I prefume, there is fome ground for my fuppofition, that Ifai- ah's expreflion in the feventh chapter, n^D^Q ^J'r, may lignify the two feparate regal governments of Judah and Ifrael, (called, in the twenty third chapter of Ezechiel, Aholah and Aholibah,) and not merely two lingle kings.

When I firft wrote this opinion, and communicated the MS. to Dr. W — ms, I apprehended that the thought was int»rely new s — ib little am I acquainted with the

E repullic

[ 34 ] republic of letters, for want of leifure and opportunity to read ! I muft therefore acknowledge myfelf obliged to Dr. W— ms for his information, that the learned Mr. Mann, in his differtation De Anno natali Chrifti, " appears to be of *^ the fame opinion,'' I had likewife the fatisfaftion, afterwards, to be informed by another gentleman, (a worthy friend of mine,) that the fame interpretation is recommended in the Univerfal Hiftory, vol. IV, of the Odtavo, p, 154, with the ppte K*

Now, that the opinion of the learned author may iiciore clearly be underftood, I will fet down at length the whole that he wrote upon the text in queftipn.

Having mentioned the fubjedt of Ifai- ah'S meffageto Ahaz, he adds — -^' Here *' the king, whether out of refpeft or def- *' pondency and unbelief,—r-refu(ing to afk ;;? the promifed iign, the prophet affured

^^ him

[ 35 1 *' him from the Lord, that — before that *' time came, a virgia fliould conceive ** and bear a fon, and call his nameHim- " manuel, or God with us ; and fo on." (K).

Upon this opinion he farther explains himfelf in the followmg note.

*' (iC) This we take to be a much *' more natural fenfe of that prophecy, ** than to fuppofe, as fome have done, *' that fuch a miraculous child was really « born in Ahaz's time, to aiTure him of " the promifed deliverance; for, as there ^* is not the lead mention of fiich an ex- " traordinary birth, fo neither do we fee "that there was any neceflity for it, in ** order to convince the defponding king^ " who could not be ignorant of that pro- " phecy of Jacob, that the fceptre (hould '* not depart from Judah till Shiloh *' was con>e, much lefs that he was to f' fpring of the lineage of David. But

F 2 *' what

y

cc

cc cc

r 36 ]

what ftaggcred Ahazs faith, and made him fear that the regal power was go- ing to depart from his family, was, that his two enemies had combined to fet a ftranger on his throne. Ail,, therefore, that was wanting, to difpel his prefent fears about it, was for the prophet to aflure him from God, that this Shiloh, promifed to Judah ^nd *^ David, who was to fore-run the total *' excifion of the Jewifli polity, was to be, ** born in a miraculous manner and witl^ " a divine charader, and other remark- " ablecircumftances, fuch as, he mighty *^ be ealily fatisfied, had not as yet hap* ** pened in his kingdom.

*^ As for that part of the prophecy ** which is commonly urged on the o- " ther fide, namely, " Before ihh'won^- ** derful child fiall know good from evilf " the land which thou abhorreji Jhall be ^^ forfaken of both her kings i We think

\' that.

■[ 37 ] ♦• that, if it be rightly underflood, it will ** rather confirm our fenfe of the prophe- •* cy, and that the words ought to be " thus rendered. For (or rather, as the " particle chi feems to import here, nay} " before this child can know good from " evil, this land, which thou (not ab- ** horreft, as our verfion renders it, but) ** art fo folicitous about, or giveft up for " loft, fhall be bereaved of both her " kings i by which, we think, ought to " be underftood, not the kings of Syria ** and Ifra^l, for the former could not be ^ called her (Canaan^s) king j and the " latter had but a fhare in it at beft ; iut ** the kings oflfrael and Judah^ as it real- *^* ly was before the coming of the Mef- " fiak"

In ordier to confirm this opinion, I have annexed to thefe remarks two dif- tindl diflertatioas : one on the prophecy of Ifaiah vii. 8. (~— ." and withia

" thrcefcore

[ sM

** threefcore and five years fhall Ephfaim •^ be broken that it be not a people") ^ and the other on the famous prophecy of Jacob, concerning the fceptreof Judah.

In the former I fliew, that the regal government of the houfe of Ifrael, as afe- parate ftate from Judah, was put ah end to, not a great many years after Ifaiah's prophecy.

In the latter (I hope) I have proved that the regal government of the houfe of Judah (I mean only the temporal ot worldly kingdom of Judah) eeafed pre- cifely at the time limited by Ifaiah in the prophecy now before us. So that, I flat- ter myfelf, it will appear^ upon the whole, that the land of Ifrael, including Judah (being the land which Ahaz vexed) was forfaken of " both her kings ^'^ or regal governments, before the child Immanuel could " know to refitfe the evil andchoofi ** the good^\

For^

I 39 ]

For, Herod the Great, on a careful examination, (I believe) will be found to have been the laft king oi the ivholeland oi Ifracl afid Judahy which Ahaz vexed ; and it is remarkable, that Chrift, the true Immanuel, was a yoting child in the arfjis of his mother at the time of this mo- narch's death ; foon after which, Jofeph, the hufband of the blefTed virgin, was warnfed by an angel of the Lord in Egypt, faying, " Arife, and take the young *' CHILD and his mother, and go into •^ the land of Ifrael,'* (not the land of Judab only,) " for they are dead which ^* fought thepz^ff^ffoV^'s life." Mat.ii.ao.

But Dr W — ms in a note (page 32) obferves, that the child Immanuel ** could *■ not be Chrijl^ becaufe he is never called " the king of Judah,'* And he thinks that Nathaniel, when he called him the king of Ifraely " /^/^^zyrf^ under the fame ^' miftake with all his countrymen, who

" cxpeded

XX

t 40 ]

expcfted a temporal Meffiah/' The Dodor obferves, in the fame note, that ** Chriji is king of the whak earth j" which hefeems to affign as a reafon why *' he is never called the king ofjudah*''

And indeed it does not appear that the Dodor had any other foundation for hi$ cenfure of Nathaniel ; though this argu- ment is fo far from being conclufive in favour of the Dofto/s opinion, that it rather proves the contrary ^ for he that is king oUhe whole earth muft neceflarily, in a general fenfe, be king of Ifrael and Ju- dah -y thefe titles being moft certainly included in the former, even fuppofing the peculiar fceptre of each kingdom to be departed.

Neverdielefs, the argument (fuchasit is) is admitted and approved by the Cri- tical Reviewers ! for they quote the Doc^ tor's words at length, (fee N'* 136, fo.. ,756.) without offering any thing to jufti-

r 41 ]

fy Nathaniel from the charge of labouring under a viijlake.

It (hall therefore be my bufinefs to prove, that the miftake does not rejl with Nathaniel.

Chrift is, in a peculiar manner, eternal king of Judah and Ifrael, as well as king of the whole earth, and heir of all things^ (Heb. i. 2.) The angel Gabriel teftifi- ed that Chrift ihould reign over the hoiife of Jacob (which is Ifrael) forever. See St. Luke i. 32. And the wife men of the Eaft went to ferufakm and inquired, ^' Where is he that is born ki?7g of the <« yews? for we have fee n hisftar in " the Eaft, and come*' (that is, to Jeru- falem, the capital of his kingdom) '' to ** worjfnp himy See Matth. ii. i, 2. Therefore the Dodor's objedion, that the child Immanuel could not be Chrift he- caufe be is never called the king off udah^ feems to be intirely groundlcfs -, for, the

F dominion

[ 4^ ]

dominion of the land of Inimanuel (men-f tioned in the eighth chapter of Ifaiah) may moft certainly be attributed with more propriety to the Meffiah, who was king and Jhepherd of Ifrael^ (fee Ezek. xxxvii. 24. alfo xxxiv. 23, 24.) than to any fon of Ifaiah whatever.

Dr. W — ms may, perhaps, fuppofe^ that the kingdoms of Ifrael and Judab could not belong to Chrift, becaufe he refufed to accept of any temporal govern- ment, and withdrew himfelf when he perceived that the people would come, ^nd take him by force to make him a king y (fee John vi, 15.) and farther, becaufe he even declared that his kingdom was - BOt of this world. See chap, xviii, 36. But all this feems to relate only to the manner cf his government, which, in general, was merely fpiritual. He was neverthelefs king of Ifraely Being fent in a particular manner to the loft fheep of the

houfe

[ 43 ] houfe of Ifrael ; (fee Matth. xv. 24.) and, for a time, Jerufaletn was the feat of his kingdoniy when he went up to the feaft ; and a very great multitude fpread their garments in the way, (a greater mark of fubmiffion than is ever paid to temporal princes,) and others cut down branthes from the trees, and ftrawed them in the way, (fee Matth. xxi. 8.) and cried, Hofiinnay Bleffed is the Icing of Israel, that cometh in the name of the Lord. John xii. 13.

Chrift did not tell the multitude that they " laboured under a miftake' in cal- ling him KING OF Israel ; on the con- trary, it appears that he approved of the voice of the people ; which could not hive been the cafe, had he not been really king of Ifrael: for, when the Pharifees faid unto him, Mafter, rebuke thy difciples, he anfwered and faid unto them, ** I tell " you, that if thefe fliould hold their

F 2 '' peacey

[ 44 ]

*^ peacCy the Jiones would immediately cry *' out" Lukexix. 38,39, 40. Thus was the Meffiah not only " called^' hut proclaimed^ king of Ijrael\ and asfuch he received the homage of his people ; yet, in fuch a manner, as heft fuited the facred chara(5lerof him, who h^idreje^eda world- ly kingdom : for, inftead of royal apparel and a triumphal car, he was *' cloathed with humility^' and fitting on s.n afs, that the prophecy of Zechariah might be lite- rally fulfilled.

" Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; *^ fhout, O daughter of Jerufalem : be- " hold, THY KING Cometh unto thee : *' he is juft, and having falvation, lowly^ ^' and riding upon an afs, and upon a colt " the foal of an afs/' (Zech. ix. 9.) But, though Chrift profefl^ed that his kingdom was not of this world, yet there was no worldly man hardy enough to re- f|ft or oppofe his will, when he was

pleafed

J 45 ]

pjeafed to exert his divine authority over them i for, " he caft out them that fold " and bought in the temple, and over- *' threw the tables of the money-changers, " and the feats of them that fold doves ; " and would not fiiffer that any man fhould ** carry any veiTel through the temple." Mark xi. 15, 16.

And St. John Informs us (chap, ii. 1 5.) that he made a fcourge of fmall cords, and drove them all (all fuch as are above mentioned) out of the temple.

Of all the extraordinary things which Chrift did, St. Jerome thought this to be the mod wonderful, as Mr. Bragge re- marks in his Practical Obfervations upon the Miracles. This perfonal authority and dominion of Chrift /« Ifrael was expreiTiy foretold by the prophet Micah, (ch. v. 2.) " But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though " thou be little among the thoufands of ?' Judah, yet out of thee fhall he come

" forth

[ 46 ]

^^ forth unto me, that is to be ruler in ''^' Israel j whofe goings forth have been ** from of old (17) from everlafting.'* I never read any paffage of Scripture which was capable of affording the leaft counte- nance or fupport to the contrary do(5trine, that Chriji was net the king of IfraeL In- deed, the enemies and perfecutors of our Lord, at the time of his crucifixion, expreff- ed their difbelief of his being king of Ifra- el (18), becaufe they did not think him to be the true anointed, or Mefiiah. Ne^ verthelefs, when the feveral extraordinary and miraculous circumftances, relating to the birth, life, death, and perfecution, of that mod holy perfon (Jefusof Nazareth) are candidly examined and carefully com- pared

(17) *' In the beginning was the Word, and the <* Wotd was with God, and the Word was God. The « fame was in the beginning with God." John i. i.

(18) " If he be the king ofJ/rael, (faid they,) let him «* now come down from the crofs, and we will believe ** him.'* Matth. xxvii. 42. ,

[ 47 ] pared with the prophetical declaratiorrs concerning the promifed MefGah, it ma^. nifeflly appears, that there were very fufficient reafons for acknowledging that perfon to be both Lord a?id Chrijl (19) ; and confequently *^ king oflfraely* in the flrideft fenfe, net only during his bodily refidence on earth, but to all eternity.

Wherefore,

(19) *^' Therefore let all tiie house of I/rael knew « afluredly, that God bath made that fame Jefns ^hom ** ye hwve crucified both Lord and ChriJlJ''* Adls ii. %is,

<* And the angel faid unto them, (the fhepherds,) " Fear not : for, behold, I bring unto you good tidings " of-greatjoy, which fhall be to all people. For, un- «< to you is born this day, in the city gf Du'vidj afavi- *^* our, 'which is Chriji the Lord. ^* Luke ii. lo, n.

«« The Word which God fent unto t\it children of I/- ** raeh preaching peace by Jefus Chrifi^ (heiitordoii " all)." Ads X. 36.

** — But we fpeak the wifdom of God in a myftery, ** (even) the hidden (wifdom) which God or4aine4 ** before the world unto our glory, Whict none of ** the princes of this world knew ; for had they known "^ (it) they would not have crucified the Lord of glory,** I Corinth, ii. 7. 8.

" — That every tongue fliould cQnfefs that Jefus Qhrijf " is Lord, to the glory of God the father." Philip, ii. II.

[ 48 ]

Wherefore, we ought mod certainly to' acquit Nathaniel, and other faithful Ifra- elites, of the mijiake which they have lately been fuppofed to " labour under y' when they declared our Lord Jefus Chrift to be " the king of Ifrael^ (John i> 49- xii. 13.)

Thus far have I ventured to fuggeft,

in anfwer to Dr. W ms's declaration

in page 9, that " the 26th verfe*'

(of the feventh chap, of Ifalah) " can^. *' not in anyfenfe be applied to the MeJJiah :\ I hope I have proved that it may 5 never- thelefs I muft obferve, that even the com- mon interpretation of this paflage is not

fo unreafonable as Dr. W ms feems

to imagine 5 though, indeed, the inter- pretation before given appears to be much lefs liable to exception.

The Doftor animadverts very fcverely on the opinion of thofe, who fay, that the paflage contains two diftindt prophe- cies ^

t 49 ] ties ; — viz. that the verfes 14 and 15 re- late to Chrill, but the 16th to ifaiah'3 Ion. " Is not this (fays he) very unna^ ** turalf and^ if I am 7iot mijlakeuy very *^ iinuJualT'

But the authors of the old commentary on the Bible, commonly called Affcmblies Annotations, were of a very different o- pinion.

They obferve, on this very text, that *' it is an ufual thing in Scripture, with " our prophet Ifaiah efpecially, by way ** of allufion, to apply the fame words " and phrafes unto divers fubjedts, where *' occalion is to fpeak of them together :'* and therefore they were of opinion, that the child mentioned in the i6:h verfewas " no other, in all likelihood, than " Shearjafliub, the prophet's child, •' whom, to this purpofe, God hath ^ commanded him to take along with

G - him/*

[ so ]

** him." How far this was an ufual thing with Ifaiah, may be {ecn even in prophecies which were delivered on the fame occafion as the text in queftion.

For the farther illuftrationof this point, I have added to my book a (hort differtati- on on the nature and ftyle of prophetical writings, (hewing, that abrupt tranfitions from one fubje(5t to another are frequently found therein 5 and that the Holy Scrip- tures afford many examples of prophecies, w^hich are blended and interwoven with other fubjedls that are intirely different, both as to the matter and the time of ac- complifliment.

We mud not exped to find all prophe- cies unattended with difficulties : never- thelefs, there are no difficulties in the fe- venth chapter of Ifaiah fo great as thofe, that are bccafioned by Dr. W ms's in- terpretation of it. " This prophecy" (fays

he,)

[ 51 3

he,) " as I take it, relates to one perfon << only^ and that was the fon of a young " woman then prefent \ which fon was af- " terwards to be born." See page 4.

Now I may afk, with Origen, (20) contra Celfum, pag. 28, Cambridge edi- tion, 1677,) — '' Who was born in the " time of Ahaz, of whofe birth this is *' faid, — Emanuel? //j^/i, God with " us. For, if no one is found, it isma- " nifeft, that what was faid of Ahaz was addrclTed to the houfe of David, according to that which is written : — r^/-. — of iht feed of David a Saviour is born according to the flejl^.''

cc <c

Indeed, we read, in the eighth chap- ter/of a fon, which the prophetefs con-

G 2 ceived

(20) *< A7ra;Trcro/x£v x.ara ra? X^ovy? t« A;(;afT»? lyivmai^.y <* £(p' a T>) yEKHCTEi 'hiyira.i to, E/x/xavtf^^, o er* MeQ rJ^wc o ** ©Eo; ; Et yot,^ ahiq £y§£^»3cr£Tat, oTtKov on to ru A^a? "^'J" " HAEvor, T&; oixw H§>jTai Ax^jo% oia to £z crTrep^aT*^ A«|2i^

[ 5^ J^

ceived and bare unto Ifaiah ; and like- wife, that Ifaiah was careful to take unto

him FAITHFUL WITNESSES TO RECORD

concerning him : " For, (faid he,) be- ** fore the child fhall have knowledge to ** cry, My father and my mother, (which ^^ mufl be within two years,) the riches " of Damascus and the spoil of Sa- *^ MARIA fhall be taken away before the " king of Afiyria." Therefore, this child was certainly the temporary SIGN of the promifed deliverance from the two powers of Damascus and Sa- ?>f ARIA : but, unfortunately for Dr. W ms's hypothefis, the faid child was

NOT CALLED ImMANUEL, but MaHER- SHALAL-HASH-BAZ ^ T^ "^Vi ^Vi^ iTiU

properly fignifying and prefiguring the near approach of the fpoiling of Damafus and Samaria, Now, we do not read of any other child, born at that time as a fign 5 and therefore Dr. W- — - — ms's opinion, concerning Immanuel, is not

only

[ 53 ] only 2ijnere fuppojitiofiy but a very impro- bable one J fince it is not at all likely that TWO CHILDREN wcre then born, one Maber-JJ^alal'haJh'baZy and the other Immanuel^ and both of them intended as

MERE TEMPORARY SIGNS OF THE SAME THING.

The Dodtor will find, on a farther examination of the text, that the birth of Ifaiah's fon is only an allujioriy or itnper^ 'fe^ imitation^ of the former remote SIGN, mentioned i» the feventh chapter, (*z?/2;. of Immanuel's birth,) in the fame manner as the brazen Jerpent (21), lifted

up

(21) " And the Lord faid unto Mofes, Make thee ^* a fiery ferpent, and fet it upon a pole ; and it fhall •* come to pafs, that every one that is bitten, when ** he looketh upon it, mail live. And Mofes made a ** ferpent of brafs, and put it upon a pole ; and it came ** to pafs, that if a ferpent had bitten any man, when " he beheld the ferpent of brafsy he lived." Numb. xxi. 8, 9. — «* And as Mofes lifted up the serpent ** in the wildernefs, even fo muft the son of man •* BE LIFTED UP; that whofocvcf bcHeveth in hjm f* SHOULD NOT PERISH, but havc eternal life." John

iii.

[ 54 3

Zip in the wildernefs, was an imperfed: imitation, or type, of Chrift crucified ; and that the temporary deliverance from the tw9 kings (of which the birth of Ifaiah's fon was the temporary sign) cannot rightly be confidered as the ac- complifhment of the prophecy, but rather as a confirmation and fare pledge of the faid remote sign, as I have before ob- ferved.

" Biity when the fulness of timet ** was comey' the angel Gabriel was fent from God to Nazareth, with a farther revelation of the then approaching sign of the redemption promifed by Ifaiah.

The hlejjed ^virgin anfwered, (Luke i. 34.) *' How fid all this he^ feeing I know ** not a manV

That

ail. 14, 15. — See Mr. Cruden's excellent remarks on thefe texts, under the word SERPENT, in his Con- ccadance.

[ 55 1

That " a woman JJjouid compafs a man^ (viz. conceive and bear a fon with- out the knowledge of man) was an event fcarcely to be expelled or compre- hended by man j it being the neii; thing which God had created in the earth, fpo- kcn of by the prophet Jeremiah xxxi. 22. (22) So that it was plainly ihc feed cf tke iDoman which bruifed the ferpent's head, as promifed in Genefis iii. 15. (23).

The occanon of Ifaiah's prophecy, concerning the miraculous birth of Im- manuel, is mentioned in the beginning of the feventh chapter. — " Becaufe Syria, '' Ephraim, and the fon of Remaliah,

" have

(22) " How long wilt thou go about, O thou back- " Aiding daughter? (the virgin of Ifrael) : for the ** Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, a *' WOMAN (hall COMPASS A MAN." Jcrem. xxxi. 22.

(23) "And I will put enmity between thee and the ** woman, and between thy feed and her. seed : ir *' SHALL BRUISE THY HEAD, and tliou flialt bfuife *» his heel." Gen. iii. 15.

t 56 1

" have taken evil counfel againft thee, " (Ahaz,) faying, Let us go up againft ** Judah, and vex it; and let us make a " breach therein for us, and fet a king *' IN THE MIDST OF IT, even the fon « of Tabeal." But " thus faith the Lord ' " God, Itjhall not Jlandy neither Jhall it *' cometopafs.*

Now, this was a confirmation of the promife made by God to David, and de- livered by Nathan the prophet, (2 Sam. vii. 16.) viz, *' Thine houfe and thy king- *' dom (hall be eftablifhed for ever before " thee: thy throne fhall be eftabliih- <^ edfor EVER.'*

' Therefore, as Juftin Martyr obferves (24), if the prophecy, " Behold^ a vir^

" zin

(24) Kccya t^fiVt w Tfv(puvf £( f/i^iv xect rnv 7rpo^»jTE»a/,-

iv yarft ^rj-vj/ETa*, uT^'Ku 'crpoj EXfipov oixov rw* Quasy.a. (pvXup, lauq uv wTTopiav Etp^f to 'STpcAyfAO.' ETrnovi dV ;£at ayrij vi 'nrpo^Ti- TBioc "Z^cog Tov oiKov Aatet^ £tp>)Ta», to tifri^.ivov '^po; AatiJ^ ^tto; Geou EV /x.yr'^p'^) ^»a Hcrata w? E/A£^?^£ yjjEir^ai t^nyri^ri. Juf-

tini Dialogus cum Tryphone Judseo, pag, 293, Paris Edition, 1636.

C 57 ]

*' ginJJjall conceive i'' had not been fpo- ken to the houfe of David, but to any Other houfe of the twelve tribes, the af- fair might have been doubtful j but the fign was really given to the house of David j (fee 13th verfe — " Hear ye " now, O houfe of David j") and, as no man was ever born of a virgin except the Messiah, who, on account of this birth, was called the Son of David, therefore, jt; was furely the propereft fign that could be given, to affure them that the houfe and the kingdom of Da- yiY^fhouli be ejlablifhed for every and that the evil counfel of Syria and Ephraim fliould not ftand. The houfe and the kingdom of David cannot be eftabliflied FOR EVER, in the perfon of any of Da- vidV defendants, except the Mefliah himfelfj for (with refpedl to the prefent times) the worldly kingdom of David ceafed very many ages ago, and his peo- ple, the children of Ifrael, being moft

H defervedly

[ 58 1

defervedly ejeded (on account 6f their wickednefs and unbelief) from their old inheritance, the land of Canaan, have never fince obtained any other as a pof- feflion, but, for near feventeen hundred years, have been difperfed throughout the whole v^orld : and yet, by the mani- fcft providence (25) of God, they remain, to this day, in the midji of all nations y 2l diJiinB and peculiar people \ fo that their prefent ftate is an authentic and undeni- able voucher of the truth of the Holy Scriptures (26), and themfelves a living

teftimony

(25) See bifhop Newton's Diflertation on the Pro- phecies, iftvol. p, 215 to 238, where that learned au- thor treats very fully and pathetically concerning the remarkable providence of God in the prefervation of the Jews.

(26) ** What is occafionally faid, by Mofes and *' other prophets, concerning the future ftate of God's «* people, the Jews, is, alone, fufficient to eftablifh ** the divine authority of the holy writings. The pro- ** mifes made to them are literally fulfilled, the ven- <* geance denounced againll them is literally inflided. ** Captives they were frequently made; wanderers ♦< they becai^e ; and fucji they continue to be at this

** day.

i 5<) ]

teftimony of God's juft judgement^ wbic^ theyjiiil lie under ^ until they JJmU repent.

But Chrifl's fpiritiial kingdom of Jfracly into which we are adopted, is everlafting; and the prophet Ifaiah gave Ahaz, and his cotemporaries of the hoiife of David^ the ftrongeft aflurances that it fhould be fo. — " Of the increafe of hi i government " and peace'' (fays he, in the ninth chap- ter, which I have already (hewn to have been delivered nearly at the fame time with the feventh chapter) " there Jhall " ^^ NO END, upon the throne of David ^ " aftd upon his kingdom^ to order ity and to " ejiablijh it with judgement and with juf " tice^ from henceforth even for ever t

H 2 " the

^* dayj fojburning In the midft of all nations, united ** with none ; peculiars every where, and by no hu- ** roan means to be again confolldated : nuhich is altO" ** gether as ^wonderful as if the njcaters of any one parti' ** cular ri'ver Jhould remain in diJiinSi globules, though " fcattertd through the nxshole ocean, ^^ Dr. Gregory Sharpe's 2d Argument in Defence of Chriftianity, ^r. pag. 4and5.

*' the zeal of the Lord of hofts will per- ** form this/'

In page 37, Dr. W ms faySy

*^ The laft objedion which I know, that " can be made to my fenfe of the paf-

fage, is, that it is utterly inconfiftent

with the words of St. Matthew, chap,

i. 22, 23."

Here I muft intirely agree with the Dr. though I am not the better fatisfied with his hypothelis*

Now, that we may thoroughly under- fland the text in queftion, it will be ne- ceflary to confider St. Matthew's appli- cation of it.

He informs us, that " the birth of ** Jefus Chrift was on this wife : When, " as his mother Mary was efpoufed to V Joftph> before they came together,

« flic

r 6t ]

" fliewas found with chiU of ' the IMf " Ghoji, then Jofeph, her hufbarid, be- " ing ajuft man, and not willing to make " her a public example, was minded to *^ put her away privily. But, while lie " thought on thefe things, behold, the ** angel of the Lord appeared unto him in " a dream, faying, Jofeph, thou son " OF -David, fear not to take unto thee " Mary, thy wife ; for that 'which is con- " ceivedin her is of the Holy Ghost: " and (he fhall bring forth a fon, and " thou fhalt call his name Jefus, (j^Vv:;^) : " for he fhall Jave his people from their *' fins. Now ALL mis^was done^ that " it might be fulfilled wLich was ** fpoken of the Lord by the pro- " phet, faying. Behold, a virgin (hali " be with child, and fhall bring forth a '^ fon, and they fliall call his name Em- *' MANUEL, which, being interpreted, is,

'' God with us:' Now, Dr. W ms

hopes to excufe himfelf and his hypothe-

r 62 ];

fis by alledging, (fee page 40,) that thb is only ^' ^/^ accommodation (by way of i/^ " lujlration^ not proof) of a pafTage ta " a particular fenfe, to which it origin " nally bad no referenced

But fhould we not feem to pay very little regard to Gofpel teftimony, (I now fpeak as to Chriftians,) if we were to fuppofe, that the prophecy originally had no reference to this event, when an apof- tle expreffly affirmi that it had ?

Might not Dr. Doddridge's obferva- tion (quoted in page 38 of the Crit. ^ Differt.) be then, with more juftice, urged againft us ? i;/^?. " This way of " proceeding will make the Scriptures ^' the moft uncertain writings in the <' world." But now let us fee how this notion of an accommodation will fuit with the reft of the Doftor's hypothefis.

He

-C 63 ]

He fays,- (page 44,) '* I think that S\ the prophet had no reference to the Mef- f^ Jiaby sind that the evangelift. only al- ii Judes to this paffage in'Ifaiah, becaufe ,"."it was remarkably fiiitable to the matter **' which he was relating." -Now the Dr. fcems to have forgot his former opinion^ in page 23, vi^^. *' that the word niZ^'^ f* doth not appear to f^gnify JlriSlly a "" virgin,'' -^d fc^^

For, if this were true, that nD^j; doth not fignify a virgin, in what fenfe could the text be efteemed remarkably fuit able to the miraculous conception of a virgin by the Holy Ghpst ? And in what man- ner could the accommodation of it to that fnguhr event affift the facred hiflorian ** BY WAY OF illustration"? (See page 40.)

Nay, the Dodor has even taken great pains to render the text remarkably

UN-

[ 64 ]

unsuitable! for he would have us underftand that na>5?n the young wo- man, (as he conftrues it,) fpoken of in the to.xty.'wz^yio far from being, a virqin that (he was with child (^* is cokcei- i*'ViNG and BEARING a SON," fays^Jie, in page 37) evea at the time when fhe was pointed at (as he fuppofes, in page 31) by the prophet. Tbefe words (vix. ^. IS CQNCEjvjNG and bearing a son'') are a part of what he has given us, in page 37, as a ^' literal tranjlation of the w- original';*'' but it is fo far' from being fo, that the -tr lie fenfe oi the Utter, ortd)fti feems to t^e exchanged'fof that of the iri-^ terlineary VerfibA of th^ London Polyglot, which rendeirs it " pragnans & pai^iensT

But the words mi^^l n*in are not participles ^<£live, but are in the perfedl tenfe j yet there needs no apology for the Septuagint and other tranflations in ren- dering them as if they were of the future

lienie,

t 65 ]

tenfe, becaiife the fenteiice, to which they belong, is plainly the prediction of 2ifutU7'et\tnt (27) : for, in prophetical writings, the perfed: is frequently ufed for thfe .future tenfe. *' Apud prophetas *' autem creberrime (prasteritum) prof *' futuro ufurpatur, quo res certo futura *' fignifficetury perinde ac ii jam evenif- " fet : ut puer t^n natus eft nobis, • pro " nafcetur." Bythner. Inftitutio Lin- gua' Sanclae, p. 10. Dr. W— — -ms's literal tranjlation (as he calls it) of the perj?^ tcnk into tht part lap le adlive can- not (I believe) be fo eaiily vindicated.

Would it not be very unnatural to fup- pofCj that the prophets have been intirely filent concerning this moft remarkable fignofthe Mefliah, (viz. his being born

I OF

(27) — ** It is a well known obfervation, of the ** Chriftian and Jewifh dodloi's, that the prophet, fee- ** ing in his mind's eye the events he foretels, often ** fpeaks of them as already paft." Dr. Sharpe's zd Argument in Defmce of Qhrifllanity, p. 309. — In a note.

[ 66 ]

OF A VIRGIN,) infomuch, that an evan- gelift ftiould be obliged to accommo- date, to i\i\% Jingular circumjlancey a paffage, which, originally, had " no re- " fere?2ce to the Messiah ?" And that he fhould attempt to pafs fuch a mere ACCOMMODATION upon the world for the genuine fenfe of the prophet, by fig- nifying, in the ftrongeft terms, that this text was fulfilled by the circumftances which he there relates ?

The evangelift thus expreffeshimfelf:

" Now, ALL THIS WAS DONE, that iC

*' might bejulfilled which was fpoken of " the Lord by the prophet," Gf^. tmto

ce oXov yBiovsv iva. 'srXvjpcoOTj to o'^Gev vtto th ycvpiii Sid m 'srpo(p7irii Xsyovrogy &c. Which implies, that, if all this had not come to pafs, the word of t be Lord, by the pro^ phef, would not have been fulfilled: there- fore, this cafe is by no means fimilar to the inftances of ACCOMMODATION drawn

from

[ 67 ]

from the Grecian poets (28), in page 41.

But-why fliould any one attempt, now- a-days, to explain away the genuine meaning of a prophecy, fo iitcrally fulfilled by the miraculous birth of Chrift, when even the yewijh interpreters, near 300 years (i. e, according to the Chronicon of Eufebius, 279 years) before that won- derful event, had conftrued the fame prophecy in fuch a manner, that it could not poflibly be applied to any perfon whatfoever except the promifed Mefliah,

who ALONE WAS BORN OF A VIRGIN ?

This teftimony of the Septuagint was taken notice of by Origen, (contra Cel-

I 2 fum

(28) The learned author, whom Dr. W-. m$

has quoted in page 41, has made a very neceiTary re- ferve on t)iis head, which the Doftor has omitied in his quotation : 'vi^* *' But, indeed, to an attentive *' mind, the difference will appear very great between " the citations from prophane authors and the pro- ** phets."

[ 68 ]

fqm (29), p. 27,) and is certainly of greater authority, in favour of the true fenfe of the word riDb'i^i^ (rendered by them Tu-updsvog, a virgin,) than any thing that Dr. W ms has offered againft it,

It is remarkable, that all the ancient MSS. of the Septuagint, in different parts of the world, teflify the truth of this reading ^ of which four, in particular, are of confiderable authority, on account of their very great antiquity; viz, the Va- tican, Alexandrian, Complut^nfian, and Venetian, MSS. And, though many copies of the Septuagint mufl have been in the hands of Jews, as well as others, both before and after the birth of Chrifl,

yet

(29) Eav OS laS'ui^ tvftcrt,}\oyuv, to I^tf 'n 'Srocp^sp^, ^57 yelpaipSat ^ifnf uXk uvr avTHy 1^ 7} peavi^* (pvicrQ^iv 'srcoq ccvrov, oT* h {/-ev ^e|»5 v AX[/.ot, rtv ol {jt,£» iC^o/xvixovTa /ixETetAij- (poca-i 'STpoq rvjv <ma.pBevovy i^c. Quod ii Judaeus, vocabula excutiens, neget fcriptum, Ecce njirgincnty it^Ecceado- h/centula, dicemusibi legi vocem Alma, quam Septu- aginta interpretes verterunt virginem, ^c* Carobridee edition, 1677, p. 27.

[ 69 ]

yet I never heard that any perfon ever produced b copy which contradifted this original reading ; for, as the Scptuagint was the common tranflation ufed in the fynagogues, throughout all Ada, Greece, and Egypt, (fee bi(hop Walton's Prole- gomena ix. p. 60. N°. 15,) any alteration, in fo remarkable a text as this, would very foon have been difcovered.

And it muft alfo be remembered, that the feveral Greek tranflations, wherein the word ndbyn is rendered vsocptg, a young woman^ (viz. that of Aquila, Theodo- tion, and Symmachus,) were all made ^Jier the birth of Chri/ly when the unbe- lieving Jews were defirous of perverting the true meaning of the prophecy.

The ancient Syriac verfion expreffes nziVi^ by the very word (viz. [AJio^i^ from r-^t^ina) which the Dodor fets up in oppofition to it i and which, hejuftly

obferves.

[ 70 ]

obferves, muft fignify flriftly a virgin (30). And, laftly, St. Matthew, whe- ther he quoted the original or Septuagint, was certainly convinced that the true fenfe of the word was srocpQevog, a virgin, and he hath accordingly left us his tefti- mony of it j which proves, that the Doc- tor's application of this word, to the mother of Ifaiah'sfoUy muft be very erro- neous.

The child, Immanuel, could not be Ifaiah's fon, becaufe it appears, from fo many undeniable teftimonies, that his mother was to be really a virgin ; and be- caufe/^^ ^w«^ /{/i?^ (by which the pro- phecy is beft underftood) has proved this truth beyond all contradidion.

Wherefore,

(30) The Rabbins always by n^lH^ mean a i^-zV- gin : that they well underlland their own language cannot be denied, l^c. p. 20. — See alfo p. 25, where, fpeaking of the Septuagint tranflation of Eflher ii. 2. he adds, ** nvhence Jt miijl undeniahly appear, that they *' underJ}oodT\^\S^^to'mcan a virgin, in the Jirideft " fenfe of the 'word, '*

[ 71 ]

Wherefore, I think I may now fafely

conclude, in Dr. W -ms's own

words, before quoted, that his opinion, concerning this text, " is utterly in-

" CONSISTENT WITH THE WORDS OF

" St. Matthew," and, of courfe, that the Dodor is indifpenfahly bound to yield up his hypothefis to i\\Qfiiperior an^ thority of the evangeliji.

"The END of Part I.

DISSERTATION

ON THE

NATURE AND STYLE

OF

PROPHETICAL WRITINGS:

SHEWING

That abrupt Tranfitions, from one Subject to another, are frequently found therein.

The fame being intended to illuftrate the foregoing Remarks on the Critical Diflertation, ^c»

Part II. K A DIS-

[ 75 ]

DISSERTATION

ON THE

NATURE and STYLE

O F

Prophetical Writings, &

THE prophecies, contained in the fcventh,eighth, and ninth, chap- ters of Ifaiah, feem to have been delivered during the general confler- nation of the houfe of David, occafioned by the invalion of Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Ifrael ; becaufe feve- ral circumftanceSj relating to the faid kings and their refpedlive nations, are

K 2 men-

[ 76 3

mentioned in each of thefe chapters (i) j notwithftanding that the fame chapters^ contain prophecies of very diftant events, which are fo blended v^ith the tranfadions of the (then) prefent limes, that it v^ould not be eafy to diftinguifli the real differ- ence, in point of chronology, if the ap- parent accomplifhment of thefe feveral prophecies did not remove the difficulty. Rezia and Pekah are both particularly mentioned in the 7th chapter, wherein the extraordinary birth of the' fM^ 7;^- manuel is given as a fign. The fpoiling of their refpedlive cities is promifed in the 8th chapter (2), wherein the birth of the

child

(i) Septimum, o£lavum, ct nonam, Ifaiae caput in eodem fere verfantur argumento, l^c, P. D. Huetii Demonjiratio E-vangelica, p. 291.

(2) *' For, before the child ( Maher-Jhalal-haJh-baz) Ihall have knowledge to cry, My father and my mother, xh.Q riches of Damajcus and xkitj'poil of Samaria fhall be taken away before the kingof AiTyria." viii. 4. ** For- afmuch as this people refufeth the waters of Shiloah, thatgo foftly, and rejoice in i?2^2;/« and Remaliah^sfctii now, therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth upon them

the

t n ]

child Maher-fhalal'hafli-baz, the fon of Ifaiah, is foretold, as the; temporary figa of the fame : and, notwithftanding that the greateft part of the fald chapter relates to thofe times, yet the prophet introduces, in the very midft of it, a plain reference to the time& of the Meffiah; fee 13th, 14th, 15th, and 1 6th, verfes, which (hall be hereafter confidered. In the 9th chapter, the prefumption of Ephraim and the inhabitants of Samaria (3) is repro- ved, and God's judgements are once more expreffly denounced agatJiJl Rezi?2, as if

thefe

the waters of the river, llrong and many, even the king q{ Ajjyria'^ cjfr. — ** And the ftretching out of his wings fhall £11 the breadth of thy land, O Itn" manud.^'' viii. 6, 7, 8.

(3) **''And all the people mall know, even Ephraim and the inhabitants of Samariay that fay, in the pride and ftoutnefs of heart. The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewen ftones," ciff. ix. 9, 10, ** Therefore the Lord ihall fet up the adverfaries of iJ/sizr againft him,'* ^c. ix. 11. Thefe three vtrks, 9th, loth, and nth, and alfo the 21ft, plainly allude to the fubjcd of the 7th chapter, viz. the evil cojnfel and confederacy of Syria and Ephraim^ and God's prc- mife that the fame (hould not ftand* *

[ 78 ]

thefe things were to happen after the birth of the child that was to ^ ' be called " Wonderful^ Counfellory the mighty Gody " the ever lofting Father ^ the Prince of " peace y of the increafe of whofe govern^ *^ ment and peace there fliould be no endy " upon the throne of David and upon *' his kingdom," &c. For the birth of this divine perfon is foretold in the for- mer part of the fame chapter 5 and yet I never heard of an attempt to apply this prophecy to a fon of Ifaiah> or to any other child born about that time.

In the beginning of this 9th chapter, the prophet alludes likewife to fome other hiftoricai circumflances, befides what arc already mentioned concerning Syria and Ephraim s and thefe had either then late- ly happened^ or were very (hortly to come to pafs, notwithftanding that the allufion is blended with a very diftant prophecy concerning the preaching of Chrifl,

The

[ 79 ]

The circumftances, which I fpeak of, are the Affyrian conqueft and captivity of Zebulun and Napthali^ which hap- pened in the days of Pekah, king of Jf- rael (4). This was the affliction {^)by the " way of the fea^ beyond "Jor dan Jn Ga- " //7<?f,ofthe nations," mentioned by Ifaiah, ix. I. by which he expreffly points out the very fpol, Galilee, where Immamiel was chiefly to be manifefl:ed by his mighty deeds and miracles j for the pro- phet immediately proceeds, verfe 2. ** The people (fays he) that walked in

" darknefs

(4) " In the days of Pekah, king of Ifrael, came Tiglathpilefer, king of A^yriz, and took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maa-chah, and Janoah, and Kedefli, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Nap- thali, and carried them captive to Aflyria." 2 Kings XV. 29.

(5) ** Ncverthelefs, the dimnefs fliall not be fuch as was in her vexation, when at the firfl he lightly af- fiided the land of Zebulun, and the land of Napthali, and afterward did more grievoufly afflid her, by the way of the fea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee, of the na- tions." Ifaiah'w, 1. ** The people that walked in darknefs have feen a great light," ^r. ix. 2.

C 80 ]

•^ darknefs (6) have feen a great light : " they that dwell in the land of the flia- '* dow of d^ath, upon them hath the light " JloinedJ' And afterwards, in the 6th verfe, he renews the fame promifes, gir V€n in the 7th chapter, concerning the .birth of a divine child ^ whofe attributes and dignity are here fo fully exprefled, by the prophet, that they can by no means agree Vvith the charad:er of any Uherxhild but that which was truly Im- manuely or, God with us. Therefore, It is plain, that the prophecies of the 8th and 9th chapters were delivered nearly at the fame time with thofe of the 7th chapter, which are farther explained

and

(6) This correfponds with the' prejudice which the Jews conceived againft their brethren the Galilaeans. The chief Prieils and Pharifees anfwered Nicode- mus, faying, " Search and look ; for out of Galilee arifeth no prophet,''^ John vii. 52. In like manner an-, fvvered Nathaniel, when Philip told him, " We have found him of whom Mofes, in the law, and the Pro- phets, did write, Jefus of Nazareth, thefon of Jofeph.'* And Nathaniel laid unto him. Can there any good thin^ €Gm: out of Nazareth ? John i. 45, 46.

[ 8i ]

and confirmed thereby ; fo that, if Dr^

\V ms will carefully examine all thefe

three chapters, he will find, that it is not unujual (7), in prophetic writings, to make quick and abrupt tranfitlons from one fubie<5t to another, nor unnatural^ that a very diftant prophecy fliould be blended with others that were foon to be accomplifhed ; becaufe it is the nature of prophecy to be delivered in this myfterious manner. For (fays Ifaiah, xxviii. 10.) " precept muft be (or hath been) upon ** precept, precept upon precept, lineup- Part II. L '' on

(7) See Dr. W ^ms's comment on the opinion of

thofe who fay that the 14th, i5tb, and i6th, verfes of the viith chap, oi Ifaiah contain two diflinfl prophecies. ** Is not this (fays he) 'very unnatural ? and, if I am not greatly miftaken, njery unufual F^^ P* 9.*

But an experienced writer, who, on many occafions, has given ample proofs of great learning and fcripture- knowledge, informs us, that *' it is ^ery natural arid *' t'ery u/ual, with the prophets, to make a tranjltion •* from one great deli'vcrance to anoihe^ , as alfo from one *' great dsjlruaion to ancther :^' — and he afterwards gives feveral remarkable inftances of it. See Dr. Gre- gory Sharpens id Argument in Defence of Cbrifianiiy, p. 255.

■ [ 82 ]

^' on line, line upon line, here a little *' ^r\(3i there a little. For with ftammer- *^ ing lips and another tongue will he fpeak (or he hath fpoken) to this peo- ple." And again, in the 13th verfe, here a little and there a little j that they might go and fall backward, and be " broken, and fnared, and taken." The nature and reafon of typical writings are ftrongly expreffed in St. Mark's Gofpel (8), iv. II, 12, 13. Wherefore, it is our duty tp afk God's affiftance, when we read the fcriptures, that we may under- ftand them to our comfort, left they ihould be a ftumbling-block to us, as

thev

(8) " And, when he (Jefus) was alone, they that were about him with the twelve afked of him the para- ble. And he iaid unto them. Unto you it is given to know themyflery of the kingdom of God ; but, imtQ them that ar( ^without, all theje things are d-one iv parables ; that, feeing, they may fee and not perceive ; and, hearing, they may hear and mt under/land ; left at any time they Ihould be converted, and their fins ihould be forgiven them. And he faid unto them, know ye not this parable ? and how then will you know all para-*. Vies? The fower foweth," ^V. Markiv. 10—13.

[ 83 ] they were to the unbelieving Jews. Bat not only the fcriptures, even Chrift hini- felf, became a ftone of ftumbling to the Jews : for, about the time of his coming, they univerfally expedled a glorious and triumphant Mefliah to rule over them ; infomuch, that Herod the Great was ex- ceedingly alarmed with the apprehenfioa of fo powerful a competitor y^r the throne of David, But, when " the dejire of all " natiom' (fee Haggai ii. 7.) was really come, his humble appearance, meeknefs, and difinterefted, thcugh interefting, doc- trine, did not in the leaft ccrrefpond with their worldly imaginations j fo that ** he " was in the worlds and the world was " made by him, and the world knew him *' not : he came unto his own, and his own " received him not I' John i. 10, 11. For the Jews did not then confider (any more than they do at prefent) that the humility of the Meffiah w^as as exprcfOv foretold by the prophets as his glory.

L 2 " Who

[ 84 3

" 14^ ho hath believed our report V fays Ifaiah, in chap. liii. when he is about to defcribe the humility, afflictions, and death, of the Meffiah. " He hath no *' form nor comehnefs ; and, when we " fhall fee him, there is no beauty that *' we fliould defire him : he is defpifed ** and rejedled of men^' &c. See the whole chapter (9).

The Jews could not reconcile this un- exped:ed humility with that glorious cha- rafter which they fo long looked for and defired, *viz. " ci king that Jl:ould reign ** and profper 5" whom " the Lord'' (Je- hovah)

(9) *' Who can read thj? oracle and not allow Ifaiali «* to have been, what he is fometimes called, the M Evangelical Prophet? Is not this prophecy, in eve« «* ry part, as applicable to Jefus as is the account gi- ** ven of him by the holy Evangelifts ? Coald it have <* been exprefTed in ftronger or clearer terms if written ** after the event ? And yet it was delivered above 700 <* years before the birth of Jefus." 'Dt. Gregory Shar^e^s %d Argument in Defina of Chrijiianityt p, 232.

[ 85 ] hovah) promlfed by Jeremiah (lo) to *^ raije up unto Davidy' and who is like- wife

(lo) ** Behold the days come, faith the Lord, (n^n^ Jeho'vahjJ that I will raife unto David a righ* teous branch, and a kingjhall rei^n axd pro/per y and fhall execute judgement and juilice in the earth. In his days Judah ihall be faved, and Ifrael fhall dwell fafely : and this is his name whereby he fhall be called. The herd (Jeho-vah Pl^n"') c«^ rightecufncfs,'''* Jeremiah xxiii. 5, 6. See alfo xxxiii. 16. — Where the fame title (niiT') is given to the Branch of righteoufnefs mentioned in the preceding verfe. — Compare with thefe chap. xxx. 9. — ** And they Ihall ferve the tord their God (CZartTI^JJi ntn^) and David their kiNg*> (CZDD!7Q in DUil) " whom I will raife up unto them.". — The comparing of thefe texts together has cxrcafioned the following remark, which I find wrote with a pencil in the margin of my Hebrew Bible, J fup- pofe, by fome former owner of it. ** Meffias voca- ** bitur David fecundum carnem, Jo'va fecundum di- " vinitatem." — /. ^. " Chrift fhall be called ZJ^wV ** with refpeft to his human nature, and Jeho'vah with *» refped to his divinity." — The divinity of the Mef- fiah may Be clearly proved, by a multitude of other pafTages, even in the Old Tellament. Therefore, it behoves the authors of the Critical Re-vieix) ferioufly to confider how thofe men can be j unified who refufe the Son of God the honour due unto his name ; fince " the Father hath committed all judgement unto the Sony that all men jhould honour th( Son e-ven as they honour thi Father** John v. 22, 23.

[ 86 ]

wife called (as a name the moft fuitable to the only begotten Son of God) " the ** Lord'' (Jehovah) " our righteoiifnefir This unfortunate mifapprehenfion was plainly foretold by Ifaiah, when he warn- ed the people to "-^ JanBify the Lord of " hojishimfelfy'' (vi^npn IHN m^y^ nim rxiiC} i and (fays he) " let him be your *' feary and let him he your dreads l>iQV^^ what perfon could the prophet mean by this glorious title (mb^2ir rWxX^ Jehovah Sabaoth) if not the Mefliah ? for he immediately adds, " and he fhall be " for a fanduary, but (or, rather, and) " for a ftone of ftumbling, and for a *' rock of offence, to both the houfes of II Iftael, for a gin and for a fnare to the

" inhabitants

A dodlrine very oppofite to this is approved and commended in the loth article of the Critical Re^vie^ixi for May, 1760 ; whereby it appears that the author or authors of ihat recommendatory criticifm were not fuf- ficiently armed againft the dangerous and pernicious doc- rines of the book which they undertook to recommend, «z;/x. The Trinitarian Contro'verjy re'vieived', or a Defence ofth Jppeal to^ tht Common-^ enfe of all Chrifian People,

[ S7 ]

" inhpbltants of Jemfalcm. And many " ^inong thQmOn^W /Inmile and fa/If and ^' ie broken^ and be fnared^ and be taken, *' Bind up the tejlimony, feal the law a-- " mcng 7ny difciples^ Ifaiah 13 — 16.

Wehavethetefl:imonyof,St,Paul,inhis Epiftle to the Romans, ix. 33. (11), that this text relates to Chriji -, for he has there blended a part of it with another quota- tion from Ifaiah xxviii. 16. (12). St.

Peter

(u) . " Tor ihey JIumhIed 2Xi\ihtJiumhling-J!o}7e;

«' as it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a /«wM>n- ** /tone and rock cf cffence: and whofoever believeth on ** him fralf not b: ajhaimd,^^ Rom. ix. 32, 33.

(12) ** Therefore, thus faith the Lord God, Behold, " I lay in Zion, for a foundation, ay?^/z^, 2l tried Jione, ** a precious c^rr.er Jicric, a fure foundation : he that " believeth Ihali not make hnjie,'" ('C/TI"' N^) thatis, he fhall not be fubjedl 10 that kind of hajle which is commonly the elFed r/ y^^r. Therefore the Syriac verfion has rendered it W^^^ \J /W/ not be afraid \ which is very exprelTive of* the Prophet's meaning. The LXX have rendered it » ^>j y.u.-ry.^a-xjjv^-n ; and St. Paul, » y.aT«K7;^i-6u<7-Elai, that is, Jhall mt be ajl^amed -, which is ftill moreexpreflive of a man's being free from ^hat hajle or confufion caufed by fear. Kot 40 be ajhamed

is

[ 88 ]

Peter likewife quotes it, in his firfl: Epif- tle, ii. 8. (13), and applies it to Chrift, And indeed it can mean no other thari " Ckriji cructjiedy' who (as St. Paul in- forms us) was " to the Jews a Jiumbling " blocky and unto the Greeks fooliflinefs." I Cor. i. 23. But, notwithftanding thefe

plain teftimonies. Dr. W— ms is of a

very different opinion. *' Ifaiah does not ^^ feem* (fays the Dr. in a note, p. 32) " tofpeak of the Meffiah till the ixth chap- " ter" But, though the Dr. here allows that the ixth chapter contains a prophecy concerning the Meffiah, yet, perhaps, he is not aware, that, if his reafons againft the common interpretation of the viith

chapter

IS frequently put for not to fear. They fliall not ha ajhamed'm the e'vil time, fays the Pfalmift, xxxvii. 19, and again — they fhall not be ajhamed, but they Ihall fpeak with the enemies in the gate. Pfalm cxxvii. 5.

Tljis I hope is fufficient to reconcile the feeming dif* agreement between the original and St. Paul's quotation.

{13) ** And 2iJione of Jiumbling, and a rock of offence, <* even to them ^h\c\ijiu7nble at the word, being difo- <* bedient, whereunto alfo they were appointed.*'

[ Sg ]

chapter (on account of ** ths prefent order ^ " and abrupt tranfiiion^' which he com- plains of in p. lo) were ct all conclufive^ the fame would hold good likcvvifc againft the common interpretation of this ixth chapter; wherein the tranfiticns from one fubjecfl to another are equally abrupt y and the remote events, concerning the birth and preaching of the Mefliah, are fore- told, even before other events, " which " were immediately ^ or very fiortly^ to " happen,'" (Seep. 9.)

The Dr. may be right enough in his obfervation, that there are no inftanccs ** of remote ftgns to prove the accompli fli- " ment of an event near at hand:'* (fee pages 9 and 10.) But it is plainly his own miftake which caufes the difficulty that he fpeaks of; for the fign, given by Ifaiah, of the birth of Zww^;///^/, (viz, be- hold, a virgin fliall conceive, &V.) was not a remote fign of an event near at hand.

Part II. M (as

[ 90 ] (as the Dr. fuppofes,) but a remote Jign of a remote events and therefore not liable to his cenfure.

The holy fcriptures afford a great ma- ny other examples of prophecies which are blended and interwoven with very different fubjeds j different, I fay, both with refpedt to the matter and the time of accomplifhment.

There are alfo many inftances of pafTa- ges which bear a double conflrudion, be- ing partly applicable to fome particular perfon, exprefQy mentioned, though they ultimately and chiefly relate to another very different perfon.

The prophecy of Nathan, concerning Solomon, is of this kind. " He fhall build an houfe for my name, and I will eflablifh the throne of his kingdom for ever, I will be his father, and he

'' fhall

[ 91 ]

*' fhall be my fon." 2 Sam. vii. 13, 14. King David himfelf explained this more particularly to his fon Solomon, and ap- plied it to him, I Chron. xxii. 9. faying, " for his name fliall be Solomon^'' (fee the margin nO^U " peaceable y* agreeable to Chrift's title, mentioned in the ixth chapter of Ifaiah, viz. CZD'^V^ TO Prince oi peace J " and I will give peace and " quietnefs unto Ifrael in his days. Pie " fliall build an houfe for my name, and " he fliall be 7ny fori, and I will be hisfa- " ther^ and I will eftabhfli the throne of " his kingdom over Ifrael ^or ever,'' But where has the throne of Solomon been eftabhflied, for near 1800 years laft pad, if not in Jefus Chrijl^ the fpiritual Eolo' mon 2ini prince of peace? For, though this prophecy plainly related to Solomon, yet it referred to a farther accomplifli- ment in the Mefliah, by whom alone it could be perfedly fulfilled ; and there- fore a part of it is applied immediately to

M 2 Chrift,

[ 92 1

Chfift, by St. Paul, in his Epiftle to the Hebrews, i. 5. "I will be to him a " father^ and he fhall be to me a Jonr-

Of the fame kind is the Ixxiid pfalm, dedicated to Solomon. *^ They fhall fear " thee as long 2i%the fun and moon endure^ ** throughout all generationsJ' This is, in- deed, applied to Solomon *y but, as the reign of that monarch was merely tempo- raly the prophecy cannot be faid to be fulfilled in any other perfon befides the Meffiah himfelf, the true nnl7\D (Solo- mon) who reigns^ according to the Pfalm- ift's expreffion, " throughout all genera- " tion^r

The prophet Haggai, chap* ii. promi- ic5 ZerubbabeU governor of fudah^ and Jofljuay the high-prieft^ in the name of the Lord of hcfis^ that " the defire of all ^^ nations fhall come ^' and that he (the Lord of hofls) [y will f II this houfe'' (that

is.

[ 93 ]

is, the houfe which they were ordered to build) ^' with glory." v. 7. And he adds, in the 9th verfe, '* The glory of " this latter houfe fliall be greater than <' of the former, faith the Lord ofhofls; " and in this place will 1 give peace *' (C13iyv£; jnbi) faith the Lord of hofts."

Neverthelefs, in the former part of the fame chapter, the prophet appeals to thofe who had feen the *' houfe in her " firfl glory. And how (fays he) do you " fee it new ? Is it not, in your eyes, in " comparifon of it, as nothing?" v, 3. Thus it is plain that the glory of the fecond houfe did not confift either in the grandeur of the building laid out by Zerubbabel and Jofliua, or in the prefence of thofe great and holy men, notwithftanding that the prophecy is addreifed to them both, and that Zerubbabel is fpoken to by God in a very remarkable manner, at the con- clufion of the fame chapter, viz, " I will

" take

\

■ I 94 1 *^ take thee, O Zerubbabely my fervanf^ " the fon of Shealtiel, faith the Lord, " and will make thee as a fignet\ for I " have chofen thee^ faith the Lord of " hofts." But the glory was manifeftly to confift in the " future conwig^ &c. of *' the defire of all nations^ For, as the promife was made to Zerubbabel and Jo- Ihua themfelves, the prophecy muft ne- cefTarilv be underftood to have a more diftant accompliftiment j which, indeed, the beginning of the fentence fufficiently proves, viz. CiQT£?n Mu^ ^^:?1,C UNV j^-'H D5?D T\XVA 113? Tet once^ it is a little while, and I will fhake the heavens^ &c. Hag- gai ii. 6, 7.

The prophet Zacharlah likewife pro- mifes great things to Zerubbabel and Jo- fhua; which he applies perfosally to them, as builders of the temple, though the fame relate ultimately to Chrift. See chap. iv. 6 — 10,

See

[ 95 ]

See alfo chap. vi. ii, 12, 13, wherein Jo(hua, by his name> (vtlJin"' which the LXX. render Iw^^gy J'^fa^^ fignifying a Sa- viour,) as well as by his office and dignity of high-prieft, was plainly fet forth as a type of the future Meffiah.

The prophet orders him to be crowned, and faluted with the prophetical title of Chrift, viz. the branchy of whom he foretold, that he fhould " grow up out " of his place," and *' build the temple ." of the Lord."

Jofliua might, indeed, be faid to build the teniple, as well as Zerubbabel, but he could only be a type of the branch there prpmifed, becaufe the real branch was yet to grow up out of his place ( 14).

The

(14) *• Andfpeak unto him (Jojhua) faying. Thus ** fpeaketh the Lord of hofts, faying. Behold the man " whofe name ia the branch-, and he Jhallgroiv up out of ** his place, and he ihall build the temple of the Lord," ^f. Zech, vi. 12, \

[ 96 ]

The crowns were given ^^ for a memo- " rial in the temple of the hord^' . (not of the accomplifliment of this prophecy in the perfon of Jofhua, bat " for a memo- " rial/') of '^\i2Xjldoiild afterwards " co77te ** to pafsy' if the people would diligently chey the voice of the Lord their God (15). Thus we find that Solomon^ Zerubbabel^ ^ndijofjuay as builders of the temple, were types of the Meffiah, the true builder of th^everlaJiijigT^M^h-E of God; I mean, the Holy Catholic Church, properly {it) Jo called, " built upon the founda-

" tion

(15) " And the crowns fliall be to Helem and to ** Tobijah, ^r. — for a memorial in the temple of the ** Lord. And they that are far oir ihall come and ** build in the temple of the Lord, and ye fhall know ** that the Lord of holls hath fent me unto you. And this *• Jhall co7m to pafs (CZn.^i H^HI }^V^-:2''^ri S^IQ^'') *^ if ye njoill diligently obey the ^vcice of the Lord your " God:'' Zech. vi. 14, 15'.

(16) The church of Rome is very improperly crlled the Catholic Church, becaufe fhe caufes a contradidlion in terms, by usurping t ha t^(?».^r^/ title to herfelf alone, when, at the fame time, ihe fcarcely ieems intitled to

be

[ 97 ]

** tion of the Apoftlesand Prophets J Je- " sus Christ himfelf being the chief Part II. N ** corner-

be ellcemed a part of it. For, notwithftanding that many worthy members of Chrift's catholic Church may have fubmitted to her communion, for want of better information, ferving God by the fiaccrity of their in- tentions, yet, " What agreement hath the temple of God *' ^ith idohV^ (2 Corinth, vi. 16.) Wherefore, *' Corns cut cf her,''' (ye people of God,) *'■ that ye be " not partakers of her fms, and that ye receive not of *' her plagues." Rev. xviii. 4. She hath perverted the la-TV of God (like the Scribes and Phariiees of old) oy her traditions — " forbidding to marryy and commanding ** to abjiain from meats, which God hath created to be ** received nxith tbank/gi-ving of them luhich believe and *' knonx> the truth." — Which St. Paul (i Tim. iv. 1.) exprefsly called doSlrines of denjils. She hath defiled the catholic Temple of God, by building, upon the true foundation, ** ivW, hay, (lubble 'y^ -viz.. infallibility, purgatory, oftentatious penance, mercenary pardons and indulgences, invocation of faints, excrcifms ^" exorcifmus aqua ;'* — ** exorcifmum falls." — ** Ex- ** orcizo te, creatura falis,^^ — '' aqu^Cy" ScQ. Seethe Mijfale, publijked by the joint- authority , of the popes, Pius ^intus, Clement the Sth, and Urban the SthJ of holy water and fait, ben:di£lions of candles, table-cloths, towels, i^c. baptifm of bell?, and fach other fpiritual «if//f^fr^y>—— praying and bowing before images and Ihrines, reverencing dead mens bones, and other fuch abominable things, '^c. l^c. Thefe are no part of the foundation (mentioned above) of the Apojlks and Pro- phets, whofe writings warrant no fuch /rfc?/<^/r)', excrcifms,

or

«

[ .98 ]

^' corner- ftone J in whom all the build- ing, fitly framed together, groweth unto

'' an

or enchantments : and therefore even the Holy Scriptures themfel'ves are prohibited, in the popifti Index Expurga- hriits. This lalt is, indeed, a precaution necelTary to the exigence of fuch dodtrines; for, if the poor delu- ded people were permitted to read the Scriptures, they Would foon be informed that there is but ** One Media- " tor between God and man, the man Chriji Je/us ;" (l Tim. ii. 5.) and that ** there is n^one other name un- ^'' der hea'ven gi'ven among men nvhereby njoe mufl be fa<vedJ** A«5ls iv. 12. O that thofe men, who invoke the «/^<:/i- ^iion cf all faints and angels i (notwithftanding the plain dodlririe of 'St. P^^^r, quoted above,) would coniider what agrofs affront, by this execrable fermcey they oiFer to Chrift, who alone is the nvay, and the truths and the life! Fbr their daily prayers witnefs againll them, that they do not efteem the mediamn of Chriji fufiicidnt for them, otherwife they would riot,Tike the idolatrous Ifraelites of old, invoke " all the hofi of hea-ven.*^ 2 Kings xvii. 16. The Church of Rome has endea- voured to cloak this abominable worihip with the fubtle dl5in<rtions of /fl//-z^and^/<//«; but the necelfity of fuch fophiltical arguments proves the reality of that church's backfliding to idolatry. Heathen Rome was not more guilty of this crime, nor hath Ihed more innocent blood in defence of fuch abominati:nsy under the old pagan emperors, than the prefent Church of Rome has done, iince her Bijhops have alTumed their feat; that is, have pofTeffed themfelves of i\iQ temporaly as well as ecclefiafr tical, jurifdidion of that ancient city. So that the Church of Rome may, indeed, be faid to have jncunted

tEe

[ 99 ]

" an holy Temple in the Lord:" in whom " you (Ephe(ians) alfo are builded toge- ** ther for ap habitation of God through ^* the fpirit." Ephef. ii. 20, 21, 22.

Compare the above-mentioned texts

with I Cor. iii. it. John ii. 18 — 22.

Luke XX. 17,18. Ads iv. 11. Pfalm

cxviii. 22. Ifaiah xxviii. 16.

> It would make a large volume, if I

were to coUedl all the prophecies which

N 2 abfo-

t^it/carlet'coloured heaflyfull of names of hlafphemy ; (Rev, xvii. 3.). and is, accordingly, moft truly defcribed, by St. John, as a nvoman drunken <voith the blood ofthefaitits, and <vjith the blood of the martyrs of Jefus.

.Archbifhop Cranmer, the bilhops Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, and a great multitude of other worthy Englijh' metiy have fufFered under her diabolical tyranny.

Indeed, thehiftories of all other European kingdoms are fraught with woful examples of it. la Sully's Me- moirs (chap. V. p. 9.) we read that a popifh prayer- book (" li'vre de grojfes heures^^) ferved as a pajjport a.' mong the bloody mefiengers of popifli vengeance, at the mafj'acre of the Huguenots, at Paris. ** Tue, Tue, •* 6 Huguenot, 6 Huguenot," was the deviliih watch- word !

O that the living members o^ that Church may difcern, and repent of, their enormous errors before it be too late I

[ loo ] abfolutely relate to two different and dif- tln6t fubjecfls in the type and antitype, Neverthelefs, I am particularly obliged to take notice of two more of this kind>

becaufe Dr. W ms has quoted them

in favour of his hypothefis, notwithftand- ing that, upon examination, they will be found to make much againft it. He fays, (in p. 38,) " It is not pojjible indeed to re-^ *' concile Matthew ii. 15. 23. and per- haps fome other paffages in his gofpel, with any particular prophecy now extant. in the Old Teftament." As to the 1 5th verfe, wherein St. Matthew quotes the Prophet Hofea xi. i . {^^ out of Egypt have I called my fony') the Dr. obferves, that, the paffage in Hofea, where thefe words are found, is not a prophecy of a " future event, but a declaration of an event long pad, and therefore could, not be fulfilled when the child Jesus 5* came out of Egypt,"

Now,

cc cc ce

cc

[ lOI ]

Now, in one refpedt, the Dr. is right, viz. that the paffige, with regard to the people cf Ifrael, '' is a declaration of an " event long pafl :' neverthclefs, he has net affigned any reafon why the fame paffage may not, likenvifc^ contain a ^^xo- i^htzy of a future events by being intend- ed, like many other prophecies, to bear a double application.

Erafmus has affigned a reafon for the error of Julian the apoftate, concerning this text, viz, " that he has too much ** followed the feptusgint edition ; nimi" "» rum fe cuius edit i one m feptiiagintay"^ (fays he,) *' qui locum hunc tranftule- *' runt in hunc modum, quia parvuhis- *^ Ifrael, et ego dilexi eu?7iy et ex ^Egypto " VQC2s\ filios ejus J' (Annot. in Mat- thsum, p. 250.)

A

[ I02 I

A mifunderflanding of this text is very excufable, likewife, in the authors of tHat Greek verfion, who could not eafily com- prehend, bejore the event y that the Mef- fiah (hould be called out of Egypt, as the children of Ifrael had been before him j and therefore they rendered the paffage in fuch a manner as they thought would beft point out the application of it to the peo- ple of Ifrael only ; y.oct s^ AiyvTrja {zsje- ZDcXBff-cc'rai reicvoc'civjiSy ** and out of Egypt " have I called bis children."

But, if the prophet bimfelf had intended the fame thing, and that only^ he would, moft likely, have made ufe of terms more expreffive of a nation^ or people^ than of a Jingle per/on-, (^^ from Egypt <* have I called my fon,'' — ) and then the Greek interpreters would not have been obliged to leave the literal fenfe of the original in order to adapt it, with

propriety.

[ ^^3 •] prpp.rlely, to the people of IfraHs wJxich proves, that fome fiugle perfon is more particularly pointed a,t, by the prophet, than ibe people of Ifrael.

There are, indeed, r^iany paflages of Scripture wherein nations are reprefented by fingle perfons: Ezekiel warned the two houfes of IJrael under the figure of t.wp adulterous women, Aholah and A- holibah, ^c. But the text in queftion is very different from many others of that kind ; for the people of Ifrael are not on- ly reprefented therein under the figure of 2l, ftfigle perfon y but fome eminent fingle perfon is likewife plainly reprefented, at the fame time, under the ?2ame and figure of the people of Ifrael -y of which the par- ticularity of the flyle affords evident tefti-

monyj cn^'cni •\^nn)^i'» >i^*^T!:>n^jj id ■'jcib

^n^^np " when Ifrael was a little child^ ■\ and 1 loved him, and out of Egypt ?5 have I called myfonJ' But the folkw-

ing

[ 104 ] ing part of the text, wherein Ifrael could not be a type of the Mcffiah, (I mean, their forfaking God's commandments and facrificing to Baal,) is immediately ex- prefTed \v\ the plural number^ as being ap- plicable to the children of Ifrael only^ and not to Chrift ; cm^SS xz'on id Dd!? itnP rnDP^ o^^osn^unnn D'-^^^b " as

" they called the^n^ Jo they sstnl from " them : they facrificed unto Baalim, and ** burnt incenfe to graven images." Ho- fca.xi. 2. Thus it is plain that the text is applicable, in the firft place, to the children of Ifrael, who were brought by God out of Egypt, when they Jirji began to be efteemed a nation, and therefore might, as a type of Chrift, be hkened to a little childy being yomg and weak, in comparifon oi their future Jl ate and pow^ er. And, 2dly, it is undoubtedly very applicable to iht Jingk perjon of the Mef- fiah, who was alfo called by God out of Egypt when he was really a little child

(17).

f 105 ]

(ly), according to the plftln literal mean- ing of the paflage referred to by St. Mat- thew, who quoted i\\Q fenfe of the Hebrew texty and not that of the Septuagint ver- fion.

The childy mentioned by Hofea as^j- ving been called (18) out of Egypt, is, indeed, expreflly named Ifrael-, but this is fo far from fetting afide the application to Chrift, that, on the contrary, it affords the ftrongeft confirmation of it : for this name was necelTarily given, in the pro- phecy, that the application might be

Part II. O double;

(17) Before he could knonv to refufa the fvil and choofe the good', the land being then forfaken oi both her kings, according to Ifaiah's prophecy, vii. 16. For the an- gel's meffage (or call of Chriil out of Egypt) was deli- vered to Jofeph upon the death of king Herod the Great, at 'which time, precifely, the \2^^ oi the i'wo monar chits was diffolved.

■ (18) The prophecy was, indeed, delivered in the perfe6l tenfe^ as a thing already pad ; but this did not prevent the application of it to the future MeJJiahy be- caufe the perfed tenfe is almofl as frequently ufed, by the prophets, in declaring futurity j even as the future itfelf.

[ io6 ]

double 5 viz» firil to the people of Ifrael, and laftly to the Meffiah.

The Meffiah is expreflly called Ifrael by Ifaiah, (xlix. 3.) in a prophecy which cannot, at ally be applied to the people of Ifrael, like the former, but muft relate entirely to Chrift : viz, " 7hou art my ^^ fervant, 0 Ifrael, in whom I will be *' glorified." (xlix. 3.)

Indeed, the true fenfe and application of this paffage does not appear without the context : neverthelefs, I am not for- f y for the neceffity of a long quotation from this chapter, becaufe it will convey a very clear and diftind: idea of the birth and office of the Meffiah, at the fame time that it proves the point in queflion*

" Liften, O ifles, unto me, and hear- ken, ye people from far \ the Lord hath

called

I ^^7 ]

called me from the womb (19), from the boweh of my mother hath he made mention oi my ?2ame {20), And he hath made my mouth like aJJ:arpfword (31)5 in the fhadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a poliJJoed Jhajt ; in his quiver hath he hid me, and faid unto me^ Thou art my fervant, O Ifrael^ in whom I will ht glorijied. Then I faid, /have labour- ed in vain, /have fpent my flrength for 'naught and in vain, yet furely ;;y? judge- ment is with the Lord, and 7ny work with

O 2 my

(ip) — << the angel of the Lord appeared unto him

** (Jofeph) in a dream, faying, Jofeph, thou fon tf.

** Da'vid, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife,

** for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy-

" Ghoft : and fhe fhall bring forth a fon, and thou (halt

«« call his name 7</«j;" C\\c^-; li?"!^"* a Sa-uiourJ i

«* foi- he Jball fa^ve his people from their fins." Matt.

i. 20, 21.

(20) — " and behold, (faid the angel,) thou fhalt ** conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and «« fhalt call his name Jefus,'' (Luke i. 31.)

(21) — " he (hall fmite the earth with the rod of *« his mouthy and with the breath ot his lips he Ihr.U «< fay the wicked." Ifaiah xi. 4. See the context alfo

[ io8 ]

my God. And nov/, faith the Lord, that formed me from the womb to be his fer'vanty to bring Jacob again to him, though Ifrael be not gathered,'' (here is a plain prophecy that blindnefs^ in part^ fioidd happen to Ifrael J " yet {hall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God fhall be my ftrength. And he faid, it is a light thing that thou fliouldeft be my fervant^ to raife up the tribes of Jacobs and to reftore the preferved of Ifrael 3 I will alfo give thee for a light to the Gentiles (22), that thou may eft be my falvation unto the end of the earth." " Thus faith the Lord, the Redeemer of Ifrael, and his Holy One^ to him whom man def pifeth (23), to him whom the nation ab-

horreth,.

(22) '' I, llie Lord, have called thee in righteouf- ** nefs, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, ** and give thee for a conjenant of the people^ for a light *• of the Gentiles, to open the blind eyes," i^c. Ifaiah xlii. 6, 7. ** A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the «f glory of thy people Ifrael." Lukeii. 32.

(23) ** He is defpifed and rejeded of men, a man of ** forrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid, as

** it

[ 1^9 ]

horreth, to afervantof rulers," &c. — Thus far may, perhaps, be fufficient to fhew the nature and defign of the prophe- cy. Ifaiah has introduced the important fubjed: as the narrative of a dialogue be- tween two di{lin(fl perfons, who are both mentioned in this laft (the 7th) verfe; viz. *' the Lord, (n'\n'«) the Redeemer of " Ifrael," and " his Ho!y Onfy (iT:£;ni:) *' whom man dcfpifethy' and who is ahb called Ifrael, in the former part of this chapter. Now, it is remarkable, that the people of Jfraely or tribes of Jacobs are likewife diftindly mentioned in the fame prophecy ; fo that the perfon, to whom the Lord faid, *' Thou art my fer- " "oaJity OlfraeU" (fee 3d verfe,) cannot mean any other perfon beiides the Mefli- ah himfelf, he alone being the true "//V^?/ ^^ to lighten the Gentiles^ and the glory of

*' bis

«* it were, our faces from him ; he was defpfedy and we ** efteemed him noc. Surely he hathborneour griefs," l^c. Ifaiah liii. 3,4.

[ no 3 .

" bi;s people Is>kael" For, though the ^yewifo Religion was, for many ages, the only true religion, yet the Gentiles were not induced, univerfally, to acknowledge the truth of the holy Scriptures^ by becoming profely tes to Judaifm^ but by being converts to Chrijly by whom alone they have been enlightened according to the Scriptures. If all thefe things be confidered, they will (I doubt not) afford fufficient proof, that the text, quoted by St. Matthew from Hofea xi. i. (though introduced in a context abfolutely relating to the people oj IJrael,) was, neverthelefs, propheti- cally intended to be applied likewife to fome f.ngle perfon^ and that the fame was eminently fulfilled in the perfon oi Jefus Cbriji^ the only begotten Son of God, whom the Father called out of Egypt by his angel. Jacob, and the children of Jfrael, rnay, indeed, be called the Sons of God, bat it muft be in a very different fenfe from the former ; for they are only

types

[ III ]

types of the true Jfrael, [Y^rs^y) the Prince of God, who gave this name to Jacob, when he wreftled with him, that he might render him more confpicuoufly a type of himfelf; viz. as one that had " power with God, and with men^ and " had prevailed^" Jacob was fenfible of the divine prefence^ and therefore called the name of the place Penie.l, [^^ ij?^) or (as it is expreffed in the margin) the face of God -y for (faid he) '•' I have feen God " face to face.'^and my life is prefervedr Gen.xxxii. 28, 29, 30.

I have already faid fo much concerning the nature of prophecy in general, and have quoted fo many examples of two diiFerent fubjedts being referred to by one and the fame prophetical expreflion, that (I hope) I need not any longer urge the reafonablenefs of a double application, likewife, of the text quoted by St. Mat- thew from the prophet Hofea ^ efpecial-

\

r 112 ]

ly as Dr. W ms has not afligned any

one reafon why it ought to be otherwifej nor any authority whatfoever for his afler- tion, in page 39, that the paffage *' could *^ not be f infilled when the child Jefus came ** cut of Egypt ^'' except, indeed, the au- thority of his own bare word ; which, neverthelefs, feems to have had fufficient weight with the Critical Reviewers, though it is oppofed to the exprefs teftimo-^ ny even of an Evangel fl^

The other quotation of St. Matthew, which Dr. W — — ms has called in quef- tion, is given in the 2d chap. 23d verfe : viz, " He fhall be called a Nazarene.'' This is one of the texts concerning which the Dr. affirms, in page 3 8, that ** it is not ** pofjihle io reconcile'' (it) ^' with any par ^ '* tictilar prophecy now extant in the Old " T^efamenty But he is greatly mifta- ken in this \ for the text may certainly be reconciled not only with one prophecy, . - but

[ i'3 ]

but with many very particular prcphccies ** now extant in the Old I'ejiament ;" and therefore St. Matthew appeals with^r^^^ propriety^ in this cafe^ not to one prophet alone, but to the fenfe of ail the prophets ■ 7n general^ viz. to '^vjdsv Sia rcov Tr^oipi^uv, that '•' which v/2iS Jpoke/i by the prophets^

For, though the prophets do not fay expreffly that *' be JJoall be called a Na- " zarene," yet many of them do plainly allude to this appellation. Our Lord was called a Nazarene, notwithftanding: that he was born at Bethlehem, the city of V David, according to the Scriptures (24). He was fometimes called 'Na^cd^ai^ i'^s)}

Part II. P and

(24) " But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though ** thou be little among the thoufands of Judah, yet *' out of thee fhall he come forth unto me that is to be *• ruler in I/raeh, whofe goings forth have been from of *' old, from everlaftirg." Micah v. 2. Compare this with Matt. ii. 5. and John vii. 42.

(25) Mark x. 47, Luke xviii. 37. xxiv. 19. John xviii. 5, xix. 19, and fevQn times in Ads.

[ M4 ]

and fo me times Nfij^ap?ji/(^ (26); fynony- mous terms for a Nazarene or inhabitant oi Nazareth *y which (as Dr» Hammond expounds it) fignifies " T& City of tlje *' Branchy or where the Meffiah (the " Branch) (hoiild be brought up ; and " accordingly (fays the Dodtor) this be- " comes Ch rift's vulgar title, Na^w^a/©^**

Now the Meffiah is called nm the^ Branch by Ifaiah iv. 2. Jeremiah xxiii» 5. and Zechariah iii. 8.

A plant, or branch, is the ufual fcrip- tu re-emblem for a child. > *' Thy

" children^ like olive-branches y round a- *' bout thy table," fays the Pfalmift in the cxxviiith Pfalm, 3dverfe: and, in Pfalm cxliv. 12. we read — " that our '' fom may grow up as the young plants^* Therefore the prophets very fitly exprefl-

ed

(26) Marki. 24. xiv. 67. xvi, 6. and Luke iv. 34..

[ ii5 ]

ed the cJoildhood and growth of the Mef- fiah by the word nai' before-mentioned ; for it properly fignifies, not only a Braitcb^ but Germen^ a Bud, or young twigj which Ifaiah farther explains, in the liiid chap. 2d verfe, by the word PJV a ten^ der plant y or fucker -, which is not only a fit emblem of the once ijvfajit Jlate of the Meffiah, but alfo of his gradual increafe in ftrength and wifdom : for " he (hall << grow up before him (fays the prophet) " as a tender plant y and as a root out of '/ a dry ground j'* by which he affigns the true reafon of Chrift's being called the Branch. Indeed this whole chapter contains fo perfedt a defcription of Chrift's human ftate upon earth, that no miracle or demonftration whatfoever can be more capable of affording convidtion ; and, confequently, thofe, who have read it and flill dilbelieve, are inexcufeable. The prophet Zechariah (vi. 12.) fpeaks of the growth of Cbrift, the Branch, in the

P 2 fame

[ n6 ]

fame kind of terms, HD^T^ vrinnQi " He '* fiall grow up cut of bis place \' or, as it is properly rendered in the margin, — ^ *' he fhall branch up from under him." Moreover, this prophet foretold, in the fame verfe, that he {hould be named the

Branch. \a^ HD:; VD^^ HJH •* Be-

'* hold the man (27), whofe ;7^;?/e is the " Branch j" plainly alluding, by the fenfe (though not the found) of this appella- tion, to Chrift's being furnamed (28) the Nazarene, from Nazarethy the city of the Branch,

But Ifaiah, in the xith chap, ifl; verfe, not only alludes to the fenfe and meaning

of

(27) Zechariali commanded that this prophecy (hould be fpoken to Jolhua (or Jefus) the high-prieft, in the time of Zerubbi'bel ; but 1 have already Ihewn that he was therein only a type of our Lord Jefus, the true branch.

(28) feceffit (Jofeph) in partes Galilaeae,

ibique habitavit in urbe Nazareth» unde et Chriftus Nazareni cognomentum accepit, (Matt, ii. 22, 23.) et Nazarenorum Chriftiani. (A£ls xxiv. 5.) y* UJJerii Annalium pars pojieriort /, 536.

[ >'7 ]

of this furname, but to the very found of it 5 for he intides him T/J Netjer^ a Branch. Now Chrift was really called, in the common Syriac dialedt, |-;-j Net- feriay a Netferian^ or ISazarene^ from Z; j Netferethy (called, from the Greek, Na- zareth J where he had been brought up, {Luke iv. i6.) and where (according to the true meaning of the appellation, Netferian^ or Nazarene, when interpret- ed) he^r^'Z£; up as a Plant or Branch 'y for St. Luke informs us (ii. 40.) that *' tkey " . (viz, Jofeph and Mary, with xhtycung " child) returned into Galilee, to their *' ov;iTiC\iy y Nazareth', znd the chi/d grew, ^' and waxed Jirong in fpirit, filled with *' wifdomj and the grace of God was " upon him,"

And again, in the k^iA verfe. ■ " J^fa^ increafed in wifdom and Jlature, " and in favour with God and man." This exadly correfponds with Jeremiah's

prophecy.

C 1.8 ]

prophecy, (xxxiii. 15.) viz. " In thoie *^' days, and at that time, {t]^^T£ nJCjT " nib ^n3:^i) will I caufethe Branch of " righteoufnefs to grow up unto David."

If all this be confidered, I think the litnefs of St. Matthew's appeal to the pro- phets, concerning the word Na^^y^a^^, cannot be called in queftion ; uniels, like the Critical Reviewers y (fol. 357.) we fhoiild believe, from Dr. W--?— ms's bare word^ that Na^^fai©^ fignifies a Nazorite-y which interpretation would, indeed, ren- der it impoffible '' to reconcile Matthew lu *• 23. with any particular prophecy now ** extant in the Old Teftamentj" accord- ing to the Doftor's alTertion in p. 38.

For the Do6lor informs us, in the fol- lowing page, (39.) that " the word is not •* N£»^ajai©o, a Nazarene^ but Naf^^a/©^, a Nazorite :'' neverthelefs it is certain that both thefe words fignify the fame things

viz*

[ "9 ]

viz. a Nazarene, (or inhabitant of Naza- reth 'J and, likewife, that neither of them can ijgnify a Nazan'u, or (as he fpclls it) Nazorite.

For, the Hebrew word l^iJi feparatus^ from whence thefe laft (Nazarite or Na- zorite) are derived, is no where in Scrip- ture rendered Na^^^a/©- or Nci^^aooi©^, but is diftingu idled from them by an iota in the fecond fy liable, viz. Na^/^, a Na^ zarite. Judges xiii. 5. and ^ct^i^ocioi^ Na- zarites^ Lamentations iv. 7. Befides, it is very plain, throughout the whol'e New Teftament, that Chrift was not called Na^it;^ai(^ as being a Nazarite^ (for he could not properly be called fo according to the law of Mofes, though" John the Baptift was really fuch,) but on account of his having been brought up at the city of Nazareth, which in the Syriac tongue was called L,^ (not with ). or i as Neze- retb^ but with ^ or ^) Netfereth \ for the

word

[ 120 ]

word is plainly derived from H'^J a Branchy the name which the prophet Ifaiah has given to the Meffiah himfelf, (as is before obferved,) and therefore St, Matthew's appeal to the prophets in this cafe is very eaiily reconciled with the prophecies " now " extant in the OUT ejiamenty' though the Dodlor has declared that the fame *' is " not pojjibler

Even Chrift himfelf condefcended fometimes to prophefy in the fame kind of ftyle that had before been ufed by his fervants the prophets. *' Verily I fay " unto yoUj there be fome {landing here, *' which {hall not tajle of death, till they " fee the Son of man coming in his king;- ** dom." Matth. xvi. 28. And again, «* If I will that he (John) tarry till I " comCy what is that to thee ?'* John xxi. 22. Here our Lord makes ufe of " the ** fame words and phrafes' with which he was wont to exprefs his fecotid coming to

judge

t i2i ]

judge the world ; fo that his difciples un- derftood that John (hould not die; where- as the event plainly (hewed that he " meant of his comi?ig' (fo often men- tioned in the New Teftament) " in *' judgement upon the Jews at the final ** overthrow of Jerufalem, which St» " John outlived many years." See Dr. Cave on the Life of that Difciple^ Anti- quitates Apoftolica^, p. 158.

Our Lord likewife " ufed the fame '- words and phrafes' unto thefe two diffe^ rent fubjeBs, viz. his comi?tg in judge- ment upon Jerufalem, and hislafl: coining to judge the world, *' when occafion " was to fpeak of them together," ac- cording to the obfervation before quoted from Aflemblies Annotations ; infomuch that the day of judgement and the end of the world were expeded to follow imme- diately after the accomplifhment of Chrift's prophecies, in the xxivth chap.

Part II, Q_ of

[ 122 ]

of Matthew, xiiith of Mark, and xxift of Luke, concerning God's judgement in the dejirudtion of Jenifakm.

The latter, however, may indeed be confidered as a fign, or type, of the great and lajl day \ and the accomplifli- ment of the prophecies concerning it is undoubtedly a fure pledge of God' s future judgement : juft in the fame manner as the temporary deliverance from Rezin and Pe- kah, promifed to Ahaz and the houfe of David by Ifaiah, was properly the confir- mation and pledge of the future diftant deliverance, promifed in the perfon of

ImmanueL Therefore, if Dr. W ^-ms

fuppofes (as he hints in the words of Mr. Collins in page 7.) that this fign flood in need of other figns to manifeft that God would perform it in time, let him confi- der the context once more, and he will find that the fign was not without fuch a manifeflaticn as Mr. Collins and himfelf

have

[ 123 ] i.dve required. Perhnps it may be faid that I have troubled my readers with a great many more examples of " types^ *« figures^ and fecondary fcnfcs,'' than were neceffary for the point in queftion j but I was induced thereto by the too hady cen- fure paffed on this fort of writings by the authors of the Critical Review in page 349. where they feem to condemn all i\peSy &c. whatfoever, indifcriminately, without deigning todifiinguifli the diffe- rence between proper types and imaginary ones.

ne END of Part II.

DISSERTATION

O N

ISAIAH vii. 8.

P A Pv T 111.

[ 127 ]

DISSERTATION

O N

ISAIAH vii. 8.

■ " With'm threefcore and jive years

*' fhall Ephraim be broken, that it be " not a people."

THE accomp]i(l:}ment of Ifaiah's prophecy (in confirmation of which he required Ahaz toafk afign) was not '' an event near at handy'

as Dr. W ms ifuppofes 5 for, no lefs a

term than fixty-five years was allowed for the accomplifliment of one of the circum- ftances contained in it 5 viz. — ^^ within

" threefcore

[ 128 ]

" threejcore and jive years fliall Ephraim *^ be broken^ that it be not a people." Ifaiah vii. 8.

Neverthelefs, the king, or regal go- vernment of Ephraim, (or Ifrael, for E- phraim in this text feems to be put for the ten tribes of Ifrael as feparated from Ju- dah,) lafted no longer than about twenty- one years after the prophecy Was deliver- ed i for, '^ in the ninth year of Hojhea^^ (the fixih of Hezekiah,) " the king of *^ \^ffyria took Samaria^ and carried Ifrael away into Ajfyria^' (2 Kings xvii, 6.) therefore commentators have generally found it very difficult to account for the number oi fxty-five years mentioned in this prophecy.

A very learned and juftly-efteemed au- thor (i), in order to folve the difficulty, has applied feveral texts in. the fecond

book

(1) Bifiiop Newton on the Prophecies,

[ '29 ]

book of Kings to an imaginary captivity, or carrying away, by Efarhaddon, which, if the context be carefully confidered, will be found to relate, undoubtedly, to the r^^/ captivity under Salmanaflar. We underftand, indeed, from Ezraiv. 2. that the adverfaries of Benjamin and Judah (the Samaritans) dated the time of their fettlement in the cities of Samaria from " the days of Efarhaddon, king of Ajfur^ " which (as they faid) brought us up hi- ** thcr.'' But there is no neceffity to fup- pofe that Efarhaddon carried any people away into captivity from thence, nor any evidence to fupport fuch a fuppoiition. Was it not poflible for Efarhaddon to plant frefh colonies in the land of Ifrael, where it was^ too thinly inhabited by the former colonies, without having carried awaj* any of the inhabitants into captivity ? Surely it was not only poffible, but moft probable, that this was real ly the cafe; notwithilanding that feveral other learned Part III. R men,

. [ -I30 ]

men, befides Bp. Newton, have thought otherwife; and particularly Fr. Junius, quoted by Dr. Simfon in his Chronicon Catholicum, (pars 3tia, p. 69.) But the Dodlor himfelf fufficiently accounts for the paffages in Ezra, (ch. iv. 2 and 10.) fo that there is no neceffity to fuppofe another captivity under Efarhaddon : — " Quanquam enim Salmanafar illam co- ** loniam primus deduxerit, tamen cum plurimi incolarum a feris, et forte pefti- lentia, (fie enim ait Jofephus libro no- no,) extindi effent, poftea plures ab Afarhaddone illuc miflbs fuiffe veri- ^^ Jimile eJiJ' And he likewife quotes Nicholaus Brabantinus to the fame pur- pofe : — " Leones enim vaftaverunt mag- nam partem populi quem Salmanaflar miferat : propter quod ifte Afarhaddon mifit alios loco ipforum, et cum iis unum de facerdotibus captivis, qui do- f« ceret eos colere Dominum."

The

cc ce <c <c

[ 131 ]

The prophet does not fay that Ephraim J}:allbe broken from a kingdom in fixty-jive yearSy but that within fuch a time he fhall be broken Jrom a people \ therefore it is plain that the prophecy could not be ac- compliflied by the captivity of Ephraim and the deftrudion of the regal govern^ ment of Samaria by Salmanaflar ; becaufe Ephraim, or the children of Ifrael, might be flill called a people^ or nation, even after their removal into a ftrange country j for they could not be faid to " be broken ** from a people^' until the judgements denounced againft them by the prophet Amos (ix. 4.) (hould be fulfilled, vix^ '* Though they go into captivity before *' their enemies, thence will I command •* the fword, and it fhall flay them.'*

It appears, from the hiftory of Tobit, that this really came to pafs ; for he fpeaks of the frequent flaughter made of the

R 2 people

C ^3^ ]

people of bis nation by Sennacherib, chap, i. 17, 18. *^ for in his wrath be Jlew ma~ " «jV." And, even in the reign of Efar- naddon, ^ho\xt fixty-Jive years after Ifaiah's prophecy, notwithftanding that Achiar* charus, Tobit's nephew, was appointed over all the king's affairs, (aift verfe,) we find an inftance recorded of the conti» nuation of this perfecution.

For, when Tobit was told (chap, ii, 3,) that one of his nation was ftrangled and caft out in the market-place, he remem- bered (6 th verfe) " that prophecy of Amos ^ " as he faid, (fee Amos viii. 10.) Your *^ feafts fiiall be turned into mourning, *' and all your mirth into lamentation :" for it was then the fea(i of pentecoji^ or feven weeks, and Tobit had fent out to invite fuch of his poor brethren as feared the Lord, that they might partake of the ** good dinner which \nz% prepared -^^ but, in the mean time, he received this me- lancholy

[ ^33 ]

lancholy account ; (fee ift, 2d, and 3d, verfes ;) which proves the propriety of his quotation from Amos. The fame chap- ter of Amos contains a paflage very fuita- blc to my purpofe, (viii, 2, 3.)

** ne end is come upon my people of If^ rael', I will not again pafs by them any *' more. And the fongs of the temple '* (hall be howlings in that day," (fee the 10th verfe, quoted by Tobit, — « afidall " your fongs into lamentation,) faith the '^ Lord God, there J]:all be many de^d bo- " dies in every place, tkey Jhall caji them " forth with flence^ I am fenfible that the apocryphal bock of Tobit ought not to be confidered of fufficient authority for the proof of any thing ; yet I hope that the remarkable correfpondence it bears to the fubjecft in queflion will excufe my quotation,

Mofes

[ '34 ]

Mofes alfo prophefied that the captives of Ifrael fliould be perfecuted ; — " / *' will fcatter you among the heathen y and " will draw out ajword after youJ* Levit. xxvi. 33.

So we need not doubt but that, by this and other fuch heavy judgements of God, the captives of the ten tribes of Ifrael would be fo much reduced in number within the term of threejcore and jive years mentioned by Ifaiah, thatEphraim might well befaid lobe broken from a people 5 for we read, in Deut. xxviii. 61, 62. '* Alfo " every ficknefs and every plague which ^* is not written in the book of this law, *' them will the Lord bring upon thee, *^ until thou be deftroyed. And ye (hall " be left few in number y' (which agrees well with the expreflion of Ifaiah con- cerning Ephraim's being ^* broken^ that it ** be not a people^' viz, being now left

few

r 125 ]

few in number,) " whereas ye were ns the " ftars of heaven for muhitude/'

The completion of Ifaiah's prophecy concerning Ephraim is very apparent even in another way ; for, though fome of Ephraim, and of all the other tribes, were afterwards fettled in Judaea and other places ; though we read of a remnant of Ifrael{kQ 2 Chron.xxxiv. 9.) that contri- buted to the repairing of the temple in the reign of Jofiah, king of Judah, long after the completion oi the fxty five years limited by Ifaiah ; and though ManafTeh and Ephraim are expreffly mentioned on the fame occafion ; neverthelefs, this remnant of Ephraim, or Ifrael, could have no pretenfions, as before, to be efteemed a feparate people, or nation, from Judah, becaufe they were once more become fubjed to the laws and regal go- vernment of the tribe of Judah, of which the authority exercifed among them by

Jofiah

[ i36 ]

Jofiah is a fufEcient proof; and therefore, notwithftanding that on fome particular occafions they were diftinguiflied by their tribes, yet, as a body, or nation, they were generally afterwards efteemed ^Lpart of the tribe of^udab ; which accounts for . theexpreffion of the hiftorian, (2 Kings xvii. 18.) " T^here was none left but the ** tribe of Judah only -y' that is, there was none left but part of the tribes of Levi, Benjamin, and fuch individuals of the other tribes as lived in (or might have efcaped into) the inheritance of Judah, and confequently were all coniidered as the proper fubjedls of the kingdom of yu- dab, and have ever fince borne the name of that tribe ^ viz. CZl'^lin'' feisos. Thus the title of fews became general about this time to all the other tribes as well as Judah 5 for the kingdom of Ifreel was never afterwards reftored in a feparate ftate from Judah ; and therefore, after the captivity by Salmaaaffar, the land

which

which Ahaz vexed might be faid to " be '' forfakenof one of** her kings;' {2) or regal governments.

But the fucceffion of the kings of Ju- dah continued regularly until the Babylo- nifh captivity -, and on account of this in- terruption (or of others afterguards) the land could not be faid to be forfaken of both her kings, if the regal government was to be afterwards reftored for any con- fiderable length of time : and we find that many kings reigned in Judah after that period. I have already obferved, that, when Ephraim was broken from a people^ the national name of Jevjs became o-ene- ral to all the other tribes as well as Ju- dah j but it is likewife remarka^ble, that about the fame time the whole Jewifh nation, (including Judah and Benjamin,) Part III. S ^o

(2) " For, before the child /hall knowtorefufe the " evil and choofe the good, the land that thou abhor- " reflfliall be foriaken of both her kings." Ifaiah vii. i6.

[ 138 ]

as defcendants of Jacob, began once more to be called i/r^f/, as they had formerly been before the revolt of the ten tribes. In the fecond book of Chron.xxxv. 3.(3) the Levites, that taught ^//i/r^^/, are ex- horted to ferve the Lord their God, and his people Ifrael ', meaning the whole na- tion. Ifaiah, in the fortieth chapter, (27th verfe (4),) and feveral fucceeding chapters, fpeaks of the whole Jewifh na- tion under the title of yacob and Ifrael : for, though he might write thefe chap- ters before the change that I fpeak of, yet it mufi: be confidered that he is ad- drefling himfeif to the people in the fpirit

of

(3) " And faid unto the Levites that taught

** all Ifrael, which were holy unto the Lord, Put the

" holy ark in the lioufe, &c. ferve now the Lord

" your God and his people Ifrael.''* 2 Chron. xxxv. 3.

(4) <« Why fayefl ihou, O Jacob, and fpeak^ft, O ** Ifrael, my way is hid from the Lord, and my judge- *< ment is pafTed over from my God?" IfaiahxI. 27. — " But tbouy Ifraely art my fervant, Jacob, whom I " havechofen, the feed of Abraham my friend." Chap, xli. 8. — ** Fear not, thou nvorm Jacob, and ye men of " JfraeL** Verfe 14. See alfo chap, xliii.

[ ^39 ]

of prophecy, and plainly refers to the latter tiaies. Ezekiel (iii. 4.) (5) was fent unto the hoiife of Ifrael, meaning the Jews that were carried into captivity with Jehoiakim : '* Get thee to them of the " captivity," ^c, (fee the iithvtrfe.) Many of the other prophets expreffed themfelves in the fame m.anner. See Zech. xii. ]. (6j Malachi i. i. (7) Ezra iv.3. ^c. (8). So that the national names of Ifraei and 'Jewi were now confidered as fynonymoLis terms; io^ Epbraim^ the chief of the ten tribes, was now broken jrem a people^ and therefore the name of j/7-^f/ did not generally diflingiiifh them as a feparate nation^ or ptople^ as before ;

S 2 though,

(5) " Son of man, go, get thee unto the houfe of ** JJ'raei;' &c. Ezek. iii. 4.

(6) ** The burden of the word of the Lord for If- " rati;' &c. Zech. xii. 1.

(7) ** The burden of the Arord of the Lord to Ifraei «* by MaUchi," i. i.

(8) " But Zerubbabel and Jefliua, and the reft of the «* chief of the fathers of Ifrady' &:c. £zr« iv. 3.

[ 140 ] though, indeed, both Ephraim and the t^wo hcufes of IJrael (the houle of Judah and the houfe of Ifrael) were fometimes, afterwards, on particular occafions, dif- tindlly mentioned; as in the thirty-firft (9) and fiftieth ( ic) chapters of Jeremiah and eighth of Zechariah.

Neverthelefs, all the nation were the children of Ifrael ! all were yews I and in length of time the remnant of Ifrael was io blended with Judah^ that many intirely loft the diftindtion of their tribes, (Ezra ii. 62. ) ( 1 1 ) and more efpecially after the

Babylonifh

(9) " Behold, the days come, faith the Lord, that ** I will make anew covenant with the houfe of Ifrael, " and with the houfe of Judah.^' jerem. xxxi. 3 1 .

(to) — *' In thofe days, and in that time, faith the ** Lord, the children of Ifrael (haU come, they and th,e *' chJdren of jiidah together, going and weeping ; they ** fhall go, and feek the Lord their God.'* Jer, 1. 4. This was plainly fulfilled after the Babylonifh captivi- ty, as the following verfes teflify : — ** Remove cut of ** the midj} of Babylon,'''' &c. Verfes 8, 9, 10.

(n ) ** Thefe fought their regifler among thofe that <« were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not «' found." Ezraii. 62.

[ HI ]

Babylonifli captivity, when the prophecy of Ezechiel fecms plainly to be fulfilled. ** Thus faith the Lord God, Behold, I " will take the flick of Jofeph, which is " in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes ofjfrael his fellows, and will put them with him, e-oen with the Jlick of Judab, and make them one stick, and they fliall be one in mine hand." Chap. xxxvii. \g. And, in the 22d verfe, ** I " will make them one Tuition in the land " upon the mountains of Ifrael, and one '' kifig fhall be king to them all : and ** they fliall be no more two nations^ nei- ^' ther fhall they be divided into /'Z£;^ZvW- " doms any more at all."

cc

(C

Agreeably to this prophecy, the chil- dren of Ifrael were one nation, and under one king (that is, a fucceffion of kings reigning one by one) during the reigns of all the Afmonean princes, as well as that of Herod the Great, until Shiloh (the

Prince

[ H2 ] Prince of peace) was come, according to the prophecy of the patriarch Jacob, re- corded in Genelis xlix. lo. viz, " T^he " fceptre Jhallnot depart from Judah, nor " a lawgiver from between his feet, until " Shiloh comey and unto him (hall the ga- " thering of the people be."

rhe END of Part HL

DISSERTATION

O N

GENESIS xlix. lo.

** The fccptre (hall not depart from Ja- '* dan, nor a lawgiver from between *' his feet, until Shiloh come, and un- " to him ihall the gathering of the ** people be."

PART IV.

[ 145 ]

DISSERTATION

O N GENESIS xllx. 10.

IN the preceding Diflertation concern- ing Ephraim, I have obferved, that the fceptre was continued in the in- heritance of Judah during the reigns of all the Afmona^an princes.

And I believe the Jews themfelves will not deny, that the faid reigns include a part of the continuation of the fceptre in Judah, as promifed by the patriarch Ja- cob: therefore, I prefume, irv/ill not be neceflary for me to examine the Jewifh

Part IV, T hillories

[ 146 ]

hiftories farther back than the time when the fceptre was tranflated into the family of Antipater; fo that I propofe to begin this Diflertation where 1 left off in the laft ; viz. with the reign of Herod the Great.

Herod had as much right to be efteem- ed a Jew, or of the tribe of Judah (i), as the Afmonaean princes of the tribe of Levi : for not only the defcendants of the twelve tribes were called Jews, after the Babylonifh captivity, (as 1 have before obferved,) but even the profelytes of the

Jews,

(i) The ingenious Mr. Mann, in thelirll fedlion of his 6th chapter de anno nafali Chrijiiy endeavours to prove that Herod was really a Jew. There are likewife feve- ral other parts of that learned book which would both illuftrate and confirm many of the points which I have advanced ; neverthelefs, as I cannot entirely agree with him in all his opinions, and as I had iinilhed my re- marks (except a Ihort addition at the end of this Differ- tation) before I had the fatisfadion of reading his work, I Ihall therefore content myfelf with referring my readers to the book itfelf.

[ '47 ] Jews, though they were by birth Gentiles of any other nation whatfoever (2).

This is ftrongly expreffed by Jofephus, in his account of king Izates, the great Adiabeniin profelyte. See Jewifli Anti- quities, (20th book,) (3) VOfJCi^OJV T£ (XT] OLV

sr^ccTieiv vjv sroif^^. Which is thus ren- dered by Gelenius : " Cumque exlfti- " ma ret fe non effe perfedium Judceiimy '* nifi circumcideretur, paratus erat et

" hoc facere." And again i^;c ave^-

fO"&a/ Tg ficcTiXsvovTog ocvtc^ lisSxia, — " Ne- *' que ullo pado laturos Judaum in regio " folio." The Idumseans, (or Edo-

T 2 mites,)

(2) — — YjTs yct^ X^y^^j \ovjMay xat «yro», lov^caoiy vvofjiatoxroa . ri oi £7rtHAv;c7t; ocvrr) tKuvoK; ^iv Hie, oiS o^iv Ti^^ccro yBvsa-^ui, (pB^n h y.on ein Ttf? aM«5 ao^pwuracy 03-01 Tcc yo^if^a uvruv, xaicre^ aMosfiyj*^ ovTej, ^ijAscr*. Dio Caffius, lib. 36. p. 37.

(3) The Orleans edition of Jofephus, printed in j6i I, (fol. 685.) which is referred to as often as Jofe- phus is quoted in thefc remarks.

[ hS 1

mites,) (4) from whom Herod was de- fcended, were not only profelytes to the Jewlfh religion, but were flill more near- ly connedled with the Jews, by having been governed by the fame princes and laws from the time that they were con- quered by John Hyrcanus, the nephew of Judas Maccabaeus ; fo that from that time they were accounted Jews^ as Jofe- phus teflifies, Antiq. 13th book, 17th chap. fol. 450. KDCK&iv^^ avjoig %ooi/©b VTTTjo^ev, Cfjg-B eivxi ro Xoittov J^Sociovg, And they were afterwards as zealous for the rights and liberties of Jerufalem (which they efteemed their metropolitan city) as the native Jews themfelves. See Jewifh War, book iv. chap. 16. page 887. '—'Koci 'sra.vTsg cog stt eXsv^ma. rvjg ^rUpoTrO' XBct)g rj^TToi^^ov tcc ottXu* Tbus it appears that the Idumasans, as a nation, had certainly a right to be efteemed Jews*

But

(4) " Thou ftalt not abhor an Edomite, for he. is thy ** brother.'' Deut. xxiii, 7.—!. e. — The patriarch Edom (which is Efau, feeGen, xxv. 30,) wa; j2Cob*s brother.

[ H9 1

But king Herod's claim of relatlonfhip did not depend upon this Tingle circum- ftance of his being defcended from the Idumasans: his tonnedlions with the Jews were far greafer than any other Idu- macan could ever boaH: of. His father, Antipater, though an Idumaean, was a perfon of fuch truft and efteem, among the Jews, that he held the greateft offices under their kings.

He fcrved under their k;ng Alexander as ^cverncr of Idumcea -, (Antiq. book xiv. chap. 2. p. 469.) — under their king and high-prieft Hyrcanus, as governor ofju- daa itfelfy and commander in chief of the Jewijh army. And afterwards he ferved undef Csfar, alfo, as procurator of fu- daa. See the xivth and xvth chapters of the fame book.

Therefore, not only as an Idumaean, but alfo by thefe continual connedions, as

well

[ '50 ]

well as relidence among the Jews, Anti- pater feemed to be entirely naturalized to this people; infomuch that he efteem- cd their intereft as his own ; their coun- try as though it had been his native land I His affiduity and diligence in repairing the wails of Jerufalem, (^cx.vey£i^ei [j(,ev evdvg to TSix^i book xiv. chap. 18.) when he had obtained leave of Caefar to do fo, is a proof of this, as well as Jofephus's man- ner of expreffing that circumftance, Jew- ifo War^ book i. chap. 8. viz* Kott w^oj-^

Tcccjeg-^ocfii^iva., Thus rendered by Rufinus : -*«- ** etpraster hoc (Antipater) impetra- ** vit/ut {uhveri^2ipatria mcenia renovare ^* fibi liceret/' And again, Av]i7rocj^og Se

K-diTocpx nsr^oTTBy.'i^oig bh. rvjg 'Zvpiug, etg I»-

civcSsifAixjo THX ITATPIAOX vtto Uoi^'TTTji^s Koileg-odfjcf/uevov, Antipater vero, ubi de Syria Ceefarem profecutus eft, in "Judceam

reverfu?, *

[ 15' ]

reverfus, ante omnia patri-^^ murci a Pompeio dirutos reparabat.

If all thefe circumftances are confidcr-

ed, it will not be cafy to prove, that the

fin of fuch a perfon ought to be accounted

a foreigner to the Jews. Herod was born

a fubject of the kingdom of the Jews,

and publicly profefied their religion, laws,

and cufloms, notwithftanding that he

frequently offended againft them all r

and, if he did not think himfelf, in

reality, entitled to be elteemed one of

that nation, he neverthelefs omitted no

proper opportunity of claiming relation-

fliip. A remarkable inftance of this we

have in his fpeech to the Jews, when he

propofed to enlarge and beautify their

temple. «« For (faid he) our fathers

" built this temple to Almighty God af-

*' ter the return from Babylon," ^c.

TOV yotp VOCOV THrOV UKoSofZ71(rOiV fJiSV TU fJti-

yi^co 3e^ nATEPES 'KMETEPOT, fJiP^cc

T1lJ¥

[ 152 ]

Tviv sic Boi^uXuv^ oivocg-xo-iu, jewifli Antiq. book XV. chap. 14. p. 543.

There are many other inftances^ in Jofephus, of Herod's exprefiing himfelf in this manner : and indeed the fingular circumftances of this monarch's connec- tions with the Jews rendered his claim of relationfhip fo jufl that it could not be difputed, although he was not defcended of any of the twelve tribes. Jofephus, who called Herod's father (Antipater) an Idumaariy does not deny that he was a Jew, but only that he was not defcended from the chief fewsy who came into fiidcea from Babylon y which had been afferted by Nicholas of Damafcus. Antiq. bookxiv. chap. 2. p. 469. On the contrary, Jofe- phus informs us, that, when the Jews of Csefarea contended with the Syrians for the right of fuperiority in that city, they alledged that the founder, Herod their

kingy was a few by birth: 01 [jliv yxp la-

^ .

OOClOl

[ ^53 ]

Sxtoi -uT^ulsveiv yi^tovv, Stoc rov ^ijig'vjv Tr}g Ka/- coc^sixg 'HooSrjv aulcov (iocTiXicx. ysyovevoct to yev^ lOTAAION. Antiq. book xx. ehap. 6. p. 695. And the juftice of this plea, fo far as it related to Herod, ^jDas al- lowed by the Syria?is. Zv^ot Se rcc [^bv stb^i Tov 'H^cdSTjv uf/^oXoyiiv, &c. See alfo Jswifli War, bookii. chap. 12, p. 797. it (!»- Soiioi) fA.iv yccp yj^iav crq^sje^av eivcci rrjv sroXiv^ lOTAAION ysyovevoct tov jcjtg-vjv odjJTjg Xs- yovTzq, r^v Se'H^u)S't]g, 0 ficto-iXevg' 01 Se hs^at (Sufs;) TOV o:xig-7jv f^ev TT^oa-cci^oXoy^v IOT-. AAION, ^c.

If all thefe things be confidered, I think they muftjuftify my expreffion, that He- rod had as much right to be efteemed a Jew^s the JJmon^an princes pf the tribe of Levi: and, though neither the latter nor Herod (notwithftanding that they were Jews) were really defcended of the tribe of Judah, yet the completion of Jacob's prophecy, concerning the fceptre of Ju-

Part IV. U dah.

I ^54 1 dah^ is not at all affeded by this cir cum^ ftance*

For the faid prophecy does not (I ap*- prehend) fo much relate to the defcent or genealogy of the individuals, that were to rule in Judah, as to the particular pre- eminence of that whole tribe, from which the fceptre (the fign of its being a diftlnd: kingdom) fhould not depart till Shiloh was come. Therefore, it is not fo very material to my prefcnt purpofe whether Herod was a Jew or not, fince it muft be acknowledged, (be his parentage what it will,) that he was neverthelefs *^ king of ** Judc^ea" as Luke ftiles him, chap. i. verfe 5. viz. king of the tribe and inhe- ritance of Judahy (as well as of the other tribes incorporated therein,) and that he kept his royal refidence in the capital city of that ruling tribe ^ as did all the prece- ding kings of Judahy howfoever defcend- ed.

An

[ ^55 3

An objedion has been made to the common interpretation of the word C3\c? or Jcefter^ in Jacob's prophecy ; viz, that ^' it could not, with any fort of propriety, ** be faid. xh^X the fcepter Jhould not depart •* from yudahy when Judah had nofcep- " ter, nor was to have any for many ge-* " nerations afterwards." (5) But the learned author of this objection has not confidered that the fceptre, or regal go^ vernment in Judah, is plainly implied and foretold in the former part of the fame pro-" phecy^ which entirely removes the force of his argument in favour of a different interpretation of that word, '* Judah^ (faid the patriarch,) *' thou art he whom ** thy brethren Jhall praife i' (alluding to the tneaning of his name;) " thy hand •* {hall be In the neck of thine enemies ; *' thy father 5 children fiall bow down before •* theer Qtn, xlix. 8.

U 2 Now,

(5) Sec bilhop Newton on the Prophecies, vol. i. p. 95,

[ 156 ]

Now, notwithftanding the precedency of the tribe of Judah, in the encamp- ments and marching of the Ifraelites in the wildernefs, yet this part of the pro- phecy, '* thy father s children Jhall bow ^' down before thee^' cannot be faid to be fulfilled until all the other tribes became fubjedt to the monarchy of the tribe of Judah under David and Solomon 3 which is obferved likewife by the authors of the Commentary on the Bible, called Aflem- blies Annotations. " This" (fay they) ?*■ w^as literally moft verified in David and Solomon, who were of this tribe ; and fpiritually in Chrift, the lion of the tribe of Judahy Rev. V. 5. to whom all ^' knees fhall bow." Phil. ii. jo. — And they obferve, farther^ that " the courage of Judah is compared to a lion's whelp: fuch was the tribe of Judah in the firft efllays of war, in the time pf Jofhua j *^ afterwards it increafed to the vigour of

" a

[ 157 ]

** a lion at full age, and old in comparifon " of a whelp : fuch it was in David's " time; and, by age and experience, fub- *' tie aswell asftrong; for David, of that *' tribe, was fo wife that Saul was afraid •* of his wifdooi, (i Sam. xviii. 5. 14. ** 15.) and very courageous, (fee 1 Sam, " xvii. from ver. 32 to 51.) as the lion " above other hearts, who, by his cou- " rage and ftrength, is a king over thf.m*' Num. xxiii. 24. Prov. xxviii. i. and xxx, 30. Amos iii. 8. Mic. v. 8.

If all this be confidered, it will appear that oar:;, in this text, mufl be tranflated afcepter ,• which is the opinion likewife of Monf. Martin : — " Qooique le mot " .Hebreu fignifie aufli une verge, et qu'il *' foit employe quelquefois dans un fens ** metaphorique pour la verge des afHic- " tions, la liaifon de ce verfet avec le pre- ** cedent y et toiite la mat i ere contenue dans ** ce textey ne permettent pas d'expliquer

" id

" ki ce mot autrement que par celiai ds " fceptt^e ; de meme que dans ce paffagc " de Zacharie, chap. x. ii. ou fe trou-^ ** vent en Hebreu les m^mes termes *' qu'ici: le fceptrefedepartirad'Egypte."

Thus it is plain that, the regul fctpter was not to depart from the tribe of Ju4ab till Shiloh was came.

Now, the Meffiah was not born until the clofe of king Herod's reign, therefore the fcepter of fudab could not be faid to depart, or begin to depart, (" be depart^ ** ingy* as fome commentators have fan- cied,) before that period. Neither coyld the land which jibaz vexed be faid to ** be " forfaken of both her kingSy' or monar-r chies, whilil Herod continued to reign in Jerufalem. But, immediately after his death, the form of government was en-* tirely altered. There, was no longer a fcepter in the tribe or inheritance of Ju-

dah!

f »59 3

dah! The Jews had now no other worldly king but Ccefar-, for the peculiar fceptcr of Judab was departed. They were, indeed, fubjed: to a fcepter, but it was the Roman fcepter ; which could not on this account be called the fcepter of Judab 5 and therefore it is plain, that, at this time, the fcepter departed from Ju- dah. A folemn legation of fifty ambafla- dors, from Jerufalem, (who were backed by eight thoufand Jev/s at Rome,) foli- cited Caefar that their regal government might be changed, and that they oiight be added to the province of Syria, and be- come fubjed: to the Roman commanders that fhould be feat there.— Hi/ It yci<poc\oiiov

ttvjffic T^g alic^TBOig, (iua-iXaocg koci toiuw Jg cifxcav <x,7TyiXXocx6o(,i, sr^oa-driKriv ^s Evot^g ysyovojag V7ro]aira-i^-Bai to^ ^jceta-e wsf^of^B- ^oig ^^d^yiyo^g. See Antiq. p. 6jl,6l2. See atfo p. 781, 782. where the fame thing is ftrongly expreffcd.

[ i6o ]

Neverthelefs, Caefar did not, at that time, entirely comply with their requeftj for, as Archelaus was named by his fa- ther Herod to be his fucceffor in the kingdom, Caefar was pleafed to grant him the half of Herod's dominions, but not as c kingdom^ for he allowed him the title only of Ethnarch ; and, as fuch, Arche- laus had no more right to the enfign of royalty^ fpoken of by the patriarch Jacob in the 49th chapter of Genefis, than he had to the title and/ dignity of a king^ which were never conferred on him, though promifed conditionally.

Kuicrctp Se uTc^cocg SiocXvBt fjLBV to (rvvBo^tov^ oXiycjdV Sb vjf/yBDuv vg-BDou Ao'XBXotov BASIAEA MEN OTK AnOOAINETAI, tod Sb ^p- {Tg©^ TTjg %wpa? TjTrsp 'HouSti VTTBJBXei Bbvcc^-xvi^ zaeig-uTUt, TIMHIEIN AHIflMATI BA- SIAEIAi: 'rniSXNOTMENOS etTTBp Tf}v eig uvJTiV ccDBJ'i'jv 'zs-poor(peooiTO, Antiq. book

xvii.

[ i6i ]

xvii. chap. 13. p. 61 i. Fiom this It

appears, that an ethnarch did iiot diftcr from a king /;; title only*

'* Ihe dignity of a kingdom' was then merely prom'fed ; which is a proof that the ethnarchy, at that time eftabiifiied, was entirely without fuch dignity: and Archelaus was fo far from obtaining the promifed kingdom ^ that about nine years afterwards he was banifl:ed even from his ethnarchy. See Jewifli War, book ii. chap. 6. p. 784. (6)

In the mean time Herod Antlpas, ano- ther fon of Herod the Great, was tetrarch of Galilee. It was this Herod who be- headed John the Baptiil: in his territory of Galilee, and whofe crafty, " bafe, and

Part IV. X felf-

f l62 ]

fe!f-interefted, difpoiition was charac- terized by the Meffiah himfelf under the fimile oizfox: for in deteftation of fuch perm'doiis principles h^ even named him from that wily animal, " Go and " tell that fox,'' 6cc. To this man was Chrift fent by Pontius Pilate; not be- Caufe. Herod Antspashad any judicial au- thority in Jerufalem, but becaufe Chrift was accounted a Galilean^ and therefore Pilate fent hirr?, as being one that be- Jonged unto Herod' s jurifdiBion. See St. Luke xxiii. 6, 7. (7)

Judssa was, indeed, fpiritually the kingdom of the Mejjiah^ of which many inconteftable proofs are inferted through- out this work, and compared with the predidicns of the prophets \ but, with

refpedl

(7) " when Pilate heard of Galilee^ he aflced

** whether the man (Jefus) were a Galilean. And, a^ *' foon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod^sjuri/" ** diiiiorii he feni him to Herod, who himfQlf was alfo f^ at Jerufalem at that time."

refpedi to its temporal or civil govern- meni, it was fo far from ieing a kingdoni at this time, that it was onlv confidered as a part of the province of Syria ; and for above thirty years together was go- verned by a regular fucceflion of Roman procurators, (8) until Herod Agrippa ob- tained Judasa and Samaria (in addition to his former dominions) of the emperor Claudius, who likewife confirmed his title of king. This, at firfl: fight, feems a weighty objection to the explanation, which I have offered, concerning the completion of Jacob's prophecy : but, if we confider all the circumftances of this reign, perhaps it will appear oti:;er- wife. Though Agrippa enjoyed the title, pomp, and appearance, of a king,

X 2 ■ he

(8) Jofephus informs us, that Valerius Gratus, fuc- ccflbrto Annius Rufus, was the fifih governor of the Jews ; and that he was fucceeded by Pontius Pilate — ** xa« irs/x7r](^ t/r* uCiov -cra^nv lov^ccmq tTrct^x'^* oiuoo^^ " AvHov 'Pov(povy Ovu?.i^i<^ rf«T<^."— nom0- ^^ lh>.ar^ hx^ox<^ (tvTu r.Kst, Aniiq. book xviii. chap. 3. p. 619.

[ i64 1

he was neverthelefs fubjefted in no fmall degree (as well as his predecefTors the Roman procurators) to the controul of the Roman prefident of Syria. (9) — For, when he had undertaken thoroughly to repair and complete the fortifications of Jerufalem, Marfus, the prefident of Sy- ria, had a watchful eye over him, and fignified his diftruft to Caefar, who caufed him to defift. Antiq. book xix. chap. 7. p. 677. And afterwards Marfus ex- erted his authority as prefident in a very remarkable manner, even in the dominions of Agrippa^ when the king himfelf was re^ Jident thf.rein ; for, being jealous of the friendfhip and unity between Agrippa and feveral of the neighbouring poten- tates, who were come to vifit him at Ti- berias, hefe?it and co^nmandedtbem all to de^ part to their refpedlive government s^ which was a matter of the greatejl mortification

to

(9) Antiq. book xviii. chap. 15. p. 615. T^:? h.

[ i65 ]

to Agrippa.^ EvSvg ouv eaag-ij tuv tTriJji-

Setcav Tivocg -nref/^TTov ETTSg-eXXev eiri tx socvjis Sixoi fzsXXyja-eug aTTspx^o-^oci, tuvtcc AyptTf^ TTocg ccvtapug i^B^x^o ycoci Motp(Tu fjcev eic nija Sioc(popug e(rx£> Antiq. book xix. chap. 7. p. 678.

Thefe are proofs that Agrippa*s power as a king was very much circumfcribed in comparifon with that of Herod the Great, Herod was fo far from being fab- jedl to the controul of the prefidents of Sy- ria, that he himfelf was made prefident of all Syria by Casfar ; {xccrsg-yjas ^s ccvrov KOLL STPIA^ 'OAHS EniTPOnON-) who dire(5ted the feveral governors to do no- thing without his counfel and advice.

TOig ^ STTlTOOTTOig SiOlTCHV, Jewifll Waf

bock i. chap. xv. p. 746. See alfo Antiq. book XV. chap. 13. p. 541.

On the other hand, likewlfe, the reign of Agrippa was fo very fhort, in compari-

' fon

[ i66 ]

fon of the lime that the fceptre had been departed Jadah, that, I think, it can fcarcely be coniidered as an exception either to the prophecy of Jacob, or to this of Ifaiah, concerning the two king^ ; efpecially as Agrippawas cut off from his kingdom by a very remarkable interpofi- tion of Divine Providence : for, after he had flain St. James, (the brother of St. John,) imprifoned St. Peter, and other* wife grievoufly perfecuted the Chriftians, he fulfilled the meafure of his iniquity by accepting the idolatrous flattery of the people at Caefareaj " and immediately «* the angel of the Lord/mote himy becaufe *' be gave not God the glory : and he was *' eaten up of worms y and gave up the " ghoft'y* (Adls xii. 23.) having reigned over ]ud2ih only three years, according to Jofephus, who, in the 19th book of his Antiquities, chap. 7. p. 679, confirms the account given by St. Luke, though in fome particulars his relation is differ-

entr

[ '6/ ]

ent. TeX€urifi(rc3cg ev Koe^KTocoeioty fjeSuo'i-' XEvxcog fjLiv ETH TPIA, 7!rDOT£oov Se rcov

TSTOao^iUV TptTiV erepOlS BTiClV oc(pYiy7i(Tx^€~

y©-, &V. Jewifli War, book ii. chap, 1 9. P- 791*

Immediately after his death, (his fon, A- grippa the younger, being only an infant,) the kipgdom was reduced again into a pro- vince, ( jo)and never was any more refto- red ; for the government of the Roman procu^ rators (which had httnonly interruptedhy this Jhadow of a reign after eight or nine perfons had been inverted with that dig- nity) was once more eftablifhed and conti? nued during a regular fucceffion of feven other procurators, until the time of the ge- neral revolt of the Jews, when the juft

and dreadful vengeance of God was ready

to

(io) 'Y»ov ^e £X TU5 av%(; (Cypros) Ay^iwuv y ov nra^yjctv 'Cjoi'naaq tTrH^oTTov itjef/.'/rn KsaTrjof ^uoovf ette* t«

TtCf^'joj- AXBiocv$^ov, &c. JewifhWar, book ii. chap. 19. P- 793-

[ 168 ]

to overtake them for their wickednefs and unbelief, according to the exprefs prediction of Chrifl recorded in the Gof- pels; Matt. xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xxi.

Agrippa the younger afterwards ob- tained the kingdom of Chalcis, (i i) and fome other dominions j but he never had any authority at Jurufalem, except that ecclcfiaftical authority over the temple and priefts, which his uncle and prede-, ceflbr, Herod king of Chalcis, had enjoyed before him 5 for all Judaea (except two (12) cities in Perasa, and two (13) in Galilee, given to Agrippa) were govern- ed by Felix, the Roman procurator. " Etg *' Jg THN AOinHN lOTAAIAN, ^tiXijccc " }co!,T€s"i/}(rev eTTirpoTTov" Jewifh War, bookii. chap. 22. p. 796. Thus it ap- pears,

(u) Antiq. book xx. chap. 3. p. 690. Jewifh War, book ii. chap. 20. p. 794. chap. 22, p. 796.

(12) Abila and Julias.

(13) Tarichaja and Tiberias.

[ 169 ]

pears, that "Jcrufalcm had ceafed to be the feat of regal government^ from the time of Herod's death to the total de- ftrL!(flion of that city \ except indeed during the three years reign of Herod Agrippa. But it is remarkable, that before this fliort reign the Jews had not only foUicited Csfar by a folemn legation of fifty amballadors, (as I have before obferved in page 159.) that their nation might no longer be governed by kings, but their chief priefts had likewife pub- licly abrogated all pretenfions their nation could have to any peculiar fceptre ^^ their own : for, when Pilate brought forth Je- fus in the prefence of the main body of the people, who were affembled at Je- rufalem on account of the paffover, and faid, -'' Behold your king-,'* and again, ^^ Shall I crucify your king?'' they an- fwered, — We have fio other king but Cafar. St. John xix. 14, 15.

Part IV. Y \ This

[ '70 ]

This public acknowledgement of the Jews, that the peculiar fceptre of Judah was then no more ; the limited jurifdiBion as well as brevity ( 1 4) of Herod Agrippa's reign ; and the want of regal fucceJJiGn for a long time before it, and for ever after it ; are reafons, which, I hope, will juftify my fuggeftion, that the faid reign is not to be confidered as a con- tinuation

(14) Jofephus, in fome parts of his hiftory, ex-

preffes a very particular refpedl (if it may not be called

a partiality'^ in favour of the character of Agrippa, on

account of his zealous attachment to Jiidaifm. Never-

thelefs, the ItTuitcdjurifdiBion and bre--vily of his rei^n were

fuch, that even Jofephus himfelf did not confider it as

a continuaticn of the regal go'vernmtnt ofjudah ; for, in

the 8th chapter of his 20th book of his Antiquities,

where he gives a fummary account of the government at

Jerufalem, under which the ofliceof high priefl fubfifled

from the time of Herod the Great to ihe deftruction of

Jerufalem, he obferves, that, after ihe death cf Herod

and ArcJ?elausy the go-vcrnment (or police) ivas an ariJJo-

cracy \ and he entirely emits any mention of Agrippa's

leij.n in this place ; fo that, it is plain, he did not

think it properly an exceprion to his observation. M/la

^£ trtV TifloJV TEAsyli^v, APISTOKPATIA /xav YjV 53 'SriAiTEict,

book XX.. chap, 8. p. 702.

[ 17' j

tinuaticn of the fceptre in Judah : and therefore it is mod natural to conclude, that the fame really departed at the death of Herod the Great -y which period corrcf- ponds more exactly to the time pointed cut by Jacob's prophecy than any other. Shiloh, tl:>e Pritjce of Peace, was then come; and Herod (convinced, by *' the '* wife mefif'cm the eaf,' that a child ivas born king of the "Jews) had attempted in vain to cut him off at Bethlehem; (15) Y 2 for,

(15) The general ccnfent of the chief priefts and fcribes of the Jews, concerning the place of the Meffiafi's biiih, is very reaiaikable j for, when Herod gathered ihem together, ** he demanded of them where Chriil ** fhould be bcrn ? and they faid unto him, in Bethlehem ** of Judaea:*' for thus it is written by the prophet; ** And thou Bethlehem, in the land of judah, art not ** the leall among the princes of Judah : for out of •* thee ihall come a goxen-or thut HiaU rule my people " Ilrael." Mat. ii. 4-6. Now, though the Jews [till deny that our Lord Jefus was the Chriil, yet they mull confefs, ivith their ancejiors^ that :he true Mefliah^ according to the prophet Micah, (v. 2) ought to be bom at Bethlehem. It ii, therefore, a matter of the highefc importance to them, to conhder what expeda- tions they can rcafonably have, now-a-days, of the

birth

[ 172 ]

for, like the generality of the Jews, H^rod expeded a temporal prince j and therefore concluded, that his own fceptre and authority was in danger, as it really was, it being then about to depart. For, very foon afterwards, Jofeph, the hufband cf the bkffed Virgin, was warned by an acigel of the Lord in Egy,pt> faying,

" Arife,

birth of a Mc^i^h of the feed of Daind at Bethlehem, fince that place for fo many ages has ceafed to he the ciiyofDa--vid? For, inflead of the family and kindred of David, it is now inhabited by *' Turks, Moors, Arabians, and forne poor Chrifians.^^ ^tt Bohu7t^s Geo-

graphical Di Si ionary^ printed in 1695. -And farther,

if any perfon hereafter born at Bethlehem fhould pre- tend to be the fon of Dauid, (or of the feed of David,) the Jews ought to confider, whether it is now poffible to trace that royal line down to the prefent time in fo fatisfaftory a manner, that they m\g\itfafely and rea~ fonably give cred ittofuch preteniions. *• But what is •* Bethlehem now ? Where are the thoufands of Judah, *^ of which this was one? What is Jerufalem now? ** Are the tribes preferred ? Has Judah ftill the fcep- *' tre and the lawgiver? Where is its eniign difpiayed ? ** And nvho can noiv prcve their defcent frotn Dcraid? All *' thefigns" ClTjTPn ylD I^D Gem. Sanhedrin. c ii. §. ^1.) *' of the coming of the Mefliah are paft," &c. Dr. Gregory Sharps'* s zd Argument in Defence cf Chrijii- anity, p, 1 46. Oh that the houfe of Ifrael may confjder thefe things before it is too late !

[ '73 ]

** Arife, and take the ycti?:g rM/ and his ** mother, and go into the landof IJrael,'* (mt the land cf Jiuiah only:) ** for they " are dead 'which fought the you fig child's •** life:' Matth. ii. 20.

Perhaps feme critic may objedl, thnt, as Chrirt: was undoubtedly ki'ng cf Ijracl and Judah^ the fceptre of Judah cannot be faid to depart at the death of Herod, according to the interpretation juft now given of the patriarch Jacob's prophecy: therefore it isnecefTary forme toohfcrvc, that ihtfceptrey fpoken of in thisprophc- -cy, and the ceafing of the two kings or regal governments, fpoken of by Ifaiah, can only be underftood to mean the de- parture of the worldly fceptre and temporal regal authority from Judah and Ifrael, as receffarily to be diftirguiflitid from the jpiritual authority and heavenly kingdom of Chrift; for, as Chriil: v/as " born king '^ cf the Je*ws^*' fo the fceptre of Judah,

with

[ 174 ] with refpea to him, is not departed, but is evcrlafting, according to the prophecy of the Royal Pfalmift concerning Chrift's kingdom. " Thy throne, 0 God^ is for *' ever and ever : the fceptre of thy king- " dom is a right Jceptre. Thou loveft ** righteoufnefs, and hateft wickednefsj " therefore God, even thy God, hath " anointed thee with the oil of gladnefs *' above thy fellows." Pfalm xlv. 6, 7.

The other part of Jacob's prophecy concerning Judah, (viz. *' nor a lawgiver ** from between his feet y' ) does not relate (I apprehend) to the fceptre or regal go- vernment of Judah ; for the particle 1 (rendered " nor' in the common Eng- lifli verfion, which divides thefe words from the former part of the fentence) feems to point out, that two diftincfl things are here, fpoken of, as Monf. Martin has obferved: " Car cette particule, et^ " marque que c'etoient deux chofes dif-

** ferentes,

[ ^75 ]

" ferentes,/^7r6'/>/rfetlelegiflateur." But, as the accomplilhment of prophecies is always the beft interpreter, I have been chiefly confirmed in this opinion of Monf. Martin, by obferving, that the departure of the lawgiver from Judah was not lefs narkable, in the accomplifhment, than that of the fceptre ; for the prophecies concerning both feem plainly to have been accomplifi:ied in two different per- fons.

The word ppna mud be underftood in a very inferior fenfe from the ufual ac- ceptation, if the Jewifli Sanhedrin, or the Scribes and Pharifees, are to be efleemsd lawgivers, as fome have imagined.

The Lord hlmfelf Is called by Ifaiah **-PPna •* cur lawgiver','* xxx'm. 22. And, as it pleafed 'Almighty God to de- clare his will to his people Ifrael, by Mofes and the Prophets, they alfo are

intitled

C J76 1

intitled to the name of lawgivers, as be- ing the immediate inftruments of God's revelation. Judah might likewife be pro- perly called a lawgiver, (Pfalras Ix. 7. Gviii. 8.) becaufe the MeJJiah was to be born of that tribe. But the Scribes and Pharifees, or the Sanhedrin, were not fent by God with any farther revelation than what had before been given by Mofes and the Prophets *, and therefore, though they fat in Mofes' feat, (Matt, xxiii. 2.) yet they could not properly be called lawgivers ; being only lawyers, or expounders of the law of Mofes : and, if no perfon among the Jews for above feven- teen hundred years has had a better claim to the title of lawgiver than thefe, it muft plainly appear that the lawgiver (as well as the fceptre) is departed from Judah ; and, confequently, that the MefTiah came before that time. Malachi is the laft perfon whom the Jews acknowledge as a prophet in their canon of the Scriptures ;

and

[ ^71 1

and it is remarkable that Almighty God was pleafed to comfort them by this holy mejj'enger (^^^^^a) with the promife of another tnejfengcr or prophet. ** Be-. ^^ bold, I will fend you 'Elijah^ the *' prop/jef, before the coming of the ** great and dreadful day of the Lord," Mai. i\j, 5. This dreadful vifitation of their nation was certainly accompliflied m the deJlru5iion ^ Jerufalem j for, if w^, examine the hiftories of former times ever io minutely, we fliall not be able to find any national affliBions or miferiei whatfoever to be compared with tjipfe which the Jews fuffered at that time. This ought to be a fufficient proof to the Jews of the truth of Chrift's pro- phecy concerning tbemfelves, recorded in Matthew xxiv. 15, 21. (16) Lukexxi. Part IV. Z ^9,

(16) " When ye therefore fhall fee the abaminatitm *' of difolation fpoken of by Daniel, the Prophet, ** (ix. 27. and xii. ii.) ftand in the holy place, <* ^whofo readcth, let him underftand,) then let them

** which

[ 178 3

20, ^:, 22, 23, 24.(17) and Markxiii, 1 9, fo that, as one part of the prophecy was fo pundtually accomplifhed, they may fafely affure theinfelves that fuch great

tribulation

f' which be in Judaea flee unto the mountains." — "For ** then (hall be great tribulation^ fuch as was not fmce ** the be-ginning of the wcfrld to this time, no, nor *f ever Ih all be. And,, except thofe days fhould bp ** fhortened, there (hould no flefh be laved : bi;t for ** the eleifts fake thofe days (hall be fliortened.'*

(17) " And when ye {hall fee Jerufalem compafled •* with armies, then know that the defolation thereof ** is nigh. Then let them which are in Judzea flee *? to the mountains ; and let them, which are in the ** midftofit, depart but ; and let not them that are " in the countries enter thereinto. For thefe be the ** days of<vengeancey that all things which are written" ("Dan.ix. 26, 27. Zech. xi. 1. &c. &c.) " may be ** fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, ^« and to them that give fuck in thofe days : for there *' fliall be great diftrefs in the land, and wrath upon f? this p.eople. And they fliall fall by the edge of the *• fword, and fliall be led away captive into all na- ** tions : and Jerufalem fliall be trodden down of the ♦? Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles he fulfilled.''* Luke xxi. 20-24. ** For in thofe days fliall be af- ** fliflion, fuch as was not from the beginning of the *f creation, which God created, unto this time, nei- «* ther fliall be." Markxiii. i^.

tribulation will never befal them again* according to Chrift's promiie in the fame prophecy.

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

Bat, though this great and dreadful day of the Lord is certainly paft, yet the Jews do not allow that the promifed Elijah is yet come. Neverthelefs they fent Priefts and Levitcs from Jerufalem to enquire of John the Baptift.- — ** Who " art thou? — Art thou Ellas?" and he faith, I am not, *' Art thou that pro- *' phetr" (meaning mofl: likely that pro- phet promifed by Mofes in Deut. xviii. 1 5th and iSthverfes, who was afterwards acknowledged by about five thoufand Jews at one time 5 for fo many were joint witnefTes of one of his miracles, being convinced by all their fenfes, of

Z 2 J^^i^^gi

I i8o ]

fe^ingy hearifpg^ and tafilng^) and he ali- fwered no.

But, not withftanding that John was^ a different perfon from Ehjah the pro- phet, according to his own confeffion, yet he was mod certainly the prophet promifcd by Malachi under the pro- |)hetiGal appellation oiElijahy which de- noted the excellency of his fpiritual iiiiffion -y for the angel Gabriel told hi& father Zacharias in the temple, that John (hould go before the Lord in the ^* fpirit and power ofEliasJ^ See St. Luke i. 17. And afterwards Chrift himfelf bore witnefs of him : — ** if ye ** will receive it, this is E/ias{i8) which ** was for to come '^* (Matt, xi, 14.) and in the fame chapter he calls him ^' a pro- ^* phet, yea, and more than a prophet;" lie being the Lord's meffenger promifed 'by Malachi iii. i. to prepare hi^ way hefore him,

John

(18) See alfo Matthew xvii, io-r3.

[ i8r 3

John was likewife a lawgiver (ppnc) as well as a prophet and meli'ejiger j for ** there went out to him Jerufalem and ^* all Jiidea^ and all the region round a- •* bout Jordan." Matt. iii. 5. And^ when he warned them to flee from th« wrath to come, ** the people a&ed hkn, ikying, what fhaii we do theia ?" (Luke iiii 10.) and we find by the fucceeding vtrfes that he jnftrudled them accord- ingly, not only with general dodtrine^ but even with particular advice, fuitable to the different clafies of men. Thefs teftunonies of the Evangelifls in favour of John are confirmed in no fmall de- gree even by the Jeivijh hijlorian Jofe- phus, who calls him *' ocyct^ov ocvSpx, a ^^ good man y — for indeed his life and converfarion were fo exemplary and un- blameable, that many of the Jews (as Jofephxis informs us) believed the de- firudlion of Herod's army to be a juft judgement of God for the murder of

that

[ l82 ]

xhzi good man. {k)) See JewiQi Andq. bookxviii. c. 7.

John was not, indeed, of the tribe of Judah, yet it cannot be denied but that he was a Jew^ according to what has been before obferved concerning the Afmonaean princes and " Herod the •* king of Judea:*' (Luke i. 5.) and he might very well be accounted a law^

giver

(19) ** Of whom Jofephus, in the place above •* quoted, gives us the following charafler : that his ** whole crime was his exhorting the Jews to the love •* and pradice of virtue ; and, firll of all, to piety, •* juftice, and regeneration, or newnefs of life; not by *' the bare abftinence from this or that particular fin, •* but by an habitual purity of mind and body.

" Now" (continues he) ** fo great was the credit *• and authority of this holy man, as appears by the *' multitude of his difciples, and the veneration they ** had for his doftrine, (for he could do what he would ** with them,) that Herod, not knowing how far the " reputation of a man of his fpirit might influence the *' people tov/ard a revolt, refolved at length to take " him off before it was too late," &c. He adds, " that ** Herod was very unfuccefsful in his war with the ** Arabian king -, all which the Jews looked upon as a ** juft judgement of God upon him for that impious ** murder." Unz'u. Hifi. ^-jol. x./. ^i^.

[ i83 ]

giver from between thefectof^udab^ for he was born in the hill country of j^m- deay (Luke i. 65.) in a city of yuda, (Luke i. 39.) at a time when that tribe was in full pojjcjjion of its inheritance.

But the circumftance which more particularly points out the accomplifli- nient of of Jacob's prophecy in this holy Nazarite (20) is, that John was the very laft of the Jewifi lawgivers or prophets. For though, on extraordi- nary occafions, fome prophetical itn^ tences may have been uttered by men adhering to Judaifm, after the coming of Chrift, (fuch as the remarkable pro- phecy of Caiaphas, the high-priefl, concerning Chrift, — " that it was ex-

** pedient

(20) John was a " Naxarite unto God from his ** mother's womb," as Sampfon, one of the ^tt^^/j of Ifrael, had been before him. (Compare Judges xvi. 17. with St. Luke i. 15.) But Chrift could not properly

be called a Nazarite (as Dr. \V ms fuppofes him to

be) without a contradidion to the ufual fenfe of that title in thejewifh law.

r 1S4 3

pedkj^t that one man fliould die for the pet)pk/* &e. John xi. 50.) (21) yet the Jews cannot prove that a fingle prophet (profeffedly as fuch) has beei> fent to tbem frooi God ever fince the time of John i that is, for above 1700 years; except they will condefcend to allow to St. Paul, Agabus, and others of the primitive Chriftians, the title of prophets: but thefe were under the dif- penfation of the New Teftament, after the ceremonial and typical law was an- nulled,

(21) See what a raanifeft (though unwilling) tefti- pony, even the unhelie'^ing y^ws bare of L'hrift*s hea- venly million. — *' Then gathered the chief priefls and •* Pharifees a eouneil, and faid, IVhat do ^vet for this *' man dosthTnany miracks. If we thus let him alone, all ** men n,vill believe on him ; and the Romans Jhall come ** and ta^e aivay both our place and nation. And one of *' them, named Caiaphas, being the high-priejl that fame ■*' year, faid unto thera, Yc know nothing at all, nor ** coniider that it is expedient for us, that one man^culd ** die for the people f and that the tohole nation perijh not* ** And this fpake he not of himfelf : but, being high- ** prieft that year, he frophifted that Jefus. fhould die ** for that nation,*' &c. Johnxi. 47-51.

[ i8s ]

nulled, and tlierefore cannot be reckoned among the yewzV/j lawgivers or prophets.

This was confirmed by Chrlfl: him- felf, (Luke xvi. i6.) *' the law and ' the prophets were until yohny^^h.v\A again, (Matth. xi. 12, 13.) ** for aU

*' the prophets and the law propkejied *' u?2til yohn''

Thefe are fufficient authorities, I hope, to juftify my fuppofition, that the prophet and lawgiver departed from Judah at the death of John the Baptifl; or rather, was gradually departing for feme time before his death : becaufe, as Chrijiincreafedy John decreafed, accord- ing to his own prophecy, recorded by John' the Evangelift, (iii. 30.) *^ Ye *' yourfelves bear me witnefs, that I *' faid, I am jdot the Chriji, "bat that I *' am fent before him. He that hath *' the bride' (that is, thechnrth, or con-

Part IV. A a gregation;

^

t i86 ]

gregation ; for John had juft before been told that Chrift *' baptizeth, and *' all men, come to him^ 26th verfe)' " is the bridegroon^: but the friend " of the bridegroom, which ftandeth *' and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly " becaufe of the bridegroom's voice : *« this my joy is therefore fulfilled. He ** rnujlincreafe^ hxx\. I mujl decreafe, {22) " He that cometh from above is above " all: he that is of the earth is earth- <* ly, and fpeaketh of the earth : he *' that cometh from heaven is above <« all. And what he hath feen and <* heard, that he teftifieth ; and no *« man receiveth his teftimony. He ** that hath received his teftimony hath " fet to his feal, that God is true. For ^* he whom God hath fent fpeaketh

*' the

(22) *' When therefore the Lord knew how the «« Pharifees had heard ihatjefus made and baptized ** more difciples than John, (though Jefus himfelf bap- ** tized not, but his difciples,) he left Judea, and de- ♦* parted again into Galilee," John iv. i, 2, 3.

[ >87 ]

" the words of God ; for God giveth ** not the Spirit by meafure (unto him,) *^ The Father loveth the Son, and hath '* given all things into his hand. He " that belicveth on the Son hath evcr- *' lading life : and he that believeth '* not the Son fliall not fee life; but ** the wrath of God abideth on hini."

Thus far the Evangelift feems to be relating the teftimony of John, the fe- cond Elias.

In the 5th chapter (31ft verfe) cf the faaie Evangelift, we read, that this remarkable teftimony was afterwards re- ferred to by Chrift himfelf. ** If I bear *' witnefs of myfelf, (faid Chrift,) my " witnefs is not true. "Yh^xt is another " that beareth witnefs of me, and I " know that the witnefs, which he wit- ** neffeth of me, is true. Te fent unto *' ^ohn^ and he bare witnefs unto the A a 2 «* truth.

[ 1 88 ]

** truth. But I receive not tejiimony

*^ from man :'' neverthelefs, our Lord

condcfcended to give the Jews an op- portunity of being convinced by the tejii- mony of man \ a man, whom they almoft univerfally eflieemed on account of the purity of his life, which I have already {hewn from the authority even of the Jewijh hiftorian, Jofephus.

The mercy of God, therefore, is ap- parent in this condefcenfion; and, though our Lord himfelf declared, that he re- ceived not *' tejiimony from man,' yet he added, — ** hut thefe things' (relating to John's teftimony) " Ifay^ that ye might *' be favedr

He then gives a mod lively and com- prehenlive (though (hort) defcription of the holy character of this his harbinger. ** He was'' (fays our Lord) *' a burning ** and a Jhining light ;" — and he reminds the Jews, that they formerly teftified a

very

[ i89 1

very particular approbatiorj of this holy perfon : ** and ye were willing* (fays* he) ** for a feafon to rejoice in his light. ^^ But I have greater v/itnefs than that *' oijohn: for >'/6^u'^r^i which the Fa- •* thcr hath given me to finifh, the *• fame works that I do, hear ivitne/s " of me, that the Father hath fent me. ** And theF ather himfelfy which hath fent ** me, hath borne witnefs ofme. Ye have *' neither heard his voice at any time, *' nor feen his fliape. A nd ye have not his 'word abiding in you : for, whom he hath fent, him ye believe not. Search the Scriptures^ for in them ye think ye ** have eternal life, and they are they *' which teflify of me." Thus Chrift pointed out to the Jews three incon- leftible indications of the truth of his holy dodtrinc

I ft. The teftimony of John the Bap- lift, with which \if:indulged\h^m^ though

the

[ 190 ]

the fame might be efteemed unnecelTary for the caufe of him, who " receives " not tejlimony from man.*'

2dly. His own mighty works y daily wrought among them, which, as he faid, *' bear witnefs of me, that the •* Father hath fent me."

And 3dly. The isoitnefs of the Father himfelff though (as Chrifl expreffed him- felf to the Jews) ** ye have neither ^* heard his voice at any time, norfeen " his (liape j" but he feems plainly to dired: them to that witnefs of God^ which has in all ages been apparent in theaccomplifliment of the word of the Lord by his prophets.

Even the unbelieving Jews themfelves pretended to believe the Scriptures, and acknowledged them to be the word of God i and therefore Chrift referred them

to

[ 191 ]

to the Scriptures, as being the wifnefs of the Father himfelf. '« Search the ** Scriptures,^* occ. But they wilfully negleded to make a right ufe of fuch ample teftimony -, and were, therefore, inexcufable. '* Do not think" (faid Chrifl) '' that I will accufe you to the " Father : there is one that accufeth '* you, eve?! Mofes in whom ye truft. " For, had ye believed Mofes, ye would *' have believed me : for he wrote of *' me. But, if ye believe not /6/j wri^ " tings, how (hall ye believe my words?"

In the very next chapter (vi, i, 2.) the Evangelifl: relates the accomplifli- ment of one of the circumftances of Jacob's prophecy, as recorded by Mo- fes; vfz. — '' and unto him Jh all the ga- '* thering of the people be.''

*' After thefe things" (fays St. John) " Jefus went over the fea of Galilee,

" which

[ 192 ] " which is the fea of Tiberias, and

*' A GREAT MULTITUDE FOLLOWED

*^ HIM, hecaufe they Jaw his miracles y' &c. And again, (14th and 15th verfcs,) ** then thofe men/' (the five thoufand perfons, who were fed by Chrift with five barley loaves and two fmall fiHies,) " when they had feen the *« miracle that Jefus did, faid. This is " of a truth that prophet that fiotild *' cof7ie into the world. When Jefus, ** therefore, perceived that they would *' co\nt2iU A take him by force 9 to make *' him a king^' (for they could not pof- fibly give him a greater proof of their fincerity in gathering to him as the true Shiloh,) '* he departed again into a *' mountain himfelf alone."

The people of Ifrael (as Mr, Mannpb- ferves in his learned treatife de Anno Natali Chrifti, p. 4.) were not the only people that were to be gathered unto

Shiloh ;

[ ^93 ]

Shilo'n ; not ouq nation only is pointed

at, in the prophecy, iut many nations.

The patriarch's words were not a^n nipi

the gathering of this people or nation,

but in the plural number D^cj; nnpi the

gathering of the nations \ which has been

apparently fulfilled : for, the nations

have at different times almofl: univerfally

fubmitted to the faith of our Lord Jefus,

the true Shiloh ; notwithilanding that

many have fince fallen back into grofs

ignorance, fupertlition, and unbelief. (23)

The gathering of the people to impoftors

does- not at all afFedl the certainty of the

Part IV. B b fign

(23) We have a dreadful example of this in the preft-nt ftate of the cnce-enlightcncd Grecian empire, of the greatefl: part of Afia, and of aJmoH: the whole, vaft conti>ient of Africa. Nay, the greateit part even cf Europe itfelf hath long fince refumed the veil of its former darknefs, and the fhadow of death : for, the fuperrtitious vanities of Rome bear too great a refem- blance to the old Heathen idolatries ; and the multi- tude of Atheifts, DeiRs, and of thofe who neglect Chrift'i holy facraments, is an alarming indication of •^falling oJ't\Qn am^'ng ourTclves,

[ 194 ] fign given by the patriarch Jacob, in the gathering of the people to Shiloh.

Many falfe Chrifts have indeed ap- peared, according to our Lord's predic- tion in Matthew xxiv. 24. (24) Luke xxi. 8. (25) and to fuch the Jews have zealoufly^(2://6d'r^^themfelves: for, *' they ** received not the love of the truth, ** that they might be faved. And for ^* this caufe God fent ihctn Jirong delu* " Jion' (as foretold by St. Paul) ''- that ** they fhould believe a lie." 2 Theff. ii. II.

The fame people, who rejedled the .truth through hardnejs of heart and want

(24) " For, there fhall arife falfe Chrifts, and falfe ** prophets, and Ihall fhew great ligns and wonders, ** infomuch that (if it were poffible) they (hall de- •* ceive the very ele^. Behold^ I have told you be-^ *' fore,'' Sec,

(25) ** Take heed that ye be not deceived ; for, <« many Ihall come in my name, faying, 1 am Chrift ; ♦ * and the time draweth near: go ye not therefote ** after them.**

[ '95 ]

of faith i very foon afterwards, by a contrary infatuation, rendered them- felves defpicable by the mod ahfurd ere-* dulity.

Even the Jewlfli hiftorian, Jofephus, gives ample teftimony of the pronenefs of his countrymen to error and falfe dodtrine, and that they were eafily led away by impoflors and deceivers. He relates a very remarkable inftance of it, in their being led out by an Egyptian to the mouiu of Olives ; from whence he had undertaken to fliew them a wonder- ful fpedacle, viz. that the walls of Je- rufalem fhould fall at his command. (26)

The fame fpiritual blindnefs conti- nued -even after the abomination of defola- tion, notwithftanding the apparent judge- ment of God upon them, in the de- flrudtion of their great (and once holy) B b 2 city :

(26) Antiq, book XX. chap. 6. p- 695.

f 196 ]

city: for they have (as readily fince that time as before) acknowledged the in* credible pretenlions of feveral impoftors, who have at different times fet them- felves up for the true Meffiah. For inftance, the infamous Barchocheba, (KaOiDnn or Son of a Star,) in thereiga of the emperor Adrian, was gladly re- ceived, and zealoufly fupported, among the Jews, until an immenfe flaughter of his miferable adherents plainly demon- ftrated that he was more properly intitled Barchozba, («n?1D"i:2) Son of a Lie. The Jews were alfo notably deceived by Sab- bateiSevi, who wickedly took upon him- felf the charader of the Meffiah. But it is remarkable, that it was the Jews alone, and not all the other nations cf the worlds that were gathered to thefe counterfeits ; which ought to demonftrate to the pre- fent houfe of Ifrael the apparent differ- ence between the true Meffiah, and the miferable deceivers above-mentioned.

Thus,

[ 197 ]

Thus, I hope, I have fiiewn, that the fceptre did not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh ivas come ; and that the ga^ thermg of the people (not of one nation only but of the univerfe at different times) has been unto Chrift himfelf, according to the Scriptures.

** Bring forth the blind people that " hai^e eyesy and the decf that have " ears. Let all the Jiations be gathered ** together^ and let the people be af- *' fembled : who among them can de- •' clare this, and flievv us former things ? •' Let them bring forth their witnefles, *' that they may be juftified : or let •* them hear y 2inifay, *' It is 'Truth^^ Ifaiah xliii. 8, 9,

'* Glory be to God In thehigheft, and ** and on earth peace, good- will towards •• men."

r/6^ END 2/^ Part IV,

A N

ANSWER

TO SOME OF THE

PrincipalArgumentsufedbyDr. W — ms

I N DEFENCE OF

HIS CRITICAL DISSERTATION

O N

Isaiah vii. 13, 14, 15, 16, &c.

IN WHICH

The Opinions of the late Dr. Sykes and Dr. George Benson, concerning Jccommodations of Scripture Prophecy, are brief y confidered.

PART V.

[ 201 ]

A N

ANSWER

T O

Some of the principal Arguments ufed

by Dr. W ms in Defence of his

Critical Diflertation on Isaiah vii. 13, 14, 15, 16, &c.

I -Have pointed out to Dr. W -ms feveral miftakes in his Critical Dif- fertation on Ifaiah vii. 13, 14, i^, 16 i yet he hath not thought proper to acknou^ledge one of them, though he has laboured to dilprove feveral. Some of the principal arguments which the Dodtor has advanced in favour of his hypothecs are confidered in the follow- ing pages.

Part V. C c But,

t ^02 ]

Biit, before I proceed to a defence of my remarks, it may be neceffary for me to examine a very important queftion concerning the interpretation of Scrip- ture prophecies, notvvithftanding that

Dr. W ms apprehends the fame to

be *' fufficiently and even conclujively ' " decided already^'' viz. Whether any ** allegorical meanings and double fen fes ** of Scripture prophecies are to be al- *^ lov^ed?

** It is impoffible (fays the Dcdor) to *' determine when any prophecy is ful- ** filled, if it has more than one fingle " fenfe. If it has tv^^o (fays he) it may ** have two hundred, and all of them '* equally juft."

For the confirmation of this fentiment, he refers me to Dr. George Benfon's preface to the firfl: volume of his para- ph rafe

[ 203 ] phrafe and notes on St. Paul's Epiftles, and to Dr. Sykes's Connexion of natural and revealed Religion, page 217, &c,

Thefe I have examined with as much care, I believe, as is necelTary, and find, that the third objedion to Dr. George Benfon's hypothelis, quoted even in his own Introdudion, p. xxxiv. obliges him to make fuch large conceffions concern- ing types and figures, that, notwith- ftanding his great zeal againft double fcnfes, his denying of them feems a mere diftgreement in terms, and not in efFedt, from the general received opinion.

In his anfwer to the faid objedlion, he allows, p. XXXV. *' That, wherever the •* law or the Prophets have declared, ** that the rites and ceremonies of the " Mofaic conjlitiition were intended to ** point out a moral obligation, or " to prefigure iht MeJJiah, or fomcthing C c 2 "in

[ 204 ]

*' m the Chriftian difpenfation, there ** that moral intention, or prophetic " prefiguration, is the one true fenfe ** of the text, &c.'* See the Dpdlor's anfwer at length, in p. xxxv.

Here he plainly allows of a dired application, in fome cafes, to the anti- type; which he calls " the one true *' J^nfe of the text.'' — But how (as a rea- fonable man) he can poflibly avoid ac- knowledging the fiecefl'ary confequence of this his conceffion, I leave all candid readers to judge: for, if there is an allegorical fenfe aUuding to the anti- type, (which he calls " a moral inten^ " tion ox prophetic prefiguratiouy' ) there muft certainly be, likewife, a literal fenfe applicable to the type itfelf

Indeed the Doftor has in that place refined his argument to fo fmall a thread, that it becomes almoft imperceptible.

The

[ 205 ]

The next objedtion, quoted by Dr.

Benfon, is as follows. Objedl. IV.

'* Are not many paffages in the New «' Teftament taken from the Old Tefta- ** ment, and ufed in a quite different '* fenfe from what they have as they ** ftand in the original writer? and " muftnot thefe be called double lenfes " of the words of facred Scripture?"

To this the Do6lor anfwers, .'^ It

" is acknowledged, that our Lord, and "- his Apoftles and Evangelifts, have '* taken feveral paflages from the Old *^ Te (lament, and ufed them in a very *^ different fenfe from what thev have, " as connedied with the place from ** vvhence they were taken."

*' But that will not prove a double fenfe of the words. I may quote a paffage from Ho?ner or Virgil^ He-

** rodotus

[ 206 ]

** rodotus or L,ivy^ to exprefs my pre- " fent meaning, and in quite another ** {^ni.^ from what it has in thofe anti- *'^ ent authors ; but that will not prove " that thole antient authors intended " their words {hould be underflood in *' two fenfes. In the original intention *' they had only one meaning. In my ** accommodation ofthem^ they have only " one meaning. And though the fame " words may have different ideas af- " fixed to them ; and be ufed, by fuc- ** ceffive fpeakers, or writers, in vari- ** ous fenfes y yet that does not prove " that, in the original intention, they *' had more than one fignification."

Now, I readily allow, that Dr. Ben- fon's idea oi an accommodation is certainly true in fuch cafes as he has fuppofed, viz. in quotations from Homer or Vir^ giU (Sc, " To exprefs a prefcnt mean- *' ing in quite another fenfe from what

'' it

[ 207 ]

^' it has in thofe antient authors." And I as readily aflent to a part of Dr.

W ms's quotation in page 41 of his

Critical Diflertation, from a very learned author, (i) viz. that when *' paflages in ^* the Grecian poets are cited, or al- " luded to, in the writings of the New'* or Old " Teftanient," the fame *' are " not to be conlidered as prophecies." For indeed they cannot otherwife be efteemed than as *^ a mere acconunoda^ ** tion of phrafes^

But, when the word of the Lord iy his prophets^ or (as St. Matthew warily exprefil'S himfelf) " that which was

*' fpoken

(1) Dr. Gregort Sharpe. See his fecond

argument in Defence of Chriflianity, taken from the ancient prophecies, page 349.

The fentence, which immediately follows the above extract, ought by no means to be omitted when the author's feniiments on this head are quoted, viz.

** But, indeed, to an attentive mind, the difference ** will appear very gre^t between the citations from •* prophane authors and the prophets.**

[ 208 ]

*^ spoken of the Lord by the prophet y* is cited by an evangelift, and declared to he fulfilled^ the idea of "a mere ac '* commodation' becomes highly impro- per, not only in a grammatical, but alfo in a religious, fenfe.

Therefore, in anfwer to all that has been faid in favour of accommodations y I mufl obferve, that the fulfilling of proverbs and phrafes, or of quotations from poets and hiftorians, by afmilarity of circumjlancesy is fo v^idely different from the fulfilling of a prophecy y that the true meaning of the v^ord fiilfily when applied to the latter, cannot juftly be afcertained by fuch a comparifon.

The word of a prophet (efpecially the word of the Lord by a Prophet) im- plies a foretelling or promife of future things, which muft in due time be fulfilled 'y as " all things muft he fulfilled'*

(faid.

[ 209 ]

(faid our Lord) ** which were written ** in the law of Mofes, and in the pro- " phets, and in the Plahiis, conccrn- " ing me." Luke xxiv, 44,.

Therefore, when we are told, that " tijre 'word which was fpoken of the Lord ** by the prophet" is fulfilled, we can- not, either with grammatical or reli- gious propriety, (as I have before ob- ferved,) underlland 2iny oiYitv fulfilling or accomplifhment than that which was o- riginally intended by the Holy Spirit to be -prefigured.

Becaufe we cannot allow, that a fcrip- ture prophecy is accommodated " to a ** particular fnfe^ to which it originally <* had no reference,^ (2) unlefs we allow likewife, that fuch an accommodation is abfolutely a per'verfion of the primary fenfe of the piophet: for readers would

PartV. D d not

{2) See page 40. Crit. Di:Tert.

[ 210 ]

not only be thereby perplexed and mif- led with refpedt to the true accomplifh- nient, originally and fingly intended by the words of the prophet fo cited, but would aifo be naturally led to conceive, that the matters, related by the evan- gelift, were intentionally prefigured or foretold thereby, which would be a de- ception of no fmall difcredit to the evan- gelift, if his comparifon had really no other relation to the prophecy than that ** oi zjimilarity of circumjlances.'''

So that fuch a mifapplication of fcrip- ture prophecy cannot otherwife be con- fidered than as a deception leading to a double mifconJiruBioriy as above ; which would be as little fuitable to the tefli- mony of an evan gelift, ^* by way of il- ** lujlration" as to the original fenfe of the prophet; whatever Dr. Benfon may

think of it, or Dr. W ms either*

See his Remarks,' p. 40.

If

[ 211 ]

If all this be duly confidered, I think no one can realbnably fuppofe that an evangelift would attempt to mijlead his readers, by declaring a prophecy to be accompliihed ^ry}/^7/t'^ in ** a particu- '^ lar {^n^LQ to which it originally had no " referenced' See Critical Diflert. p. 40,

Dr. Benfon, in page xxii. of his introdudion, informs us, that *' if *' the iid and xvith Pfalms can be *^ flievv^ quite throughout to agree to " king David, then they ought to be ** interpreted of him. But if (as fome <* judicious perfons have thought) there *' be in them fome expreffions, which <* are not applicable to king David, then *' they fiiould be interpreted wholly *' concerning the Mefliah j 10 whom ** they do, in every part, very well a-

•' gree.

D d 2 Now

[ 2 12 ]

Now I am of the fame opinion with Dr. Benfon, that thele two Pialms are undoubtedly to be interpreted of the Meffiah, and I do not at all contend for the application of them to David.

I only objedl, therefore, to the Doc- tor's rule of the interpretation, which he has applied to the faid Pfalms ; be- caufe I think it will be liable, in a great variety of applications, to miflead and perplex thofe perfons who inay happen to adopt it.

For inftance; the Ixxiid Pfalm, of which he fpeaks in the fame page, is undoubtedly a prophecy of Chrift's kingdom, as Dr. Benfon interprets it; yet his rule feems to lead him into a real difficulty concerning it; becaufe he is thereby obliged to deny the leaft re- ference to king Solomon ; when it

plainly

[ 213 ]

plainly appears by the title of the Pfalm, (nobo^ <' ro Solomonrj that the pfalm- ift abfolutely addrefled \\\m(cU to Solo^ vion, who in the beginning; of his reieri was manifellly a type of the fpiritual Solomon or Shiloh, (n^y:? or n'?^) the prince of '' pcacsr {i^)

Indeed, the Do<flor*s rule can by no means be admitted, if we confider the nature and general flyle of prophetical writings, and the abrupt tranfitions fre- quently found therein ; of which I have given ample and undeniable proofs from the viith, vliith, and ixth, chapters of Ifaiah, See the fecond part of my Re- marks on the Critical Differtaiion.

Thefe pafTages, and many others of the fame kind, very much confirm what I have written (Part II. p. 104) con- cerning the paiTage quoted by St. Mat- thew

(3) C^t^V T:? Ifaiahix.

[ 214 ]

thew from Hofea ; (viz. " out of Egypt *^ have I called fny fan i' ) znd^ I think, muft prove, to all confiderate people, that Dr. Sykes (the other champion for ac- commodations, to whom Dr. W ms

has referred me) has been much too pre- cipitate in declaring (pages 230 and 231 of his Connexion of natural and revealed Religion) " that the prophet (in this text) " is not fpeaking of a?2y future ** event:'' and that the term *^ fulfilled ^ ** cannot imply a prophecy of our Saviour s ** going into Egypt or coming from " thenccy' &c. The fame obfervation may with juftice be made concerning

Dr. W ms, who boldly afks, (p. 40.)

" How can it be faid, that any thing *' is fulfilled which was not fpoken *' to be fulfilled?*' as in chap. ii. 15. (Matthew {) '* or notipoken by a pro- ** phet in the fenfe in which it is cited *' by an evangelift?" Alfo the Dodor declares^ in page 39, concerning this

paffage.

[ ^^5 ] palTage, that it '* could not he fulfilled ** when the child Jfus came out of - Egyptr

In anfvver to thefe aflertions I muft obferve in the firft place, that they can- not by any means be proved. And, fe- condly, that it is moft rcafonable to believe this text of Hofea to be a pro- phecy of Ch rift ^ becaufe the ftyle and conflrudion of the fentence itfelf is fo peculiarly adapted to the fngle perfo7i of theMeffiah, that the Seventy have thought themfelves obliged to leave the literal fenfe of the original, in order to render it more fuitable, in their tranfla- tion, io the people of Ifrael : all which I have before particularly noted.

But there are ftill other reafons to be given in favour of it.

Though the people of Ifrael are here fpcken of infuch a manner, that Dr.

W -ms

[ 2i6 ]

W ms thinks he has fufficicnt rea-

fon to in title it ** a declaration of an event *' longpaji^' yet St. Matthew expreflly quotes it as a prophecy, viz. ^'' that *• which was fpoken of the Lord by the " prophet ;" which exprejiion could not with any propriety be iifed, if the words cf the prophet were merely an hijhrical relation', for they could not, in that cafe, be faid to be *^ fpoken of the Lord'*

Thus it plainly appears, that there is not the leaft room to fiippofe an accorn- modation.

So that, notwithftanding all that has been faid by Dr. Sykes, Dr. George Ben-

fon, and Dr. W -ms, againft double

fenfes, it muft unavoidably be allowed, that the *' declaration (in this place) *« 9f an event long paf;* prefigured an event to come ; and confequently that this fnglc text affords an indifputable

proof

[ 2^7 ] proof of the fubliftance of double fenfcs in the Scriptures.

Though fome Chrlflians have run into errors by turning every thing into allegory, double fenfes, parables, and types, v^hether they v^ere really fo or not, yet this is no juft argument why we (hould indifcriminately reject all conftrudions of this kind.

And, though I contend for double fenfes in fome cafes, vet I am as averfe to an unnecefTary multiplication of them as Dr. W ms can be ; and there- fore rejedl and protefl: againft the Doc- tor's propofition, (in his MS Reply to my Remarks,) that if a prophecy *' has ** two (fenfes) it may have two hundred; ^' and all of the??! equally jujt.'^

li\\t fulfil ling of a prophecy (as I have

before obfervcd) muft mean the only

Part V. E e true

true nccompUJhment or completion of it j fo that it cannot juftly be extended or applied to any farther circumftances than thofe particularly and originally in-, tended ; therefore, when an evangelift has declared a prophecy to be fulfilled, though he may have convinced us that the prophet's words referred to are ca- pable of bearing a double fenfe^ (viz. one literal, and one allegorical, or prefigu- rative, which he himfelf points out,) yet, at the fame time, he manifeflly excludes the other one hundred and ninety-eight fenfes, notwithftanding that

Dr. W ms thinks ** all of them

" equally jujir For, after a declaration is made (of indifputahle authority) that a prophecy i^ fulfilled^ it would be, not only impertinent, but prefumptuous, to look for a farther accomplijhment.

It is neceflary, however, for me to obferve, that i\\Q fulfilling of fome par^

ticular

[ 219 ]

ttcular prophecies includes a confiderable length of time as well as a variety of circumftances and places.

Of this I propofe to give one remark- able inftance, which will afford me, at the fame time, a proper opportunity of fpeaking more particularly to Dr. Sykes.

The Do<flor, in his Connexion of na- tural and revealed Religion, chap. x. p. 229, affirms, " that our Saviour and '* his apoftles applied the term tofuljil^ ." when there was only a fimilitude of *' circumftances : and (that) they cited *^ the words of the Old Teftament, and " made ufe of that term upon the ap- ** plication of them, where they did ** not defign to exprefs the accomplijld" " ment oi 2i prophecy " ** You have" (fays the Doctor) ** a?2 i'z fiance very clear " in Matthew xiii. 14, 15. where our ** Saviour gives the reafon why he fpoke E e 2 *Mo

[ 220 ]

*' to the people in parables : becaufe^ ** fays he, they feeing^ fee not ; and *' hearings they hear noty neither do they ^' underjland. And in them is fulfdled *' the prophecy of Efaiasy which faith^ ** by heariitg ye foall hear, and JJ:)all not ** underftand ', and feeing ye fhall fee, ** and fhall not perceive. For this peo^ *' pies heart is waxed grofs, and their '^ ears are dull of hearing', and their ** eyes they have clofed y left at any ** time they fliould fee with their eyes, " and hear with their ears, and fhould " underftand with their hearts, and (hould ** be converted, and I fliould heal them/'

** Our Saviour" (fays theDodor) *^ ap^ ** plies thefe words to the Jews in ** Judea, and St. Paul, many years af^ •' terwards, applies the very fame pro- " phecy to the Jews at Rome." ** This ** fliews" (continues he) " that, though *^ the term fulfil^ when applied to an

" event

[ 221 ]

event foretold 9 does fignify the ac- complifhment of ^ real prophecy \ yet it was ufed in cafes where there was no accomplifliment of a predidtion, hui Qn\y 2. fimilit tide of circiimjlances % and, confequently, the appHcation of the words of a prophet to a certain particular event, by which they are faid to be fulfilled, does not certainly imply either a double fenfe of prophe- cy or that fjch 2i particular event was foretold :" " But the real meaning of the word muft be determined by other circuix fiances ; fuch as, whe- ther the prophet is fpeaking of a fu- ture event or not, or, in fhort, by thofe means by which one knows whether the words are prophetic or not."^

But, before all this reafoning of Dr, Sykes be admitted, we ought carefully

to

i 222 ]

to examine the foundation or proof on which it is built.

This he calls ^' an injiance very clear \* but I hope to convince my readers that it is no injiance at all of this matter ^ and confequently that the Do<ftor*s conclu- fion thereupon is unjuft.

Were not the Jews one people, and defcended from the fame ftock, whether they lived at Jerufalem or Rome ?

If this be granted, (and I think the mpft zealous advocates for Dr. Sykes will not deny it,) it muft neceffarily be ^ allowed, likewife, that this remarkable prophecy of Efaias concerning them (viz. '* by hearing, ye fhall hear, and *' fliall not underftand,'* &c. Ifaiah vi. 10.) was manifejlly fulfilled vjhtn the Jews rejeded the docflrine of Chrift, whether preached by himfelf at one

time,

[ ^^3 ]

time, or by his apoftlcs at other different

tiinco^

CO I ini.ik I iiiayTafely conclude that t'ie two (il'fcrent appUcationSi quoted by j>i'. Syke; Ci this fame prophecy, were not occafidned, as he fuppofes, by a mere *^ fimUhude of circumjlances^'' but by a dire^ accompUJlmejit of the prediction in both cafes.

Now, as this example cannot any longer fcrve the caufc in favour of which it was quoted by Dr. Sykes; I hope it will not be efteemed an improper ex- ample of a very different argument ^ and therefore I beg leave to claim it, on my fide of the queftion, as *^ nn injlance *' very clear" of the truth of the obfer- vation which I made above, viz. that x!^^ fulfilling of fome particular prophe- cies includes a confiderable length of time as well as a variety of circumftances and places.

However,

[ 224 J

However, I muft not leave this text without coming to a farther explanation

with Dr. W ms concerning it, be-

caufe he has brought a very heavy accu- fation againft me concerning the parallel account given by St. Mark, chap. iv. II, 12.

- t * •. i «

He charges me with refleBing *' fe^ ** verely on the charadler of the blejjed «« Jefus,'' by faying, ** that he taught ** in parables, left they ihould under- " ftand and be faved.'* ** Our Savi- <* our" (fays the Dodtor) ** gave a very " different reafon for his conduft; and <* Mr. S— (hould have rendered the paffage, Mark iv. 12. agreeable to the evangelift's words in the 33d verfe of " the fame chapter : fjuviTroTs (hould be " there tv2infl2itQd if peradventure, as it is *^ in 2 Timothy ii. 25." However, I am not at all confcious (I thank God) of

having

I 22S ]

having in the leaft refpedt offended a- gainrt: the charadter of our blefTed Lord,

Neither do I know of any fevere re^ fieStion in this cafe, except the Doctor's own charge againjl my f elf.

Whatever fenfe the word f/,7}7roTB may bear in other places, yet, in the parallel places of St. Matthew and Mark above- mentioned, it mull neceffarily be con- ftrued *' l^f'y' or to that eff'ed: for, as the fenic of the context muft confirm the true meaning of any particular word, it will be found, upon examination, that the Dodlor's fenfe of thefe paflages can- not poffibly be admitted.

The words of Chrift, according to the teftimony of both thefe evangelifts, point out the material diftindion which he then made between ihofe that were true believers and the reprobate Jews,

Part V. F f whom

[ 226 ]

whom our Lord called " them that '* are without," (fee Mark iv. 1 1 .) to the former it was ^' given to know the my- *^^ Jlery of the kingdom of God^^ Matthew xiii. II. Markiv. ii. but to the latter, fays St. Matthew, " it is not given''

Now this neceffary diftindion is en- tirely loft by Dr. W ms's interpreta*

tion, becaufe there is no fuch diftindtion made in the 33d verfe of the fourth chapter of St. Mark, the fenfe of which the Dodlor propofes to adopt ; for the evangelift is there fpeaking of Chrift's preaching in general to the whole mul- titude, including thofe to whom '* it *' was given to know," as well as thofe to whom it was " not given;" and this is certain, becaufe in the very next ^tx{^ (the 34th) we read, that afterwards, « <when they were alone, he expounded «« all things to his difcipjes."

Nov/

[ ^27 ]

Now It might very well be faid of Chfift's preaching to the whole multi- tude of good and bad together, that " with many fuch parables fpake he ** the word unto them, as they were '* able to hear it i" becaufe Chrift ob- ferved this fame method even when he taught his difciples alone; and at laft declared to them, foon before his paflion, " I have yet many things to fay unto ** you, but ye cannot bear them now'* John xvi. 12.

But, when the reprobate Jews are ipo- ken oifeparately and dijlin^lly from thofe to whom it was ** given to know,'^ it cannot be underftood that the word was fpoken '* unto them as they were abk to ** hear it^

V

Becaufe, it is apparent that they

were never abk to hear it or bear it ; ac-

F f 2 cording

[ 228 ]

cording to the true fenfe of thefe phrafes ; which imply fuch a comprehenfion of the dodrine, as may produce an affent, or belief; other wife the prophecy of Ifaiah, which Chrift then referred to, could not have been fulfilled. " Be- " caufe feeingy they fee 7iot ;*' (faid our Lord ;) ** and hearing, they hear not^ *^ neither do they underJlandJ* (Which is very different from being fpoken to,

asDr, W ms w6uld have it, ** as

** they were able to hear.") '* And in ** them" (continued our Lord) " isful- ** filled the prophecy of Efaias, which «* faith, by hearing, ye fliall hear, and *^ Jhall not under jland'y and feeing, ye ** {hall fee, and Jhall not perceived (Therefore it is plain that St. Mark's expreffion, chap. iv. 33. cannot be ap- plied to thefe, when diftindly fpoken of from the reft of the congregation.) " For " this people's heart" (faid Ifaiah) " is *' waxed grofs, and their ears are dull

«* of

[ 229 ]

'' of hearing, and their eyes they have *' dofed^ left at any time they (hould fee *' with their eyes, and hear with their '* ears, and fliould underftand with their " heart, and fhould be converted, and " I {l">ould heal them" (faid our Lord.) The clofing of their eyes was theirownadl and deed, ** their eyesT\it.Y have clofed, ** LEST they p^ould fee^' ZSc, So that there was no partiality (4) in their con- demnation, they having rendered them- felves unworthy of a clearer revelation by their unwillingnefs to be converted.

They

(4) For " the reafon why thefe mylleries are no *' more plainly delivered unto them, (the Jews,) is •* f-r their foregoing obllinacy." See AssExMbly's Annot, on the laid text.

Dr. Hammond paraphrafes the 15th verfe to the feme efFedl, viz. that ** this is a juft judgement of *' God's upon them, for their obduration and obfti- *• nacy," &c.

Mor.f. Martin likewife explains this to the fame purpofe. ** C'eft a dire, que Dieu fe cache a, ceux ** qui, I'ayantpu trouver, ne fe font pas mis en etat ** ce le cherchcr, etqu'illivre a leurs prejuges eta *• leur tenebres ceux q»ii ont ferme Ics ycux a la ** verite."

[ 230 ]

They rejedied fuch evidence as Chrift was pleafed to give them, which would have been amply luflicient, had they not wil- fully p^ut their eyesagainjl it ; for St. John fays, chap. iii. 19, *^ this is the con- ** demnation, that light is come into the ** world, and men loved darknefs rather ** than light, becaufe their works were *' evil."

Therefore they were Jtijify ejleemed iin^ worthy ** to know the myfteries of the *' kingdom of heaven.** For, ** who- *' foever hath," (faid our Lord,) *' to *' him (hall be given, and he fliall have ** more abundance : but whofoever/6^//& *^ 72oty {xo\Xi\\\m Jhall be taken away even ** that he hath. Therefore, (J'icu t«to, *' fpeak I to them in parables, becaufe ** they, feeing, fee not," &c.

The words hoc raroy " therefore," plainly refer to the foregoing fentence,

viz.

[ 231 ]

vj'z. " but whofoever hath not, from " him fiaH be taken imay" ^c. So that the fcope and tenor of the argu- ment would be entirely deftroyed if Dr.

^ ™s's ^enfe of the parallel pa%e

in St. Mark were to be admitted. For Chrift plainly intended to fhew. that the unbelieving Jews would lofe eve?i ^^■hat little knowledge they had ; fofar v/ould they be from underftanding or receiving his parables. And the cve« plainly proved this ; for they fell from bad to worfe, until the total dearudion of Jerufalem, when the abomination of defolation (fpoken of by Daniel) was ac- complifhed.

St. Mark dees not, indeed, exprefs the very v^^ords of the prophet Ifaiah, nor mention the quotation made of them by Chnft, but he plainly delivers the full fenfe of them, as they were r^aWy fulfilled in the unbelieving Jews, viz.

it

Unto

C 232 ]

« Unto you" (faid Chrift to his dlf- ciples) " it is given to know the myftery " of the kingdom of God, but, unto •* them that are without ^ all thefe things " are done in parables: that, feeing, «* they may fee, and not perceive \ and " hearing, they may hear, and not un^ " J^r/?^;^^, LEST at anytime they (hould «' be converted, and their fins fliould *« be forgiven them."

The particle /i/a (" that") followed by verbs in the fubjuncSive mood (.Gastt^o-; %(/A fJLT} idu(riy 6cc.) cannot poffibly be made fenfe of, if the w^ord i^vittots (** lest") is tranflated *' if peradventurei* be- caufe the negative jit-)? (viz. i^vi t^cdo-i, and fjiv} cvvicocTi, " may not fee y and may not " underjiand'' J abfolutely leads to a different fenfe from that propofed by Dr. W — -ms.

So

[ ^33 1

So that it Is moft reafonable to con- clude, with Dr. Hammond, that thefc words, Iva. fSxsTovre; " that feeing," &c. " note the obduration of the Ifraelites, ' which feJl on them from God's de- ' fertion, as a punifliment for their not ' making ufe of the talents which he ' had given them J and fo this verfe is ' anfwerable and parallel to Matthew ' xiii. 15. or the end of that place in ' Ifaiah, recited and fet down at large ' in St. Matthew ; but here (and fo

alfoinLukeviii. io.andjohnxii,4o.) epitomixed and fu?,imed up, f,r,7rolB .h^,, leji they Jliould fee," &c.

The word ^.yiTrols, therefore, cannot in either of thefe places be conftrued " ifperadventure," without deftroying the propriety of our Lord's quotation from Ifaiah, delivered at length by St. Matthew, and epitomized by St. Mark

^'^'■^tV. Gg as

i 234 r

as above ; for the word ID, in the o- riginal prophecy, is properly rendered p» in the Syriac, and lest in the Eng- lilh tranflations, and cannot poffibly bear any other fenfe agreeable to the context, becaufe the prophet plainly foretold that the Jews would wilfully Jkut their eyes (.l^TjTTOTs) ** LEST they (hould fee with ** their eyes."

Now, men do not ufuMy Jhut their cye^ in order to fee therewith y or (accord^

ing to Dr. W ms*s interpretatation

of [A^yiTTOTi) ** if peradventure' they may fee with their eyes ; but, rather, that they may notfee^ or, according to the propriety of the Englifh tranflation oi i^yjTTOTs, ** LEST they Jhould fee with ** their eyes," &c.

The clofing of the eyes, in this place, is indeed a mere figurative expreffion for the infenfibility and wicked obflinacy

of

[ 235 V of the Jews; yet the fame reafoning holds good, notwithftanding this confidera- tion, and fufficiently proves that the word f/.Yj'TfoTe muft be conftrued nega-

five/y, and not, as Dr. W ms pro-

pofes, " \i feradve fit lire i*

By this example we learn that fome parables were not only difficult to thofe reprobate unbelievers, whom St. Mark calls *^ them that are without,''' but alfo even to the true difciples themfelves; who, by mifunderftanding the parable of the fower, and by defiring an ex- planation of it, (fee loth verfe,) occa- fioned this remarkable anfwer of our Lord, the purport of which is recorded in the two texts confidered above.

Neverthelefs, there were very many

cafes, wherein the teaching by parables

and types was (not only the fafeft and

mofl prudent but alfo) the fliorteft and

G g 2 cleared

[ 236 ] •

cleareft method of conveying a true idea of the propofed dodtrine, as being very fuitable to the genius and cuftoms of the Eaftern nations in general, and of the Jews in particular 5 and alfo becaufe the types and figures themfelves would make a very deep impreffion on the memory, and by their well-known charaders clear- ly illuftrate the allegorical meaning,

I propofe now to reconfider the prin- cipal fubje(ft of my Remarks, viz. the prophecy of Ifaiah concerning the birth of ImmanueK

Dr. W ms has aflerted (page 44.)

*' that the evangelift only alludes to the " paflage in Ifaiah, becaufe it was r^- ** mar kably fuit able to the matter which ** he was relating."

This occafioned my queftion to the Dodlor, viz. «* If nQ!?:^' does not fignify

4(

€€ €i

i(

it t(

€C (( <€

[ 237 ]

a virgin, in what fenfe can the text be efteemed remarkably fuit able to the miraculous conception of a virgin by the Holy Ghoft? And in what man- ner could the acco7nmodation of it to that lingular event afliil: the facred hiftorian'* (as he fuppofes) *' by way ofilluJlrationV See Part I. page 63.

I afterwards obferve, that the Dodor ** has taken great pains to make the ** text remarkably tinfuitable, by iniinua- ** tingthatnab'J^n the YOUNG woman" (as he conftrues it) ** fpoken of in the " text was fo far from being a virgin 9 *' that (he was with child, even at the " time when (he was pointed at" (as he devifes in p. 31.) *' by the prophet."

To which the Doflor replies, *' had " St. Matthew alluded to the birth of " this child, it would have been very '* unfuitabhr

Now

S ^38 I

Now this conceffion is fufficient for my purpofe, becaufe the Do(flor's in- finuation, that the evangelift alluded only ** to the name Immanuel,** and not to the other circumftances related by the propliet, muft appear entirely ground- lefs, when we confider the words of St. Matthew.

For, though the evangelifl: interpreted the name ImmanueU yet this does not prove that he referred merely to this namey but, rather, that no other perfon but the Meffiah himfelf could properly be intitled " God with us i^ and confe- quently that he efteemed the words of Ifaiah to be really a prophecy, and fuch an one as could not htfulfiiled, except in Chrifl: alone, who was truly ** God ** with us. But farther,' — The evange- lift's manner of introducing the quota- tion very clearly fliews that this name

was

e<

f 239 ]

wa5 not the only thing he intended to allude to.

For he fays, — ^' Now all this

** WAS DONE [tuto Js oXov ysyovev) that

" it might be fulfilled which was fpoken of the Lord by the prophet, behold a VIRGIN fhallbe with child, and (hall

•' bring forth a fon;' &c.

The words ^* all this was done" muft refer to the relation, before given, concerning the miraculous conception of the virgin Mary by the Holy Ghoft, and therefore the prophecy of Ifaiah, that a virgin fhould conceive, and bear a fan, was fuitable, not in the name

only, (as Dodor W ms has infmu-

ztcd,). but in the whole quotation.

Another objedion is made, '' that ** the birth of a child from a virgin \^ a " fad offjch a nature, as not to admit

n

of

[ 240 ]

" of proof." *' It is a fad" (fays the Dodor) ** which in the very nature of *' it cannot be a Jign to any per/on but " the mother."

Neverthelefs, the Scriptures inform us that this^^;^ was clearly proved (i. e. the wonderful event that a virgin had conceived was known with abfolute cer- tainty) even before the birth of the Meffiah; and this, not merely by the teftimony of the mother^ but by other very fufRcient authorities ; which ren- dered the fign as apparent and indubita- ble as any other fign that was ever given, even the moft felf- evident.

For, after the angel Gabriel had re- vealed to the virgin Mary, that fhe (although a virgin) fhould ^^ conceive '* and bring forth a fon ;" St. Luke i. 31. the fame thing was confirmed to her by her coufin Elizabeth, in the hill country

of Judea.

*' Blefi'ed

[ 241 ]

'' Bleffed is (he that believed," (faid Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Ghoft,) ** for there (hall be a performance of " thofe things which were told her " froni the Lord." Lukei. 45.

See the whole falutation, and the tefti- mony of John the Baptift, though him- felf at that time was only a babe in the womb; which clearly proves that the abfolute knowledge of the fadt was not , confined to the virgin-'mother alone.

Afterwards an angel was fent from God -to prevent Jofeph from putting away his efpoufed wife on account of her being with child ; and the angel in- formed him, before the time> that (he ' (hould '^ bring forth a fon ;'' and, that he might the more eff^edtually convince ' him of his wife's purity and virtue, he - affijred him, faying, '* that ivhich is

Part V. H h '' con-

[ «42 ]

'* conceived in her is of the Holy Ghoji'* Matt, u 20.

Therefore, Ihough '* the birtk of a ^* child fom a virgin*' is by Dr. W-^-^-^ms efteemed ** a fa<fl of fuch a nature as *' not to admit of proof," yet nothing hitnpoffible with God, who was pleafed 16 give thefe indubitable prioofs of thd long-promifed fign even while the thild Jefus was in the womb> which tnuft entirely obviate the Dodor's objedViorti that *^ this cannot he ajfign to any perfon *' but the mother.'*

In the fulnefs of time the fign was ttianifefted iii the moft extraordinary riiantier.

An angel, accompanied with a mul- titude of the heavenly hoft, proclaimed the wonderful birth to the fhepherds %ti \ht field J and a ftar pointed cut to

4be

[ 243 ] the caftern ftrangers the place where the

young child lay.

Undoubtedly, this wonderful circum- ft^nce, that A virgin had brought FQjiTJi A 60N, would, in a little time, be as well known to the haufe of David as thefe miraculous manifeftations and confirmations of the faid fupernatural birth y efpecially as the family of Jo.-' feph, the blefled virgin's hufband, was the chief branch of that royal Jiocky lineally defcended from Zorababel, and fo froqa che iij"^ of Jeflb,

There is ftill another difficulty with

Dr. W ms. " I cannot perceive"

(fays he) *^ what event the birth of ^* Immanuel could be a fign gf, unlefs it

" could be aji^n ofitfelf^

But is it really poflible that Dr.

W ms ** cannot perceive^ that the

H h 2 miraeu*

[ 244 ] miraculous birth of the true Immanuel was a fign of fomething more than that event itfelf ?

Was it not a fign to all thofe, who then waited for ** the confolatton and ** redemption of Ifrael" (Luke ii. 25.) that the kingdom of God was nigh at hand? (Matthew xii. 28.(5) Lukex.

9, 1 1.) (6).

Was it not a fign to Jofephy and others ofthehoufeofDavid, that a child, fo born, muft be thelong-promifedMeffiah of ih^feed of Davidy to whom the kijig-- dom was to be rejlored, and in whom (according to Ifaiah's promife to his cotemporaries of the houfe of David)

it

(5) " But if I caft out devils by the Spirit of God, '* then the kingdom of God is come unto you."

(6) ** And fay unto them, the kingdom of God is ** come nigh unto you. — Notwithftanding, be yc furc «« of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh ** unto you."

[ 245 ] it was to be eftablifhed for ever ? Sec Ifaiah ix. 6, 7. 2 Sam. vii. 16.

But, I find, it is in vain that I urge

to Dr. W ms the accomphihment

of the feveral prophecies concerning the eftablifhment of the ** kingdom of Da- vid''' in Chrift \ for the Dodor ftill feems to perfift in his former notion that Na- thaniel '* laboured under a fnijiake' in calling Chrift ** king of IfraelJ*

He hopes to evade the point, by al- ledging, that *^ not only Nathaniel and the difciples, but the whole Jewifli nation, did actually labour under a great miftake about the nature of the Meffiah's kingdom.''

Thus he would lead me to a very dif- ferent queftion ; but I am aware that, though the difciples did, for fome time, ** labour under a mijiake" as the Doc- tor

[ 246 ]

tor obfervcs, concerning ** the nature of *^ the MeJJiah's kingdom^' yet there was not the leaji mijlake, in thofe who truly believed, concerning the main point in queftion, viz. whether or not the Meffiab V)as really a king.

Notwithftanding that our Lord re- jedled all the temporal authority of a worldly king, and declared that his kingdom was not of this world, he was neverthelefs really a king, ** king of ** Ifraely' (as Nathaniel called him,) and king of Judah, or (which is the fame thing) ** king of the Jews-,** for even Pilate himfelf feemed convinced of Chrift'sjuft right to the title of king, though, like a thorough-paced time-fer- ver, he preferred his own temporal in- tereft to all other coniiderations, and delivered up the King of kings (Rev. xvii. 14.) to be flain, knowing him to be A KING J for, his anfwer to

the

[ H7 ]

the chief priefts, concerning the title in- tended to be affixed to the crofs, plainly fliews that he was confcious of this.

Dr. W -ms charges me with having

*' brought a vaft number of texts to *' prove, not (my) affcrtion, that Jefus •' was ever called the king of Judab, ** but the truth of (his) aflertion," &c. concerning the miftake of Nathaniel. And he fays, " this will be evident to ** every one who confults the paflages '' cited by me."

But, if the Dodor will pleafe once more to confult the paflages himfelf, he will find that feveral among them are prophecies which were abfolutely ful- filled Jn our Lord Jefus.

Therefore, I hope, he will not ven* ture to affert that the prophets likewiii *' laboured under a miftake'* when they

proclaimed

[ 248 ]

proclaimed thefe titles of the glorious Meffiah; or that the difciples, and all other Chriftians even to this day, ftill *' labour under a mijlake'' in applying them to Chrift, in whom alone they were or could be fulfilled.

** Rejoice greatly, O daughter of *^ Zion 5 fliout, O daughter of Jerufa- ** lem : behold thy king comet h un- ** to thee :" the prophet then proceeds to defcribe this coming of the king of Zion and '^erufalem, fo as exadlly to correfpond with the evangelift's account (Lukexix. 37, 38.)of Chrift's public en- try into Jerufalem, when ** the whole *' multitude of the difciples began to re- " joice and praife God with a loud voice *' for all the mighty works that they had ** feen : faying, blejfed be the king " that Cometh in the name of the hord" &c. For he was certainly a king even when he rode upon the afs, which is

proved

[ 249 ] proved by the continuation of Zecha- riah's prophecy, (ix. 9.) whereby he points out the charadler and appearance oi the king of Z ion and J eriifalem y men- tioned in the beginning of the fame verfe ; "' he is juft," (faid the prophet,) ** and having falvation, lowly, and riding " upon an afs, and upon a colt, the *' foal of an als/'

So the prophet Micah declared, that out oi Bethlehem Ephratah (hould *' he ^* come forth that is to be ruler in '^ Iprael, whofe goings forth have been ** from of old, from evcrlafting." (Chap. V. 2.)

The event proved the truth of the pro- phe't's words, as well as of the evange- h.iVs citation, (Matt. ii. 5 and 6.) for the holy one that was born at Bethlehem, was afterwards undoubtely " ruler in " Ifraely' before the dilloUuion of that

Part V. I i people

[ 250 ]

people from an united nation : of which (befides the power of his teaching and his mighty works) his pubhc entry into Jerufalem, and the authority (hewn by him in clearing the temple, are remark- able proofs.

That Chrift was '* 2^ ruler in IfraeV^ is implied in the preceding words of the fame prophet, (Micah v. 1.) " they " {hall Jmite the judge of Ifrael with " a rod upon the cheek." A ruler and ^ judge are fynonymous terms ; and it is certain that Chrift ^ionoKxx\Q^di judgement againfl Ifrael for their impenitence and want of faith; condemning them (with refped: to their temporal eftate) to a hor-^ rid deftrudlion and defolation : (7) and all this was moft pundually fulfilled (8) upon them ; it is certain, likewife, that the fame ** judge of IfraeW" whom they

fmote

(7) St. Matthew, chap, xxiv,

(8 j See Jofephus's accouB^ of the Jewifh War.

[ 251 ]

fmote upon the cheek, will ofte day judge them, alfo, in their ettrnaljiate^ as well as all their unhappy defcendarits who perfift in the fame belief.

If thefe prophecies were really y«/- Jilledm Jefus, they moft certainly prove that the Meffiah was (as he ever will be) A KING, and confequently that his dif- ciples were not miftaken in calling him fo, howfoever they might mifunder- fland the nature of his kingdom.

Therefore the Dodor's reply upon this point cannot be well edeemed a proof of any thing more than of his ov^n great unwillingnefs to acknowledge that he himfelf (inftead of Nathaniel) labours under a inijlake.

Another remarkable excufe which the Doctor has offered in behalf of his hypo- thefis, deferves particular notice.

I i 2 In

[ 252 ]

In anfwer to my Remarks on Can- ticles vi. 8. (concerning the particular diftindion there made of virgins from queens and concubines,) the Dodor re- plies, that " Hebrew poetry is not Jo well *' under jlood as to enable (me) to deter- ** mine that na^j; in Canticles vi. 8. is ** not ufed inftead of vhwo, for the fake ** of metre''

This unexpeded turn of thought may, perhaps, be efteemed ingenious, but it is far from fatisfadory ; for, if critics were allovi^ed to fubftitute the fenfe of one word for another, whenever their argu- ments are reduced to that neceffity, it would be but a vain tafk to difpute with them; and a confufion of language, like that of the builders of Babel, muft ncceffarily fucceed their perveriion of words.

In

[ ^SZ ]

In Englifh poetry the Doftor may produce as many inftances of fuch lubfli- tutions as he pleafes, and he may refl: aflured that I fhall never think it worth my while to attempt a confutation of them.

But, when fuch refined criticifms are apph'ed to any part of Holy Scripture, I think they ought not by any means to be admitted, unlefs the authors of them fliall be able to prove that it is .more juftifiable to adapt the Scriptures to our own private opinions, than our opinions to the Scriptures.

The END 2/^ Part V.

INDEX

O F

Texts referred to in the foregoing Work;

o F T H E

Various Topics difcufledi

AND OF THE

Different Authors referred to.

C 357. J

.tt^aV&>t i

t; N n E :x:

O F

K.;

Texts referred to in tlie foregoing Work.

Qenesis,

Chap. "Verfes. Pages.

iii. 15. 55.

xxtv. 43. 17. 21 n-.

xxv^ 30. 148 n.

XXX. ; 28 to 30. III. •'■

xiix. 8. 155.

• ' . KO. 142. 149.

•»l* •^^' 174. 179.

I

I

D£UTER0N6"My.'

11. ^ X.' ■* xxii, >

Exodus.

,8*. 17. 21 n.

.-^0. 18.

■:i'6.

■ X r • ■

12. 14.

,, Leviticus. xxlv, " ^3. 134.

Numbers.

XXI.

xxiii« xxvi.

8,9- 24.

S9-

53"' '57- i8.

Ghap. Veifeg.; Rages, xviii. 15.18. 179. txiu- 21. -i^.

j '23, 24. 16.

[ -• ■ '"• '5-

xxiii. 7. • 148 n.

txviii. 6i. 62. 1^4, Judges,

I

jtiii. pi.

xvii. xviii.

Vll.

5- 17'

119. 1830,

.vt

K k

1-Samuel.

321051. 157. 5.14,15.157.

2 Samuel.

13, 14. 91.

16. 56. 245.

2 Kings.

t m J

2 Kings.

xvi. 6.

" "i6. 1 8.

25-

128.

98 n.

13O.

l^QjiRONICLJgS.

xxii. -^•^. 9^.

2 Chronicles.

xxviii. 23, 24. 30. xxix. 30 n.

xxxiv. 9. 135.

'"^^mzK-k.	^
ii» '^6^.	.140 n.
iv. ^,	159.
.3-	139 n
.f!^>» JO-	B'30» .
' Esther	..
ij. 2,3 30c;	'Jon.
;^SALM3	•
11.	211.
xvl.	21 1.
xxxvil. 19.	8S n.
xlv, 6, 7.	174.
Ix. 7.	176.
Ixviii, 25.	16.
Ixxii.	92. 2
cviii. 8.	176.
cxviii. 22.	9P-
cxxvii. 5.	88 n.
cxxviii. 3.	114.

P.	5ALMS	continueii.
cxliv.	12.	114.
	Proverbs.
xxviii.	I.	157-
XXX.	19.	II. 21 n.
	26.	1 3 n;
	30-	^S-!^
	Canticles.

.i:;i

12.

1. 3. 18. 21 n.

vi. 8, 13. 19 n,

14 .: 2 ill 2X3V

Isaiah.

IV. 2» 114.

^yi. JO. 22^2.

. 9, 10. 22 y.

\nh : •: . 7S» 76v; x

: 80. 213.

f'n, .. 5,, 6. ,55.

.-4^ 7- 58. .-4.1.^4^. .-33- 127.

. 128. 131.

; '53-»58.

13. , 57. • i^ toi6. 7.22.201-

• •^ V"i4- ^'"- 35-

i ■" . "^c- ' 141016.47. 81.

16. 21 to 47.

ro5 n. t37n. viii. 127.128.

131. 4. 52.

••; 3^ 4. 52. 4.6,7,8. 76. 77. 8. 31.

Isaiah

[ 259 j

I.s A I A H continued,

viii. \x. 31.

1310 16. 77. 80.

- - 87- »^- 75- 77.

80. 89. 213.

• • :. 1 '» 2. 79.

: , 6. 80.91.

7- 59-

6, 7. 244..;.. 6.7.9. .'•

io,M-2i-77n,

xi. I. 116.

4. 107 n. xxvili. 10. 13. 81.

16. 87. 99.

xxxiii., 22. i 75-

xl. 27. 138 n.

xli. 8. 14. i33n.

xlii. 6, 7. 108 n.

xliii. 138 n.

8, 9. 197.

"xlix. I to 4. loO to III.

3. 106.

. , ,^.4 to 7. 1C7 to III.

liii. 84.

2. 114.

' ' »3, 4. 190 n.

Jeremiah.

xxiii. 5. 114..

5, 6. 85n. XXX, 9. 8 5 n. xx\i. 22. 5^.

31. i4on,

xxxiii. 15. ii8.

10. tS^ n.

1.

J E R EM J A H ^tinned*

1.4. 8,7

^ }• 140 n.

9. 'o. i ^

Lamentations. iv. 7. 119.

EzEKltL.

iii. . 4. II. 139. "[ .4. 139"-*

^T^Vi 23, 24. 42.

KXklftu 19, 2 2. * 141.

, 24. 42. • ',

Xliv. 22. 15. 19-^^

Daniel.

ix. 26, 27. 178 n.

179. xii. .II. ^77^'

Ho SEA.

xi. 1. 100. iic.

214. 215. 2. 104.

5- 33-

Amos.

iii. 8. 157.

viii. 2, 3. 133. .

10. 132. lj>;.

ix. 4. 131.

MiCAH.

V. 1. 250. / "^

2. 45.1130.

I7in.249. 8. 157.

^2 Hag G AX.

I[ ^€o 5

J T\* V.	HkGGAI. - ;	Matthew centime^.
'^h .	92.	ii. '	5, 6.	249.
	5- 93-		15.	100.
	6, 7. 94.		15.23.	100.
	'7* 83.93.		20.	39-
	9- 93- ..,		22, 2^,	116 n.
			23-	1 12.
	Zeghariah.	iii.	5-	181.
111. ., vi.	, 6 to 10. 94. ; 11 1015. 95. 96 ni	xi* xii,- xiii.	12, 13. 14. 28. II.	185. ■ 180. 244. 226.
••• •	; 1 '?•■: ,r; 9511-115.		11,12, '	f
Vlll. ix.	■ 140. 5- ...32... , ■		13. J '3» 15-	► 230. 22.9 n.
X. xi. xii.	9- 44' >!• 33- 'S^-. I. 17811. I. 139.	XV. xvi.	14, 15. 24. 28.	219. 233- 43. 120.
	Malachi.	xvii.	1 0 to I 3 8.	. 18011.
	.
		XIX,	15-
1.	I. 139.	xxi.	8.	43'
iliv	I. 1 80.	xxxiil.	2,	.176.
iv.	5- ^77' '	xxiv.	15, 21.	121. i6g. 177.
	TOBIT.		24.	194.
1.	17,18.21. 132.	xxvii.	42.	46 n.
ii.	2, 3. 6. 132.		Mark	*
	Matthew.	i.	24.	114 n.
		iv.	iotoi3.	82 n.
0	181023, 60. 20. 242,		11,12,7 13- j	82.
	20,21. 10711.		33.	224.226.
	22- 207.			228.
c	22,23. °0'		34.	226.
n.	I, 2. 41.	X.	47-	11311.
	2. 171.173-	xi.	I5>i6.	45-
	4 to 6. 171 n.	xiii.		122. r68.
	5. Ii3n.i8i.		19.	178 n. Mark

[ 26. •]

Mark ccfttinued*

XIV.

1.

11.

111. iv.

viii.

X.

xvi.

jiviii. xix.

xy. xxi.

XXlll.

xxiv.

67. 6.

Luxe.

1140. 1 14 n.

].

3'-

32. 34-

65.

45- 10, II.

25-

32.

40, 52. 10. 16.

34- 10.

9, II. 16.

37-

37' 58- 381048.

I-]. 18. 8.

2Ot024.

6,7. 19.

44.

John. 1.

154. 182

183.

180.

107 n. 240. 41.

54- 183.

183. 241. 47 n.

108 n. 244. 108 n. 117. i8j. 117.

1 14 n.

233- 244.

185.

1 13 n.

248.

^4.

99.

122. 168.

194.

'78. 162.

113 n.

209.

46 n.

ii.

111.

IV. V.

John continue J.

10, 1 1. 83. 45,46. Son. 49. 48.

15. 45.

1 8 C022. 99.

54- 18^.

186 n,

85 n.

187.

VI.

vu.

ix. xi.

xii.

xvi.

xviii.

xix.

xxi.

IV. X.

xii.

xxiv.

xxviii,

K.

30-

1,2,3 22, 23

3'-

31 1039. 188. 18$,

45. 46. j ,89.

1,2.14,1 '5- 3

191. 192,

42. 52.

50. 471051

13-

40.

12.

5- 36.

14,1s.

19.

22.

42.

ii3n. 80 n. 184. 184 n, 43. 48.

233- 227.

113 n,

42. 169. 113 n.

I 20.

Acts.

1 1. 12.

36.

23-

5'

27.

,26,7

5

99.

98 n. 47 n. 166. 116 n.

220.

Roman's-

[ 262 ]

	Romans.		I TiMOTHT.
ix.	32,33. 8711.	ii.	5. 98 n.
	33. 87-	iv.	I. 97 n.
	I Corinthians.		2 Timothy.
i.	23. * S8.	ii.	25. 224.
Si.	7, 8. 47 n.
iii.	11. 99.		Hebrews.
vi.	2 Corinthians, 16. 97 n.	i.	2. 41. 5. 92. I Peter.
	EPHESIAKS.	ii.	8. 83.
ii.	i:r"]99-		Revelation.
• • 21.	Philippians. 10. 156.	V. xvii.	5. 156. 3. 99 n. 14. 96 n.
	11. 47 n.	xviii.	4. 97 n.
	2 Thsssalonians.
ii.	XI. 194.

INDEX

[ 263 ]

INDEX

OF THE

Various Topics difcuffed in this Work.

A.

J^LEXANDRUN MS. Stt Septuagifn,

B.

Barchochebuy or Barchozba, an impoftor, ig6. Benjcn^ (Dr. Geo.) remarks on his Preface to vol. f, - of his Paraphrafe, &c. 202 & feq. Bill rf Divorce, the feducer of a virgin not privileoed to give one by the Jewifh law, 15. See SeJucn;

C.

Chriji. Proved to have been king of Judah and Ifrael, 41.246. a flone of Rumbling to the Jews, 83 & feq. his divinity to be clearly proved from the Old Tefta- inent, 85 n. Jehovah Sabaoth, a title of his, 86; why called a Nazarene, and the propriety of that appellation, 113 & feq. two prophecies of his

explained, 120; not a Nazarite as Dr. W ms

fuppofes him to be, 183 n. See JS'azarite. Faith in him aimoll univcrfa.iy fubmitted to at different times, 193 ; diltinftion made by him relating to the Jewj?i 226.

Ckurch of Rome, Improperly called the Catholic Church, 95 n.

Complutenjian

[264 ]

Complui enjtan MS. See Septuagint.

Critical Ke"jienvers, See W ms and Trinitarian

^. Coniro'verjy re'vie^wedm

D. Danjict. The promife, that his throne ifhould be e{^

tabUfhed for ev«r-, fulfilled in ChriiH 5-6 &feq.^ DcubltMeanings. v See ScriptuHs and Pnopkecies, i

.E.

Edomltes Of IJumofans. Accounted Jews from the con- queft of them by John Hyrcanus, 147.

Eihnarch, That afiicea: infejior in dignity;, to ^ kiJig/ 160.

Galilee. Pointed out by Ifaiah as the, place where Jmmanuel was chiefly to be manifefted,7g.

Gentiles. Were not induced to acknowledge the truth of the Scriptures, by becoming converts to Judaifm, buttoChjift, 110. ■

H. " • ,,'

Herod the Great. Had a right to be efteemed a Jew, i\6i\ endeavoured to be proved really fo by Mr. Mann, 146 n. never omitted an opportunity of claiming that title, 151 ; which jofephus does not deny, 152. Herod Agrippa. Ssq Shih/^^. Slev/ St, James, and per- fecuted the Chrilliarss, 166 j his dreadful end, 166; Juda::a was never a kingdom after, his death, 167. Hyrcanus (John.) Sec Edmites. ' '■' '•{ _" "^ "'"

Herod Antipas, tetrach of Galilee. The perfon who beheaded John the Baptift, 161 5 Judaea not a king- dom in his time, i6j.

I.

Jerufakm, Dcftru6llon of that city a type of the laft day, and a pledge of the certainty of it, 122.

jfe^vs. Remain a dillant and peculiar people in the midll of all nations, 58; did not confider that the

humility

[ 265 ]

humility cf the Mefliah was foretold by the prophets, 83; which they could not reconcile with their ideas of their expeded king, 8^ ; this name became com- mon to all the tribes about the reign of Joftah, 136 ; and likcwife Ifrael, 127 ; loft the diiliniiion of their . tribes after the Babyloni/h captivity, 141; petition Csfar to change their government, 159. 169; folly of their ftill expeding the Mefliah, 171 n. their ex- treme credulity in the time of Jofephus, 195 ; and fince, 196; reprobate Jews not worthy to know the myfteries of the kingdom of Heaven, ajo.

7o/!hua, See Solomon*

yohn (St. the Rapti.l). The prophet promTied by Mala- chi by the name of Elijah, 180; a lawgiver, 181 ; and. a Jew, 182. See Laujgi-ver ^nd. Prophet.

Immnnuil, Dr. ^— ms's afTertion, that Ifaiah's pro- phecy concerning him had' no reference to the Mef- fiah, examined and confuted, 22 & feq. that pro- phecy conrtrued to relate to the Mefliah 279 years before the birth of Chrift, 67 ; which is conHrmed by all the ancient MSS. of the Septuagint, 6S. Sec Galilee, That prophecy confidered", 236. ■■•'''

Jfa:ah. The birth of his fon, Mahei'-flTalaKhafli-baz, 2 proof that his father's prophecy concerning Im-

- rnanuel related to our Saviour, 51 ;,and a pledo^e of that prophecy^s being fulfiiied', 54 i that prophecy (though fo ftrbn^ and clear,) delivered above 700 years before the birth of Chrift, 84 n.

'^uda'a* Stt Herod AniiJ> lis iii^ Herod Agrippa,

^e;ltni(otr s (J^x .^ expedient of fuppofing a corru|)tIon in the Kebrcw text, unneccflary, 13.

L.

Lnivgiters, The Sanhedrim, or Scribes and Pha- riices, not to be accounted fuch, 175 ; bt. John the . Ba^uil tb^UU among, the Jews, 18-3;

L ! M,

1 266 I

Tlfafjf (St;) defended, 224&feq,

Mciithe<w (St ) tlis application of tlie prophecy con- cerning Immanuel defended; 60; chap. ii. 15. re- conciled' with Hofcaxi. i. 100 & feq. his applica- tion ot a prophecy, ii. 23. defended, nz.

Mejfmh. Called Ifrael by Ifaiah, 106.

wv; N.

Kathaniel. Defended, 39 & feq.

Nazarene. Chrifl fo called from th6 city of Najsareth,

1 1|^, 1 ^g^ . . . : . .,:

K^izariie. John the Bap'tlft flriflly fo, according to

the Jewifh law, 113, 119; Chriit 'Improperly Csiled fo by Dr. W— ms^ 183 ri^ "

p

Parahles, Some difficult to the difciples themfelves, 235 ; teaching by them defended, 235.

Topijh prayer-book. Served as a paflport at the maiTacre of Paris, 99 n.

Prophecies, Frequently attended with difficulties, 50; thofe in the 7th, 8th, and 9th, chapters of Ifaiah, feem to have been delivered during the invaiion of Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Ifrael, 75 & feq. quick and abrupt tranfitions not unufual in them, 81 ; often blended with different fubjedls, 90; and often bear a double conftruflion, 90; perfed tenfe as frequently ufed in them as the future, 105 n. the queftion. Whether allegorical expre{]5ons or dou- ble ienfes are to be allowed in them? difcufled, 202 & feq.

Prophit. None fent from God fince John the Bapiift, 184; the meaning of the v.'ord explained, 208.

R.

Reafons for writing thefe Remarks, i. See W^ ms.

^ S.

[ ^^7 ]

Sahhatci Sfvl. An impoftor, 196.

Scripture.'. We ought to afk God^s afliilance that we mav underltand them comfortably, 82 j double fenfes in them proved, 201.

Seducer of a virgin obliged to marry her, by the Jewiflx law, ?.nd rot allowed to give her a bill of divorce, 15; if of an efpoufed one, to fuffer death, 16.

Septuagint. See Immanue/. All the tranflations of it, where the Hebrew word, tranflated njirgin in our Bibles, is rendered a youtig ixjomany were made after the birrh of Chrlft, 69.

5 (Mr.) an alTertion cf his defended, 224.

Shiloh. The prophecy, that the fceptre fhould not de- part, &c. fulfilled, 14.1, 154; Herod Agrippa being appointed king by Claadius, no objedion to that prophecy, 163 i the other part of that prophecy ex- plained, 174.

Sohrnon, ZerubbabeJ, and JofmiOy types of the Mefiiah, 96. :i"rj^:::i:

Sykes (the late Dr.) cenfured, 214 ; an obje£lion of his anfwered, 219,

T, Trinitarian Ccntro'verf; re-vieived. The Critical Re- viewers miftaken in their lecommendatory criticifm of that work, 86 n.

V.

Vatican MS. See Septuagint,

Ve?ietian MS. See Septuagint.

Virgin bearing a Ton, a fign worthy the birth of Chrift, 10; the Hebrew word lb tranflated occurs only feven t.mes, 11, 19 ; the text where the meaning is moll doubtful, 1 1 ; the ccmmon EnoliHi tranflation of that text defended, 12; alfo of Gen. xxiv. 43. and Exod. ii, 8. 17. and Pfalm Ixviii. 25. iB. Cant. i. 3. 18. the Rabbins always underftand it to mean a virgin, 70.

LI 2 W.

I 268 ]

w.

ly tfis (Dr.) his Critical Difiertation on ir^ialf,

wherein he afferts the Hebrew word tranflated 'virgin feems to mean zyoungnvoman, either a virgin or not, the occafion of thefe remarks, 7 ; approved bv the Critical Reviewers, 8 ; the authors of which have copied almofl all his Difiertation, 3 ; has fet forth his hypothefis to the beft advantage, but not proved his aflertion, 9. See Virgin, Told the author of a- nother writer who agreed with his opinion, but did not know it when he publiihed his Diflertation, ic n. Sec ImmanueU No difficulties in the prophecies fo great as thofe occafioncd by the Dodor's tranfia- tion, 50 ; forgets a former aflertion of his, 63 ; his ovyn miftake caufes the difficulty he fpeaks of, 89 ; miftaking in fuppofing the prophecy of Ifaiah vii 8. was of an event near at hand, 127 & feq. his afjer- tion, that if a prophecy has two fenfes it may have two hundred, confuted, 217 ; an ingenious, bux unfatisfadory criticifm of his, 252.

Y.

Toung Woman* See Virgin*

Z.

Zeruhhaleh See Solomon*

INDEX

I 269 ]

INDEX

O F T H E

Different Authors referred to.

■r

A.

Assembly's annotations, 156. 229.

Aflembly's Confeflion of Faith examined, ion. Aquila, 28. 69.

B.

Barchocheba, 196.

Barchozba, 196.

Benfon, (Dr. George,) 202 & feq. zio&feq. 216.

Bohun, 172 n.

Brabantinus, (Nicholas,) 130.

Bragge, (Mr.) 45,

Bythner, 65.

C.

Cove, (Dr.) 121.

Collins, (Mr.) 122.

Concordance to the Greek Teftament, 9n.

Cranmer, (archbifhop,) 99 n.

Critical DiiTertation on Ifaiah vii. 13, &c. 8. 21.

209 n. Critical Reviewers, 8. 21. 40, 85 n. 86 n. 112. 118.

123. Cruden, (Mr.) 5411.

1>.

{ 270 ]

'Dio Caffius, 14711. X>oddridge, (Dr.) dz^

E. Erafmus, 101. Eufebius, 67.

H.

Hammond, (Dr.) 114. 22911. 233. Hooper, (bifliop,) 99 n. Huetius, (P. D.) 76.

I.

Jerome, (St.) 45.

Jofephus, 147. [48. 150. 152. T59, 160, 161. 16311.

164, 165. 167, 168. 170. 181, 182. i88. 195.

250 n. Julian the apoftate, loi. Junius, (Fr.) 130. J uitin Martyr, 56.

K. Kennicott, (Dr.) 12, 28. 29.

L.

Latimer, (biihop,) 9911.

M. Mann, (Mr.) 23. 146 n. 192. Martin, (monfieur,) 157. 174, 175. 229 n.

N. Kcwton, (bifhop,) 58 n. 128 n. 155 n. r«iicholas ot'Damaicus, 152.

O.

Origen, 51. 6']*

P.

[ 271 ]

p.

Pbilo, i^.

Polvgloti, (London,) 64.

R.

Ridley, (birtiop,) gg n.

Ru£nus, 150.

S.

Septuagint, 28. 6S. 70 n. Sj. 95. loi, 102. 105.

Vatican, Alexandrian, Complutenfian, Ve- netian, MSS. 68.

S , (Mr.) 224.

Sharpe, (Dr. Gregory,) 270. 59 n. 6511, 81 n. 840. 172 n. 207 n.

Simfon, (Dr.) 130.

^'oiomon's Song, new tranflation, 21 n,

Storkius, 21 n.

Sully, 99 n.

Sykes, {Dr.) 203. 219& feq^

Symmachus, 28. 69.

Syriac verfion, 1 1. 28. 6g,

T.

Theodotlon, 28. 69.

Trinitarian Controverfy reviewed, 86 n,

U.

Univerfal Hiflory, 34, 35. 182 n. Uflerius, i].) ii6n. Vulgate Latin, u.

W.

Walton, (bifhop,) 69.

W ms, (Dr.) 8, 9, 10. 19 20. 22, 23. 25. ^^, 34.

39.42. 48. 50. 52. 60. 61. 65. 67n.68. -71.81.88.

100. 112. 118. J22. 127. 183. 201. 202. 207.

210. 214. 215 & feq. 224. 226. 228. 231, 232.

234 &ftq. 242, 243. 245. 247.

THE END.

»u^

.88

S A.