myself read the New Testament with care, and found it to consist principally of confirmation and illustration of Natural Religion, which, I am persuaded, men in general, being properly educated, are capable of understanding and justly appreciating; I deem it a libel on human nature to assert that mankind are incapable of judging for themselves, and that they must and ought to depend, for their religious ideas, on any dictatorial governor, whether ecclesiastical or civil. Mr. Cogan, adverting to my profession of attachment both to Natural Religion and to Christianity, the latter of which, I have said, "I verily believe to be true, the former, I certainly know to be so," imagines that he has discovered some difference of opinion on this subject, between me and the author of a book, entitled Apeleutherus; who, in speaking of a particular article of religious belief, says that certainty is entirely out of the question. And, as it is well known to Mr. Cogan, and to my friends in general, that the author of that book and myself, are, in reality, one and the same person, I must, of course, be sorry and ashained, if there should be found to be any material difference between us. But I hope that a few words of explanation will shew, that the supposed difference is rather in appearance than in reality; and will satisfy both Mr. Cogan and another of your correspondents, whose signature is B, that they have both misunderstood my meaning. When I spoke of Natural Religion as certainly true, I should have thought it quite obvious that I was considering its general or abstract character, and not inquiring into the particulars of which it might be supposed to consist. And, undoubtedly, as a general position it may be safely affirmed, that whatever can be proved to be a principle of Natural Religion must be true; because the witnesses of this religionthe heavens which declare the glory of God-the firmament which sheweth his handy work-day unto day which uttereth speech-night unto night which sheweth knowledge-cannot for a moment be imagined to bear false testimony. But, with regard to the supposed particulars of this religion, the case is different. In considering

them, the question arises, What is the testimony that these witnesses give, and to what extent does it go? And, in some cases, the answer to this question may not be so clear and satisfactory as we could wish; probability may be the utmost that we can obtain certainty, in such cases, may be entirely out of the question. With regard to Supernatural Religion, I have no hesitation in affirming, that it is always, in some degree, dependent upon things which are in their own nature fallacious; and, therefore, whether it be considered in the abstract, or in the detail of any particular revelation, certainty must be always entirely out of the question. It may still, however, possess a high degree of probability, and be entitled to be " verily believed." If, therefore, Mr. Locke, in the passages quoted by Mr. Cogan, has really given Natural Religion an advantage over the Bible," it was no great "fault ;" and Mr. Cogan need not be very anxious to clear himself from the suspicion of being the accomplice of that illustrious man.

66

Notwithstanding my declaration of attachment both to natural and supernatural revelation, with, however, an undisguised preference of the authority of the former, I cannot admit the congratulatory statement of Mr. Cogan, that I have "the good fortune to possess two religions." On the contrary, I am decidedly of opinion that there never was or can be more than one true and acceptable religion; which, as it has been well observed by my late learned and amiable friend, the Rev. Charles Bulkley, "being originally founded in the perfections of God, and the nature of man, must of necessity, in every period of time and under every particular dispensation of it, be fundamentally and essentially the same."

I now take leave of this controversy regretting that it has been my painful duty to appear in opposition to the opinions of a gentleman whose personal character I so highly esteem; and, thanking you, Sir, for permitting me to occupy so much space in the pages of your valuable Miscellany.

WILLIAM STURCH.

6, 7. No. III.

N my former remarks, (pp. 21-24 and pp. 94-97,) upon the celebrated prophecy contained in Isaiah ix. 6, 7, I endeavoured, first, to resolve the chronological difficulty which had prevented its application to King Hezekiah. I then suggested what appeared to me the most probable translation of the passage, and intimated an intention to point out, on some future occasion, the circumstances which appeared to confine the application of it exclusively to Hezekiah. In fulfilling this intention, I am aware that I shall have no very easy task to accomplish; but I am encouraged to proceed by the hope of throwing some light upon a subject which, in my opinion, has hitherto been involved in great obscurity.

The following is Lowth's introductory outline of the subject of this prophecy.

"The confederacy of Retsin, King of Syria, and Pekah, King of Israel, against the kingdom of Judah, was formed in the time of Jotham; and, perhaps, the effects of it were felt in the latter part of his reign: see 2 Kings xv. 37, and note on chap. i. 79. However, in the very beginning of the reign of Ahaz, they jointly invaded Judah with a powerful army, and threatened to destroy, or to dethrone, the House of David. The king and royal family being in the utmost consternation on receiving advices of their designs, Isaiah is sent to them to support and comfort them in their present distress, by assuring them, that God would make good his promises to David and his House. This makes the subject of this, and the following, and the beginning of the ninth chapters; in which there are many and great difficulties."

Taking this to be, on the whole, a fair representation of the circumstances under which the prophecy was delivered, I proceed to examine that part of it which it is my present intention to illustrate; and, in doing this, I must entreat the reader to go back with me to the beginning of the chap

ter.

"The people that walked in darkness, have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadowe

shined:" ver. 2. The darkness here mentioned is supposed by Grotius to represent the dangers with which Jerusalem was threatened by its enemies, and the light, the unexpected deliverance which took place on the destruction of Sennacherib's ariny. "Populus Hierosolymitanus in gravissimis constitutus periculis, quæ tenebrarum nomine appellant Hebræi. Experietur egregiam liberationem, cæso Divinitus Sennacheribi tam valido exercitu.”

"Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee, according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil" ver. 3. Lowth substitutes 15 for the negative particle 5, on the authority of eleven manuscripts and the Keri, and Dodson adopts this amended reading: "Thou hast multiplied the nation: thou hast increased their joy:" the joy occasioned by the miraculous overthrow of Sennacherib's army.

“For thou hast broken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, as in the day of Midian:" ver. 4. Whatever may be thought of the phrases, "walked in darkness," and "have seen a great light," and of the application of that part of the prophecy in an accommodated sense, (Mal. iv. 15, 16,) to the blessings diffused by the gospel, there can be no doubt, I think, as to the meaning of such expressions as the yoke of his burden," "the staff of his shoulder," and "the rod of his oppressor." It was obviously the intention of the prophet to point out the dangers which threatened the Jewish nation at that particular period, and the manner in which it was to be delivered from those dangers.

66

"For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood: but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire:" ver. 5. These words are thus paraphrased by Grotius: "Alia clades hostium solent parari multo labore multoque sanguine; hæc verò similis erit incendio subitò consumenti. Planè enim subitò, sine tumultu, sine vulnere, sine Hebræorum labore aut periculo, ab angelo extincti sunt Assyrii. Nulla flamma tam celeriter eos occidere potuisset." Other defeats are usually

attended with the sacrifice of much labour and blood; but this shall be like a fire which suddenly consumes. For suddenly, without tumult, without loss, without either labour or danger on the part of the Hebrews, the Assyrians shall be consumed by an angel. No flame could so quickly destroy them.

The prophet now goes on to point out the illustrious monarch, in whose reign this miraculous deliverance is to take place.

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder" ver. 6. The birth of a male child is here foretold, and that child heir to the throne of David. His royal descent is sufficiently indicated by the assurance that "the government shall be upon his shoulder."

"And his name shall be called" He shall be ? This mode of expression is sometimes used by Latin and Greek, as well as Hebrew writers, merely to denote the character or quality of a person or thing. See the Note to Monk's Hippolytus, ver. 2, with the reference to Porson. See also Heyne's Note to Virgil, Georg. II. 238; and for examples in the Old Testament, see Gen. v. 2; Deut. xxv. 10; Isa. lxi. 3; Jer. xi. 16, &c. In the present case it may denote that the epithets which follow are to be applied as titles of distinction to the person who forms the subject of the prophecy.

66

Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, In "The Monthly Repository" for February I endeavoured to shew that these words are improperly translated in our common Bibles, and that they ought to have been rendered "Wonderful in Counsel, a Mighty God;" taking the word in the inferior sense in which it must always be taken, when applied to any being except the great Supreme. To justify this interpretation of the word 8, I must here request the reader to turn to Ezek. xxxii. 21, where he will find it used in the plural number, in a state of "The strong among the mighty," literally, "the Gods of the mighty," (ia, Heb. yyavτES, Vat. potentissimi robustorum, Vulg.,) "shall speak to him out of the midst of hell." The persons of whom these words are de

גבורים regimen with

scriptive are the deceased monarchs of the earth, whom the prophet represents as in the act of addressing Pharaoh on his descent into the regions of the grave. The whole of the passage bears a very strong resemblance to the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah, in which the destruction of Babylon is foretold, and a fine picture is drawn of the reception of its monarch by his brother rulers in the unseen world. "Hell from beneath is moved to meet thee at thy coming; it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth: it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations." Isa. xiv. 9.— On comparing these two passages, it will be found that the persons who are styled, by the prophet Ezekiel, "Gods of the MIGHTY," are no other than an assemblage of deceased monarchs. Surely, then, it need not excite our surprise that another Jewish prophet should apply to King Hezekiah, who was, next to David, the most illustrious and favourite monarch of the Jews, an epithet which is thus indiscriminately extended to the deceased rulers of Heathen nations. "I am fully satisfied," says Dr. Carpenter, "that these magnificent titles would produce no such impressions, as are now received from them, in the minds of those who early understood the original, and were familiar, from childhood, with the language of eastern magnificence. We have it from authentic records, that among the kings of Syria, about two centuries before Christ, the appellation God was commonly employed as a kind of surname of their kings. Among other instances, we find that in the year 172 before Christ, the Samaritans sent an embassy to Antiochus, with this inscription, To King Antiochus, Illustrious God.'-In like manner we meet with these titles of Chosroes, a Persian monarch, about six centuries after Christ: Chosroes, King of Kings, Ruler of the powerful, Lord of the nations, Sovereign of peace, Saviour of men; among the Gods a good and eternal man, among men a most illustrious God; Glorious; Conqueror,' &c. Could persons, accustomed to such appellations and epithets of princes, have considered even the appellation of Mighty God, (when applied to one who was to be born, whose go

vernment the Lord of hosts would establish,) as denoting more, than that the dignified personage would be a Mighty Potentate, an Illustrious Sovereign?" (Isaiah's Prophetic Titles of the Messiah, a Discourse by Lant Carpenter, LL.D., pp. 26, 27.) To this question only one answer can be given; and, on the supposition that this appellation was intended to be descriptive of Jesus Christ, the argument of Dr. Carpenter appears to me conclusive and unanswerable. But, as far as I can perceive, we are not justified in applying the titles contained in this prophecy to any other person than King Hezekiah; and in the application of them to him there is a peculiar propriety, to which the historical writers of the Old Testament appear to me to have been minutely attentive. When the King of Assyria sends Tartan, and Rabsaris, and Rab. shakeh, with a numerous army against Jerusalem, the last of these persons, in an interview with three of Hezekiah's "most intimate friends," breaks out into the following strain of invec tive: "Speak ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great King, the King of Assyria, What confidence is this wherein thou trustest? Thou sayest, (but they are but vain words,) I have COUNSEL and MIGHT for the war: now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me?" 2 Kings xviii. 19, 20. (See likewise xx. 20; 2 Chron. xxxii. 3-8, 23.) Here there appears to me a marked allusion to the leading titles contained in Isaiah's prophecy. The words 12, Counsel and Might, plainly refer, in my opinion, to the epithets Yy [or,

"Everlasting Father, -." Father of the age-What language could have conveyed a more appropriate description of a monarch like Hezekiah than this? To say of a king that he is "the father of his age," is to speak of him in terms of the greatest endearment, as well as the highest encomium; and, if Hezekiah is not literally so called by any of those historians who have so briefly recorded the events of his reign, every qualification necessary to secure to a monarch this enviable title is ascribed to him. He repaired the temple of God, restored the religion of his forefathers in all its original purity and splendour, broke in pieces the idols which had been erected to Heathen gods during the reigns of his predecessors, cut down their groves and destroyed their temples. Under his mild and pater. nal administration Jerusalem recovered all its former prosperity, and so great was the success with which all his undertakings were crowned, that he is again and again said to have "prospered in all his works." 2 Kings xviii. 7; 2 Chron. xxxi. 21, xxxii. 27-30.

"Prince of Peace."

This com

pletes the climax of the prophet, and forms the finishing stroke to his de scription of Hezekiah's illustrious character; whose reign is uniformly spoken of as a peaceful and happy one. This will appear the more remarkable if we consider the times in which he lived, and the enemies with which he had to contend. "The great King," as Sennacherib is called, in Herodo tus and Josephus, as well as in the Old Testament, notwithstanding all

in Counsel, a Mighty God." That the Assyrian monarch was no stranger to these titles I can readily believe. Indeed, there is a passage found in a Jewish writing, quoted by Rammohun Roy, (The Precepts of Jesus, &c., 2nd ed., p. 315,) from which it appears that this monarch actually appropriated to himself epithets similar to those which the prophet applied to Hezekiah. "God said, Let Hezekiah, who has five names, take vengeance upon the King of Assyria, who has taken upon himself five names also. Talmud Sanhedrim, ch. xi.”

VOL. XIX.

2 G

Jerusalem, was compelled to flee with a small remnant of his army to Nineveh, after an ineffectual attempt to reduce the kingdom of Judah into a state of subjection; and when the same prophet who foretold the birth and future greatness of Hezekiah, announced the approaching calamities of his people, and their ultimate captivity, this was his memorable reply: "Good is the word of the Lord which thou hast spoken. Is it not good, if peace and truth be in my days?" 2 Kings xx. 19. In summing up the character of this monarch, the author

of the second book of Kings says, that "after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him ;" ch. xviii. 5; and, such was the respect in which his memory was held, that "he was buried in the chief of the sepulchres of the sons of David, and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honour at his death" 2 Chron. xxxii.

33.

The prophet now proceeds to enlarge upon the glory of Hezekiah's reign in terms of the most animated description: "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth, even for ever" ver. 7. Here, it will be observed, the person spoken of is described as sitting upon David's throne, inheriting his kingdom, and dispensing judgment with justice: language which applies in a peculiarly forcible manner to Hezekiah. It is said likewise, that "of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end" the meaning of which I take to be this: that his reign will be protracted to an unusual length, that it will be, on the whole, peaceable, and that there will be no end to the increase of his government till the period of his death. To justify this interpretation I shall enter into no minute and laboured criticism, but content myself with quoting one or two passages of Scripture, in which similar phraseology occurs. "There is one alone, and there is not a second; yea, he hath neither child nor brother, yet there is no end of all his labour;" (Eccles. iv. 8;) no end of it but with the termination of his life. "Their land is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures." (Isa. ii. 7.) These treasures could not have been absolutely inexhaustible. There must have been some end to them, however abundant. To the same purpose see Eccles. iv. 16; Nahum ii. 9, iii. 3. But apply these words, as they are usually applied, to Jesus Christ, and in the orthodox sense. Is the kingdom which he has received from the Father to have no

end? Is the period never to arrive

when it must be resigned into the hands of him who gave it? The apostle Paul, who was no stranger to the nature of Christ's kingdom, shall resolve these questions in his own words: "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to GOD, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power.-And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be ALL IN ALL." 1 Cor. xv. 24. 28.

Having now, as I hope, satisfactorily shewn that the terms of this celebrated prophecy were strictly fulfilled in the person of Hezekiah, I will briefly state the grounds on which I venture to pronounce it totally inapplicable to Jesus Christ. Grotius, and other learned commentators, finding that many of the prophecies supposed to relate to the Messiah had an obvious reference to eminent individuals who existed long before the time of Jesus, and wishing, at the same time, to retain in its full force the argument in favour of Christianity deduced from the prophecies of the Old Testament, had recourse to the theory of a double sense. Lowth availed himself of the same ingenious contrivance in the notes to his Translation of Isaiah; and sanctioned by his authority and example this double dealing with the Scriptures of eternal truth. "Whiston, with characteristic ingenuousness, opposed this theory, and contended that "the prophecies of the Old Testament, at all appertaining to the Messiah, particularly those which are quoted as testimonies and arguments in the New Testament, do properly and solely belong to the Messiah, and do not at all concern any other person;" and Dr. Benson, in his "Essay concerning the Unity of Sense," made it his professed object "to shew that no text of scripture has more than one single sense." In accomplishing this object, the last-mentioned writer appears to me to have been eminently successful; and, although I cannot always agree with him in the application of his own principles, to the correctness of those principles themselves I cordially and unhesitatingly