The answer must be, Yes; if a child was thus produced 700 years before. How, then, could Christ on this account be called "the only begotten of the Father," if, as the Professor maintains, his miraculous conception is the primary reason, why he is called "the Son of God?" I see not why the child, whose birth was foretold in the text, might not for the same reason be called the Son of God. But the idea that any child was in this respect like Christ, or was miraculously begotten in the sense that he was, appears, in every view in which I can contemplate it, so utterly improbable, that nothing but the plain testimony of Scripture could make me willing to admit it.

Indeed, if the child spoken of by the prophet was not Christ, I am unable to perceive any valuable purpose that could be answered by its miraculous conception. It certainly could no better answer the purpose of a sign to Abaz, than the miraculous conception of Christ 700 years after. For the miracle was of such a nature that, for the knowledge of it, Ahaz must rely entirely on the divine declaration. And why might he not as confidently rely on this, if the miracle were to be performed 700 years after, as though it were to be wrought immediately? The birth of this child indeed, supposing him to know that it had taken place, would be to him a visible sign; but its miraculous conception could not. What purpose then could such a miracle answer? Will it be said, that it was intended to typify the miraculous conception of Christ? But is it probable that the Supreme Being would perform one miracle, merely to typify another of the same nature to be afterwards performed, especially, when the performance of the former would seem to interfere with his design in the latter, viz: that it should be " a new thing in the earth."

2. As a proof that Immanuel must have been born within less than three years from the time when the prediction in the text was delivered, the Professor tells us, that "he is twice referred to in the eighth chapter, as if then present, at least, as if then alive." To this I answer, that the prophecy in the eighth chapter was deliv ered the very next year after the prophecy in the seventh; and of course, if Immanuel were then born, he must have been an infant under a year old. Where then would be the propriety of addressing him and saying, (verse 8th) "The stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel," any more than there would be in addressing such language to a child to be born 700 years after; especially, if that child was to be united, in a mysterious manner, to him who was then "the King of Israel"? If this language proves that Immanuel was then present, it seems equally to prove that he had arrived to years of understanding, and also that he was proprietor or prince of the land; suppositions which are plainly impossible. And as to the 10th verse, on which the Professor has relied, I think the English version is correct in translat

ing the Hebrew word Immanuel; for if it is regarded as a proper name, the sentence appears imperfect and obscure: “ Speak the word, and it shall not stand; for Immanuel." But if we render it "for God is with us," the sense is clear. Thus also it is rendered by Bishop Lowth, who was certainly an able critic, and a competent judge in a case of this nature.

But if it should be admitted that the word Immanuel is here used as the proper name of the child whose birth was promised in the text, I am unable to see how it will prove that "he is referred to as then present, or as then" born. Why may not the prophet refer to the promise of his birth, as furnishing triumphant evidence, that the combined efforts of the enemies of Judah to destroy it should prove abortive? 'Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces. Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand; for Immanuel is promised, and therefore the nation shall be preserved till he

come.'

3. For further proof that Immanuel must have been born within less than three years from the time that the prediction was delivered, the Professor refers us to the 16th verse, which, in the common version is rendered, "Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.' But the translation of this verse given by Bishop Lowth, and which had long before been given by eminent critics, particularly by Ludovicus de Dieu and Castalio, appears to correspond more exactly to the original. "Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land shall become desolate, by whose two kings thou art distressed." But when did this desolation of the land of Israel take place? If we allow the prophet to be the expositor of his own language, we shall, perhaps, conclude, that it was not accomplished till about 65 years after, when "Ephraim was broken that it was not a people." But supposing that the land became desolate sooner; still, the earliest date that can be fixed for its desolation is when the king of Assyria besieged and took Samaria; (see 2 Kings, xvii. 5, 6.) which was fifteen years after the defeat of "the confederated kings." If, then, Immanuel was born before their defeat, he must have been capable of knowing good from evil before the land became desolate. But if he was not born till after their defeat, we may ask, in the language of the Professor, "How could his birth be a sign to Ahaz, that within three years his kingdom should be freed from his enemies"? What, then, does he gain, by denying that the text is a prediction of Christ? But,

4. If we should admit that the received translation of the 16th verse is correct, or, (which amounts to the same,) that the land became desolate, when "the confederated kings" were defeated

by Tiglath-pileser, still it will not follow that Immanuel must have been born before their defeat. For, in the first place, there is no certain evidence that his birth was designed to be (in the strict sense of the phrase) a sign or pledge to Ahaz, that within three years his kingdom was to be freed from his enemies." The prophet had indeed declared that their counsel against Judah "should not stand," and had directed Ahaz to ask a sign in confirmation of it. But he refused, under the pretence that it would be tempting the Lord; but no doubt from a secret contempt of the prophet, and a disbelief of his predictions. Jehovah, therefore, proceeded to give such a sign, or to foretell such a miracle, as his own infinite wisdom saw fit, and which, for aught that appears to the contrary, was intended, not to confirm the faith of Ahaz in the deliverance just predicted, (for probably he had none to confirm,) but to assure the pious remnant among the Jews, that all the designs of their enemies should be defeated, and the nation preserved under those dreadful calamities which the prophet immediately proceeded to foretell should be brought upon them by the king of Assyria. And what stronger assurance of this could they have, than a prediction of the birth of the Messiah? What right, then, have we to assume, that the event foretold in the text must have taken place before the overthrow of the confederate kings; and to assume it from the fact that it is called a sign? It is well known, that this word often signifies a miracle, where the idea of a sign or pledge of the fulfilment of a prediction, is entirely out of the question. Thus, the miracles which Moses wrought in Egypt are called by this name.

But if it were certain that the birth of Immanuel was intended as a sign that the counsel of the confederate kings "should not stand," still the inference drawn from it by Professor S. and others would by no means follow. For, in the second place, the assumption that whatever is foretold as a sign or pledge of the fulfilment of a prediction must necessarily come to pass before the predicted event of which it is a sign takes place, is entirely unsupported by Scripture. When God predicted to Hezekiah the destruction of Sennacherib's army, he said, " And this shall be a sign unto thee, ye shall eat this year such things as grow of themselves, and in the second year that which springeth of the same, and in the third year sow and reap," &c. (see 2 Kings, xix. 29.) But it is certain that what was here given as a sign was subsequent to the overthrow of the Assyrian army, which took place the same night that the prediction was delivered. And when God gave commission to Moses to deliver the Israelites from Egypt, in order to assure him of sucsess, he said, (Ex. iii. 12.) "Certainly I will be with thee, and this shall be a token (a sign) unto thee that I have sent thee; when thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God on this mount." On this passage Scott justly remarks,

"The token announced was made, not to sense, but to faith; and therefore the sign was consequent to the event confirmed by it. As though God had said, I promise to meet thee and Israel at this mountain; this promise is thy assurance of success; depend on my power and faithfulness, and go, and bring them forth, nothing doubting." Now, why may we not suppose that this was the case in the text? The prediction that the Messiah should be born of a virgin was the surest pledge that could be given to the pious, that the designs of the confederate kings, and of all their other enemies, should be defeated, and the nation preserved under those calamities, which the prophet foretold should be brought upon them. If God had such a blessing in store for his people, would he suffer them to be destroyed? If he would raise up the Messiah from the family of David, would he permit that family to be extirpated? And is it going beyond the truth to say, that the text, if understood as a prediction of Christ, would be a more satisfactory sign or pledge to the pious in Israel, than it could be, if understood of a common child to be born within less than three years from that tiine ?

6

It has, however, been confidently asserted, that the language of the 16th verse as clearly implies that Immanuel was to be born, as it does that he was not to be capable of knowing good from evil, before the overthrow of the confederate kings. But where is the proof of such an assertion? With equal truth I might say, that the language of Micah, v. 3. Therefore will he give them up until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth; then shall return the remnant of his brethren,' &c. as clearly implies that the Jews were not to be given up into the hands of their enemies after, as it does that they were to be thus given up before, the birth of Christ. But who does not know that they have been given up for a longer time and in a more rsmarkable manner since, than they were before, the coming of the Messiah? Nor is there any more difficulty attending Isaiah's prediction of his birth in the text, than attends Micah's prediction of his birth-place, in the chapter referred to. In both, the prediction itself is plain; and in both, what follows is attended with obscurity and difficulty. And I may add, this is the case with some other remarkable prophecies respecting the Messiah.

I have now examined all the objections to the common interpretation of the text, that have come to my knowledge. And however forcible some of them may be, I cannot think them unanswerable. Indeed I am persuaded, that whatever difficulties may attend the common interpretation, they are by no means equal to those that press on the one that has been substituted in its room. And the same principles of exegesis, that lead to a denial that the text is a prediction of Christ, would, for aught I can perceive, lead to a denial that there is any direct prediction of him in the Old Testament. For I scarcely know of a prediction of him more plain, or

applied to him in a more decisive manner in the New Testament, than this. And when we consider with what plainness the prophets foretold the remarkable circumstances of his birth, life sufferings and death, it appears truly unaccountable, that they should pass over his miraculous conception in silence, and that Matthew, in order to show that it was foretold, should be under the necessity of quoting a prediction, that had no direct reference to it.

IOTA.

THE NATURE, CERTAINTY, AND EVIDENCE OF TRUE
CHRISTIANITY.

THE following little tract was handed us by a friend, with the expectation that, if approved, it might be presented to our readers. It is entitled "The Nature, Certainty and Evidence of True Christianity; in a Letter from a Gentlewoman in Rhode Island to another, her dear friend, in great darkness, doubt, and concern, of a religious nature." The following advertisement appears on the title page: "Though this letter was written in great privacy from one friend to another, yet, on representing that, by allowing it to be printed, it would probably reach others in the like afflicted case, and, by the grace of God, be helpful to them, the writer was at length prevailed on to suffer it, provided her name and place of abode might remain concealed." The letter is dated July 2, 1753, and was probably published soon after it was written. It was re-printed at Providence in 1793. With the omission of a few sentences, and with slight verbal alterations, we feel a pleasure in laying it before our readers,-that the excellent authoress, long since gone, we doubt not, to behold the face of her Redeemer in the heavens, may still dispense light and consolation to those who here walk in darkness.

Some, probably, will think that the writer expresses too great confidence in regard to her own piety. But on this subject several considerations may be suggested. And, in the first place, we must be permitted to inquire, whether Christians, at the present day, are not too fond of harboring and expressing doubts? Has not the language of doubt become so common, that some would even be alarmed, if they could not freely and in good truth adopt it? They would be led to doubt, because they had not (as they thought) doubts enough. We would be far from encouraging a false or an unseemly confidence; but is the language of doubt, perpetually recurring, honorable to religion? Ought not Christians to love their Savior so well as to be satisfied that they love him? And are not expressions of doubt much more frequent now, than we have any reason to suppose they were among the early disciples of our Lord?

It should be remembered, too, that the letter before us “was written in great privacy," without a thought, at the time, that it would be seen by any eye, except that of the friend to whom it was addressed. It should be recollected further, that the writer was "not a novice;" that she had been long in the school