Of the two conditions above proposed, the former, I think, requires no farther explanation; but a considerable modification and limitation of the latter appears requisite. For the writers of the New Testament frequently preface a quotation from the Old Testament with the form-"that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet"or something equivalent. But in using that form, they often, perhaps mostly, do not mean to affirm, in the strict sense of the terms, that the scripture adduced was fulfilled, but merely that the words of the prophet were well adapted to express what was then taking placesome present occurrence or sentiment to be recorded; and they conceived that there was a peculiar beauty and pertinence in such appeals to their ancient Scriptures, just as writers of the present day think they enhance the force of a sentiment by expressing it in the borrowed words or phrase of some eminent writer.

The writers of the New Testament have in various instances used by way of accommodation, and applied to Christ, passages which were primarily spoken in reference to other personages. To say in such cases that Christ was the ultimate object of the prophetic declaration, and that the language of the prophet had a double meaning, is a hypothesis, though broached early and adhered to obstinately by the orthodox systematizers, which is not only indefensible and derogatory to the pretensions of divine revelation, but which is unnecessary to explain the facts in the case. If there are some undoubted prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament, applicable exclusively to him and claimed by him, is not that sufficient as prophetical evidence? And why should we weaken the force of that evidence, by bringing it on a level with another kind which is of so doubtful a character, and when the phraseology in the case can be so satisfactorily explained upon a different principle?

Before I confirm the view now given of the subject by a reference to particular passages cited by way of accommodation in the New Testament, I will translate the commentary of the learned Kuinoel on the first passage where this form of expression occurs. Matt. i. 22, 23: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel;' which being interpreted, is, God with us."

"The words of the writer of the gospel, The Infancy of Jesus, or (as I rather think) of Matthew, follow; and the passage of Isaiah (vii. 14) is noticed favourably, which at that time [i. e. when the gospel was written] was wont to be referred to Jesus. The connexion of the passage in this place of Isaiah is as follows: The kings of the Syrians and Israelites had formed a league against Ahaz, king of the Jews, and invaded Judæa with united forces. Therefore, Ahaz, reduced to such distress, was deliberating about inviting to his aid the king of Assyria, who at that time was very powerful. From this purpose Ahaz was persuaded to desist by the prophet Isaiah, who promised him that a sign should shortly appear which would be a token of speedy deliverance. But it was impossible that that sign should be the promise of a Messiah, to be born, after the lapse of so many ages, from the family of David, and of a virgin. But he pointed out, as it were with the finger, a certain virgin just married to a husband, (the

prophet's own spouse perhaps, Isa. viii. 3,) then standing near, and foretold that in the space of nine months she would bring forth a son, to be called by the symbolic name Immanuel. From which circumstance, Ahaz was led to conclude that in the mean time he should be delivered from his enemies by divine aid. [References are here omitted.]

"All this was done, that it might be fulfilled.' The Jews were accustomed to apply prophecies even to things in the act of taking place, and to describe passing events, not previously expected, in the language of prophecy, by way of accommodation; and it gave them particularly much pleasure to express themselves in words and forms of speaking derived from the Old Testament, especially in those cases when some degree of similarity was observed between a certain place in the Old Testament and the present occasion. Hence the Hebrew words, mela and kalé, and also the Greek terms, ñànpwonvai and Tεhoonya [to be fulfilled], are used, not only when that very thing which was predicted comes to pass, but also when some circumstance happens which reminds us of the phraseology of the prediction, and appears in any way to confirm and illustrate it."

The subject being so well explained in the extract from Kuinoel, it will not be necessary to notice so large a number of instances as I have selected, and intended at first to insert; but I will give a few.

In a prophetic vision, relating to the present moral state of the Jews in the prophet's time, "the Voice of the LORD" said to the prophet (Isa. vi. 9-13), "Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert and be healed. Then said I, LORD, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate," &c. &c.

The above prophecy is said to be fulfilled in the following places in the New Testament:

Matt. xiii. 14, 15: "And in them [the Jews of our Saviour's time] is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive. For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

In the passage parallel to the above in Mark, (ch. iv. 11, 12,) there is plainly an allusion to the prophecy of Isaiah, but it is not said to be fulfilled.

In quite a different connexion, John refers to the prophecy in Isaiah in the following words (John xii. 37-41): “But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him; that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake,--LORD, who hath believed our report, and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hard

ened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him."

In the Book of Acts (ch. xxviii. 25-27), Paul applies the prophecy of Isaiah to the Jews in Rome, whom he had not been able to convert: "And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed after that Paul had spoken one word, 'Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive. For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

And in Rom. xi. 8-10, Paul alludes to the prophecy in Isaiah, and to other passages in the Old Testament which have no connexion with it, in the following manner: "According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber; eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear," &c. &c.

I will point to, without quoting, a few other instances of the same kind.

Compare Isa. ix. 1, with Matt. iv. 15.

Compare Isa. xxix. 13, with Matt. xv. 7-9, and Mark vii. 6, 7. Compare Zech. xi. 12, 13, with Matt. xxvii. 9, 10.

Compare Ps. xli. 9, and lxix. 25, with Acts i. 15—20.

Groundless, therefore, is the hypothesis which maintains that every reference to the Old Testament which occurs in the New-Testament writers, in the mode of quotation most usual with them-"that it might be fulfilled" is a legitimate prediction, and which pretends to reconcile every inconsistency by the egregious device of the double sense. Its inherent absurdity is aggravated by the uncertainty of interpretation which it causes. But, while it greatly embarrasses the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and is derogatory to the character of the writers, no good end is gained by it. It is the remains of the monstrous old system of spiritualizing the whole Jewish history and institutions; and to an unsightly heap of rubbish have they been reduced by the wonderful process of transformation. Every good writer has but one meaning; though he expresses it in conformity, more or less, to the character and style of his time and nation. That style may be flowery, turgid, full of bold imagery, and of forced and overstrained metaphors; but if we do not grant it to be intelligible, and to convey to the men addressed the sentiment and sense which the writers wished to be imparted, what signifies it what kind of inspiration we may be pleased to claim for it? It is true that the sacred writers spoke in parables and expressed themselves enigmatically. But that was well perceived by the hearers, whether or no they understood the true drift of the parable. But where was it ever said by those who heard the prophets, We understand the literal and external sense of this prophecy well enough, but we must seek to know the hidden sensethat great and important secondary, spiritual meaning, in which all the divine virtue lies? There is no evidence whatever to prove that they entertained a sentiment like this, when they listened to or

read the strains of the prophets. The case of the Ethiopian eunuch is not one in point: it was mere ignorance (in every sense) of the person designated by the prophet. The honour of the conception of such absurdity was reserved for after ages.

We are now authorized to conclude that the passage prefixed to this article has no title to be considered as a prophecy concerning the Messiah. Its claims do not come up to either of the two conditions shewn to be indispensable. The prophet's prediction concerned a child born in the reign of king Ahas; that was its sole import. And the passage is nowhere asserted in the New Testament to be a prophecy of Christ, either by way of accommodation or in any other

sense.

The occurrences and predictions which are contained in the vith, viith, viiith and ixth chapters of Isaiah, relate to the reign of Ahaz, as stated above in the extracts from Kuinoel. They refer to the interests of the kingdom of Judah, as connected with the neighbouring kingdoms-Israel, Syria, Damascus and Assyria. They sometimes announce successes and deliverances, by means of instruments divinely appointed, and sometimes judicial reverses and visitations. The connexion between the different portions of the prophecy may be obscure, though they evidently relate to the same common subject. The transitions are abrupt, and the points of view in which the subject is placed often vary without notice. Hence have arisen mistakes and misapplication of the language.

Perhaps I ought here to advertise the reader, that the interpretation of this passage, especially vers. 6 and 7, has by many been acknowledged to be difficult. The text in the Septuagint Greek translation, made probably two hundred years before Christ, is very different from our Hebrew copies, from which our English version was made. It is thus: "For a child has been born to us, and a son has been given to us, whose government has been on his shoulder, and his name is called, The Messenger of a great counsel; and I will bring peace upon the rulers, and health to him:" that is, "I will cause the neighbouring rulers or kings to make peace; and that will bring safety to him." Even if we receive the Hebrew text as it is, translators are not agreed as to the meaning of all the clauses, nor concerning the sense in which they are applicable to Christ, nor, more particularly, how it is possible to consider them as attributes of supreme deity, when we take them, as we must, in connexion with the last clause of the whole passage-"The zeal of the LORD of HOSTS will perform this." This surely precludes the son or child, whose attributes are previously enumerated, from being the LORD of Hosts. If the prophet intended to ascribe to Christ the appellation "Almighty Father," would he not incur the unpleasant discipline of the Athanasian Creed for confounding the Persons?

From the connexion in which the words, "For unto us a child is born," stand to the foregoing verse, it is clear that they refer to some warlike measures. "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 [i. e. more terrible than common]. For unto us a child is born," &c. If ver. 6, were not closely connected with the foregoing, it would not be introduced with for, a particle of inference;

and as the connexion is undeniable, equally so is the conclusion, that the child said to be born was to be a warrior-some way or other concerned in war-and not the Messiah or Christ.

We now ask, Has this prophecy been appealed to any where in the New Testament as a direct prophecy of Christ? The answer must be given decidedly in the negative. It has no where been even alluded to, either by way of accommodation or otherwise. For the passage in Luke, (ii. 11,) to which alone reference has been or can be made, has nothing in common with it, but the two words, is born. Having thus carefully discussed the merits of this pretended prophecy concerning Christ, and shewn that it affords no proof of his supreme deity, even if it were applied to him, and having also considered the general bearing of other similarly circumstanced prophecies on the general question of fulfilment under the New Testament, I beg to observe in concluding, that the subject appears to me of great importance. To interpret the venerable writings of the prophets, and of other ancient writers, upon false principles, in support of unchristian doctrines, is a great disservice to" the faith." While it is one of the most fruitful resources of error, it affords to the unbeliever his most formidable weapons. When it is seen that a theological champion, by means of the theological apparatus of verbal criticism on Hebrew and Greek words, of finding new connexions, of making more correct translations, of citing learned and formidable names, and of quoting old writings just as much as suits the purpose, &c., &c., can make any thing of any thing, what is the consequence? Either blind credulity, or else despair of finding the truth, attended often with indifference, and perhaps often with disgust.

I do not deny that the Old Testament contains direct predictions of Christ and his kingdom, though it is not my object in this discussion to point them out: they must, however, be conformable to the two conditions before stated. But though I hold there are prophecies concerning the Saviour in the Old Testament, yet I firmly maintain that the character of Christ and the doctrines of Christianity are to be derived in their full evidence, clearness and truth only from the authentic books of the New Testament. As to the character of Christ and Christianity, the old Scriptures at best can be regarded but as the dim twilight; but Christ alone is the sun of righteousness, in whose light we have seen light-the full light of day. To pretend to discover and interpret the doctrines of Christ by unlocking the hidden treasures of types, shadows, symbolical terms, allegories and obscure predictions, is to put darkness for light and light for darkness. Certain it is that the worthies of the Old Testament did not know the peculiar provisions of Christianity; they were not able to derive any tolerable knowledge of them from those types and shadows which to many modern Christians appear to be the most edifying objects of contemplation. Strange, that the medium of information which appeared so dark and undiscernible to those of old, should now be regarded as the most precious mysteries of the kingdom of heaven! Strange, that dark intimations and shadowy forms should prove a more vivid excitement to the living faith than the Christian oracles of truth and soberness!

But it will be said, that the spiritual interpretation of the Old-Tes