printed in a separate form, and distributed among those who are most exposed to, and most liable to be seduced by, Uni tarian sophistry."

Satisfactory as the evidence is in favour of the account of the miraculous conception and birth of Christ, it has been strongly impugned by Unitarians; and therefore the Layman, in pursuance of his design, begins his examination of the arguments by which they endeavour to prove it an interpolation. The Editors of the Improved Version reject it, because, as they allege, the first two chapters of St. Mat, thew and St. Luke were not in the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebionites. To this the Layman answers, that the Nazarenes and Ebionites were not the same sect, that they did not make use of the same Gospel, and that the Nazarene copy of St. Matthew's Gospel contained the first two chapters of our Greek copy. These positions are supported by an appeal to the ancient Fathers; and though the materials may be found in the invaluable works of Jones and Lardner, he has selected them with great judgment, and combined them with the utmost order and perspicuity, Besides, what reliance can be placed upon the testimony of those heretics who took such liberties with the Christian faith, and the Christian Scriptures.

"If a deviation from the Apostolical doctrines, says the author, and a rejection of whole books of the sacred writings of unquestionable authority, serve as a passport of recommendation to an ancient writer or sect, the Ebionites cannot be said to want the necessary credentials. And they have not failed to serve as a passport of recommendation to the Unitarian, who considers the rejection of all the Gospels by the Ebionites, except their Hebrew copy, as a pledge that they would then be particularly careful to keep this Gospel pure and uncorrupt.' It is indeed granted that they erred in rejecting all Paul's Epistles; but how this invalidates their evidence in the case of Matthew's Gospel, I do not perceive,' says B., in his answer to the Quarterly Review. Whatever may be thought of the writer's powers of perception, the plainest understanding need not be at a loss to conceive how this invalidates their evidence in the case of Matthew's Gospel. A sect which rejects whole books of authentic Scripture, because they are inimical to his own notions, offers very indifferent security for its care to preserve from mutilation and alteration the text of those books which it professes to retain; its conduct, at least, renders suspicious every thing which it offers to us as genuine Scripture, unless corroborated by less questionable evidence. The fragments which are left of the Hebrew copies of the Gospel or Gospels used by the Ebionites and the Nazarenes, confirm the truth of these remarks, &c." P, 86,

The objection of the Improving Editors to the authenticity of the first two chapters of St. Luke's Gospel, that they were wanting in the Gospel used by Marcion, is next examined, and shewn by many convincing arguments to be altogether inconclusive. The author thus concludes this part of his vindication.

"Here closes my review of the external evidence advanced by the Unitarian against the genuineness and authenticity of the introductory chapters of Matthew and Luke's Gospels. Low indeed must that biblical critic rank, who can gravely attempt to impugn the united evidence of all the MSS., versions, and fathers, by such worthless documents as the Ebionite Hebrew Gospel, and Marcion's Evangelium. Though we may regret that men, professing to be ministers of Christ, and to propagate the glad tidings of the Gospel, should mislead their flocks, who are looking up to them as guides to direct them in the way which leads to eternal life; yet it is some consolation to know, that all such perverted labours, by eliciting further research, will ultimately only confirm the authenticity and integrity of the present Greek text of the New Testament in all material points, and consequently establish our confidence in the Holy Scriptures, as an authentic revelation from God to man." P. 121.

The author next proceeds to investigate what may be called the internal evidence adduced by the Editors against these narratives, and all that they have advanced is triumphantly refuted. The Unitarians argue, that the first sixteen verses of the first chapter of St. Matthew are contradictory to the remainder of the same chapter; that, if the account of the miraculous conception be true, Jesus could not be the offspring of David and of Abraham, from whom it was predicted that the Messiah should descend; that the Virgin Mary's descent from David would not prove Christ's descent from David; and that Christ could not be the Messiah predicted by the prophets, if he were miraculously conceived. These arguments are examined in detail, and their fallacy clearly exposed. In the course of this investigation, the Layman adverts to the different genealogies of Christ given by Matthew and Luke, a subject confessedly encumbered with many difficulties, and which is perhaps best reconciled by supposing that Matthew traces Christ's legal descent from David through Joseph, and that Luke traces Christ's real descent from David through his maternal line.

In the fifth chapter the author examines the chronological argument of the Improving Editors, against the history of the miraculous conception and birth of Christ, recorded in the introductory chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke.

The argument is briefly this, that the Gospel account states our Saviour to have been born during the life-time of Herod, king of Judea, whereas, the Editors affirm, from some chronological calculations, that "Herod must have been dead upwards of two years before Christ was born: a fact which invalidates the whole narration." But allowing the premises, their conclusion will not necessarily follow. There is often considerable uncertainty as to the dates of events which occurred in the ages of antiquity, while at the same time the truth of these events has never been questioned. Whoever is at all conversant with ancient history, must be acquainted with the chronological difficulties in which it is involved, yet it would be unreasonable on such grounds to doubt its authenticity and credibility. If, therefore, any. difficulty of this kind attend the account of a particular transaction recorded in the Gospel history, it would be unfair to deem the account, for that reason, an interpolation; especially if it were found in all the manuscripts and versions extant, was cited by the ancient Fathers, and was consistent with the nature of the history and the voice of prophecy. On this topic the Layman reasons with irresistible force.

"Let us for the present grant the Editors the chronological error they labour to establish, and consider whether this is a circumstance which invalidates the whole story.' It may be, I think, safely affirmed that this is a conclusion which they would not have ́ drawn from a similar error, in any other ancient history. For which would be the most probable solution of the difficulty,-to suppose that, through the carelessness of transcribers, had been omitted after x', (or rpus omitted after rpáxorra) in Luke iii. 23, ors to suppose the whole narrative to be a forgery, the substance of which is to be found in two authors, who have evidently, not written in concert? and both their narratives, correspond with other histories of the same period, and contain internal marks of authenticity. Now, of these two suppositions, does not the adoption of the latter by the Editors evince a predetermination, at all events, to get rid of a narrative which presents an obstacle to a favourite hypothesis? especially when it is adopted by those who have, on another occasion, shewn such a plenitude of faith, as to receive, for the genuine Hebrew copy of the Gospel of St. Matthew, a notorious forgery, notwithstanding the egregious mistake in the said forgery of Herod, king of Judea, instead of Herod, Tetrarch of Galilee; an error more egregious, and less likely to proceed from a slip of the pen in transcribing, than the errori which they think that they detect in Luke iii. 1, 23." P. 147. ›

This must be granted even upon the admission of an error; but the Layman goes much farther, and subverts the whole

data upon which the conclusion of the Editors is made to depend. Taking the excellent Lardner for his guide, he proves that the objection is founded upon the authority of Josephus; that the works of this historian contain greater errors than that urged by the Editors against the narratives of the miraculous conception; and that both Josephus and the Evangelists may be reconciled by the fact of the joint empire of Tiberius with Augustus. These propositions are made out in such a way as must carry conviction to the minds of all candid readers, and they afford a satisfactory solution of chronological difficulty so strenuously urged by the Editors.

But there is another argument advanced against the chapters in question by these versatile critics in their notes to the Improved Version, and we shall state it in their own words. "It is indeed highly improbable," say they, "that no notice should have been taken of these extraordinary events by any contemporary writer, that no expectation should be excited by them; and that no allusion should have been made to them in any other passage of the sacred writings." Now, supposing the truth of these assumptions to what do they amount? It surely cannot be inferred from them that the narratives of the miraculous conception are forgeries. "Omission," as Dr. Paley observes, "is at all times a very uncertain ground of objection; and can never be allowed to have any weight against strong positive evidence. If the extraordinary events recorded in the disputed portions of Matthew and Luke are not mentioned by any other heathen contemporary nor sacred writer; this circumstance, however strange it may appear and difficult to be accounted for, by no means invalidates the whole narrative. The authenticity and genuineness of the histories being established by the same evidence as the rest of the New Testament, we are bound to believe them notwithstanding the silence, if such be the fact, of contempora→ neous writers. This is abundantly sufficient to rebut the objection; but the Layman likewise calls in question the assumptions upon which it rests. He argues that any notice of these miraculous events cannot be expected in Pagan historians from the contempt which they entertained for the Jewish nation, nor in Josephus by reason of his deep-rooted prejudices, while nevertheless there are facts recorded by the Jewish annalist which appear connected with these events, He further argues that allusions to the extraordinary nature of our Lord's birth are found in the other Gospels, in the Acts, and in the Epistles. The discussion of these topics is continued through the sixth and seventh chapters. In reference to the anxiety of the editors of the Improved Version to

get rid of the fact of our Saviour's super-human conception, which so strongly militates against their system, he observes,

"The history of the miraculous conception, which reveals the divine origin of our Lord, and constitutes him the Son of God, is, as we have seen, expunged by them from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke as fabulous and of no authority. Having thus summarily disposed of these two important portions of the sacred records, which, if retained sufficiently determine the import of other passages of scripture which advert to the same fact, the evidence which these other passages afford to this plain matter of fact, is more easily disposed of, not by rejecting them from the sacred volume, they are too numerous to admit of so violent a measure; but by doing what, it is hoped, will answer the same purpose-that is, by converting these declarations of a matter of fact into tropes, metaphors, and figures of speech." P. 241.

We shall not follow the Layman through his elaborate refutation of the Unitarian objection above stated in the editors' own words; but it is necessary, in justice, to observe, that his reasonings respecting the import of the title "the Son of God" are particularly deserving of attention. To any man of plain understanding this title, under the peculiar circum stances in which it is applied to our Lord, evidently desigu nates his divine nature; of course the Socinian must, by one means or other, explain away its true and legitimate meaning. He feels it incumbent upon him to understand it in some sense in which it may be applied to human beings, or his leading tenet, the mere humanity of Christ, falls to the ground; accordingly, he annexes to it a variety of meanings suitable to his purpose; and, in short, is willing to receive it in any sense except that which it obviously bears. But all his attempts are met and completely foiled by our author, who says no more than the truth when he observes,

«I have now considered every text, in which it may be supposed, from the Editors' introduction of the indefinite article before Son of God, that they considered this title to be applied in the New Testament to Christ, in the same sense in which it is applied to every believer, as an heir to an immortal life: the result is that none of the texts admit of this sense; and their substitution on of th indefinite for the Primate's definite article, has been proved to be quite arbitrary, inconsistent with the context, and with their own version of the same Greek phrase in other passages of the e New Testament, under the same or similar circumstances." P. 254.

the

The Editors of the Improved Version in their note on Luke i. 4. affirm that the style of the two first chapters is different from the rest of the history, and that there are many