death was threatened as the punishment of a grievous transgression. This view of the subject meets the difficulties. For if it can be shown that he had committed a great and scandalous sin, it will be acknowledged that there is nothing extraordinary in his being singled out as the object of punishment. If his conscience was burthened by a sense of guilt, it will readily be conceded that there is nothing surprising in his fear of death. As it is my wish to state the considerations which have led me to entertain the opinion I have expressed as briefly as possible, I shall not enter upon a vindication of the dates I assign to the events of Hezekiah's reign. It will be sufficient for my present purpose to follow the chronology which Mr. Townsend, in his "Arrangement," has adopted from Prideaux. I will premise my remarks by an extract from his "Table." A. C. 715 Sennacherib succeeds Shalmanezer 714 713 712. 711 Years of Hez. 13 14 15 16 17 returns from Egypt to Judea-his army destroyed 18 One of the first acts of Hezekiah had been to shake off the disgraceful yoke which the sinful weakness of his father Ahaz had imposed upon the kingdom of Judah. After acquainting us with the various reforms which marked the commencement of his reign, the sacred historian informs us, with evident satisfaction, that "the Lord was with him, and he prospered whithersoever he went forth: and he rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served him not." (2 Kings, xviii. 7.) The last years of Shalmanezer were occupied by the war which terminated in the capture of Samaria and the final conquest of the kingdom of Israel, (2 Kings, xviii. 9-12,) and by an attempt to reduce the revolted provinces of Syria and Phoenicia. (Joseph. Antiq. ix. 14; Prid. b. 1; Halls, vol. iii. p. 427.) His successor, Sennacherib, immediately upon his accession turned his arms against the kingdom of Judah: "In the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them." (2 Kings, xviii. 13.) The first determination of Hezekiah in this emergency was worthy of his character and his principles: he prepared boldly to meet the foe: "he strengthened himself," by fortifying Jerusalem, and by collecting an army for its defence. His language to his people breathed a pious and noble confidence: "Be strong and courageous; be not afraid nor dismayed for the king of Assyria, nor for all the multitude that is with him-With him is an arm of flesh, but with us is the Lord our God, to help us, and to fight our battles." His people responded to these admirable sentiments; they "rested themselves upon his words." (2 Chron. xxxii. 7, 8.) But what is man! Hezekiah himself quailed before the threatening danger. As the enemy approached, fear and distrust prevailed over his holy resolution and confidence. We mourn as we read the humbling narrative. "Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold." Hezekiah's treasures were inadequate to pay the sum required: he has recourse to a base expedient; he imitates the sacri lege of his impious father: "Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasures of the king's house. At that time did Hezekiah cut all the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord, and from the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria." (2 Kings, xviii. 13-16.) Such was the melancholy progress of unbelief. The once faithful Hezekiah had exhibited a publick and scandalous distrust of God. He had not feared to violate Jehovah's temple. He had "given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme." The backslider must be chastised, or he will not be reclaimed. "In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death." Like another Nathan, "The prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live." (2 Kings, xx. 1.) The fallen monarch was overwhelmed with grief. In fervent prayer he besought the Lord to remember his former zeal and piety. He did not pray in vain. His sickness (which has generally been supposed to have been an attack of the plague) was miraculously removed; and his repentance was succeeded by the promise of an addition of fifteen years to his life, and of the deliverance of Jerusalem from the Assyrian foe. A striking miracle was wrought to convince the desponding penitent that " on the third day he should go up unto the house of the Lord." (ver. 11.) In accomplishment of Isaiah's prophecy, during three years "the king of Assyria led the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives." It is highly probable that Hezekiah had, upon his repentance, refused the payment of the unlawful tribute, for we next find Sennacherib again besieging Lachish. It is unnecessary to trace the history of his unfortunate campaign. The negotiations of his proud and impious ambassador, and the miraculous destruction of his powerful army, are fully described in the sacred books. The few remarks I have yet to make will apply, though indirectly, to the main subject of this paper. Prideaux (vol. i. b. 1,) seems to think that the disgraceful treaty which averted the attack of Sennacherib was concluded subsequently to the sickness of Hezekiah. This opinion is mere conjecture; and I cannot but regard it as completely refuted by the ascertained dates. The sacred writers expressly state that the first Assyrian invasion took place in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah; the sickness could not have occurred till the very end of that year; for the king survived it but fifteen years, and he reigned only twenty-nine. Hales has fallen into a remarkable error, in supposing that the expedition of Rabshakeh was prior to the invasion of Egypt. (vol. iii. p. 427.) It is unnecessary to produce opinions upon a plain point; but may observe that Prideaux and Townsend are against him. The opinion of the great chronologer introduces sad confusion into the history. I But there is one point in which this learned writer has made a discovery of which I am surprised to find that Mr. Townsend has not availed himself. There can be no doubt that Merodach-baladan's embassy of congratulation was subsequent to the treaty with Sennacherib. It must, therefore, have been subsequent to the destruction of the Assyrian host. It was not till after that event that Hezekiah could again boast of a treasure. He then "had exceeding much riches, and prospered in all his works." (2 Chron. xxxii. 27-30.) FRATER. From the New York Observer. INFALLIBILITY. Every body knows that the church of Rome lays claim to infallibility. She contends that there is no mistake about her; that she cannot err. Now this very modest claim of our sister of Rome, (for in the matter of churches I reject the relation of mother and daughter,) I am constrained to question, and that for such reasons as the following: 1. She cannot herself tell us where her infallibility is to be found. She is sure that she has it somewhere about her, but for the life of her she cannot tell where. Some of her writers say that it is with the Pope. Others contend that it resides in a general Council. And another opinion is that both the Pope and a Council are necessary to it. Now I think they ought to settle it among themselves who is infallible, before they require us to believe that any one is. Let them find infallibility and fix it. After that it will be time enough for us to admit its existence. But 2. We will suppose that it is the Pope who is infallible—each successive Pope. Well, where did they get their infallibility? Why, it was transmitted from St. Peter, to be sure. Christ gave it to him, and he handed it down. But was Peter infallible? There was a day when I suspect he did not think himself infallible-when smitten to the heart by the reproving look of his Lord, he went out and wept bitterly. There is no doubt that he made a mistake, when he so confidently pronounced, "though I should die with thee, yet I will not deny thee"and let it be remembered that this was after Christ had said, "thou art Peter, and on this rock," &c. If Peter was infallible, I wonder he did not at once settle the difficulty of which we have an account in Acts xv. Why was the matter suffered to be debated in the presence of his infallibility? It seems that Peter on that occasion claimed no pre-eminence. Nor was any particular deference paid to him by the council. He related his experience, precisely as did Paul and Barnabas. James seems to have been in the chair on that occasion. He speaks much more like an infallible person than any of the rest. He says "wherefore my sentence is, &c." What a pity it is for the church of Rome that Peter had not said that instead of James. We should never have heard the last of it. But it was the Bishop of Jerusalem, and not the Bishop of Rome, who said it. It cannot be helped now. Will my Catholic brother take down his Doway and read that chapter? But again, if Peter was infallible, I am surprised that Paul withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. That was no way to treat a Pope. But Paul had always a spice of the Protestant about him. And yet Peter did not resent Paul's treatment of him, for in his 2d Epistle he speaks of him as "our beloved brother Paul." I suppose that Peter himself did not know he was infallible. Men do not always know themselves. Once more: if the superiority among the disciples belonged to Peter, it has struck me as strange that, when a dispute arose among them who should be the greatest, our Saviour did not take Peter, instead of a little child," and set him in the midst of them," and remind the others that the supremacy had been given to him. I think the other apostles could not have understood Christ in that declaration, "thou art Peter, &c.," as the church of Rome now understands him, otherwise the dispute about superiority could never have arisen. Now, according to the Catholic doctrine, Peter being infallible, each successive Pope inherits his infallibility; and therefore never a man of them could err in a matter of faith-nor even the woman Joan (for in the long list of Papas, there was by accident in the 9th century one Mama, though this, I am aware, is denied by some)-even she retained none of the frailty of her sex. It is well for the Church of Rome that she does not contend that her Popes are infallible in practice, for if she did, she would find some difficulty in reconciling that doctrine with history. It is very true that one may err in practice and not in faith. Nevertheless, when I see a man very crooked in practice, I cannot believe that he is always exactly straight in doctrine. I cannot believe that all I hear from him is good and true, when what I see in him is false and bad. Take for example such a one as Pope Alexander 6th; when he, the father of such a hopeful youth as Cæsar Borgia, and the chief of ecclesiastics too, tells me, with a grave air and solemn tone, that it is a shocking wicked thing for an ecclesiastic to marry, I cannot help demurring somewhat to the statement of Cæsar's father. But I must proceed with my reasons. 3. If a man says one thing one day, and the next day says another thing quite contrary to it, I am of opinion that he is one of the days in error. But what has this to do with the business in hand? Have not the Popes always pronounced the same thing? Have they ever contradicted each other? Ask rather, whether the wind has always, ever since there was a wind, blown from the same quarter. Now here is reason why I cannot allow infallibility to belong to either Popes or councils. 4. I would just ask for information, how it was when there were three contemporary Popes, each claiming infallibility. Had they it between them? or which of them had it? What was the name of the one that there was no mistake about? How were the common people to ascertain the infallible one, for you know their salvation depended on their being in communion with the true Bishop of Rome, the rightful successor of St. Peter. 5. The more common opinion among the Catholics is, I believe, that the infallibility resides in a Pope and general council together. Each is fallible by itself, but putting the two together, they are infallible! Now I admit that in some languages, two negatives are equivalent to an affirmative; but I do not believe that two fallibles ever were or will be equivalent to an infallible. It is like saying that two wrongs make a right. I may trouble you again on infallibility hereafter. It may be well for Presbyterians to be occasionally reminded of what a steadfast adherence to gospel truth and order cost their ancestors. With this view let them read what follows-It is an extract from the "Scots Worthies"-We take it from the Cincinnati "Standard." JOHN BROWN, OF PRIESTHILL, A Scottish Martyr. On one of those days, when driven from his home, he fled for refuge, to a deep ravine, or moss hag, that had been formed by the current of a water spout, carrying shrubs, soil, moss and all before it, to the dale land beneath, leaving a frightful chasm, amidst a vast field of heath. Its deep mossy sides made it inaccessible to strangers: only the neighbouring husbandmen knew where the brakens hid the rocks, whose shelvy sides conducted to the bottom. In the sides of this natural alley were dens and caves, sufficient to hide a large company. In one of these Priesthill intended to spend the day in prayer; and had began to pour out his soul, in the words of Lamentations iii. 40, &c. when a sweet sound reached his ear, that seemed to proceed from another part of the place. At first it was in a soft under voice, as afraid to be heard; but soon arose above all fear, joined with others; and he heard a Psalm distinctly sung. "It is the hallowed sound of praising God; and by some fellow sufferers," said John Brown, as he arose from his knees to search them out. And to his no small joy, he found David and William Steel, his neighbours; and Joseph Wilson, from Lesmahago, in the cleft of a rock that jutted half away into the ravine. The Steels had had a narrow escape the day before this. And it was to avoid such harassing that they now fled to the ravine.-Nor did they flee in vain. They found, to their sweet experience, this dreary waste a Bethel; and in their harassings and hidings, as it was with Moses on the mount, they felt nearest God when farthest from creature comforts. All day they read God's word and prayed by turns; and during the dark and silent watches of the night, by turns they prayed and praised. The seventy-fourth Psalm was deeply imprinted on their memories, from its being remarkably descriptive of their situation. The whole of it was sung about midnight; and while the wind carried the sound to the dale land below, faith carried the matter up to heaven. They felt a peace that made them loth to part. Every one was sensible that the presence of God had been with them. And in this spirit these poor hunted saints spent the time till morning dawned, and the lark rose above their heads, joining his note with theirs, in praise to God for the light of another day. William Steel, who escaped death from the persecutors, and lived many years after the revolution, said often, if ever there was a time in his life that he would wish to enjoy over again, it was especially that day and night he spent in the moss hag. They all thought it would be their last meeting on earth. He was the first that ascended from the ravine, to look if the enemy were in view; and it being a clear morning, and no person in sight, they all followed, and were standing to consult on the separate paths they would take home, to prevent them from being seen, when they were struck silent by a voice, sweeter than any thing they had ever heard, passing over the ravine, singing these words: Oh! let the prisoner's sighs ascend Before thy sight on high; Preserve those by thy mighty power, And again, while they stood silent, another voice sung, in tones of exultation: Though ye have lain among the pots, Like doves ye shall appear, Whose wings with silver, and with gold Whose feathers covered are. After standing for some time, looking at one another, some of them thought they had left other worshippers in the moss hag. Others thought that the sound echoed from a greater distance. "Whoever or wherever the words come from, we have little concern," said John |