a "Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God; " and I will not save them by the sword, &c." 1 The Messiah is, beyond dispute, called “ "Redeemer;" an appellation at least equally appropriate to JEHOVAH. This Mr. C. confesses, and in a manner which in fact concedes the point in contest. "This is my covenant." "What is that 'covenant; To send them the Deliverer: for 'what? "To take away their sins." (P. 11.)-Now a deliverer, to take away 'their sins,' is One who "shall save his people from their sins."2 The Messiah is also in several places predicted as "the Salvation of God." 3 And no doubt Simeon gave the true meaning of these prophecies, when he said, "Mine eyes have seen thy "Salvation; a light to lighten the gentiles, and "to be the glory of thy people Israel." But it is needless to insist further on this, If the Messiah was not predicted as a Saviour, or Deliverer, in one sense or another; what was to be the object of his coming? It is manifest that the Jews expect a Deliverer from temporal evils, and worldly enemies: Christians rejoice in a Saviour from sin and Satan, from wrath and hell, "salvation with eternal glory:" They look to Immanuel, as "become the Author of eternal "salvation to all them that obey him."-In this view of the subject, they are so familiar with the term Saviour as used of the Messiah, and so in the habit of using the language of the Old Testament, in expressing their thoughts and feelings Comp. Hos. i. 7. Tit. ii. 10-13. iii. 4-6. Matt. i. 21. Rom. xi. 26. Is. xii. 2. xlix. 6. lii. 10. respecting Him; that they cannot but be surprised to hear it so much as questioned, whether the Messiah should be a Saviour or not. P. 17. 1. 3. 'THE SON OF MAN. - Ezekiel' &c. It is rather wonderful that the writer should assert, that 'Jesus never thought of such a thing' as being called God, or any thing more than "the "Son of Man." Had the Jews in our Lord's days thought so, they must either have given up their prosecution of him; or conducted it on other grounds. "Therefore the Jews sought the " more to kill him, because he had not only broken "the sabbath, but said also that God was his "Father, making himself equal with God." 1 "The Jews answered him; for a good work we "stone thee not, but for blasphemy; because " thou being a man makest thyself God." 2 "We " have a law, and by our law he ought to die, "because he made himself the Son of God." 3. It would be quite superfluous to quote any texts in proof that he called himself the Son of God, in the highest and most appropriate sense. 4 Mr. C. asserts, that if Jesus is man he is no God.' This Socinians have often done: but assertion is not proof. "To us a Son is given, " and his name shall be called Wonderful, Coun"sellor, the MIGHTY GOD."5 "Without contro 66 versy, Great is the mystery of Godliness, God " was manifest in the flesh." 6 Certainly man is not God, nor God man: but the general tradition and opinion of nearly all nations, concerning incarnations of the Deity, are in diametrical opposition to these confident assertions. This at least implies a general persuasion that such an event is not a natural impossibility. Whether the Old Testament taught Israel to expect this mysterious event, must be tried by appropriate evidence. The term, " son of man," as used concerning Ezekiel, simply means "a son of Adam" )בֶּן־אָדָם( And, as adopted by Jesus Christ, it signifies nearly the same; he was born of the stock of Adam : but it does not at all relate to the manner of his conception.-Mr. C. has been peculiarly unhappy in his quotation from the book of Daniel: for he adduces, not the words of the prophet, or of God by him; but the opinion of Nebuchadnezzar's baffled magicians: which opinion God was pleased to refute by revealing the secret to his servant Daniel.1 The texts referred to at the bottom of the page may give some light on the question, whether the dwelling of God be ever with man or not. 2 Having disposed of these assertions, or arguments, and this quotation ; I proceed once for all, to collect from the passages quoted, a question, which I shall attempt to answer : 'Dan. ii. 11, 16-23. * Ex. xxix. 45. Lev. xxvi. 11, 12. Num. xxxv. 34. Ps. lxviii. 16-18. cxxxii. 14. Is. lvii. 15. WAS THE MESSIAH, PREDICTED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, TO HAVE A MAN AS HIS IMMEDIATE FATHER? If the Messiah was to be the son of a man and a woman, in the ordinary course of human nature, it could not reasonably be supposed that any notice of so common an event would be taken by the prophets. But, if he was to be an exception to all rules and examples, from the creation to the end of the world; it must be supposed that some intimation, at least, if not clear prediction would be given of it. If then Christians could produce nothing of this kind from the Old Testament, it would weaken very much their proof of the miraculous conception of Jesus; and even their evidence of another kind that he is the predicted Messiah. But, if matters are in this respect so arranged, as it might reasonably have been expected beforehand, it must powerfully combine with all their other arguments to establish their doctrine. The well-known prophecy of Isaiah first calls for our most serious attention. 1 Let the introduction be carefully and impartially considered. "The Lord spake unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a "sign2 of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the " depth, or in the height above :" either " a sign " from heaven, or one like the dividing of the sea." Beyond doubt, a miraculous sign, of the most stu 'Isa. vii. 10-14. 2. Kings xx. 9. Heb. *אות Ex. iv. 9. viii. 23. Num. xvi. 38. pendous nature, vastly deviating from the ordinary course of human affairs, was intended.-But, when Ahaz perversely refused to ask a sign, God answered, "The Lord himself shall give you a "sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear "a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel." The introduction, and the call for attention, must lead every attentive and impartial reader to expect, that some manifest interposition of Omnipotence was about to be promised: but there would be nothing miraculous, or uncommon, in a virgin marrying and bearing a son; nor even in the name Immanuel, except as understood in the sense of the New Testament: nor have they, who adopt this interpretation, been able to ascertain who this virgin was, and who the son born of her, or why he was to be called Immanuel. Hezekiah, to whom some would apply it, had been born long before; for he was twenty-five years of age at his father's death, and his father reigned only sixteen years. The words, however, will not bear this sense; and we appeal, not to Rabbinical Hebrew, or to the Rabbinical traditions and interpretations, but to the Hebrew Bible. Now, the original word (y) in the Hebrew Bible, uniformly means, a woman 'who has not known man, by lying with him. It is derived from, to be hid or concealed. Hence y, puer qui adhuc gnarus non est con'cubitus matrimonialis: occultatus a re conjugali: (Robertson :) andy, adolescentula puella, 'sed virgo, sic appellata, quod esset, ocultata 'viro.' (Buxtorf.) "The virgin was very fair to look upon, and a virgin, (n) neither had any man known |