ment of the Scripture Evidence on this great question and, for this purpose, the inductive process, which has been carried on through the former volume, is the most impartial, and appears the most likely to lead us to safe and satisfactory conclusions. We shall, therefore, pursue the lines of evidence as they are presented to us by the opening and the gradual progress of the New Testament dispensation; and shall consider the interpretations and reasonings of the Calm Inquiry as they will severally find their places in the course of the work. CHAP. I. ON THE NARRATIVE OF THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. Ar the head of his enumeration of supposed arguments in favour of the doctrines which he opposes, the Author of the Calm Inquiry has placed the weakest that could well be conceived; that "the miraculous birth of Christ is regarded by many as a considerable presumptive evidence of his pre-existence.* Dr. It is quite sufficient to set aside this alleged argument, to remind those, if such there be, who are disposed to advance it, that Unitarians generally, till Dr. Priestley, accorded with the universal belief of Christians on this head. Lardner, a professed Socinian, has largely vindicated the authenticity of the disputed portions of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, against exceptions and difficulties :† and, in the days of modern Unitarians, Mr. Gilbert Wakefield, emphatically and designedly, describes the Gospel of Matthew as " delivering the history of a Covenant between God and the human race, * Page 12. + Credibility of the Gosp. Hist. Part I. Book II. promulgated and ratified by a man born out of the common course of generation." On the other hand, if a much greater force belonged to the arguments by which the Calm Inquirer and others are endeavouring to establish the spuriousness of the initial portions of Matthew and Luke, and if the evidence were satisfactory to the rejection of those portions, I do not see that the doctrine of the Divine Nature in the Person of Christ would be affected by it; any farther than as a few passages, which have furnished some arguments in favour of the doctrine, would be no longer proper to be adduced. Had it pleased God so to ordain, the sinless purity of our Lord's humanity might have been as certainly provided for by a miraculous intervention, on the supposition of its being produced in the ordinary way of nature, as on the generally received, and, in my opinion, true and scriptural view of this subject. But, besides the divine ordination, other reasons are not wanting to shew the superior propriety and CONDIGNITY of this mode of miraculous formation.t It cannot be denied that the portions of the two Gospels in question are pressed with seeming difficulties, more than any other part of the Evangelical history. These difficulties are alleged to lie in the citations which occur in them from the Old Testament, in the facts related, * Wakefield's New Transl. and Notes on Matthew, p.416. 1782. ↑ See Note [A] at the end of this Chapter. and in the want of any clear reference to those facts in the subsequent parts of the New Testament. But it is contrary to the principles of sound criticism to reject, as spurious, parts of the works attributed to ancient authors, which stand upon the same ground of external evidence that is found by rigorous examination to be sufficient for the rest;* unless there are discrepancies and contradictions which can be removed by no fair methods of interpretation; “such traces and marks of ignorance in language, unskilfulness in history and antiquity, want of accuracy in reasoning, or in short, mistakes of one kind or other, as that we might safely and without suspicion of prejudice pronounce it impossible to be the work of "+-the author to whom it is attributed. In the case before us, the internal difficulties are capable of being disposed of, to a candid and reasonable satisfaction. The citations from the Old Testament are rather of the nature of classical passages, capable of a descriptive application to the events, than direct prophecies. Such applications have been always common, not only among the Jews, but with every other nation possessing any literature. So we every day apply to observable events, striking sen * See Note [B] at the end of this Chapter. + Markland's Remarks on the Epistles ascribed to Cicero and Brutus, &c. p. 4. 1745. See also Tunstalli Epist. ad Conyers Middleton, p. 194. 1741. tences of our own poets. The facts related have been solidly vindicated, and the objections to their credibility answered.† We shall see, also, that the chronological difficulties have been obviated; and that some solution may be given to the difficulty which arises from the want of reference to these facts in the succeeding parts of the Christian Scriptures. The positive evidence for the authenticity of the passages is complete. All manuscript authority that exists is in their favour and equally so is that of the ancient versions. Christian writers who lived within a hundred years of the events, mention the facts as of undoubted certainty, and 'quote the passages as parts of accredited scripture. Celsus the able and acute adversary of Christianity, who flourished in the second century; and Origen in his reply to him; both consider the history of the miraculous conception as an unquestionable part of the Christian records. So also does the Jewish slanderer who wrote the Toldoth Jesu. In modern times, the most distinguished scripture-critics, who with all the aids of every kind of learning that could bear upon such inquiries, have devoted their time and talents to these researches; and who have been the most remote from any suspicion of what some would call orthodox predi *See Note [C] at the end of this Chapter. + See Note [D] at the end of this Chapter. Edited by Wagenseil; Altdorf, 1681. |