tion, in what is called the first chapter of St. Matthew. It is there said, that the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: "When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privately. But, while he thought on these things, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost: and she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he called his name Jesus." Now it is remarkable, that not a single word in this passage alludes to any thing like the incarnation, or even the pre-existence, of our blessed Lord. If it prove any thing, it proves that our Lord was, as Adam had been before him, not formed according to the ordinary course of generation, but without the intervention of a human father, though

"

by the instrumentality of a human mother; in which last respect he differed from Adam. It would be, if the account were correct, a case of miraculous conception; but there is not the most distant hint of any superior being having entered into him, and become incarnate in him; much less the supposed divine Logos; for all that took place is ascribed to the Holy Ghost, Mary being stated "to have been found with child of the Holy Ghost," and that which was conceived in her, it is said, was of the Holy Ghost. Now if this statement ever proceeded from the pen of the evangelist Matthew, and was therefore to be depended upon, it would prove that our Lord, at least as to his human nature, was begotten, not by the Father, but by the Holy Ghost; and is not (as those parts of the Scriptures which are universally received as genuine represent) the son of the Father, but of the Holy Ghost. I think, however, that we have proofs sufficient, both external and internal, (but especially the latter,) that what are supposed to be the first two chapters of this Gospel are spurious. I shall advert to a few of them, after just hinting, what almost every one knows, that the division into chapters is quite a modern invention.

In the first place, they are entitled "The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David;" a title not at all fit for the whole work; which gives them much the appearance of having been a separate trea tise, not originally belonging to the Gospel, but which,

having in process of time been prefixed to it, as being supposed to contain the earliest intelligence of our Lord, by some person who happened to have both, at length was first copied upon the same parchment, and afterwards, without any interval, according to the ancient manner of writing, so as to present the appearance of an uninterrupted narration.-In the next place, in order to favour the idea of there having been exactly fourteen generations from Abraham to David, exactly the same number from David to the Babylonish captivity, and the same number from that event to Christ,—a coincidence which, if it were real, yet, not answering any particular purpose, was unworthy of notice, and would appear puerile in any other place,-the genealogy is placed upon the bed of Procrustes, and lopped of some of its members. In the third place, it is irreconcileably at variance with the genealogy given of Joseph and of our Saviour in the third chapter of St. Luke. Fourthly, supposing the first sixteen verses (including the genealogy, but excluding the remark about the fourteen generations,) to be authentic, and the omission of some generations to have happened from the carelessness of the transcribers of some very early manuscripts, the object of the writer is, by tracing our Lord's pedigree through Joseph, his immediate father, to David his remote ancestor, to prove that he was the son of David: but the rest of the chapter is in direct opposition to this, it being the design of the writer of it, whoever he may have been, to shew that

our Lord was NOT the son of Joseph; which important link in the chain failing, the genealogy falls entirely to the ground, and it becomes impossible to answer satisfactorily a question which has been very properly asked, "Of what consequence was it to give the genealogy of Joseph for that of Jesus, when, according to this, Jesus was no more descended from Joseph than he was from Herod ?" It is further to be remarked, that this most extraordinary account of our Lord having been born of a virgin, without the intervention of a human father, by the power of the Holy Ghost, which was a fact of the utmost consequence, and might have been expected to have been referred to again and again, both in the course of this gospel, and in all other accounts of our Saviour, as an article of prime importance, and to which his father Joseph being a carpenter, his being of Nazareth, and many other things which are repeated frequently in the Gospels and Epistles, are in comparison nothing,-is never mentioned directly or indirectly, nor is any one of the other remarkable occurrences comprised in these chapters, in any subsequent parts of the gospels of Matthew or Luke, in either of the other gospels, or in any one of the epistles. Could this possibly have happened, if any of these writers had ever heard of, and believed, the most extraordinary events contained in these spurious chapters ?-for so, considering these, and other strong objections to their credit, I cannot hesitate to call them. Could these prominent, and

most material facts, which, if correct, would rank amongst the most striking features of the history,have been neglected by any historian whatever, or have been wholly passed over, even in an abridgment? 'How are we to account for the total silence of Mark and John in their respective gospels, and that of Paul in his numerous epistles, in which he gives such ample details respecting our Lord, and the various relations in which he stood both to God and man? Had these writers wholly lost their memories; or did they possess minds so singularly constructed, as to recollect numerous circumstances comparatively insignificant and unimportant, and at the same time to forget some of the most extraordinary, and unexampled events relative to the illustrious personage whose history they were writing, that had ever occurred since the creation of the human race?

There are some other unaccountable circumstances connected with these events, supposing them to be true, that cannot be passed in silence. It appears by the chapters both of Matthew and Luke, which are now in question, that these things were not done in a corner; that the knowledge of them was not confined even to the members of our Lord's own family; but, according to Matthew, some of them were known to the magi, to Herod, and all the chief priests, and scribes, whom he convened in council; and, by the slaughter of the innocents, to all the Jewish nation, and others; according to Luke, to the shepherds, and