not unmanly to call it by so vulgar a name as blunder, and absurd to adduce it as an objection to Christianity? This is becoming enough in the Jew, from which it is taken, but altogether unworthy of a cultivated mind. What possible consequence to the argument is it, whether this was done when Ahimelech or Abiathar was high priest? If Mark really wrote the latter, I have no doubt he would have as cheerfully corrected it, in a transcript of his gospel, as I trust Mr. English, in his second edition, will his own blunder of saying, "See the same also in Matthew and Luke."

The next passage quoted by Mr. English, Luke i. 26. containing the relation of the ap pearance of the angel to Mary, gives occasion to several objections. Most of these have been already considered; and two have not. First, it is objected, that if the angel had announced to Mary, as St. Luke relates, that her offspring should be called the Son of the Highest, and that the Lord God should give unto him the throne of his father David, and he should reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there should be no end'-if the angel had announced this, we should not have discovered, in the mother and brethrep of Jesus, that surprise and incredulity which they manifested at his teachings, to such a degree as to say, he is beside himself.' But this objection is so far from being well ground. ed, that the annunciation of the angel would, more than any thing else, produce this sur

prise and incredulity. Under the influence of the prevailing prejudices, they thought that the angel announced to the mother of Jesus, that he would be that great and glorious prince whom they fancied for the Messiah; and when they saw him, instead of vindicating his predicted honours and making preparations for war and conquests, employing his time in the humble duties of a moral teacher, and permitting himself to be thronged with such a multitude as prevented him even from taking bread, they naturally thought he was beside himself. The other objection is, that the angel announced, "that to his kingdom there should be no end," which Paul, says Mr. English, directly contradicts by saying, 1 Cor. xv. that Jesus shall deliver up his kingdom to God, even the Father, and be himself subject to him. "Here," adds he, "you see that the kingdom of Jesus is to have an end." But need Mr. English be informed, that in the Hebrew style, that is said to have no end, which lasts as long as its nature and objects require or admit, which, without coming to a violent period, attains its final destination. But we need not go up to the Hebrew; we can find a case nearer home. Mr. English himself says, "There is NO END to your misrepresentations, Mr. Cary."* Did Mr. English really mean that there was no end to the misrepresentations contained in a volume of one hundred and thirty-six duodecimo pages?

* Letter to Mr. Cary, p. 113.

The next objection is drawn from these words of our Lord, "And the Father himself which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape." "How," says Mr. Eng lish, "does this agree with Moses, who says, Did ever people hear the voice of God, speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard?" Also Deut. v. 24. Having observed in the commencement of this chapter that Mr. English had copied his tenth chapter from R. Isaac, I ought in justice to remark, that this paragraph, like one other of a few lines on page 80, are original, if I have not overlooked them in reading the "Bulwark of Faith." However, the credit of this last objection is not worth much, to whomever it be longs. If Mr. English had read but one verse more, he would have found an answer to it. The whole passage is; "The Father himself, which hath sent me, hath born witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time. nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you; for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not."'* Here we see that the address was to the Jews of our Saviour's time; and whatever Moses said of his own contemporaries, those to whom Jesus was sent, and who did not believe him,' had certainly never seen the shape, nor heard the voice of God. The next objections are made to the passage,

* John v. 37, 38

Luke iv. 17. "They gave to Jesus the book of Isaiah the prophet, aud he opened the book, and found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, therefore hath he anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor; hath he sent me, that I should bind up the broken in heart, proclaim liberty to the captives, and sight to the blind, that I should preach the acceptable year of the Lord." Here it is objected, 1. that our Saviour, in quoting this passage, added to it the words, and sight to the blind," for purposes," says Mr. English,

6

not very obvious." But he is here misled by the rabbi whom he transcribes, and who, though an ingenious man, was but an ordinary critick. Luke quoted these words from the Septuagint, in which, moreover, they are not added to the text, as it stands in the Hebrew but they are a different version of what our translation renders, "the opening of the prison to them that are bound." Now as the preceding clause is, liberty to the captives;' and opening of the prison' would be a tautology, the presumption is in favour of the Septuagint and St. Luke. Moreover, the Hebrew word, which is the one in ques. tion, occurs no where else in the scriptures,* and there can therefore be no authority for its meaning more decisive than that of the Septugint. 2. It is objected, that our Saviour omits the next words to the rest of the chapter. But

* Grotius in loc.

I know not that it was usual in ancient, more than in modern times, to take a whole chapter for the theme of discourse. Our Lord certainly chose the most important part of it: and when Mr. English says, that from the rest of the chapter it is plain that this prophecy has no relation to Jesus, but to Isaiah, he takes upon him to contradict the authority of the Jews, Saadias and Kimchi, who understand this passage of the Messiah,* and whose opinion is much to be preferred to the illiterate Isaac's. When Mr. English ascribes the wrath of the inhabitants of Nazareth to these two causes, he plainly forgets the far more rational and probable account of St. Luke; and especially his express declaration, "that all bear him witness, and wondered at his gracious words, which proceeded from his mouth." The next objection I shall answer from Mr. English's own mouth.

OBJECTION.

The Jews said to Jesus, what sign showest thou to us, that thou doest these things? Jesus said unto them, destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews answered and said, forty and six

ANSWER.

"Here the angel gave Daniel to understand, that after the seven weeks before mentioned, there would come a time, in which the building would be hindered-till the second year of Darius, who gave leave to finish the

* Huetii demonstr. evang. p. 367.