Ephraim, before that son should have knowledge to cry, "My father and my mother." Hence it is evident that the child mentioned in ch. vii. 14, called Immanuel, was much older than the child mentioned ch. viii. 3; for the attacks upon Syria and Israel by the Assyrians took place only before the former became of age to know right from wrong, but while the latter was still unable to pronounce a single word. Verse 6 speaks of the army of Rezin, and of the son of Remaliah, the kings of Syria and Israel, having refused the soft waters of Shiloah,* a river in Judah, figuratively meaning peace; verses 7 and 8, of the Lord's declaring that he would bring into the land of Immanuel, upon these invaders, the strong waters of the river, that is, the armies of the king of Assyria; verses 9 and 10, of the combination of the people against the king of Judah, which turned to their own destruction, for the sake of Immanuel. It is worth noticing, that the last word in verse 10, is translated in the English version, "God is with us," instead of leaving it, as it is in the original Hebrew, "Immanuel," though in two other instances (ch. vii. 14, and ch. viii. 8) the word "Immanuel" is left unchanged as it stands in the original. Verses 11-17, pronounce the Lord's displeasure at the disobedience of the tribes of Israel, advising them to

Shiloh, found in Gen. xlix. 10, implying a redeemer, differs in signification, and also in spelling, from the word "Shiloah," herein mentioned as signifying rivers: in Genesis, ~; in Isaiali viii. 6, nhw.

fear the Lord, and not fear the confederacy of the kings of Syria and Israel. Verse 18 declares the Lord's having given the prophet and the children for signs and for wonders in Israel; and the remaining verses of this chapter speak of false prophets, of the miserable situation of the Israelites-a fact which is fully related in the 2nd book of Kings, xvi. 5: “Then Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, son of Remaliah, king of Israel, came up to Jerusalem to war; and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him." Ver. 6: "At that time, Rezin, king of Syria, recovered Elath to Syria, and drove the Jews from Elath; and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day." Ver. 7: "So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son. Come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me." Ver. 8: "And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king's house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria.” Ver. 9: "And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin."

It is now left to the public to reflect seriously on the above circumstances stated in the context, and to pronounce whether thereby it appears that verse 14 is originally applied to Hezekiah, the son and

heir of Ahaz, king of Jerusalem, a child born before the defeat of his enemies, the Immanuel, whose land was Judah; or to Jesus of Nazareth, born at least 500 years afterwards: and also to decide whether or not the land which Ahaz abhorred, had been forsaken by the king of Syria and of Israel, from the interference of the king of Assyria, before Hezekiah came to years of discretion; or whether that event took place only after the birth of Jesus. As to the application of verse 4 to Jesus Christ, by St. Matthew, my language in the Second Appeal was, that "the evangelist Matthew referred in his Gospel to ch. vii. 14 of Isaiah, merely for the purpose of accommodation; the son of Ahaz and the Saviour resembling each other, in each being the means, at different periods, though in different senses, of establishing the throne of the house of David. In the same manner, the apostle referred to Hosea xi. 1, in ch. ii. 15 of his Gospel, and in many other instances." Nevertheless, the Reverend Editor charges me with having blasphemed against the word of God, by attempting to persuade him and others, in my explanation of the above verse, "that the evangelist Matthew ought not to be credited." I, indeed, never expected such an accusation from the Editor. To acquit myself of the charge, I intreat my readers to refer to the translation of the four Gospels by Dr. Campbell, a celebrated Trinitarian writer, in whose notes (page 9) that learned divine says, "Thus ch. ii. 15, a declaration from the prophet Hosea xi. 1,

which God made in relation to the people of Israel, whom he had long before called from Egypt, is applied by the historian allusively to Jesus Christ, where all that is meant is, that with equal truth, or rather, with much greater energy of signification, God might now say, I have recalled my son out of Egypt. Indeed, the import of the Greek phrase, as commonly used by the sacred writers, is no more, as Le Clerc has justly observed, than that such words of any of the prophets may be applied with truth to such an event."

Did these orthodox writers also attempt to persuade people to discredit the evangelical writings by applying Hosea xi. 1, originally to Israel, and allusively to Jesus Christ? The Editor will not, I presume, get the sanction of the public to accuse those learned divines of blasphemy. I did no more than adopt their mode of expression in examining Isaiah vii. 14, compared with Matt. i. 22, 23, and Hosea xi. 1, with Matt. ii. 15; yet I am charged with blasphemy against the authority of the Gospel of Matthew. I must repeat the very words I used in the Second Appeal, in comparing the book of Hosea with the Gospel of Matt., (pp. 263, 264,) that the public may judge whether the language of the Editor, as to my attempt to discredit the Gospel, is just and liberal. "Thus Matt. ii. 15, Out of Egypt have I called my son,' the evangelist refers to Hosea xi. 1, which, though really applied to Israel, represented there as the son of God, is used by the apostle in

reference to the Saviour, in consideration of a near resemblance between their circumstances in this instance both Israel and Jesus were carried into Egypt and recalled from thence,

nominated in the Scriptures the

6

and both were de

Son of God.' The

passage of Hosea thus runs from ch. xi. 1-3:

ས

'When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burnt incense to graven images. I taught Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them ;'-in which Israel, who is represented as a child of God, is declared to have sacrificed to Baalim, and to have burnt incense to graven images-circumstances which cannot justly be ascribed to the Saviour."

The Reverend Editor likewise, in opposition to my explanation, applies Isaiah ix. 6 to Jesus: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace;" and all that he says (page 534) in support of his referring this verse to the deity of Jesus, is in these words: "To secure to Hezekiah that passage in ch. ix., our author gives us a translation, or rather a paraphrase of it by Jonathan, in his Targum, to which we shall merely oppose that given by Bishop Lowth." Can the interpretation of the Old Testament given by Jonathan and other celebrated Jewish