something which we ourselves know." When the value of Unitarian speculations is to be exhibited, truth is of vast importance; but when an indiscriminate fellowship is urged, then it is of little Consequence what a man believes. At one time, the minister must "deliver, without fear, and without reserve, the whole scheme of doctrine and duty which is revealed in the gospel;' and at another, he must "not touch disputed doctrines," but in regard to certain topics, must "maintain a cautious reserve." Now, the happy tendency of Unitarian doctrines decides every thing in their favor; and then the superior tendency of a religious system, as manifested in its declared results, is no sure evidence of its truth. When Unitarianism is to be promoted in one way, its advocates are a distinct denomination; but when another way opens for its advancement, they are not a distinct denomination. When it is convenient for the clergy to speak in the name and on the behalf of their brethren, then they are a "class of Christians;" a sect, a body, a party by themselves; but when it is no longer convenient to be held responsible for one another's opinions, then the existence of a party is disclaimed, and individuals are alone answerable for what they have said and written.

But I need not recapitulate, as the subject is a plain one, and the instances I have furnished will enable you to pursue it, as you have opportunity. It is certainly very convenient to be able thus to trayerse the field of argument, crossing one's own track variously and at pleasure, while good-natured friends admire and applaud, and declare that the course pursued is consistent and direct. There is, however, an attendant difficulty. What we have written may remain behind us, to be read by other and less partial eyes; and the artifices we have practised, and the contradictions into which we have fallen, will sooner or later be detected and exposed.

On the motives of Unitarians, whose publications' and measures have been the subject of remark, I pass no judgment. I doubt not they are sincerely attached to their system, and feel authorised to resort to a variety of measures with a view to promote it. But what must be the character of a system which needs so frequent contradictions in order to its support? Can it, my dear Sir, be the truth? "Truth," it has been well said, "is always consistent with itself." Error must either be stationary, or "run crooked;" but the path of truth, like that of duty, is direct. Judge for yourself, then, whether Unitarianism, as here exhibited, bears the characteristic marks of truth.

Towards the abettors of this system, even the most zealons, I can detect no feeling which I think uncharitable. I regret their errors and consequent inconsistencies, and would fain hope that the statements here made, though for the time unpleasant, may lead ultimately to the indulgence of better views, and of

more enduring hopes. But whatever the effect may be upon them, we have obligations to fulfil to the cause of Christ, and to this community, with which we are not at liberty to dispense. An interested public should have the means of knowing where the way of truth and of safety lies, and to whom they may trust for direction in pursuing it. INVESTIGATOR.

REMARKS ON ISAIAH vii. 14. "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

THAT Matthew quotes this passage, and represents it as receiving its fulfilment in the miraculous conception of Christ, is universally admitted. And the greater part of Christians, in every age, have understood it as a direct and explicit prediction of that mysterious event. It is well known, however, that the enemies of christianity, from Celsus down to the present day, have objected to such an application of the prophet's language, and asserted that it has no reference whatever to the birth of Christ. And some, whom it would be unjust to class with the enemies of religion, have so far harmonized with them, as to maintain that the prophet referred to a child that was to be born soon after he delivered the prediction; and that Matthew is to be understood as quoting his language by way of accommodation; or, at least, as applying to Christ what had a primary reference to a child that may be regarded as a type or symbol of him. I propose, therefore, to examine what has been alleged against the primary and exclusive reference of this prophecy to Christ.

I. It has been asserted, that the Hebrew word, here rendered virgin, may properly denote any young woman, married or unmarried, chaste or unchaste. But this assertion is in direct opposition to the authority of the ancient versions, to the etymology of the word, and to its indubitable signification in other parts of the Hebrew Bible. For in every other place where it occurs, it manifestly has the meaning which our translators have given it in the text.

II. There are others who, admitting this, maintain that the prophet's meaning is, that a young woman who was then a virgin, should, within a definite period, be married and bear a son. As this is probably the ground taken by most of those, who, at the present day, deny that this prophecy had a primary reference to Christ, I shall take the liberty to state some objections to it.

1. It is inconsistent with the context. The prophet encouraged Abaz to ask a sign for the confirmation of what he had just predicted, and left it to his choice in what part of creation the sign should be exhibited. "Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above." And when Ahaz refused, the prophet, after reproving him for his perverseness, says, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son," &c. Does not this language necessarily imply, that there should be something supernatural in the event foretold? But according to the exposition which I am opposing, nothing was predicted as a sign but one of the most ordinary occurrences among men. For what event could be more common, than that a young woman, then a virgin, should be married and bear a son? But,

2. This exposition is inconsistent not only with the context, but also with the language of Matthew. "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary, thy wife; for that, which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. Now all this was done, THAT IT MIGHT BE FULFILLED, which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet. Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name Immanuel." Now whether the Evangelist considered this language of the prophet as a direct prediction of Christ, or not, it is evident that, in his view, there was a striking correspondence between the miraculous conception of Christ, and the event foretold by the prophet. But if the prophet did not predict a miraculous conception, where is the correspondence? In what sense could the miraculous conception of Christ be a fulfilment of the prophet's language, if his language did not import any such thing? To say that Matthew has applied the prophet's language by way of accommodation, is far from removing the difficulty; for the language of the Old Testament is never accommodated to events in the New, unless there is a correspondence between the events described. Thus, for instance, the language of God by Hosea respecting Israel, “Out of Egypt have I called my Son," is by Matthew accommodated to Christ's being called out of Egypt. But here, the correspondence is striking. God had said of Israel, "He is my Son, my firstborn;" and in the character of a Father, had brought him out of Egypt. And thus the language admitted of an easy and natural accommodation to Christ, who was the Son of God in a far higher sense, and who was brought out of Egypt at the divine command. But if the prophet in the text did not predict a miraculous conception, then there is no analogy or correspondence between the event which he foretold, and that to which Matthew has applied his language.

3. To the exposition under consideration I object, that it renders nugatory the name by which this child was to be called.

Though I am far from supposing, that the name alone proves that he was to be God in our nature, yet it does prove that he should be some extraordinary person; or at least, that he should have something more than a common part to act in the world. If not, why was this extraordinary name to be given him? a name, which seems necessarily to imply, that God would be in a sp cial manner with him, and make him the instrument of extensive good to his people? But according to the exposition under consideration, there was nothing extraordinary, either in the intellectual powers, or the piety of this child, or in the part that he acted in the world. Those who give this exposition are unable to tell us who he was, or what he did; nor have we any record of the fact that such a child was ever born. Grotius, indeed, supposes that a child of Isaiah's, whose birth is mentioned in the next chapter, was here intended. But to this it may be replied, first, that Isaiah's wife was not at this time a virgin, she having already borne him Shearjashub, whom the prophet was directed to take with him on this occasion. And, secondly, the name of the child, who, as Grotius supposes, was meant, was not Immanuel, but Mahershalalhashbaz. And, notwithstanding what he alleges to the contrary, there seems not the remotest probability that this child should be called by both these names, and yet no intimation be given of it in the Bible. But, thirdly, the child whose birth was predicted in the text, is in the next chapter addressed as though he were the proprietor or prince of the land. "The stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel;"-a plain proof (in my view at least) that whosoever is meant by Immanuel, he is bere recognized as the proprietor and prince of the land of Judea. Sensible of this, some, who are unwilling to admit that Christ is intended, have supposed that Hezekiah was meant; but Hezekiah was born a number of years before the prophecy in the text was delivered; and of course his birth cannot be here predicted. Nor does it appear that after this, Anaz had any son to whom this prediction could apply. Who then can this linnanuel be, if not the Lord Jesus Christ?

It bas indeed been objected, that it is difficult to conceive that he should be addressed, as the proprietor and prince of the land of Judah, 700 years before he was born. But where is the difficulty of conceiving this, if we admit his preexistence and Divinity? In various places in the Bible, he is represented as the Ruler or King of Israel, whom they tempted in the wilderness, who conducted them into Canaan, and who afterwards protected them from their enemies. Why, then, might be not be addressed by the prophet, as present, and as the prince of the land of Judea, though his human nature did not then exist? Is there any more difficulty attending such a supposition, than in supposing that a common child, a few months old, should be thus addressed? But

such a supposition, those who deny that Christ is intended are compelled to make.

4. To the exposition under consideration I object, that it involves substantially the same difficulty which its advocates allege against the common interpretation. The great objection uniformly urged is, that the birth of Christ, which did not take place till more than 700 years after, could be no sign to Ahaz, that within three years the designs of his enemies should be defeated. For, say they, "In order that anything should be a sign of the fulfilment of a prediction, it must come to pass before the predicted event of which it is a sign takes place; and its having thus come to pass must be known to him, to whom it is given as a sign; otherwise to him it is no sign at all." But how could such a birth as they suppose was predicted in the text any better answer the purpose of a sign to Ahaz, than the birth of Christ? Could it be to him a stronger confirmation of the predicted deliverance, to be told that a virgin, that is, some virgin in his kingdom, should, at some indefinite future time, bring forth a son? In order that this should be a sign to him, in the sense in which our opponents understand the term, it would be necessary, in the first place, that he should know the time when the sign given was to come to pass. They indeed assume that it was known to Ahaz that the child should be born within less than "three years." But the prophet gives no such intination, and to take it for granted is to beg a main point in dispute. And, secondly, it would be necessary that Ahaz should know the particular virgin intended; otherwise, how could he know whether the sign given had come to pass,-since doubtless, many who were then virgins might, within "three years," bear sons. It may, indeed, be urged, that the name, Immanuel, would sufficiently designate the child intended. But not to insist on the possibility that more than one child, born about that time, might be called by this name, we may ask, Must Abaz be under the necessity of searching his kingdom through, to ascertain that some virgin, referred to by the prophet, had brought forth a son, and called his name Immanuel? To avoid this difficulty, Rosenmuller supposes, that when the prophet uttered the prediction in the text, he pointed with his finger to the particular virgin that was to bear Immanuel. But this supposition is gratuitous and improbable. And if we might be permitted to make such suppositions, we could easily free the common interpretation of the text from all difficulty. We migh', with Chandler, Doddridge, and a host of commentators mentioned by Poole, suppose, that when the prophet uttered the 16th verse, (which creates the principal difficulty in the way of the common interpretation) be pointed with his finger to Shearjashub, whom, say these critics, he was directed to take with him, " for no other imaginable reason, but that something remarkable was to be said respecting him." However