this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" And what did Jesus say? Did he say, I am not the son of the carpenter; why, then, do ye call me so? Nothing of the kind. Jesus said, "A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house." But if he had been miraculously conceived, how could he be without honour in his own house; and, pray, how could his very brothers be among the men who did not believe on him? If then Christ was not known to have been miraculously conceived in his own neighbourhood, nor even in his own house, among the members of his own family, it is impossible the story should be true.

Again, in Luke, chap. 4. ver. 15, we have the following words:" And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth." These were not enemies they were friends. But what was their notion ? "And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?" Well, if Jesus did not instruct his enemies that they were wrong, surely he would teach his friends. What does he say ? "Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself." He seemed to think that there was danger of their rejecting him, because he was the son of Joseph, though they listened with affection and attention; and yet, instead of relieving their minds, by teaching them my opponent's great first lesson, he leaves them entirely in the dark on the subject. We hear not a word, in this case, any more than in the former, of

ears.

In

Jesus attempting to correct their error, if it was an error. But Jesus does not appear to have regarded it as an error. Neither in this, nor in any other place, does he appear to have had the least idea, that the people were wrong. almost every place the people ask, Is not this the son of Joseph Or, is not this the son of the carpenter ? And in no case does the Saviour give the slightest intimation that he was not. Nothing was known of the miraculous conception amongst any of his hearers; it was not even known to his brethren both friends and enemies were ignorant of it; and yet not a word is spoken on the subject by Jesus: yet Jesus preached the Gospel. How, then, can the miraculous conception be a part of the Gospel,-the first great fundamental principle of the Gospel? According to the accounts given in the two first chapters of Matthew and Luke, the story should have been known every where, and yet we find no trace of it any where. It is not even known to his brethren. The story of the shepherds of Bethlehem, and the story of the wise men of the east, are all forgotten. These things are utterly unaccountable, on the supposition that the story as contained in the suspected chapters was true. We naturally imagine that at least the disciples, to whom it was granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom, would have known of the matter, if it had been true; or that the apostle John, at all events, the beloved disciple, would surely know all about the miraculous conception. Yet neither John nor any of the other apostles ever notices the subject. They all allow people to remain in ignorance of this first, great doctrine-the very doctrine without a belief of which, on William Cooke's principle, they could not be Christians.

:

I come now to the two first chapters of Matthew, and the two first of Luke and without going to any Fathers, to any versions, to any manuscripts, I will take the authorized version alone, which I think contains evidence sufficient to show that these chapters never formed part of the original Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The first thing to be noticed in those chapters is, that the genealogies of Christ are traced through Joseph up to David; and that such genealogies are quite at variance with the story of the miraculous conception. I have noticed this before, and need not dwell upon it again.. The next part of the story represents Joseph, after he had found out that his betrothed wife was with child, commun

ing with himself what should be done; and it is said, "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily." Now, mark you. Joseph was a just man, a just

man according to the law of Moses. Joseph was a just man ; and of course would be anxious to act according to the law of Moses, under which he was placed; and the law of Moses was very plain and strict with respect to a person's duty in his circumstances. It was to this effect, that if a woman bethrothed should be found to have played the harlot, she should be publicly put away, brought out to the door of her father's house, and the people of her city should stone her with stones till she died; and the following reason is assigned for this regulation; that they might put away evil from among them. Another form of the law is given in the 22nd chap. of Deuteronomy, at the 23rd verse :— "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." This was the law. And Joseph, as a just man, was bound, according to the law, to bring forth his wife to be publicly put away. And yet in these chapters, we have it assigned as a reason why he did not do so, not that he was not just, as might have been expected, but that, being a just man, he did not think proper to do what God had bidden, but went directly against God's law. This mistake is easily accounted for, if we suppose the chapters to have been written by some ignorant Gentile, who was not well acquainted with the law. But it is impossible that Matthew, himself a Jew, and writing for Jews, can be supposed to have exhibited such ignorance of his own law.

The next thing we come to is a prophecy. Joseph is relieved from his perplexity by a dream, according to the story. Mary herself does not appear to have mentioned the matter to him. Though one would suppose that it would have been an easy matter to have done so ; but Joseph must be told in a dream. He is told as follows:-"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,"-Now mark the prophecy, and mark the fulfilment. The prophecy is this :-"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." That is, the prophet says he shall be called Emmanuel, and therefore, says the angel, he shall be called not Emmanuel, but Jesus. He shall be called Jesus, on purpose to fulfil the prophecy which says that he shall be called Emmanuel, not Jesus. Now the inspired, the well instructed Evangelist of Christ could hardly have made such a blunder; but it was quite natural in a half-instructed heathen convert to do so. I may state further, that the passage referred to is no prophecy of Christ at all, but refers to a child born in the days of Ahaz. This will be plain to any who will examine the passage, as it stands in the Prophet. See the 7th chapter of Isaiah, at the 1st verse,"And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem, to war against it." God promises that he will deliver Ahaz from his enemies, and after that, God asked Ahaz to ask a sign; but Ahaz said, No; "I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord." But though he thus declines asking God for a sign, God is good enough to give him one ; and says, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign." A sign, something that Ahaz should see, something that should take place in the time of Ahaz, some hundreds of

years before Christ was born. What was the sign to be? "Behold, a virgin shall conceive," or, as Luther says, has conceived, “and shall bear a son, and call his name Emmanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings." Now here you have the child born in the days of the prophet himself; he should eat butter and honey; and be called Emmanuel, or God with us, in token of God's blessing or prosperity. And before he learned to distinguish good from evil, Ahaz was to be delivered from his enemies, and

"the land that he abhorred was to be forsaken of both her kings." There is not the least allusion to Christ; the whole is fulfilled in the days of Ahaz.

Again, in the next chapter, we have another prophecy referred to at least a passage quoted as a prophecy, but which is no such thing. In the first place, we have the story of the flight into Egypt. "Joseph arose, and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt and was there until the death of Herod." And then comes the statement of the prophecy :-"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." Now let us refer to the prophet, and see whether what is here quoted as a prophecy has any respect to Christ. See the 11th chapter of Hosea, at the 1st verse:" When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" referring simply to a fact in history-the calling of the people of Israel out of Egypt. That a Gentile, halfinstructed, should make this mistake, is not to be wondered at; but it seems impossible that such a blunder should have been committed, supposing this chapter to have been written by Matthew. We cannot conceive how any one, influenced by a spirit of truth and possessed of information like his, could make such a blunder. Then about the destruction of the innocent children-when we read of the children being murdered, we have a third prophecy, so called; "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama there was a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not." Now refer to Jeremiah, the 31st chapter, beginning at the 15th verse, and you will see this also is a prophecy that has no reference to the times of Christ :-" Thus saith the Lord; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. Thus saith the Lord: Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy works shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they"—that is, the children of Israel—“ shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their border." Rachel is represented as weeping for the children of Israel, who had