and consequently, he gives us the Jew side, in a disguised, awkward, and weak state. The question on this text, stands thus.

Bible translation. Isa. ix. 6. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

And which the Jews translate "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, HAS CALLED his name the Prince of Peace." And this child, the Jews say, was king Hezekiah, who was a child at the time of the delivery of this prophecy; and who, afterwards, was made king, and consequently, the rule was on his shoulders. And they object against the ...... ian explanation that the whole; fore part of the prophecy is in the present and past tense, IS BORN, IS GIVEN: and they say that p" is not as translated in the English Bible, And his name shall be called, but that it is, and should have been translated, And he called his name.

ויקרא

To the above explanation Wolf objects, that according to the construction of the Hebrew language (if it should be so explained) it should stand thus:

פלא יועץ אל גבור אבי עד יקרא לשמו שר שלום

ויקרא

Hence it appears, Wolf did not comprehend the explanation, he re fers to his dictionary and concordance, when he ought to be acquainted sufficiently with the language, to do without a dictionary; but I shall proceed as if I am speaking to an English ear, who has learnt the Hebrew by lexicon and the rules of grammar, and therefore hope to make myself better understood: the verb is xp this verb Jews invariably translate, indicative, past, third person singular-consequently, and he called; and look for a noun agreeing therewith, this they find to be the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father: and I say that Wolf's construction is not according to the idiom of the Hebrew, wherein the noun may come after the verb, to prove which, we want no concordance, nor lexicon, we have only to open the bible, in the very first page of which we find D'p's " and God called, here the verb p" and he called, in the Hebrew proceeds its noun □ GOD Gen. i. 5. I chose this verse, because it is the same but in truth, several preceding verses have their nouns

verb

ויקרא

agreeing with, and following their verbs as op God created,

ברא אלקים and God saw. Indeed this is the וירא אלקים,and God said ויאמר אלקים

most general method of expression. I might here give a long list of the verb p" (but it must be unnecessary) translated in the Bible, and he called, where the noun agreeing follows as in Isaiah ix. 5. let the following suffice, Gen. i. 9.-11-20 xxv. 1. and lastly, Levit. x. 1. "And the Lord called unto Moses," &c. Here the verb *p" is the first word of the sentence, and its noun "The Lord," does not appear till after the next verb in the same tense, number and person. 17 and he spake, so that it should have been translated, "and the Lord called and spake to Moses." But ......ians with the English translation render the verb p" in Isaiah xviii. 8. imperative future, third person, shall be called, but this their Hebraists cannot, neither will they defend, no matter what lexicon, dictionary, or concordance they use. Thus my brother, you perceive how the question stands between us on that text in Isaiah.

And the context shows the Jews are correct, in saying Hezekiah is intended by Isaiah, and not Jesus. The prophet is giving an account, or foretelling the invasion of Judea by Sennacherib and his destruction. Of this he treats in the latter part of the 8th chapter, and his destruction in the fore part of the 9th; and on this he sings "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined." By the destruction of the army of Sennacherib, the Jews will see a great light and enlargement, as heretofore explained, No. 2. Vol. II. pa. 296. The Prophet foreseeing all that eventuated in consequence of the destruction of this invading army, addressed God in these words: "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy they joy before thee according to the joy in hearvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil." And here there is a karee, and kasib; the Bible translates as it is written, "And not increased the joy ;" and this may appear enigmatical, for the joy appears perfect, since they in that day, rejoiced before God in Jerusalem, on the destruction of the besieging army, as men rejoice in harvest, and as men rejoice who divide the spoil: they did indeed rejoice with a perfect joy, and did divide the spoil of Sennacherib's army, which was destroyed and therefore, the karee which is affirmative, thou didst to him increase the joy," and it will again be so read on the coming of the Messiah when our joy will be perfect. But at present, the English Bible is correct, as it is written, "and not increased the joy ;" for after this salvation under Hezekiah, the joy of Israel has no fur

ther been increased; we have been in captivity from the time of his son Manasseh, to this our day-and therefore, also the next karee and kasib, verse 6. which is written with a final men, making for

the present reading, two words 7 D which is rather a dividing the rule or government o to, or in favour of that nation called oh Gen. xxv. 23. x x D this also, must not be altered till the coming of the Messiah our righteousness, as the English has it, when will be fulfilled, yyy the greater will serve the lesser.

Hence may be perceived the necessity of leaving the sacred page as we find it. And the English Bible society have done wrong, by putting an open, instead of a final letter, in the word na Isa. ix. I would think it sufficient to condemn the whole edition; and although I would rather see Hebrew Bibles without English or latin notes, or crosses in the margin, I would look over the notes, and call crosses single daggars, but should require the text to remain sacred, and not allow the most trifling alteration to take place. The Jews are the proper, and acknowledged guardians of the sacred text: We therefore, enter our public protest against the edition in question; and with the Jerusalem Jews, pronounce it a perverted, and an unfaithful copy; and every man, Gentiles as well as Jews, all who are in favour of the sacred preservation of the original text, will no doubt, do their duty.

Isa. ix. 4-5. “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 Median. For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire." The burden of Sennacherib was indeed heavy, all Judea was conquered, except Jerusalem: and his overthrow was as perfect as the defeat of the Medianites, either in the days of Balaam, or their last defeat under Gideon, Judg. viii. which is here alluded to.

The defeat of Sennacherib was not like any other defeat; for it was without noise, and without bloodshed; for they were all slain, to appearance, in a natural way, in one night, 180,000 men, the whole army died without noise, or bloodshed; and the burning and fire, may either intend the inward fever which consumed them, or that the dead were consumed on funeral piles. Then follows our text: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, shall call his name, the Prince of Peace."

And even should we concede that these names, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, as well as the Prince of Peace, are the names of the child, still is that child, Heze

kiah, whose name, whereby he was generally called: Hezekiah contains all these, and is much greater; it is nothing less than 17 pin The Lord my fortress, or rather the Eternal Existence my fortress; and this is nothing else than the ineffable name; the last letter is omitted that it should not be spoken; but every Hebraist will tell you it is the same, and has the meaning I have above given it.

As to Isa. xi. 10. is allowed to speak of the Messiah, who will come in that day, spoken of verse 9. that is, when all the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the water covers the depth of the sea. Then in that day, there shall be root to Jesse. Not that the Messiah is the root of his progenitor, but that the tree which has been cut down, shall from the old root Jesse produce the sprout, the Messiah: agreeably to verse 1. "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his root." Messiah is not the root, Jesse is the root, stem or stump from which this sucker, the Messiah, will sprout up, for an ensign to all nations.

"Has not the ROD and branch refference to the Messiah, who is not only the root but the offspring of David;-not only David's son, but David's Lord:-not only a ROD of the stem of Jesse, but the BRANCH, the branch of righteousness out of the roots of

Jesse ;-Is not the root of Jesse the Jehovah, the ensign of the people, whom Gentiles seek? His rest or sabbath is to be glorious; which will be when Daniel's kingdom, the Stone, now so little among a very few ....ians, (perhaps as one to a hundred or a thousand, though one of ten professing ......ians may be saved,) shall become a great and general dominion or mountain, covering the whole earth."

From what is above shown, you must perceive, that your question, Is not the root of Jesse the Je. &c, will not apply; for although God may be said to be the root of all creation. it does not say, Messiah is the root.

You follow the erroneous translation of the writer of Paul's Epistles, and I do not blame you, for you make no pretence of being "an Hebrew," a disciple of Gamliel, I therefore, shall merely point out your mistake. You translate his rest, his sabbath! Now sabbath, does truly mean rest from labour, from toil; but the word in Isa. xi. 10. is not sabbath, but, Minuchathow, and if translated rest, it means rest from worrying, from trouble, his peace, his quietness: the glory of the Messiah will be, his introducing peace and quietness in world: or the peace and quietness of his reign, will be glorious. The kingdom of the stone, you tell us, is at present little, "perhaps as one to a hundred or a thousand, though one of ten professing ....... ians may be saved," This itself, is bad! bad enough, in all conscience! one out of ten thousand, but even this is not the worst, for this word LITTLE, which is to save, this one out of ten thousand, is no where

the

to be found in Daniel! he merely says a stone," and not "little stone," Dan. ii. 34 and 55. As soon as the stone is cut out, it smites the image and becomes a great mountain. See it explained in No. 1, Vol. 1.

You next ask, "And what is this mountain or kingdom, but God himself who is a s spirit?"

Nebuchadnezzar sat up the image, in the plain of Dura, our anestors refused to worship it; neither will we their decendents worship the stone, set up by you in the United States: be assured, that Jews will worship neither stock, nor stone.

"And wo to them that cover themselves with a covering (or atonement,) but not an atonement of my spirit, saith the Lord."

I have neither leisure, nor inclination for recrimination; besides, the question in controversy, requires that the feelings of affection, be between us. Thus much I may say, your translation of Isa. xxx. 1. is altogether erroneous.

"Jeremiah and Zechariah speak of this Branch, Jer. xxiii. 5. xxxiii. 15. Zech. iii. 3. Jeremiah calls this Branch the Eternal's righteousness, (The Lord our righteousness, says our translation: ) and the branch of righteonsness. The rod of Jesse's stem, evidently must refer to a seed of David according to the flesh but the Branch of righteousness, or root of Jesse, must as evidently refer to Jehovah himself, who is David's Lord. God manifest in the flesh of the Messiah, well explains how David's son, according to the flesh, is David's Lord, according to the Holy Spir it, whom David saw and acknowledged.

Let us take the above mentioned three verses, on which this strange this pretended reasoning is built, before us.

Jer. xxiii. 6. “In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

xxxiii. 15.-16. "In those days, and in that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and JERUSALEM be dwelt safely; and this is the name wherewith SHE shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

By these two texts it appears, that Jerusalem and Messiah, are to be called by the name of God, granted; but it is not therefore pretended that Jerusalem is god; neither is Messiah god: although called by his

name.

Zech. iii. 8 "Behold I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.” Again we will grant the above is a promise of the Messiah, under the title of a sprout, or as the bible has it, the branch; can it hence, or even from the combination of the passages appear that the Messiah is God! we might as well say, that Jerusalem is God! that Jerusalem is the branch of David, and his Lord! because it is to be called by the