This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1765 Excerpt: ...ftrictly fignify--firfake- fiall he that land, which thou abhorress, of the prefence of botb ber kings; i. c. ( forfaken ) of botb her kings. Thele two Kings were not Kings of Judea, nor did they propofe to be fo. And the only application, which feems proper, is to take the Land or Country here, as ficnifying the two adjoining Kingdoms of Ifrael and Syria, formed into a league of Union, and therefore confidcred as one ( lo far like England and Scoeland called now Great Britain) but as governed by the two Kings Pekab and Re2in; the former of whom was fliin by Hossea, and the latter by tiie King of Jfyria. 41. 'Tis furprlfing to fee, with what inconfiflency, as well as with what rancour, the Evangelical application of this paffage was attacked by Mr Collins, in that celebrated effort of Deifm, 7he Grounds and Rcafcns Sec. Amongft other articles, he is copious on thjt of the Sign; on the abfurdity and impoffibility, of the Mali ill's Bij ih having been a fign given ( as he always fall'ely Mates it) to Ah.t2. But why is a future Sign (or a thing future Tnenti-ncd as a fign ) to abfui J, or fo impoffible? Mr Coltins tells his Readers--G id gave Gideon and Hezeebiab immediate Signs to prove thal be / ok to them; and that the things prcmifed tu them fiould come to pajs. Had be given them remote Signs, hew could they have known, that the Signs themJelves tiiUi'j et er lave coir.e to piijs? Ai: d how could thojc Signs evidence inte any thing? Tbefe Signs would hare ssood in need of other Signs to manifeft, that God would perform than in Time. See pag. 39. But, are all other Signs then, except immediate, abiurd or impoffible? May there, can there, be no propriety in a Sign remote or future? Why, yes: this very Writer, in t