ed also in the Gospel of St. John, that our Lord had a human father, as well as mother. Thus in John i. 45, it is said: "Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith to him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." Again, in John vi. 42, we find the Jews saying, in his presence and hearing, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" and our Lord immediately replying to them; without uttering one word in denial, or disapprobation of the assertion, which would have been entirely false, as well as that next preceding, if he had been born of a virgin.

Notwithstanding all this, however, and though you have not invalidated the proofs I produced to shew that this passage does not refer at all to our Lord, you reassert it, exactly in the same manner as if it had never been impugned.

It is truly extraordinary, if, as you state, “a system of religion was previously given to introduce Christianity into the full possession of the world, and the Christian religion was revealed to a people thus prepared for it, and promulgated to the world by men thus imbued with previous sentiments, who knew that our Lord had been first announced as the seed of the woman, and was then more clearly announced, as one that was to be born of a virgin," that not one of the men thus imbued with those sentiments, and possess→ ed of this knowledge, and by whom the Christian re

ligion was so promulgated, his own apostles in particular, ever preached what, if it had been true, would have been a most important doctrine; namely, that he had been born in this unusual and supernatural manner, which must have eminently distinguished him from all other men, and have been calculated in their opinion to reflect the highest honour upon him. Many of their discourses to the people have come down to us, in not one of which is any such thing to be found.

Would Philip, one of his own apostles, if he had been imbued with these previous sentiments, if he had ever believed, or heard of, his having been so clearly announced, as one that was to be born of a virgin, have told Nathanael, in flat contradiction to all such previous sentiments, that he (Philip) and some others of the apostles had found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph? Common sense forbids us to answer in the affirmative; it being quite clear from this passage, that Philip, and the other apostles just spoken of, believed Jesus to be the Messiah, and that he was the son of Joseph: consequently none of them could have had the least idea, that the Scriptures had announced him as one who was to be born of a virgin.

Nor is this all: for it was not only unknown to these apostles, but also to Nathanael; for if the latter had been acquainted with it, when our Lord was thus announced to him, as the son of Joseph, he would na

turally have exclaimed, The Son of Joseph! how can that be? The Messiah is to be born of a virgin, and éonsequently cannot be the Son of any man. So that all these persons, whom you suppose to have been, in common with the rest of their countrymen, imbued with such opinions, appear decidedly to have known nothing about the matter; but to have been in a state of profound ignorance of the existence of any such notions. The conclusion is obvious; namely, that the doctrine was at the time unknown, and that the passage, Isaiah vii. 14, was not interpreted then, as it is now, nor considered as referring to the promised Messiah, as it is at present.

Is it possible, that a people prepared in the manner you suppose; that men imbued with the sentiments, and possessed of the knowledge you have imagined, should not only have had no idea of these doctrines, or of any other doctrine connected with the Trinitarian hypothesis; but should even have been ignorant, that our Lord's kingdom was to be a spiritual kingdom, and have expected him to be a mere témporal prince, destined to reign on earth for ever, and to establish an universal empire? That this was the general opinion of the Jews at large appears from all history; and that it was the opinion of our Lord's own apostles and disciples, up to the time of his crucifixion, and even afterwards, is plainly taught in the Scriptures.

It would have been wonderful, if the Jewish nation

had been prepared for, and imbued with, Trinitarian sentiments, that the Apostle Peter in the first sermon he preached to them after our Lord's resurrection, should never have alluded in the most remote manner to any Trinitarian opinion; but should merely have represented him as a man, and nothing more: and still more so, that not a single Jew whom the apostles converted, nor the Jewish church at Jerusalem which they founded, should ever have been Trinitarians. This, though at first controverted by Bishop Horsley, was undeniably proved by Dr. Priestley, and established upon so firm a basis as the former was totally unable to shake; by which the question seems to have been entirely set at rest; even the supposed church of Jewish Trinitarian Christians at Ælia, which was imagined by the good bishop to have risen from its ruins, having been subverted from its very founda

tions.

I am persuaded, my dear Sir, that you would not have stated so confidently, "that the Messiah was foretold by Isaiah (ix. 6,) as the wonderful, counsellor, mighty God, in such a way as excludes the notion of a God," if you had looked beyond the common version, which we are by no means entitled to consider as an oracle not to be disputed: the authors of it, however valuable their labours may have been upon the whole, and however deserving they may have been of commendation, considering the time when, and the circumstances under which, they made it, having shewn

themselves in many instances to have been very fallible; and I believe it is now generally admitted, that they were mistaken in their translation of the prophecy in question.

Even Bishop Lowth remarks, that there are many and great difficulties in it; and he corrects the common version in a most important point, rendering, instead of 'the everlasting Father," the Father of the everlasting age'; whilst other translations, and those very ancient ones, render it the 'Father of the future age'. See the Septuagint, and the Vulgate. It is said, likewise, that the words 'the Mighty God' might have been more properly rendered a mighty God', or 'Judge', or 'Ruler', the words in the original not being Hael Haggibbor, as in Jeremiah xxxii. 18, but El Gibbor; and some of the manuscripts, particularly two of the most ancient and valuable, namely the Vatican and Alexandrine, omitting the word 'God' altogether. The former, instead of it, reads 'the Messenger of the great design'. It is questionable therefore, as Mr. Yates justly remarks, whether the word El, or Al, translated 'God', to which there is nothing corresponding in any of the ancient Greek versions, be a genuine part of the Hebrew text. Supposing it, however, to be genuine, there seems to be greater reason for considering it as having been used in the inferior sense, in which our Lord himself intimated that it might have been applied to him, (John x. 34-36), and for translating it 'a mighty Judge', 'Prophet', or 'Ruler',