NUEL, this GOD WITH US, fhall not acquire knowledge in the common mode of other children, but fhall be endowed with fupernatural wifdom and understanding, whilft he continue yet a child.

This interpretation, which I have given, of the Prophet's words, is even confirmed by the event. For, this prediction, was undoubtedly fully completed, when the Emmanuel, being yet a child, ftaid behind at Jerufalem, and Jofeph and his mother turning back, feeking him, "found him in the

temple, fitting in the midft of

"the doctors, both hearing them, "and (not afking, but) putting

questions to them. And all that "heard him, were astonished at his "understanding, and anfwers. And "when they faw him, they were "amazed; and his mother faid unto

him, Son, why haft thou thus "dealt with us?-behold!-thy fa"ther and I have fought thee forrowing. And he faid unto them, "How is it that ye fought me ?Wift ye not that I must be about MY FATHER'S bufinefs? And they "understood not the faying, which "he spoke unto them."

If therefore, my explanation of thefe words, be deemed as fatisfactory by others, as it is convincZ 2

ing

ing to me, all the objections of Mr. Harmer, Dr. Jubb, and Bishop Lowth, vanish at once, and even a new reafon occurs, why their fubftitution of "WHEN" for "THAT, can not be admitted. For, that alteration is founded upon the idea, that the eating butter and honey was fubfequent to the knowledge of good and evil. But the Septuagint, whether it is to be taken literally or metaphorically, fays exprefsly, it was prior to the child's experience of good and evil; and therefore, as the learned Bishop allows, that the Septuagint is the BEST AUTHO

RITY FOR

DEVIATING FROM THE

HEBREW,

HEBREW, his propofed alteration is, from his own conceffions, totally inadmiffible.

This interpretation, likewife, if adopted, will afford another incontrovertible proof, that the verfe could not poffibly have relation to ANY ONE, but, our SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST; and it contains ANOTHER PROPHECY, in relation to HIM, which is fhown in the Gofpels, to have been FULLY

ACCOMPLISHED.

Convinced as I am, that THIS is the TRUE INTERPRETATION, I fhall not, however, prefs it further upon others. Having already fhown, the objections

objections which fome have made to another, which has been long and commonly received, are totally groundlefs;-I fhall not, by any further arguments, attempt to invalidate it. But, having ftated both, I leave the choice to your determination.

According to the one, you wil understand the Prophet, as foretelling, that the EMMANUEL Would be fed with the common food of infants, before he knew to refuse the evil, or choose the good.-According to the other, you will understand him, as predicting, that the EMMANUEL fhould be endowed, as we find in

fact