Christ, can he be referred to as he is in 8: 8, 10? Surely it need not be here said, that again and again does the prophet speak of things as at the very door, which nevertheless did not occur till the birth of Christ and afterward. From temporal things about to take place immediately, he passes to spiritual things under the gospel dispensation, by the most rapid transitions. To repeat instances would be to quote from almost every chapter. Even in the very same address, in which 8: 8, 10 occur, there is most undeniable reference to the kingdom of Christ. "Nevertheless the dimness" &c.-see 9: 1-7. If then it be made out (and we think it has been) by the requisite proofs, that in 7: 14, the word Immanuel refers to Christ alone, then there is no forced construction put on 8: 8, 10, by referring to Christ alone there.

There is a passage in Micah, a prophet who preceded Isaiah in point of time, which shows that in Is. 8: 8, the prophet might well use the phrase, "thy land, O Immanuel." Micah thus speaks in ch. 5: 2-" But thou, Bethlehem Ephaatah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be Ruler in Israel." The land might therefore well be called Immanuel's.

It at least seems strange, that the prophet, if Immanuel was then born, should so soon predict that the Assyrians, like an overflowing, desolating flood, would afterward fill the very land, of whose deliverance from Syria and Israel, only a short time before, this birth had been made the sign.

In regard to 8: 10, where our English version has the phrase "for God is with us," it is thought,(and with the greatest probability,) that the form of the original Hebrew is obscured, and that the figure paranomasia is used by the prophet. But then it by no means follows, that the individual bearing the name must have been present. Those who assert it, yet say, "that the prophecy in Isaiah, (which begins with the 8th chapter and ends with chapter 9: 7), contains, at the close of it, most indubitable proof that the birth of the Messiah, and the "coming of his kingdom" were, on this occasion, distinctly before the mind of the prophet; see Is. 9: 1-7."* Why then may not the prophet triumphantly appeal to the Messiah as the great pledge of the deliverance

*Stuart on Hebrews, 2d ed. pp. 573, 574.

of the people from all their enemies? Observe how he expresses himself in verses 4, 6, of the 9th chapter: "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. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder." How perfectly this corresponds with 8: 9, 10. "Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces, and give ear all ye of far countries; 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!" The prophet looks through all their oppressions -their present invasion-the attack of the Assyrian-their captivity-he looks through all, and by a bold figure of paranomasia, exultingly proclaims the watch-word "IMMANUEL," as God's pledge that he will not utterly forsake, but will save his people. Need it be asked, then, can 8: 10, as well as 8: 8, be applied to Jesus? Does not the exigency of the passage demand it? To take the word and apply it to a child then living--does it not make the verse" like a broken tooth, or a foot out of joint?" There is therefore nothing in 7: 14, nothing in 8: 8, 10, which forbids the direct and sole reference of Immanuel to Jesus Christ; but, on the other hand, there is much that forbids the reference of it to any other. Difficulties meet us, on every quarter, as we attempt to divert the prophecy, whether directly or indirectly, away from the Messiah; but many aids come to conduct us to him "who was born in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Verse 15.-" Butter and honey shall he eat."—" The Hebrew word usually rendered butter, denotes rather cream, or more properly sour, or curdled milk." [Robinson's Calmet, p. 216, where see a full account of the word.] It is supposed that the prophet alludes to the common food of young children. But is not the interpretation of the phrase pointed out in verse 22, below?" Butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land." The prophet intimates that the child shall be born and nourished when the land of his birth shall be in the desolate condition described in verses 17-25 of this same chapter. How well does this accord with facts! When Christ came, Judah had been long laid waste. Her vineyards and her olive-groves, her gardens and cultivated fields, were all fallen a prey to the destroyer. In the

figurative language of the prophet, in the verses below, not merely applicable to the captivity, but descriptive of their history down to the advent of the Messiah, so ruined should be their agriculture, that one cow and two sheep would find such luxuriant pasturage as to afford abundance of milk to the impoverished inhabitants, and the bees would fill the forsaken hills with wild honey, on which the scattered remnant should subsist. In places once under the highest cultivation, cattle would find free range; men should hunt with their bows and arrows; while some parts should be so overgrown with briars and thorns as not to be penetrated.

"Until he shall know how," &c. Our English version has, "that he may know." The Hebrew allows the rendering" Until," and the context both permits and demands it. The prophet seems to employ a proverb in common use. His language cannot decide the contested point, as to when moral agency commences; when one can be called, and is, a sinner. For the Saviour says of the Jews, "If I had not come unto them, they had not known sin." Surely he did not mean that they were literally without sin, before he came. Nor is it certain that Isaiah's language is to be understood literally, but only comparatively. And if, especially, he only uses a common proverb, much less can we quote him to decide the question when man can be called, and is regarded, a sinner. That must be determined by other considerations. It is the design of the prophet merely to give dress to his thoughts; he uses language adapted to excite interest in those whom he addressed.

Verse 16. "For before," &c.--Before Christ should begin his public ministry, and during the interval between that period and the time when the prediction was uttered.

66

The land shall be desolate, of whose two kings thou dost stand in dread." Such is the rendering which the Hebrew demands, instead of that given in our version. In neither, however, is the deliverance of the land of Judah mentioned. "Desolate ;"-i. e. forsaken of its inhabitants. In 6: 12, the prophet says of Judah, "And the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land." Thus is it declared, in 7: 16, concerning Syria and Israel.

"Thou dost dread."-The same word is used in Ex. 1: 12, where the Egyptians are represented as being grieved at the increase of the Israelites; and in Num. 22: 3, where

Moab is distressed at their approach, on their way to the promised land.

Verses 17-25, contain, in the same address, a denunciation against Judah.

Thus does the prophet predict the Messiah's birth, as a period, between which and the time of uttering the prophecy, Israel and Judah were to be given up to desolation. Thus might he afford encouragement to the pious through successive generations, in the midst of their calamities, that a deliverer should come; that the "Ruler in Israel," "Immanuel," should at length appear; that "a horn of salvation should be raised up," and "that he would grant unto them that they being delivered from all their enemies, and from the hand of those who hated them, might serve him in holiness and righteousness all the days of their life." Thus might the prophet have presented a motive even to the rebellious, to turn from their rebellion. And thus, by predicting the circumstances of the Messiah's birth, so as to single him out from every child under heaven, has he afforded both Jew and Gentile infallible guidance to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world.

It will be a confirmation of this interpretation of the passage, if the general idea can be found in any other prophet. Such an idea is contained in Micah 5: 2. (Compare Matt. 2: 5, 6.) Having predicted the birth-place of the Messiah, "the Ruler of Israel, whose goings forth have been of old," he immediately adds, "Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she who travaileth shall have brought forth."

"In the fullness of time," Jesus Christ came, not indeed a temporal, but spiritual deliverer; whose kingdom was shadowed forth by temporal imagery, leading even his disciples to expect at first the literal fulfilment of the prophets, but was not of this world. Not all received him. Judah and Israel therefore continued desolate, and have continued desolate, down to this day. But "God hath not cast away his people, whom he foreknew. Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles shall have come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

VOL. IV.

24

ART. V. REVIEW OF DWIGHT'S HEBREW WIFE.

By Rev. Wм. MARSHALL, Pastor of the Presbyterian Church, Peekskill, New-York.

The Hebrew Wife: or the Law of Marriage in relation to the Lawfulness of Polygamy, and the extent of the law of Incest. By S. E. Dwight, NewYork: Leavitt, Lord, & Co., 180 Broadway: Boston, Crocker & Brewster. 1836, pp. 190.

THIS volume, from the pen of Mr. Dwight, is a work of considerable learning and research, and was no doubt, prepared with the benevolent intention of promoting the cause of religion and virtue. The limits to which this article must necessarily be confined, and the probable extent of the argument which it must contain, require us to advance without preliminary remarks, directly to the subject in hand.

The subject of polygamy occupies the first fifty pages of the work under review. It is scarcely necessary to say, that this practice is one of the most flagrant transgressions of God's original institution of marriage. From the fact that he created at first only one man and one woman, and in all succeeding ages has kept the sexes nearly equal in number, it is certain that polygamy has always been contrary to his creative and providential arrangements. There is much in the Old Testament from which the evil of the practice ought to have been inferred; but we do not agree with the author when he affirms, that the Old Testament contains an express prohibition of it. If we are not greatly mistaken, the supposed necessity for such a prohibition has led the author to believe that it really exists, and that he has found it in the laws of Moses. He will scarcely deny that the church of God existed without an express prohibition of polygamy for the space of about two thousand and five hundred years. There is a passage in the book of Malachi (2: 14, 15,) which, though it scarcely amounts to an express prohibition of the very objectionable practice, and probably was not so understood by the church in his days, comes much nearer to such a restraining act than any