the rich, in his death," This happened the reverse; for he DIED with the WICKED; being crucified between to thieves, and was buried in the sepulchre belonging to Joseph of Arimathea, who is represented as an honourable, and just man, and a counsellor.

Verse 10. "He shall see his seed; he shall prolong his days; and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand." Here are three blessings of which none can be applied to him. (Jesus) The first is, that he should see his seed or descendents: but as to children, we do not hear that he had any. The second is length of days, or long life: this he had not; for he was cut off in the thirty third year of his age. Thirdly, prosperity, of which he had none, as appears from the account of his life, and sufferings. To make out these blessings, they have recourse to the mystical application: (though they pretend this whole chapter to be literal of him,) They say that seed here, does not mean children or descendents: but that the phrase denotes the the church, or his followers, spiritually so called. But this has not the least foundation. The word zerang being always used, to denote descendents, or posterity: and there is no such thing in all the scripture, as spiritual seed or descendents. In the same manner, they explain his length of days; and pretend it means immortality. But this is trifling since immortality could not be given as a privilege; but is general and common to every soul: the privilege even of the wicked and the damned. So that length of days in the next, could, or would be of no peculiar blessing, since immortality there takes place; therefore, length of days could only be an earthly blessing. As to the pleasure of the Lord prospering in his hands, or prosperity; as they cannot make it out here, they send us to his heavenly kingdom: but as they know nothing at all of it, you must therefore, take it from their guesses.

Verse, 11. "By his knowledge, shall my righteous servant justify many. "This I have shown very plain, he did not, therefore, I shall say nothing more on this head.

Verses 12. "Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong." This part of the verse is no ways applicable to him; for so far from dividing a portion with the great, or having any spoil allotted him, he never possessed any thing of his own of this, he complains himself, "Because he poured out his soul unto death :" this being contrary to his will, and forced on him, he could not pretend to any merit from it. How he bore the sins of many, or made intercession for transgression, I have already considered. Thus sir, from the objections and considerations aforesaid,

it is evident that they cannot apply this chapter to Jesus; neither can they prove the benefit which they pretend, and which ought to be the necessary consequence of their doctrine.

Thus far are the objections of Dea, to the ...... ian explanation of the 53d chapter of Isaiah.

The following are the objections.of the accute J. Nikelsburger, taken from "Koul JACOB," page 28. &c. The reader is requested to bear in mind, that he addresses the Rev. Mr. Frey.

“In [[sa. ch. lii.] verse 9. he says, he had "redeemed Jerusalem ;”. from whence, but from the land of bondage? You will not say, that since the birth of ...... the Jews or Jerusalem, have ever yet been redeemed-just the contrary.

"Ver. 13. 'Behold my servant shall deal prudently; he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.'

"Surely the term servant,would be very inapplicable to Jesus, whom you consider to be God himself: nor have we any instances of his having been exalted,' or extolled,' or 'very high.'

"Ver. 14. As many were astonished at thee, his visage was so marred, more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men.'Chap. liii. ver. 2d. For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness, and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.'

"In the first place let me ask, who is this he?' or where is this he to come from? Not a word of the seed of David or Judah, in this chapter. Was the visage of Jesus 'so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men?' But we are told, immediately after, that he had no visage :-for this is the real meaning of the word

(MARAH,) which in the 2d verse of the 53d chapter, is improperly rendered 'form.' Had Jesus no visage nor comeliness, and, when he was looked upon, was he so misshapen, that nothing could be seen in him, which any one could desire? If so, he must have been a very different person to what you make Haggai say he should be, viz. the desire of all nations.' But pray, is it comeliness that man should desire in man?

"Ver. 3d. 'He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and we hid as it were, our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.'

"I believe the Jews never did hide their faces from Jesus; but we have many instances of Jesus having done so, for fear of the Jews.

"Again. At the time when Jesus preached in the temple, he must have been esteemed, or he would not have been suffered to preach there; nor would he have been suffered, with impunity, to have made

such a commotion amongst the buyers and sellers, the money changers and the sellers of doves, as we are told he did. St. Luke tells us, ch. iv. 15. that he taught in their synagogues, and was glorified of all

men.'

"Ver. 4th, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorows; yet we did esteem him stricken, and smitten of God and afflicted.' "If I mistake not, you admit that the word here rendered 'stricken,'

(NOGUA) means plagued with the leprosy (see Levit. chap. xiii. ver. 13.)--We are not told that Jesus was a leper, for he professed to heal it. Indeed if he had been one, the Jews would not have permitted him to have disputed daily in the temple,' or indeed, to have come any where near it; either for that purpose, or 'to cast out them that sold and bought, to overthrow the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves,' or for any other purpose whatever. On the contrary, he would have been expelled the city, and no communication held with him; until he had been cured and purified according to the law. (Levit. the same chap.)

"Ver. 5th. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed,'

"You will not deny that Isaiah was a Jew, and that he is addressing himself only to the Jews.--Then if Jesus be the person here alluded to, the Jews should have been healed by his stripes;' whereas, you say they committed a great sin by bruising him, and were severely punished, instead of being healed.

"And further, if Jesus be the person spoken of by Isaiah, how can you account for their being punished for doing what he told them should be done, and by the doing of which he promised them they should be healed?

"And again-after saying, in ver. 7. He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,' he says, in the beginning of ver. 10. "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him:" from which, and from what immediately follows, in the same verse, we naturally conclude that the 'bruising,' means the slaughter,' or the 'sacrifice." Then again I ask, if Jesus be meant, why the Jews should be punished, for doing that which the prophet had communicated to them, they would please the Lord by doing? or, which it pleased the Lord should be done?

"And again.--According to your construction of Isaiah, the Jews were to expect to be healed, and be forgiven their sins, only by the bruising, and wounding, and sacrificing of the Messiah there mentioned. and consequently, that if Jesus (who you insist was the Mes

siah) had not been bruised, wounded, and sacrificed, they could not be healed, or be forgiven their sins.--And yet, you most inconsistently believe, that they are punished for having sacrificed him. Pray then can you inform us, in what manner they were to be healed, or to obtain forgiveness of their sins, by that. Messiah at his coming? For if they had not sacrificed him, they would not have been healed and forgiven their sins, but would have been punished for them. And as they have sacrificed him, if by it, they were healed of their former sins, you believe they committed a new sin by so doing, and are punished for it! Then, what would you have advised them to do, to avoid punishment, and to obtain forgiveness of their sins, which you say, is promised by Isaiah at the coming of Jesus?

"Ver. 8. He was taken from prison, and from judgment; an who shall declare his generation, for he was cut off out of the land of the living.' By the words, who shall declare his generation?' we must understand, who shall know who he was, or from whence he came. But if Jesus be meant, and he be Shiloh, and unto him be the gathering of all the nations; of course all the nations will declare his generation.

"It would seem from the words, 'He was cut off out of the land of the living,' that the person alluded to, would be cut off from a place of living to a place where there is no living: for it is not said, put to death, or cut off from the earth, but out of the land of the living." And as you belive Jesus to have ascended into heaven, (which is more properly the place of the living, than this earth, which is mortal,) and to live there for ever, you cannot suppose he is the person spoken of by Isaiah.

"Ver. 9th. And he made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death."

"The Hebrew word 1 (BEMOTHOV,) here rendered in his death,' is in the plural number, in his deaths, and we are not told that Jesus died more than once.

"Ver. 10th. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.'

"Not a word about the resurrection is mentioned! nor can I imagine, how an immortal soul can be sacrificed by others! and pray, who is that thou, and who is that his?

The word DN IM is here improperly rendered "when," the real import is, if;' so that this is only a conditional promise-'if thou

shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand or in other words, if thou shalt not make his soul an offering for sin, he shall not see his seed, his days shall not be prolonged, nor shall the pleasure of the Lord prosper in his hand.'-Then if Jesus is spoken of, Jesus whom you believe to be coequal with God Is this a language to be made use of to him? or is there any condition with God?

"Ver. 11. 'He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge, shall my righteous servant justify many: for he shall bear their iniquities.' Here we have again the term servant; which, as before observed, is very inapplicable to God.

"Ver. 12. "Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, &c.—when, or where was the portion of Jesus with the great, and where, and when, did he divide the spoil with the strong? You can give no instance of either while he was on earth; and if you should say it would take place on his return to heaven (he, might have said, or from heaven) you make it still stronger against yourself; at least, so far as it affects the attributes and godhead of Jesus, as I proceed so show.

"In the first place, the Hebrew word ' BORABIM, is improperly translated with the great,' the real meaning is with a many.. Taking the word, in either sense, it is in the plural number, Then I ask who are the many or the great? and who are the strong? with whom he is to have his portion divided, and with whom he is to divide the spoil? and what portion or what spoil is to be divided? Admitting the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, we see that God himself is speaking, and as you profess to believe, of Jesus, his only Son; so that the Holy Ghost only remains.--The Holy Ghost could not be spoken of in the plural number, either as, with the many, with the great, or, with the strong. But the word great, or strong, being only in the first degree of comparison cannot be applied to God, who is superlative. Then it must be applied to some inferior to God: in which ease, the power of Jesus would not be only inferior to that of God, but also divided with others, inferior to him. And further, God says, I will divide to him;' which shows superiority in God; and also, that he is not subtantial with Jesus, the person you believe to be spoken of. Besides, throughout, could it be more evident, that the person spoken of, is a being inferior to the person speaking? The word servant, is twice made use of, and promises of reward held out, as from a master to a servant."