when I come to explain to you it's true meaning; which, that it has remained for fo many ages undifcovered, muft excite in us our highest wonder, and unspeakable aftonifh ment. Fourthly. As I have before obferved, the age of Shearjafhub is not known. But, to afford the flighteft fupport to this fuppofition, it muft be proved, that he was THEN an infant, only just born. Of which circumftance, there is not a fhadow of a proof; but the order to the Prophet, to take him with him,rather implies the contrary. Thus Thus utterly indefenfible, is the whole of the fuppofition, advanced by fome commentators, in relation to Shearjashub. Other interpreters, and fome of them very antient ones, have proposed an alteration, which, at first appearance, is a lefs feeming violation of the text; but which is, in reality, equally hoftile to every principle of criticifm.-They would read,-A child,-i. e.-ANY child,inftead of,-THE CHILD.-Though fome of them, notwithstanding, point out the child they mean, to be Maher-fhalal-hafh-baz. One One commentator has, indeed, had even the courage to attempt to perfuade us, that this alteration in the tranflation, is not totally ungrammatical. But, by fuch affertions, inftead of arguments, as muft always excite our concern, when we fee an ingenious man, and one fo highly accomplished in many branches of fcience, compelled to the humiliating condition, of fatisfying himself with any glofs, to prevent a divorce from a beloved hypothefis. Firft. Because our English tranf lators have left out the article THE, before " virgin," in their verfion, therefore, he will omit it before, "child." "child."-At the fame time, indeed, he candidly confeffes,-" that as the retaining the definite article, eviIdently reftrains the interpretation "of this verfe, to the child juft "before spoken of, in the fourteenth " and fifteenth verfes, he would therefore, here again tranflate it by "the indefinite article. This (he fays) will leave us at liberty, (and "I prefume, we fhall find very good "reafon for it) to underftand this "verfe of fome other child." It is indeed much to be regretted, that this writer, (whom I really refpect, though, for the fake of truth, I am obliged to oppofe him) can not without being at liberty to put this verfe to the torture, poffibly make it fpeak any thing, which would fuit his interpretation, or be confiftent with the common hypothefis. But this neceffity, I truft, no one will deem a fufficient reason, for the adoption of his tranflation. For, the only admiffible reafon, which can really justify either tranflation, muft arife, from the grammatical ufe of the ARTICLE prefixed. That the authors of our publick verfion, ufed the indefinite one in English, inftead of the definite, as in the original, is evidently no defence of him, were the inftances in both exactly parallel, which they are not. For, |