son in the Trinity, the Son, but denies the incarnation of the Father, and denies the incarnation of the whole Deity, without distinction of persons. But if the child is God, because it is called mighty god, then it is the everlasting Father, because it is called Everlasting Father. If this phrase prove any incarnation, it is that of the Father. But the incarnation of the Father, according to the Trinitarian hypothesis, would overthrow the whole economy of redemption. According to that theory, it was necessary, nay, was a matter of compact, that the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, should come upon earth and assume our nature, that he might, in that nature, satisfy the justice of the Father, and make atonement for the sins of the world. But if the everlasting Father came on earth, then there was no one left to whom the atonement could be made, unless it were the Son, and that would be reversing the order of the compact. So far then from sustaining the doctrine of the Trinity, this epithet, and of course the whole passage, contradicts it.

As an appellation of a sovereign, as this child is represented to be destined to be, it is far more rational to interpret it of him in that capacity, and make him the perpetual father of his people, not of course defining perpetual in the sense of eternal, but, as is the case in most of the instances in which the term everlasting occurs, of a duration to continue as long as the subject exists. The everlasting hills, means the hills which shall continue as long as the earth. The servant who had his ears bored, was to be his master's forever, that is, as long as he should live. So, according to

Hebrew idiom, the king, who should be a perpetual Father to his people, would reign over them with paternal care as long as he should live; intimating, however, that his reign would be long, and perhaps that its influences might last much longer.

Abstracting then from all theological questions which have been raised upon this passage, it would merely amount to this: The prophet declares that there is then born a child of the royal family, who is to be peculiarly gifted and qualified to resuscitate the fallen fortunes of the Jews, and therefore shall be called admirable, wise, courageous, benignant, peaceful. And this is all; and it has been thought by some of the most judicious commentators to refer to Hezekiah, who was then, it is computed, about eleven years old. There is no intimation in the New Testament that either Christ, or his Apostles, considered it to refer to him.

But all appearance of teaching anything as to the nature of the child will vanish, if we consider the habits of the Jews as to naming their children. This they did, either with reference to their personal qualities, or what they were destined to accomplish, or, more frequently, from the circumstances of their birth. So far is the name of God from proving anything as to the nature of the person to whom it is given, that almost all the names in the Old Testament beginning or ending in el, are some combination of the name of God; and all ending in jah, are combinations of the most sacred name of God, Jehovah. The list of names at the end of most of our large Bibles, will throw great light

upon this matter.

Thus, David's eldest brother was called Eliab, which signifies "God the Father," or "God of my Father." The name of the prophet Elijah, in Hebrew, is "God the Lord." Ishmael, "God that hears." Lemuel, "God with them." Abiel, "God my Father." Now if the giving of these names is allowed to prove anything as to the essential nature of the children to whom they are given, there have been nearly as many incarnations in the Jewish theology as there have been in that of the Hindoos. But the fact is, that all these names prove nothing as to the nature of the children to whom they were given. It was customary for Hebrew parents to give their children names from the circumstances under which they were born, either of prosperity or adversity, which they considered as coming immediately from God. Hagar, at the command of the angel, called her son Ishmael, or "God that hears," because the Lord had heard her in her affliction. And so it is throughout the Old Tes

tament.

The most remarkable instance, perhaps, is recorded in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. About the year seven hundred and thirty-seven before Christ, Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Israel, became confederate, and invaded Judah. Ahaz was then king of Judah, a man of weak character; and although, in the main, a worshipper of Jehovah, yet sometimes addicted to idolatry. He was much alarmed at the danger that threatened his country; and Isaiah the prophet was sent to encourage and console him with the assurance, that this attempt upon his capital should

be in vain. "Take heed," says he, "and be quiet; fear not, neither be faint-hearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah. Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, Let us go up against Judah and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal Thus saith the Lord God; It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.' "" Ahaz is not much encouraged by this message, and the prophet, to confirm him, requests him to ask some token of God that what he promises shall be done, some outward manifestation of Divine power. But Ahaz refuses to ask a sign. "I will not ask," says he, "neither will I tempt the Lord." The prophet answers: "Hear ye now, O house of David. Is it a small thing for you to weary men; but will ye weary my God also? Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know," or until he shall know," to choose the good and refuse the evil. For 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."

Here, then, is a child to be born, as a sign of deliverance to Ahaz, and to be called Immanuel. And why? Because he was to be an incarnation of Jehovah? By no means; but because God was to defend and deliver his people before he should grow up to know good and evil. The nature of the child was to have

nothing to do with his name, nor was it on account of anything that the child was to do, that the name Immanuel was to be given to it, but on account of something that was to be done by God, before the child should be old enough to discern good and evil. The whole matter turns upon the time that was to elapse before the country would be fully relieved of her two enemies, and it is limited to the time in which a young woman, then unmarried, should be married, have a son, and that son should grow up to an age in which he might distinguish between good and evil.

the

In the very next chapter, we have a similar symbolic name applied to another child, many theological scholars have thought, the same child. At any rate, name of the child refers to the same event. "Moreover, the Lord said unto me, Take thou a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen, concerning Mahershalal-hash-baz. And I took me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah, the son of Jeberechiah, and I went unto the prophetess, and she conceived and bare a son. Then said the Lord unto me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz," speed to the prey, haste to the spoil. "For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria." Here then are two symbolic names applied to two children, or perhaps to one child, to symbolize and be a pledge of the same event, that the two kings of Syria and Israel should be so pressed by the king of Assyria, that they should abandon Judea, and leave the Jews in peace.