1

under consideration, admitting it could be otherwise proved; but when such testimony is brought as proof, I think we are at least excusable in withholding our assent. As it respects the miraculous conception and birth of Christ, I am not disposed to object to it, but should be inclined to believe it, were the external evidence perfectly clear. It is no more miraculous than the creation of the first man, or the formation of the first woman; and it is nearly analogous to the birth of Samuel, and of Isaac; as, according to the account, there must have been a miracle in the birth of these also; especially of Isaac, as well as of Jesus. (See Rom. iv. 18-20.) And if God so distinguished the birth of Isaac, who was the heir of promise, it is not at all surprising that the birth of Jesus should be distinguished in a still more extraordinary manner.

But, after all, it must not be disguised that the external testimony in favour of this hypothesis, does not come down to us with all that strength of evidence which is attached to his public ministry.Mark and John write nothing upon this subject: neither is there the least allusion to it in all the New Testament, except in the narratives in Matthew and Luke. The editors of the Improved Version of the New Testament have found such reasons to doubt the authenticity of these narratives, that they have printed the whole of them in Italic. There is also a passage in John which it is difficult to reconcile with these narratives. It is a well known fact that John wrote the last of any of the apostles.The earliest chronology (that of Dr. Lardner) supposes the gospel of John to have been written A. D. 68: but some put it as late as A. D. 96. This writer informs us, that when Christ selected his twelve disciples, having chosen Philip, and said unto him Follow me," Philip findeth Nathaniel, and saith unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law,

and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." (John, i. 45.) John gives us no intimation but that this language is perfectly correct; nor is there a single sentence in all his gospel that contradicts it. For although he speaks of the Word that was made flesh, yet there is nothing which forbids the idea of that flesh's being the son of Joseph, as well as of Mary. But, after all, the silence of John, and the other apostles, should not be taken as conclusive evidence against the fact, any more than it is against other facts not mentioned by him, but mentioned by Luke and others. Dr. Lardner, whose sentiment exactly coincides with my own, in the main point on this question, (i. e. that Jesus in every proper sense was a man,) admitted the authenticity of these narratives, and, I understand, in his memoirs, has written a defence of them, particularly that of Luke, which, however, I haye never seen. I only state the facts as I find them on this subject, and my readers must judge for themselves.*

* There was nothing said on the miraculous conception in the public lecture; neither do I wish ever to make it a subject of public discussion. I choose rather to admit it than dispute it; but do not consider that the character of Christ essentially depends upon it. He never speaks of it, nor alludes to it, himself; and it is very remarkable that in all the accounts we have of the preaching of the apostles in the book of Acts, and in all the Epistles, there is a total silence on this subject.

As I have mentioned the doubts on this subject in the improved Version of the New Testament, it may not be improper to state the evidence on which those doubts are founded. As it respects the narrative in Matthew, it is stated that "Epiphanius says that Cerinthus and Carpocrates, who used the gospel of the Ebionites, which was probably the original gospel of Matthew, written in the Hebrew language for the use of Jewish believers, argued from the genealogy at the beginning of the gospel, that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary; but that the Ebionites had taken away even the genealogy, beginning their gospel with these words: "It came to pass in the days of Herod the king of Judea, that John came baptising," &c. (See Epiphanius,

But, admitting the account perfectly true, it contains nothing against my hypothesis, but much in favour of it.

Jesus was born like other children; received nourishment, and grew up like other men; and, more than this, "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." (Luke, ii. 52.)

Hæres, 30, sect 13. Jones on the Canon, vol. i pt. 2. ch. 25.)— The narrative (say they) could not have been written by the author of the genealogy, for it contradicts his design, which was to prove that Jesus, being the son of Joseph, was the descendant of Abraham and David; whereas the design of this narrative is to show that Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, was not his real father. This account, therefore, of the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ, must have been wanting in the copies of Cerinthus and Carpocrates, as well as in those of the Ebionites: and if the genealogy be genuine, this narrative must be spurious. See Pope on Mir. Concept. p. 93. Lardner's Works, vol. i. p. 432. If this account be true, the proper name of Jesus, according to the uniform custom of the Jews, would have been Jesus of Bethlehem, not Jesus of Nazareth." See upon this subject, Dr. Priestley's History of Early Opinions, vol. 4, b. iii. c. 20; Dr. Williams's Free Enquiry; Mr. Emerson's Dissonance, chap. i. sect. 3. chap. iii. sect. 2; Jones's Development of Events, vol, i. p. 365, &c; Sequel to Ecclesiastical Researches, pt. i. chap. 7, 8. See Improved Version, note on Matth. i. 1, 17, and on.

As respects the narrative in the gospel according to Luke, it is stated, that, "though they (the verses containing the narrative) are to be found in all manuscripts and versions which are now extant, yet the following considerations have induced many to doubt whether they were really written by Luke :

"1. The evangelist expressly affirms that Jesus had entered upon, or as Grotius understands it, had completed his thirtieth year in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar, chap. iii. 1, 23. See Grot. in loc. He must therefore have been born fifteen years before the death of Augustus, A. U. C. 752 or 753: but the latest period assigned for the death of Herod is the spring of A. U. C. 751, and he died, probably, the year before. See Dr. Lardner's Works, vol. i. p. 423-428, and Jones's Development of Facts, vol. i. p. 365-368. Herod therefore must have been dead upwards of two years before Christ was born. A fact which invalidates the whole narration, and makes it impossible (I should say improbable) that the writer of the history should have been the writer of the preliminary chapters.

2. The first and second chapters of this gospel were wanting in the copies used by Marcion, a reputed heretic, who flourished

I shall consider here a few texts which have been supposed to speak of his pre-existence. The form of God, (Philip ii. 6,) I conceive denotes his knowledge of the hearts of men, and other miraculous powers. This sense does well accord with John, x. 34-36, which see. But though he had so great power, he made himself of no reputation: he submitted to the reproach of enemies, and at last to death itself. Thus, "though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor.” (2 Cor. vii. 9.) His being before John the Baptist, I apprehend, is not to be understood in point of time, but in eminence and station. He was before me, (John, i. 50,) i. e. he is my chief, or prince, or principal: or platos

In this sense he was before Abraham, (John, viii, 8,) not in time, but in dignity cf station. It is a way of speaking resembling that in Rev. xiii. 8; of the lamb, slain from the foundation of the world." See also 1 Pet. i. 20. Eph. i. 4. 2 Tim. i. 9. Tit. i. 2. Abraham rejoiced to see the day of the

very early in the second century. His gospel was undoubtedly that of Luke; and he maintains its antiquity, authenticity, and integrity. Marcion was one of those, who, being ashamed of the simplicity of the gospel, blended it with the wild speculations of an erroneous philosophy. But his character was unimpeached even by his bitterest enemies, till it was calumniated by Epiphanius, 200 years after his death."

There are several other reasons given in the note, particularly the evangelist's making no allusion to these remarkable incidents in his preface to the book of Acts, (see Acts, i. 1,)—the difficulty in reconciling it with the prophecies concerning the Messiah, that he should be the offspring of David and of Abraham, (the Jews having no female genealogies,)-there being no allusion to any of these facts in either of the succeeding histories of Luke, or in any other books of the New Testament-the style of the two first chapters being different from the rest of the history-the date of the enrolment, ch. ii. 1, 2, being a great historical difficulty, &c. &c.-but the two reasons above mentioned seem to be the most important. See Improved Version, note on Luke, i. 5, and on.

Messiah, and he saw it, i. e. by faith, and was glad. Compare John, viii. 56, with Heb. xi, 13.

John, xvii. 5. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with the glory, which I had with thee before the world was. "But this," says Dr. Lardner, "according to the Jewish phraseology, may be very well understood of the glory, always designed for the Christ by the immutable purpose of God."*

The glory for which Christ here prays, is the reward of his obedience, ver. 4. I have finished the work thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me. Compare this with Phil. ii. 9.— Heb. ii. 9. 10, xii. 2. Luke, xxiv. 26. 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. Acts, xxvi. 22, 23. Rom. i. 3, 4. All of which is in perfect harmony with the idea that the glory of the Messiah was subsequent to his obedience and sufferings on earth.

And Dr. Lardner further observes, that Augustin, who has largely considered the words of John, xvii. 5, and in so doing, quotes Eph. i. 4. Rom. i. 1, 4, understands them of Christ's human nature, and explains them in the same manner as above.†

It was the opinion of some of the ancient writers of the church, whose Christianity was blended with the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato, that Christ, or the Son, appeared to the patriarchs, and was often sent upon messages to men by the Supreme Being, before the times of the gospel. But where is the proof of this? Answer: It does not exist. But the sentiment is completely overthrown by the very first words of the apostle in the epistle to the Hebrews: which see. He says God spake in former times by the prophets; but in these last days has spoken unto us by his son. See also Heb. ii. 1, 2, 3, 6.

* Let, on the Logos, p. 16. See also Grotius upon the place. August. In Joan Evang. cap. 17. Tr. cv. n. 8. ed. Bened, tom. 3. p. 2.