Now, what the Jew no where perceives, and the Christian only here and there, as it were incidentally, I maintain to be wholly and solely the subject of these chapters. This is, at least, a broad and well marked line of distinction: but here I unfortunately stand alone, having Christian as well as Jew opposed to me. Even the Jew allows that the subject of the latter part of this prophecy is the Messiah and his kingdom; but if Christ be the Messiah, as the Christian must admit, then is Christianity his kingdom, and the subject of the prophecy. So much for the state of the question. The first point of disagreement between us is unconnected with the punctuation, and is one of little importance to the question, beyond what it may derive from the concurrence of my opponents. The Rabbi and Dr. Blaney agree in regarding Hadrach in the first verse, as the name of a prince, instead of a city or state. The Rabbi gives no authority for his opinion, and Dr. Blaney supports his by the conjecture that Rehob, spoken of in 2 Sam. viii. 3, who is by Josephus named Αραος or Αραχος, may be the prince alluded to. Now since the avowed reason for resorting to this supposition is the want of a city of this name, I would venture to suggest, that Aradus bears quite as much resemblance to Hadrach as Αραος does; and to Aradus was annexed a considerable district of country, which was precisely the first conquered by Alexander, when he invaded Syria, as appears by the following citation from Quintus Curtius, lib. 4. cap. 1. “Aradus quoque insula deditur regi. Maritimam tum oram, pleraque longius â mari residentia, rex ejus insulæ Strato possidebat. Quo in fidem accepto, castra movet ad urbem Marathon.” Aradus, like Tyre, was the daughter of Sidon, as stated by Strabo; Εκτισαν αυτην φυγαδες, ὤς φασιν, εκ Σιδόνος. These then, are circumstances which add weight to the supposition that Aradus may be here intended; but still it is no more than conjecture, and as such, _quod valet, valeat_. In the same verse, the Rabbi’s rendering of מנחתו (or ותחנמ) _his residence_, must, of course, stand or fall with the previous question, Whether Hadrach be the name of a man or a city? If it be that of a prince, whose residence was Damascus, I have only to observe, that no such person appears to have resided there at the time the prophet wrote, and this is the only time that can accord with the Rabbi’s translation. With regard to the last line of this verse, which the Rabbi renders nearly in the same manner as our commentators, _for to the Lord will be the eye of man_, &c. I can only say, that he does not appear to me to have thrown any new light upon the passage, the sense remaining as vague and obscure as before. But let the reader judge for himself.