terious Being appears upon earth, so compounded of divine and human nature, as to surpass our comprehension of his immediate essence, and at the same time so levelled to our earthly ideas, as to be visibly born of a human mother, not impregnated after the manner of the flesh, but by the immediate spirit of God, in other words, the son of a pure virgin, shall we make the mysterious incarnation of such a preternatural being, a reason for our disbelief in that revelation, which without a miracle we had not given credit to? We are told that the birth of Christ was in this wise; the fact rests upon the authority of the evangelists who describe it: the Unitarians, who profess Christianity with this exception, may dispute the testimony of the sacred writers in this particular, and the Jews may deny their account in toto, but still if Christ himself performed miracles, which the Jews do not deny, and if he rose from the dead after his crucifixion, which the Unitarians admit, I do not see how either should be staggered by the miracle of his birth: for of the Jews I may demand whether it were not a thing as credible for God to have wrought a miracle at the birth of Moses for instance, as that he should afterward empower that prophet to perform, not one only, but many miracles? To the Unitarians I would candidly submit, if it be not as easy to believe the incarnation of Christ as his resurrection, the authorities for each being the same? Let the authorities therefore be the test.

I am well aware that the silence of two of the evangelists is stated by the Unitarians amongst other objections against the account, and the nonaccordance of the genealogies given by Saint Matthew and Saint Luke is urged against the Christian church by the author of Lingua Sacra, in a pamphlet lately published in the following words: The evangelist Saint Matthew in the first

chapter of his gospel gives us the genealogy of Christ, and Luke in the third chapter of his gospel does the same; but with such difference, that an unprejudiced person would hardly think they belonged to one and the same person; for the latter not only differs from the former in almost the whole genealogy from Joseph to David, but has also added a few more generations, and likewise made Jesus to descend from Nathan the son of David instead of Solomon.'-(Levi's Letter to Dr. Priestley, p. 81.)

6

The learned Jew is founded in his observation upon the non-accordance of these pedigrees, but not in applying that to Christ, which relates only to Joseph. Saint Matthew gives the genealogy of -Joseph, whom he denominates the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ,' chap. i. v. 16. Saint Luke, with equal precision, says, that Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph.' Now when it is thus clear that both these genealogies apply to Joseph, and both these evangelists expressly assert that Jesus was born of an immaculate virgin, I do not think it a fair statement to call it the genealogy of Christ for the purpose of discrediting the veracity of these evangelists in points of faith or doctrine, merely because they differ in a family catalogue of the generations of Joseph, one of which is carried up to Adam, and the other brought down from Abraham. The gospel historians, as I understand them, profess, severally to render a true account of Christ's mission, comprising only a short period of his life; within the compass of this period they are to record the doctrines he preached, the miracles he performed, and the circumstances of his death, passion, and resurrection; to this undertaking they are fairly committed; this they are to execute as faithful reporters, and if their

reports shall be found in any essential matter contradictory to each other or themselves, let the learned author late mentioned, or any other opponent to Christianity, point it out, and candour must admit the charge; but in the matter of a pedigree, which appertains to Joseph, which our Church universally omits in its service, which comprises no article of doctrine, and which being purely matter of family record, was copied probably from one roll by Matthew, and from another by Luke, I cannot in truth and sincerity see how the sacred historians are impeached by the non-agreement of their accounts. We call them the inspired writers, and when any such trivial contradictions as the above can be fixed upon them by the enemies of our faith, the word is retorted upon us with triumph; but what has inspiration to do with the genealogy of Joseph, the supposed, not the real father of Jesus? And indeed what more is required for the simple narration of any facts than a faithful memory, and sincere adherence to truth?

Let this suffice for what relates to the birth of Christ, and the different ways in which men argue upon that mysterious event: if his coming was foretold, and if his person and character fully answer to those predictions, no man will deny the force of such an evidence: if we are simply told that a virgin did conceive and bear a son,' it is a circumstance so much out of the ordinary course of nature to happen, that it requires great faith in the veracity of the relater to believe it; but if we are possessed of an authentic record of high antecedent antiquity, wherein we find it expressly predicted, that such a circumstance shall happen, and that a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,' it is such a confirmation of the fact, that wonderful as it is, we can no longer doubt the truth of the historians who attest it. Now it is not one but many prophets who concur in foretelling the

coming of the Messias; his person, his office, his humility and sufferings, his ignominious death, and the glorious benefits resulting from his atonement, are not merely glanced at with enigmatic obscurity, but pointedly and precisely announced. Had such evidences met for the verification of any historical event unconnected with religion, I suppose there is no man who could compare the one with the other, but would admit its full concordance and completion; and is it not a strange perverseness of mind, if we are obstinate in doubting it, only because we are so deeply interested to believe it?

I have said there was but one temple upon earth, where the only true and living God was worshipped, the temple at Jerusalem: the Jews had derived and continued this worship from the time of Abraham, and to him. the promises were made, that in his seed all the nations of the world should be blessed.' Where then are we naturally to look for the Messias but from the stock of Abraham, from the descendants of that family, in which alone were preserved the knowledge and worship of the only true God? If therefore the religion, which Christ founded, does in fact hold forth that blessing to all the nations of the world, then was that promise fulfilled in the person of Christ, who took upon him the seed of Abraham.'

NUMBER LXV.

WE are next to inquire if the character and com<mission of the Messias were marked by such performances, as might well be expected from a person, whose introduction into the world was of so extraordinary a nature.

We are told by one of the sacred historians, that 'the Jews came round about him and said unto him, how long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly: Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not; the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.'

In this passage Christ himself appeals to his works done in the name of God, to witness against all cavils for his being the true Messias. The same question was put to him by the disciples of the Baptist, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" The same appeal is made to his works in the reply he gives to these inquirers.

It follows next in order that we should ask what these works were, and it so happens, that the person who performed them, has himself enumerated them in the following words: The blind receive their sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached unto them.' These are works, it must be acknowledged, of a most benevo lent sort; they are not indeed so splendid as the miraculous act of dividing the Red Sea for the people of Israel to march through it, and again commanding it to close upon their pursuers in the rear and swallow up the army of Pharaoh; they are not of so tremendous a character as those afflicting plagues with which Moses punished the Egyptians: but would these, or such as these, have been characteristic of a mediator? Christ came to save and not to destroy the world, and the works above described are no less merciful in their nature, than miraculous.

When the Jews therefore tauntingly assert the superior magnificence of the miracles wrought by Moses, which we admit to have been in all respects suitable to the commission which Moses was en