that case, immediately succeed. Hence it is concluded, that Isaiah delivered to Ahaz the prophecies contained in this chapter soon, very soon, after he had succeeded his father as king of Judah, even in the first year of his reign. And this first year of Ahaz, according to 2 Kings xvi. 1, was the seventeenth of Pekah's reign over Israel.

year.

In 2 Kings xv. 30, it is said that Pekah was slain by Hoshea, in the twentieth year of Jotham, son of Uzziah; that is, in the twentieth year from Jotham being made king, for Jotham himself reigned only sixteen years; see ver. 33. Now Pekah began to reign in the fifty-second year, that is, in the last year of Uzziah's reign; and he reigned twenty years. Compare ver. 2 with ver. 27. Jotham began to reign in the second year of Pekah, verse 32; and by comparing this with the last-quoted verse, it is plain that his reign would commence just after Pekah entered his second As Jotham reigned sixteen years, and Ahaz succeeded his father in the seventeenth of Pekah, it is hence inferred, that Ahaz began to reign just about, rather after than before, the time that Pekah completed his seventeenth year. Consequently the twentieth of Jotham will be some where in the third year of Ahaz, but before that year was completed. For add to rather more than one, (Pekah having just entered his second year,) the sixteen years of Jotham's reign, this will give rather more than the seventeenth of Pekah. As then there would not be three years wanting to complete the twentieth of Jotham, that would fall about the second, or at farthest before the third of Ahaz was completed. Ahaz then had not reigned three full years when Pekah was slain by Hoshea, and the land of Ephraim left desolate of her king.

Of Rezin there is not so particular an account given, nor have we such notes of time as will enable us so exactly to determine the time of his death. But from the narration given of it in 2 Kings xvi. 6-10, it may be inferred, that his death must have happened nearly about the same time. In the space of two years there seems a sufficient length of time for the accomplishment of all the intermediate

events; the success of the Syrians against the Jews, and the embassy from Ahaz to Tiglath-pileser, might take up one year; his descent upon Damascus, the capture of that city and people, with the slaughter of Rezin, might be accomplished in another. If so, this would be rather before the destruction of Pekah. Here again, then, it may be concluded that Ähaz had not reigned three years when this event took place. That is, it was about two years after the prophet had spoken unto the king, as recorded in Isaiah, ch. vii.

Now, as it is most probable that Isaiah went in unto the prophetess, and that she conceived shortly after the predictions had been delivered to Ahaz, and as nine months must be allowed for the time of gestation, the birth of the child Maher-shalal-hashbaz, must have been some time in the second year of Ahaz. Thence reckoning forward till the time of the death of Rezin and Pekah, in the third year of Ahaz, as has just now been shewn, the age of the child could not have been two years; very likely not much more than one. At that age, it is by no means probable that he should be able to cry my father and my mother. Consequently, according to Isa. viii. 4, the riches of Damascus, and the spoil of Samaria, were taken away before that time. In like manner it may be added, that at that age the child could not know to refuse the evil and choose the good. And, therefore, before that period, agreeably to Isa. vii. 16, the land which Ahaz abhorred was left desolate of both her kings. Thus the prediction and accomplishment of the sign have been verified.

2. It is also said, that "within threescore and five years" from the time of the prophecy being delivered,

Ephraim shall be broken that it be not a people." This also we shall verify by shewing its accomplishment. In doing which the notes of time must be collected from the account of the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel, and from a comparison of the two together. That there may not appear to be any favouring of the prophecy, it will be proper to compute rather above than under what may be exactly indicated.

There is so much confusion in the style of this writer, that it is not always easy to find out his meaning. In the above passage he discovers a total ignorance of Protestantism, and the principles on which it is founded. I had always understood that a Protestant was one who rejected the corruptions of the church of Rome, and who appealed to the Scriptures as the sole rule of faith and practice. This I found asserted in innumerable writers, and the truth of it is evident from the whole history of the reformation. In these principles, "Calvinists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Socinians and Unitarians,” are united with the Church of England, without a single exception.

This writer is not the first who has associated the Unitarians with Deists. And if to distinguish Christianity from its corruptions, to preach and live under the warrant of Scripture, and to inculcate sound morals on the prospect of that immortality which was brought to light by the gospel, be a sign of Deism, Unitarians will have no objection to the name of Deists. The frequent use of these invidious aspersions, by intolerant bigots, will take out their sting. The world is not so ready as it has been, to follow the cry of designing men. To affirm the globe we inhabit to be round, was deemed heresy a few ages back, and for asserting its motion the immortal Galileo was confined in the dungeons of the Inquisition. But the term heretic has, in these more enlightened times lost its dreadful sound. The worst heresies that ever infested religion are found to be spiritual pride, priestly ambition, the love of dominion, and the spirit of persecution.

But to place us on a footing with "Deists and Unbelievers," does not satisfy this Dr. Fletcher. He will not allow us to have any religion, He has falsely, malevolently, and without the smallest provocation, insulted those who merited far other

treatment from a Catholic. In whatever light I view his conduct, it appears to me weak, indiscreet and ungrateful. While the claims of the Catholics to an enlargement of their toleration was opposed by the mein

Unitarian Dissenters, knowing what it is to be excluded from the common rights of citizens, advocated their cause. But to plead with such a person on principles of liberality and gratitude, is to address him in a language he does not or will not understand. From Dr. Fletcher we can appeal with pleasure to other Catholics of more enlarged and liberal minds. To use the words of another Catholic clergyman, "I have conversed, indeed, only with men of liberal minds, and as long as I am permitted to choose my own company, I will associate with no others. When they cease to be found, it will be time to retire to the woods."* I have the pleasure of being well acquainted with another clergyman of that communion in this city, who is one of its brightest ornaments, and would be an honour to any communion, who is animated with the same liberal spirit and has expressed his unqualified disapprobation of this publication.

JAMES MANNING.

P. S. While the author represents the different sects of Protestants as being of different and even opposite religions, is he aware that Protestants might, on the same grounds, assert that the Augustines, Benedictines, Carmelites, Dominicans, Franciscans, and a variety of other sects, such as the Jesuists, the Jansenists, and Molinists, are of different religions?

SIR,

July 24, 1823. CANNOT discern any degree of similarity between the mystery of eternity and the supposed mystery in the Athanasian Creed; for so I choose to designate the popular doctrine, rather than by the term Trinity, which being an equivocal word, may be, and often is adopted by persons of different sentiments, in their that this term should be discarded. own sense. It is therefore high time Controversialists make sad work of it, by not using explicit terms. Hence, everlasting discussion, and no conclusion." But-to the point. I think that your correspondent (p.

* Rev. Joseph Berington,

339) has not sufficiently attended to the important distinction between a inystery or difficulty, i. e. something beyond the reach of our present faculties, and a manifest absurdity or contradiction. The Scriptures allude to three sorts of mysteries; first, those of the kind first mentioned; secondly, something formerly doubtful or concealed, but now made manifest; and lastly, the mysteries of Antichrist, or of "Babylon the great, the mother of harlots, and of the abominations of the earth." In this latter sense, it has been well said, that "there are no mysteries in the gospel."

In the quotation from Dr. Priestley, the writer views the sublime subject only in the same light in which it has been represented by the greatest divines and philosophers. "In our idea," says the Doctor, we consider an eternity past," and an "eternity to come," the former as diminishing, and the latter as increasing; time being the isthmus or stage between them but this is only "in our idea," for eternity in the abstract, or strict philosophical sense, hath neither beginning nor ending; it is invariable, or infinite duration; as time is successive, or limited duration. This appears to me to be the sense of the passage, and by repeating the phrase "in our idea," the Doctor evidently intended to point out the modes of the Divine existence as utterly incomprehensible by us; but this statement is so far from involving a contradiction, that on the contrary it is a self-evident proposition, since nothing can be plainer than the axiom of Dr. Clarke, expressed in his peculiar, concise and energetic language, than that, "as something now is, it is evident that something always was ;" and this "something that always was," must be mind, and not matter-which is the grand argument against Atheism.

Your correspondent intimates that the Doctor has supposed "the Deity must have exerted his creative power from all eternity;" but he has not quoted the passage. This however, appears to be a topic far beyond the reach of our present faculties. If to suppose the Almighty passing an eternity (so to speak) solely in the contemplation of his own perfections,

might seem to imply a defect in his benevolence; and on the other hand, to consider creation as an eternal effect of an eternal cause, must ever appear to us almost to involve a contradiction; we can only conclude that these things are among the Divine incomprehensibles, and cry out with the great apostle upon another occasion, "O the depth !" It is of great importance to know where to stop, as well as when to proceed. "The meek will he guide in judgment, and the meek will he teach his way."

As to the other supposed mysterious doctrine of Dr. Southwood Smith and other Necessarians, the subject being, by common consent as it were, proscribed your pages, I shall only skim the surface. We are under great obligations to the Doctor for his book on "the Divine Government." If he has embraced any sentiments which are contradictory as well as mysterious, and which in the opinion of many thinking persons, are dishonourable to the Divine character and government, no doubt they have not so appeared to him. If any one could explain a knotty point in divinity or philosophy, to the level of plain understandings, it would be Dr. Hartley, but many have thought his arguments upon this point weak and inconclusive. To say that the Almighty cannot carry on his plans here below, without the arm of the assassin, the depredations of the robber, the blasphemies of the impious, and the machinations of wicked statesmen and politicians, which render the earth a scene of carnage and of blood; in a word, to represent the divine regiment or economy, with regard to his creature man, as vided against itself," is to adopt a scheme of moral philosophy, which should certainly not be hastily taken up, and which many (otherwise) orthodox writers and divines have thought it necessary to discard.

"di