"the Prophet to affure him from God, that this Shiloh, promifed

to Judah and David, who was "to forerun THE TOTAL EXCISION

OF THE JEWISH POLITY, was to "be born in a miraculous manner, "and with a divine character, and "other remarkable circumftances, "fuch as, he might eafily be fatisfied, had not as yet happened in "his kingdom. As for the part of "the prophecy, which is commonly

argued on the other fide, namely,

Before this wonderful child fhall know good from evil, the land "which thou abhorreft, fhall be for"faken of both her kings; we

་་

think, that if it be rightly under

Nn 2

"stood,

ftood, it will rather confirm our "fense of the prophecy, and that "the words ought to be thus ren“dered; For, (or rather, as the particle chi feems to import here,

Nay) before this child can know good from evil, this land which thou

KOTZ, not abhorreft, (as our ver"fion renders it, but) art folicitous

<.

about, or, givest up for loft, fhall

"be bereaved of both her kings:

by which, we think, ought to be "understood, not the kings of Sy"ria and Ifrael, for the former could "not be called her (Canaan's) king: "and the latter had but a fhare "in it at beft, but the kings of

Judah and of Ifrael, as it really

was,

Such is the note. And wonderful muft it appear to every one, that not a commentator has ever quoted it; though it certainly is not more objectionable than many interpretations, which have been adopted, and in the conclufion, certainly approaches even much nearer to the truth, than any of them.

The first part of this interpretation is indeed like thofe I have before examined, founded upon the fuppofition, of the two different prophecies being delivered at the fame time,

and

and having relation to the fame event. A fuppofition, which, I apprehend, I need not oppugn now, as I have, I truft, clearly and copiously refuted it above.

Secondly. It is liable, likewise, to all the objections, to which, the other interpretations are obnoxious, which are founded upon the imagination, that the predicted birth of the Emmanuel, was to be a fign to Ahaz of his PRESENT DELIVERANCE; and is therefore already refuted, by the arguments I have before advanced against that opi

nion.

Thirdly.

Thirdly. This interpretation labours with other incongruities peculiar to itself. For if, as these authors fuppofe, Ahaz believed in Jacob's prophecy, that the fceptre SHOULD NOT depart from Judah 'TILL Shiloh came, and that he was to SPRING of the LINEAGE of David, as Ahaz himself did, he could not furely want any prediction from the Prophet, to convince him that Shiloh was not yet come; and he must be himfelf ASSURED, that TABAEL a STRANGER, could not be that Shiloh, in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the VERY CAUSE affigned by thefe authors, As

THE

REASON