transactions of the garden, and consequently this curse, and that Jesus did die and rise from the dead for the purpose of redeeming man from it, then you establish the inspiration of your prophet, that is, you cannot prove your great facts by your prophet, but their establishment proves his inspiration. Again: Could you prove that Isaiah or any other man some six or seven hundred years before Herod, wrote and published that Canaan would become a Roman province, and that a man by the name of Herod, an Edomite, would be its king under the Romans, and that another man by the name of Pontius Pilate would be procurator of Judea, some twenty or thirty years after the death of the former-that at the latter end of the reign of the one, an extraordinary person, giving out that he was the literal son of God, and Redeemer of mankind, would be born, and put to death under the Procuratorship of the other; then on our admitting that such men did reign and govern, you might demand our faith in every other statement your prophet might have made.

But you have no such case. Besides, Isaiah's hero, his somebody, his he, was not to be, but had been—not an erit but a fuit—he was not an extraordinary person, nor had any thing extraordinary happened to him. He was ugly. Our president is not called a handsome man, (Jesus was,) yet I never learned that Gen. Jackson flattered himself that Isaiah was alluding to him. He (of the prophecy,) was afflicted, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. We are all of us continually complaining of our lot -to use your own cant language--we all have our trials, and tribulations, losses and crosses in this troublesome world. He of the prophecy suffered for others. How many have done the same? There have been thousand of martyrs to the canse of liberty, as well as of religion.

The prophets assumed to be important personages, and gave out that they were laboring in the great cause of God and man. We learn that many were stoned to death; of such it was said by their followers and partisans, that they fell in the cause of philanthropy. Hence it may be rea sonably inferred that this 53d chapter has relation to some of these martyrs.

Let us examine parts of these chapters, verse by verse.

LII. 1st. The writer calls upon the Jews in their captivity to prepare for their return to Jerusalem.

2d. Continuation of the exhortation. In this verse, Jerusalem is expressly declared to be in captivity: "O captive daughter of Jerusalem." 3d. Restoration or redemption from this captivity promised.

4th. Simply a declaration of what had previously befallen the Israel

ites.

5th. Complains of the hard treatment of ths Jews by their captors. 6th. Promise sf redemption repeated.

7th. That the messengers who carried the news that Cyrus had given permission to the Jews to return to Judea were cordially welcomed by them throughout the great empire.

8th. How matters will be managed at Jerusalem after the return of the Jews to that city.

9th. An exhortation to the Jews to rejoice on account of their redemption.

10th. Reiteration of the fact of redemption.

11th. Urges those to remain undefiled, who were to carry back to Jerusalem the vessels which Nebuchadnezzar took thence to Babylon, and which Cyrus delivered to Shesshbazzar or Zerobabel to be returned.

12th. Promises God's protection to these porters.

I have no doubt, though I shall not labor to convince the reader, that the preceding twelve verses are the work of four different authors. At the 13th commences an extract from some other author and ends at the fourth of the next chapter. The servant in this extract, as in many places, is Jacob or the Israelites, who were about to be redeemed from captivity. I have already shown that in this book, entitled Isaiah, Israel or Jacob frequently represents the whole of the children of Israel, and is as frequently called God's servant. The extract is intelligible only on the supposition that the servant of the 13th verse represents Jacob or the whole of the children of Israel. All the writers called prophets flattered themselves and so asserted that the Jews after their restoration would become a great people, whose dominion would extend over the Gentiles, therefore, this writer says, (13th verse,) that the servant (Jacob,) would be extolled, and exalted, and be very high; although heretofore, (14th verse,) in consequence of the evil treatment he, the servant, that is, the whole body of the Israelites, had received at the hands of his (their) captors, during a captivity of many years, he, the servant, that is, the whole body of the Israel ites, could be compared to a man whose visage had been marred and body battered by ruffians.

15th verse.

This servant, Jacob, would sprinkle many nations. What the writer meant by this figure can only be guessed at. The word sprinkling is frequently used as synonymous with scattering: thus we say, "a smart sprinkling of votes."

I therefore guess that the prophet intended to say that the chiefs of the Israelites living at the city of Babylon, would scatter or sprinkle their messengers over the great empire, in order to inform their countrymen that were scattered and sprinkled over it, that Cyrus had issued a decree per mitting them to return to their former homes; and that these messengers

would show this decree to the satraps of this great empire, at which their mouths would be stopt.

LIII. Ist. I have no doubt that this verse is erroneously punctuated. The writer simply asserts that Jacob (the pronoun who relating to the servant of the previous chapter,) had believed the report of his redemption and that the arm of the Lord had been revealed to him.

2d. "For he (the Lord's servant, Jacob,) shall grow up before him (the Lord,) as a tender plant," that is, the Jews and Israelites, although now so weak and poor and degraded as to appear like Falstaff's men, will acquire strength and again take their place among the nations of the earth.

3d. Means nothing more than that Jacob had been an astonishment and a hissing among the nations during his captivity, and had led a troublesome life of it, having been continually harrassed upon every side.

Should this interpretation be rejected, it does not follow that Jesus was this servant or he; for the prophet speaks of a person in esse, and tells us what he is, and what he will be: "He hath no form or comeliness-he is despised and rejected of men, but will grow up like a plant." Besides, this is not applicable to Christ. He was not, from the accounts of the evangelists, despised and rejected of men, but was the most popular reformer we have any account of. Throngs followed him constantly—once he stole away from a crowd that wanted to make him king-was uniformly addressed by the title of Rabbi-once be resorted to a boat to address the people the press being so great on the shore-at another time, seeing a great multitude at the foot of a mountain, he went to the top of it, where his disciples came unto him. So great was his popularity that five thousand persons remained with him at the hazzard of starvation, even forgetting they were hungry. Again we find the press around him so great that his mother and brethren could not get at him. And lastly when he went into Jerusalem for the last time, (the first time he rode,) he was CHEERED by much people, who took branches of Palm trees and went forth to meet him crying, "Hosana, blessed is the Kiug of Israel, that cometh in the name of the Lord."

It was for the purpose of receiving this demonstration of partisan attachment, this expression of popular applause, that he mounted an ass. How astonishing that our clergy, in the face of all these facts, will still insist that Jesus was despised and rejected of men. Sidney, Hampden, Emmet, and others, were rejected and put to death by the powers that were, but not despised by the generality of their fellow men. It does not follow that because a man fails in an attempt at revolution, that he is therefore set at nought by his countrymen or the world at large. Crucifixion is the only

evidence that can be relied on to prove the unpopularity of a man

thousands constantly at his heels.

it.

Let us talk a little more about this triumphal entry into Jerusulem.Luke tells us that when Jesus and his party had come nigh to Bethpage on their journey to Jerusalem, he sent two of his disciples to get a colt or fiery young ass, that belonged to a stranger, telling them that if the owner asked who wanted it, to tell him that his (the owner's) Lord, Kurios, wanted Here is humility for you! They did as they were ordered and got the colt. Now, what was this young ass wanted for? Had Jesus been in the habit of riding? There were no horses there in those days, and a person was not only respectably but honorably mounted when on the back of an ass. Why did he want to ride then? I know that the evangelists wish to represent this feat of horsemanship as an act of humility, and quote from Zechariah who was alluding to Nehemiah riding alone in the night time around the city of Jerusalem. What a position for the meek and lowly; surrounded by an immense concourse of partisans, he, the most conspicuous figure of the group, being the only one mounted, some throwing off their garments and spreading them in his way, some breaking off and strewing branches of palm trees before him, and all shouting, "God save the King." A very meek and lowly procedure!

Why, I say, want to ride through the streets of Jerusalem, amidst the shouts and huzzas of a mob? The great experiment was now to be made -the public pulse was to be felt-it was now to be ascertained if all things were ripe for a revolution-whether his partisans could safely proclaim him king! In more truth, they commence a revolution in form-are all guilty of treason-they set their leader on an ass-throw their garments in his way, and proclaim him King of Isaael. The attempt failed, and their leader was, as is usual in such cases, put to death. This is meekness and humility is it? This is the man in whom Pilate could find no harm. Let the popular Mr. O'Connell try such an experiment in the streets of London, and he would be immediately brought to the block.

The statement that Pilate told the people to put to death a man, that he pronounced innocent of any crime, carries falsehood upon its face.That many a corrupt and cruel Prince has put to death innocent persons, I do not deny. In such cases, however, it is alleged, though falsely, that the victim is guilty of some offence; but, that a Roman Governor, or any other magistrate, should say: "Take this innocent man and crucify him after I have scourged him," is too glaringly inconsistent for belief. The most cruel tyrant will have some excuse--some pretext for his deeds of blood. It is not to be credited, that Pilate could say he found no fault in

him, when but a day or two before, he had committed an overt act of treason, in the presence of thousands, and in the very heart of the capital.

All the histories we have of this personage are written by his friends and partisans, whose interests and inclinations led them to suppress every circumstance, that might tend to the prejudice of their hero. His call, however, upon his disciples for swords, requiring those who had none, to sell their garments and buy them-his castigation of the money changers and the upsettsng of their tables, and lastly, his pompous entry into Jerusalem, followed by a multitude shouting vive le roi, show clearly, that he was not so meek and quiet, harmless and retiring, passive and inoffensive a gentleman, as his partisans, at the present day, would wish to represent him.

Let us return to the famous 53d. At the fourth verse commences, what I have no doubt is a lamentation or jeremiad, over Jeremiah himself. As my object is not so much to show what it is as what it is not, I shall merely refer the reader to 3d Lamentations, and request him to compare it with the verses under consideration. Let him bear in mind that the burden of this Lamentation of Jeremiah is his imprisonment by Zedekiah, for which imprisonment, see thirty-ninth Jeremiah, and some previous chapters.The learned differ widely in their translations of this 53d Isaiah. All agree that the present translation is unintelligible and nonsensical. Jeremiah was put in prison and taken out again. Christ never was in prison, and therefore the 8th verse cannot apply to him, though it may to Jeremiah. This prophet in his lamentation says: "They have cut off my life, in the dungeon-this 8th verse says that "he was cut off out of the land of the living." In the 7th verse it is said that he opened not his mouth, but, like a lamb before her shearers, was dumb.

Christ, according to Luke, never refused to talk but once, and that was on his trial before Herod. It is not uncommon for prisoners to stand mute. If he went to the place of execution without resistance, his conduct was not singular. Not one convict in ten thousand makes resistance--some address the crowd, and some open not their mouths. But Christ, according to John and Luke, was not silent either before the chief priests or Pilate, but answered all their questions, except the civil one, (whence he was?) and put some to them. Neither was he silent on the cross, but opened his mouth, and complained in a loud voice that God had forsaken him. Merely because he stood mute to one or two interrogatories, you conclude that Isaiah must certainly have alluded to him.

The somebody of the 53d, had done no violence, therefore, say you Jesus was alluded to. What think you of the flagellation of the money changers, and the overthrow of their tables, his seizing the man's colt