Skip to main content

Full text of "Remarks on several very important prophecies .."

See other formats 


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.