Page images
PDF
EPUB

For, their deviation from abfolute accuracy, made no alteration in the fenfe. Whether SHE, who, WHILST A VIRGIN, was to conceive, and bring forth a Son, is called by the emphatic title of "THE VIRGIN," to diftinguish her from all other women; or is called, A VIRGIN," is of no importance in a paffage, where the characteristic circumstances are mentioned, which in themselves difcriminate her from all others.But, in his own cafe, by his own confeffion, the CHANGE of the ARTICLE makes a TOTAL CHANGE in

the SENSE.

Cc 2

In

In a note, however, he attempts to defend the alteration upon other principles. — For, he says, "Firft. "Had the Prophet meant the SAME CHILD, he would probably have expreffed himself by the verb alone, as he did in the former verse." That he might have done fo, is certain. But, as the other is more conformable to his ufual manner, it is not probable, that he would.—

་་

Secondly. If he had rejected this "mode of expreffion, yet furely, "he would have denoted the fame

[ocr errors]

child, by the fame term, in the fourteenth and fixteenth verfes."Whereas, the one fignifies SON, " and the other CHILD. The change

" of

"of terms feems to imply, (he fays) "a difference of perfons."

But, can the critic really mean, feriously to affert,-that, because, the Prophet, in one verfe of his prediction, declares, a virgin fhall conceive, and bear a soN; and in the next, indifputably fpeaks of the SAME child's knowing good and evil; and then, in the following, fays, before THE CHILD knows good and evil, &c.-will (I fay) the critic gravely maintain, that the Prophet can not mean, by "THE CHILD" here spoken of, the SAME PERSON AS THE SON immediately before mentioned. If he do, then to be confiftent with himself,

himself, he muft likewife maintain, that the CHILD, whom Herod, according to the eighth verfe of the fecond chapter of St. Matthew, fent the Magi to Bethlehem to fearch for, could not poffibly be JESUS, or the EMMANUEL. For Jefus in the twenty-third and twenty-fifth verfes of the first chapter, had been called, A SON, and THE SON,-and therefore, to apply the commentator's own argument to this cafe ;-" had "the Evangelift meant the fame

[ocr errors]

child, he would have denoted him

by the fame term.-The change "of terms seems to imply a differ"ence of perfons." To preferve this confiftency of interpretation, the

commentator

commentator will have no other difficulty to encounter, than the flight one, of fhowing who was THE CHILD there fpoken of, if Jefus was not; and of accounting from other principles, for the vifions to Jofeph, the flight into Egypt, and their return. If however, he prefer his cafe, to this mode of preserving his confiftency, and will allow, that THE CHILD, fpoken of by the EVANGELIST, MUST MEAN, the Son before spoken of;—then, it is evident, that all the grammatical reafons he had adduced, to prove, that DIFFERENT children must be meant by the PROPHET, "vanifh like the "bafelefs fabric of a vifion." He

muft

« PreviousContinue »