likely to infect the latter with their detestable worship of idols. Whereas Hezekiah, the father of the age, the common father of both, taking as much care of the strayed sheep that were not under his charge, as of those sheltered in his own sheepfold, wrote letters, despatched couriers, and sent qualified persons to all the towns and cities of Israel, exhorting the Israelites to return to the worship of the true God, and to leave the accursed calves; and, with his wonderful counsel, managed this great work so admirably as to bring back the alienated Jews to the true worship, as appears from chap. xxx. 1, of the 2nd Book of Chronicles: "Heze"kiah also sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote "letters to Ephraim and Manasseh, inviting them to 66 come to Jerusalem to the House of the Lord to cele"brate the Passover of the Lord God of Israel;" and, by the same wonderful counsel, he transferred the Passover to the second month; thus it is said, "And the king "took counsel with his princes and with all the con

gregation in Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover in "the second month." This enabled them all to celebrate it together; and that many of the Israelites actually did come, appears from the same Book, chap. xxx. 11: "Moreover men of the tribes of Asher, "Manasseh, and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem;" and in verse 18 it says,

66

"For

many of the people of Ephraim and Manasseh, Issa"char and Zebulun had not purified themselves, yet

ate of the Passover contrary to what was com"manded; but Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, "Oh! God, who art benevolent, be merciful to all "those who have prepared their hearts to seek thee!""

It will thus be seen how just a claim he had to the title of father of the age, and wonderful counsellor, in having taken so much care to restore them to favour with God. That he was the Prince or Arbiter of Peace, there can be no doubt. For what person in that age would venture to oppose Almighty God, who by so many prodigies had proclaimed himself the protector of Hezekiah; since he sent an angel to be commander of his armies, a prophet to heal his diseases, and ordered the sun to retrograde in its diurnal course, in order to confirm his prophecies by this marvellous event, which caused Baladan, king of Babylon to send ambassadors to inquire into this miracle and to seek his alliance?

From the above mentioned chapters, translated literally, and applied to the actual persons of whom they treat, we find that the sign the prophet gave to Ahaz was, that the young woman had conceived, and that she would give birth to a son who should be called Immanuel. The prophet had taken two faithful witnesses to record, namely, Uriah and Zechariah; and succeeding events were found to be in perfect accordance with the prophecy. The prophet went to the young woman, who was his wife; she conceived, and gave birth to a son: him they named Immanuel, and before he had arrived at years of discretion the designs of the two allied monarchs were rendered abortive.

Such then is the literal exposition of this prophecy; and to attempt to dispute it would be only arguing in opposition to facts. Indeed such an attempt, in the eyes of those who have studied the Scriptures free from all bias, must appear a virtual acknow

ledgment of defeat, and a mere display of weakness. Morever this miracle or sign was given to Ahaz and the house of David, in order to certify to them that the kings of Samaria and Aram would not follow up their intentions, and that their designs would be frustrated. How then could a sign be given to them to indicate what was to happen in the course of about seven hundred years, in order to show what was to occur within two or three years? and how could the prophet say (from an event which was to occur about seven hundred years subsequently), "It shall come to

pass, that before the child shall know to distinguish "between bad and good, the land you hate shall be "bereft of its two kings." Are not these two kings Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah, king of Israel? And is it not clearly meant that they should both be defeated and conquered in battle, and should lose their kingdoms? How then, to assure them of what was to occur in their lifetime, could he give them a sign from what was to happen seven hundred years later, and this to an incredulous and idolatrous king like Ahaz; would it not have exposed the prophet to the derision of the king and his court? Most assuredly it would: and the learned among the Christians, who study this prophecy impartially, are not ignorant of this, and consequently agree that such is the true, literal, and genuine sense, as confessed by Eusebius Basilius, Geronimus Cirilius, and Theodoretus, among the ancients: and there are but few among the well-informed moderns who do not acquiesce therein, and admit that even the allegorical sense is not solely applicable to Christ, but might equally be adapted to any other

person, without perverting or straining the text; whence we see that those erudite and wise men knew that the allegorical sense is not compulsory, and therefore is insufficient to constrain the Jews to admit it. All are agreed that the prophecy explained literally is clear and obvious, and not in the least degree perplexed or obscure; and that it was fulfilled a few years afterwards, as the prophet predicted, to the very letter.

But this is not the case when we attempt to apply it in an allegorical sense to Christ; for it then becomes obscure, confused, and inappropriate, and compels us to resort to the corrupt text of the Vulgate to render it applicable, and even that will not be found sufficient.

I flatter myself that I have placed this prophecy in such a light as to show my co-religionists (as is the purport and scope of my refutation) how little reason the learned preacher has to exult over this passage: and he could only do so among those whose ignorance rendered them unable to discern the truth, or whose dread of punishment prevented their proclaiming it.

The preacher, in confirmation of his hypothesis, refers to chapters xxiii. and xxxiii. of Jeremiah, gives the verses 5 and 6 of chapter xxiii. and attempts to explain them after his own views, as alluding to the Messiah; stating that the prophet says, "That a just king will "come," etc., and "that King will be called Deus justus "noster." However, he takes no further notice of chapter xxxiii.; and, deeming his bare assertion sufficient, unhesitatingly affirms that, from the verses of these two chapters, it is evident that the Messiah must be God and

Man. I am not surprised at his omitting verses 15 and 16 of chapter xxiii.; for he has done a similar thing in the 6th paragraph, wherein he quotes from chapter xlii. of Isaiah, in which God threatens his people with chastisement and calamities, and omits the forty-third, that immediately follows, wherein He encourages and consoles them with affection and tenderness. Let us examine then these two verses, by which means we may penetrate into the true cause of this omission: "In "Diebus illis salvabitur Juda et Jerusalem, habitabit "confidenter, et hoc est nomen vocabunt eum, Dominus "Justus noster." I know not to what we are to refer this eum masculine, when the Hebrew says pronoun feminine, which can only refer to the city of Jerusalem; this being indubitably the case, the verse must mean Jerusalem shall be called "God is our

66

la), a) לה

right or justice:" this same word is applied to the Messiah in chapter xxiii. Now as the preacher says that, since he is so called, he must be both God and Man, it would follow that Jerusalem, bearing a similar name, is at the same time God and City. The like I say of the altar erected by the patriarch Jacob in Shechem (Genesis, chap. xxxiii. ver. 20). The like of that erected by Moses for the victory obtained over Amalek, which he called "God is my standard." The same with the altar of Gideon, which he called "God of peace;" and, finally, the same with Jerusalem, when the prophet Ezekiel, in the last verse of his book, says, that Jerusalem will be called "God is there." Now to conclude my observations on this point, the reverend preacher should be told, that the hymn he names, which is chaunted in the Synagogue on every Sabbath and