To these remarks upon the original language must be added one arising from the circumstances of the text, for we learn from thence likewise that Isaiah's wife and the birth of a child in the common way cannot have been here intended. And an appeal may safely be made to persons of sense, though wholly unacquainted with the Hebrew language, whether it is at all probable that the prophet should address himself to the house of David so solemnly, on so interesting an occasion; should awaken their attention; should raise their wonder; should promise them in the name of GOD _a sign_ or _miracle;_ should mention the future son, not of a _man_ (as usual) but of a _woman,_ and call that woman _a virgin;_ and should foretell the Birth of IMMANUEL, _i.e.,_ GOD WITH US--and yet that no more was meant by all this than that _a son should be born of a young married woman,_ which is evidently no wonder, no miracle, at all. If then, from this constant signification of the noun for _virgin,_ from the expression of the words in the _present_ tense, and from the nature of the context, a son of Isaiah by his wife cannot have been here meant; and if the first opinion be consequently proved indefensible, we may now proceed to consider the _second,_ which is that the whole passage of the text relates only to CHRIST. But these words cannot be wholly applied to an event distant by more than seven hundred years, because the concluding clause speaks of a child either then born, or to be born soon; and before the child so spoken of should be old enough to distinguish natural good from evil, the two kings then advancing against Jerusalem were to be themselves destroyed. The _third_ is the option of those who contend for a _double_ completion of some prophecies, and insist that this whole passage relates both to Isaiah's son and to CHRIST; to the former in a primary and literal sense, and in a secondary sense to the latter. But--not to enter into that extensive question, whether though some prophecies relate solely to the Messiah, others may, or may not, be doubly fulfilled--I shall only observe, that no such double completion can possibly take place here. Whether a secondary sense is insisted on, there we must have a primary sense also which is at least _true._ But the present case renders that impossible. Because, if the principle noun does everywhere else signify a _virgin;_ and if it be here meant of the Virgin Mary, and was afterwards properly applied to _her,_ it cannot with any truth be applied to the wife of Isaiah. And further, if it were possible for _every other_ prophecy to admit of a double completion, yet will not _this_--because a child's being conceived and born of a virgin happened in the world only _once;_ and therefore, as this prophecy derives its force from specifying a case _singular and without example,_ it can be fulfilled in _one_ sense only.