"Because they

I will bring evil upon this place" &c. have forsaken me."-And to the king of Judah; “Behold I will gather thee to thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered to thy grave in peace, neither shall thy eyes see all the evil that I will bring upon this place." Accordingly, we read in the next chapter v. 20, that "Necho king of Egypt, came up to fight against Carchemish, by Euphrates: and Josiah went out against him"-(in direct opposition to the command of God, (v. 22.) "And the archers shot at king Josiah: and the king said to his servants, have me away for I am sore wounded." (v. 23.) "And they brought him to Jerusalem-and he died, and was buried in the sepulchres of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah." (v. 24.)

Thus was the prediction of the Prophetess, accurately fulfilled.

1. He did not live to see the evil that afterwards came upon Judah and Jerusalem.

2. He was gathered to his fathers: that is, "he died." 3. He did not die on the field of battle, for he was only wounded there; but died in Jerusalem.

4. He was gathered to his grave in peace: that is, was buried in the sepulchre of his fathers, and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned after him, instead of his dead body having been dragged round the field of battle, as was the common fate of slain and vanquished kings.

HYSSOP. There is a kind of hyssop in Judea, that shoots forth boughs, or stalks, of a very considerable size, so as fully to answer the purpose of the reed mentioned in Matt. xxvii. 48; Mark xv. 36; John xix. 29. Beausobre and Lenfant. See Vinegar.

19

I.

IDOLATRY. Those who conceive that the Creator punished by death, idolatry abstractedly considered, that is, simply because men bowed down before a stock or a stone, are as much mistaken, as those who imagine that the evil of Adam's transgression, consisted in his eating the fruit of a forbidden tree. (See Adam.) We may first ask the question, did Jehovah ever order any other persons, except Jews, to be punished in any way, simply for idolatry? Never. Then, why the Jews?

Because no Jew could be an idolater ignorantly: 2d. No Jew could be an idolater without high treason to his God and his Deliverer; and 3d. No Jew could be an idolater, without being guilty of hypocrisy, ingratitude, and perjury. Lastly, (except we allow the infidel to beg the very question at issue, viz., the truth of the Mosaic account,) we must conclude, that for a Jew to be an idolater, he must have been a monster in human shape; a man whom it would not be safe for the public at large to let live. For if a man be a deliberate perjurer, a hypocrite, and guilty of insubordination, and ingratitude to God and man, the sooner such a person be removed from contaminating others, the better: indeed the public safety demands his removal; and letting him go at large in those days, would have been ten thousand times more dangerous, than in our times.

INCEST. The first directions on this subject are recorded in Levit. xviii. 6. In this chapter are specified those relations, which are forbidden by God to marry. Till this age of the world, (A. M. 2514,) we have no account whatever of the Creator ever having given any

IMPRECATIONS.

INTERPOLATION.

219

direction on the subject; we do not assert he did not; but this we say, "where there is no law, there is no transgression." There are two very obvious reasons why, at the beginning, near relations were not prohibited intermarrying. 1st. No physical evil arises from it, till repeated through several generations. 2d. In the beginning, as it seemed fit to the Creator that the earth should be populated from one pair, it was indispensably necessary, for even brothers and sisters to marry; but as generations began to increase, the necessity became diminished, and the physical evil to increase; till it seemed good to the Almighty to give specific directions on the subject, which we find at large in this chapter. Since that time, of course, incest has been criminal.

IMPRECATIONS. See Curses.

INTERPOLATION. It is a common practice among infidels, to pronounce any and every statement, made by historians, that are at all calculated to corroborate facts recorded in the Bible, to be an interpolation or a forgery. And now, in the ninteenth century, infidels dare deny the occurrence of things which were never denied for the first four hundred years after they happened. (See Miracles.) One of the most remarkable acts of this kind is their denial of the genuineness of that celebrated passage in Josephus, which relates to Christ. That it is no interpolation, but genuine, the following argument will, it is presumed, put beyond all doubt. Josephus was a Jew, consequently an enemy to Christianity; he wrote about A. D. 64. The passage alluded to, is to be found in the xviiith. book, 3d chapter, and 3d section of Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews. It commences thus: "Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise

man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those, who loved him at the first, did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinet at this day.” So far Josephus.

The arguments advanced against the genuineness of this passage, may be reduced to three heads.-1st, That the passage was not quoted by a single author, till by Eusebius.-2d, That several copies of Josephus's works were found to be destitute of it:—and 3d, that Josephus being a Jew, could never have admitted that Jesus performed miracles, or have used the expression, "He was the Christ."

Now, as to the statement of its never having been quoted by any author till Eusebius. This is very doubt→ ful, to say the least of it: for, although the Roman historian, Tacitus, in his xvth. book, and 44th chapter, does not say that he quoted from Josephus, yet he uses, almost verbatim, the language of Josephus, in relating the punishments, the first Christians suffered. "The author of this name," says Tacitus, "was Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was brought to punishment by Pontius Pir late the Procurator." Now, where did Tacitus get this information? He must have got it, either from Josephus, from the Roman records, or from the Sacred Scriptures! If from Josephus, then Eusebius was not the first author, who quoted it from Josephus! Mark that! If not from

Josephus, then it was from the Roman Records, and that is of still greater moment for our cause, than if it were from Josephus, for it unquestionably proves what infidels pretend to deny, viz., that no records relative to Christ were kept at Rome! Mark that! And if Tacitus did not obtain his information either from the Roman Records or from Josephus, then he must have got it from the books of the New Testament, which proves incontrovertibly, that the New Testament was written and circulated during the first century, for Tacitus wrote Anno Domini, 110. Here is a tri-horned dilemma.

But, not to be tedious on this head, I would ask, is it because no author in those days, when so few books were written, quoted by name this passage, till Eusebius, in Anno Domini 324, that therefore Eusebius must have been the author of it? The idea is absurd! Pray, for whom did Josephus specifically write, for Jews or Gentiles? We well know it was for the former. The Gentile world took very little interest in the history of the Jews, and, although the book at first might have had considerable circulation among the Jews, yet but very few Gentiles would be troubled with it! True, the Christian Gentiles became more and more interested in the history of the Jews, as they became better acquainted with the Old Testament. But, let us ask ourselves the question, what could have induced any Christian writer, before the time of Eusebius, to have particularly noticed that passage? Could it be to prove that there were then in existence, Christians? Their own existence proved that! Could it be to prove that there had been such a person as Jesus Christ? Their own existence as Christians proved that! Could it be to prove that Jesus Christ had been put to death and rose again? Their very ordinances, and the pillar and ground of their hope, proved