is really amazing, fince they are perhaps the moft curious monument that is to be found of the antiquity it bears. Dr. Ducarel has been fo obliging as to give us plates engraven from the drawings of it. Though we do not pretend to form any pofitive judgment, as having never feen the original tapestry, yet the ideas we receive from the engravings, convey no defpicable opinion of the drawing, particularly of fome of the human figures, horfes, aud buildings. The ftory is aukwardly, but circumftantially told, and contains that period of the life of Harold, afterwards king of England, in which he fets out from the palace of king Edward (who is feen giving him his instructions from his throne) on an embaffy to the duke of Normandy, to the time when he fell in the battle of Haftings. Some circumftances omitted by hiftory are exhibited in this tapestry, which the writer thinks was continued to the coronation of William, though that part of it is now loft.

What honour does this hiftorical monument reflect upon the needle of the royal author, which fhe has employed to better purpose than almost any historian ever did his pen, since it includes an atchievement which must have tranfmitted the name of any prince with the highest glory to future ages. We hope that as it is now explained in English, fome of our own fair country-women will catch the patriot glow, and, like the royal Matilda, decorate fome of our public buildings with historical walls, which may reflect equal luftre upon their memories as upon the heroes they celebrate. Let the female title of admiffion into circles of politenefs and pleasure, be purchafed by the labours of the needle. The conquefts we have made in Afia and America afford the nobleft fubjects that hiftory exhibits.-The idea is fo flattering, that it may carry us into an improper digreffion.

The fecond number of the appendix contains extracts relating to Normandy, from the Red Book of the exchequer. The third number is principally extracted from father Montfaucon's Monumens de la Monarchie Françoife, and contains a defcription of the curious baffo relievos reprefenting interviews of Henry, king of England, with Francis of France, between Guines and Ardres in Picardy, on the 7th day of June, in the year 1520; and the laft number gives us a copy of the appointment of king Henry and his queen, and of the trains which actually did attend them at the interview. The plates are valuable for the dreffes and habits of the horses and their riders. Some figures in them, however, we think are not perfectly explained.

To

To conclude: It cannot be denied that in this work Dr. Ducarel has given fignal fpecimens of his abilities as an hiftorian, an antiquary, and a genealogift; and no fmall degree of praise ought to be bestowed by the public on the noble and other perfonages, who have fo generously contributed to the plates which illuftrate the performance.

V. A Critical Differtation on Isaiah, VII. 13, 14, 15, 16. In which the Sentiments advanced by Dr. Kennicott, in a Sermon lately published, and by feveral other Writers, are candidly and impartially examined. 8vo. Pr. 1. White.

Tis univerfally allowed, that the books of Mofes and the

Meffiah. How they were fulfilled in Jefus Chrift, has been thewn at large by Christian writers. But foine divines, not content with plain and indisputable prophecies, have applied many paffages to our Saviour, which were originally written with different views; and under a notion of corroborating the evidences of Chriftianity, have had recourfe to types, and figures, and fecondary fenfes but the moft judicious defenders of our religion have perceived the abfurdity of this conduct, and rejected thofe arguments, as trifling and fallacious, which are founded on double interpretations and typical fenfes.

The paffage which is the subject of this differtation, has been difcuffed by many theological writers, and various interpretations have been propofed. Some have afferted, that it relates to a fon of Isaiah, others to Chrift; fome have concluded for a double meaning, and fuppofed, that it relates to both a fon of Ifaiah and to Chrift; to one in a literal, and to the other in a fecondary and figurative fense: and, laftly, by others it has been faid, that the paffage contains two diftinct prophecies, the first relating to Chrift, the fecond to Ifaiah's fon.

The late Dr. Benfon, in a preface to the first volume of his Paraphrafe and Notes on the Epiftles, and Dr. Kennicott, in a Sermon published in 1765, have faid all that can well be faid, in fupport of the last of these opinions.

The learned writer who favoured us with an account of that difcourfe has admitted, that the doctor's explication is fatisfactory. This, perhaps, was faying too much. It is indeed ingenious, but the most obvious and natural explication is this which Dr. W- -ms * has adopted, viz. That the prophecy relates to

*The author of a Concordance to the Greek Teftament, lately published.

one

one person only, and that was the fon of a young woman who was prefent when Ifaiah delivered the prediction, which fon was afterwards to be born.

In order to establish this sense of the passage, he confiders the circumftances of Ahaz, and the state of his kingdom, and then enters into a critical examination of the words.

Ahaz and his people were in diftrefs; Ifaiah is fent to inform them, that the defigns of their enemies fhould not fucceed. In confirmation of this affurance Ahaz is required to afk a fign; he refufed; and, upon that refufal, is thus addreffed by the prophet, Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a fign, &c.

In thefe circumftances we fhould naturally, fays the author, look for an immediate sign or token of divine protection; and the words, as they appear to me, are of that nature, that is, they contain a promise of fafety and a fign to confirm it.

• After all that hath been faid of Mr. Collins' observation, though in many respects, he is a very unfair writer; yet I think it very juft and pertinent. "God," fays he, gave Gideon and Hezekiah immediate figns to prove that he spoke to them, and that the things promised to them fhould come to pass. Had he given them remote figns, how could they have known, that the figns themselves would ever come to pass? and how could thefe figns evidence any thing? Thofe figns would have ftood in need of other figns, to manifeft that God would perform them in time."

In my opinion, this is very juftly obferved, only it may be neceffary to add, that there is a wide difference between a fign which is fhortly to take place, as in this cafe, in a year or two, or perhaps lefs; and one to take place fix or seven hundred years afterwards, when none of the perfons to whom it was given would be alive to fee it performed.

Dr. Kennicott's Reply, That the houfe of David, to whom, he fays, the promife was given, did exift, and faw it fulfilled in Jefus Chrift, is, by no means, a fatisfactory anfwer, for reafons too obvious to be mentioned.

The distress was prefent, they wanted immediate relief: a deliverance, or a token of it to be fhortly fulfilled, would have been fuitable to their cafe; what reafon therefore can be affigned, that this was not fuch a token? If it should be replied, that we must not pretend to account for the divine proceedings, upon all occafions: that God acted, in this cafe, according to his fovereign will and pleafure: I reply again, all this is granted; we must not presume to arraign the divine wisdom, nor find fault with the divine appointments: but ftill, when we find that in most, I think, in all other inftances, recorded in the Old Teftament,

Teftament, the fign or token of divine protection was inmediate, or very shortly to take place; fhould we not expect the fame in this inftance? Certainly, this would have afforded much greater confolation, than any that could be derived from the promife of a Meffiah fo many years afterwards to be born.

The advocates for the opinion, that this paffage contains two diftinct prophecies, are forced to it by the 16th verse, which cannot, in any sense, be applied to the Messiah. Verfes 14th and 15th, they fay, relate to Chrift, but the 16th to Ifaiah's fon.

Is it not very unnatural, and, if I am not greatly mistaken, very unusual?

We have several inftances of figns, which were immediately, or very fhortly, to happen, to prove the accomplishment of fome future event, but none, that I can remember, of remote figns, to prove the accomplishment of an event near at hand. Had the former of these prophecies related to Ifaiah's fon, and the latter to Chrift; it would not have been fo unnatural and forced, to have understood them as diftinét: for then the prophet, with some propriety and elegance, might be thought to raise the attention of his hearers, from the temporal deliverance, which they now much wanted, to that future, and more important falvation to be accomplished by the Meffiah; whereas the prefent order, and abrupt tranfition, make that sentiment highly incredible.

That immediate figns to prove future events were usual, appears from numerous places in the Old Teftament. Mofes and Aaron gave many figns to Pharaoh and the Egyptians. A fign was given to Eli by the death of his two fons, Hophni and Phineas. Jeroboam had feveral figns given him, when the man of God prophefied against the altar in Bethel and many figns were given to the houses of Ifrael and Judah.

• Pere Houbigant and Dr. Kennicott produce Exodus iii. 12. as an inftance of a remote fign to prove an event near at hand. There God fays to Mofes, "Certainly I will be with thee, and "this" (shall be fay our tranflators, but rather) " is a token un"to thee, that I have fent thee; when thou haft brought forth "the people out of Egypt, ye shall ferve God upon this moun"tain." That is, fays Houbigant, "God gave to Mofes this fign of a deliverance from Egyptian flavery, that they should worship God afterwards on Mount Horeb."

But this is a mistake, for the fign here referred to was not this future event, but the bush burning with fire and yet not confumed. This was a proper token, and a fufficient proof, that God would be with him, when he appeared before Pharaoh; this was an affurance to him, that his brethren, under

his direction, fhould be delivered from their bondage. The burning bush, was the fign or token, in the opinion of the Chaldee paraphraft; his bringing the Ifraelites out of Egypt, and worshipping God on Mount Horeb, were the events confirmed by this fign.

As for 2 Kings xix. 29. and the parallel place, Ifaiah xxxvii. 30. they prove nothing against what is here advanced, for the fign was to take place in one or two years at the fartheft, that is, before the events confirmed by them, which is the point I contend for but indeed, it seems rather to be an affurance of divine protection, than properly a fign or token of future good. See Pool's Synopfis.

But it is faid, that if the family of David was removed from the throne, the promise of the Meffiah made to Abraham, Da vid, &c. might be fet afide; and, therefore, that the affurance here given of the accomplishment of that promife, afforded Ahaz and his people fufficient comfort in their distress. But, furely, this is a very fallacious and inconclufive way of reasoning: for, fuppofing that Rezin and Pekah had at this time fucceeded in their attempt, and had actually made the son of Tabeal king; was it impoffible for the royal line ever to be restored? or, might not the Meffiah, as, indeed, he actually was, be born of the house of David when difpoffeffed of the throne?

If this argument has any weight, and the promise thus anderstood was really fuited to the condition of Ahaz and his kingdom at this time; it must also have been fuitable to the condition of Zedekiah, in whose reign Jerufalem was taken, and Judah became tributary to Babylon. The family of David was then fet afide, and was never afterwards properly restored; but the Meffiah, nevertheless, was born of that family. How illgrounded, then, muft the confidence of Zedekiah have been, had he depended upon all the promises before given of the Meffiah, this promife included, for fafety, and looked upon them as affurances that the city fhould not be taken by the king of Babylon !

But it is replied, that the intention of thefe confederate princes, was to extirpate the house of David, which would have effectually prevented the fulfilment of the prophecies relating to the Meffiah.

'I answer, this confederacy was entered into about 270 years after the death of David; in which space of time the family must have become very numerous.

• David had at least fifteen fons, befides his daughter Tamar, and many other children by concubines. Now, fuppofing thefe fifteen fons had, one with another, two children each, and allowing thirty years for every generation from David to Ahaz,