by the joyful certainty of his Master's resurrection, we can hardly separate the two members of the sentence, and apply one to Christ and the other to God. Had St. John so understood it, he would have taken care to record it in such a manner (supposing him to have entertained the same notions with the Defendants) as not to give it the semblance of a direct acknowledgment of Christ's divine nature. He would have told us, that Thomas said, My Lord, and shortly afterwards, My God, or something to that effect. But a fatal objection to the Defendant's interpretation is this: St. John says expressly, that this exclamation was addressed to Jesus:-Thomas answered and said unto him.”. Besides which, our Saviour commended it as a confession of faith; which it would not have been, had it expressed only surprise. This passage is more deserving attention, because it is the first time that Christ is called God by any of his disciples.1

Att. Gen. How do they explain that passage of St. John, in which our Saviour told the Jews, in his indignation, "Ye are of your father the Devil : he was a murderer from the beginning?"

Witness. They affirm that the Devil here mentioned is the principle of moral evil personified; and

p. 86.

Bp. Blomfield's Five Lectures on St. John's Gospel,

that wicked men are said to be his children, and to resemble him.1 Now, to say that the wicked are called his children, and that he is a fictitious person, would, by parity of reason, imply that the good and virtuous, called the children of God, are the children of an unreal and illusive being. But it is manifest that one of the objects of Christ's coming upon earth was, that he might destroy the works of the Devil, a real but fallen Spirit, whom God permits to tempt mankind in order to make trial of their faith and virtue; for, says St. John, "He that committeth sin is of the Devil, for the Devil sinneth from the beginning; for this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil." 2 The Evil One is, therefore, spoken of in Scripture as the sovereign and head of a kingdom," The Prince of the power of the air, the Spirit that worketh disobedience." And against this kingdom of Satan the kingdom of Christ was opposed, and subdued it: "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils." But independent of this,

1 Improved Version, note to John viii. 44.

2 1 John, iii. 8.

4 Luke xi. 21, 22.

3 Ephes. ii. 2.

1

our Saviour speaks of him again and again as a real being, and particularly where he says, "The enemy that sowed the tares (among the wheat) is the Devil." And this is made positively certain by what St. Paul says, that Satan can transform himself into the appearance of "an angel of light.' as no doubt he did, when he tempted the first Adam in Paradise, and the second in the wilder

ness.

Att. Gen. My Lord, I have no further ques tions to ask of this witness.

Court. Then, Defendants, you are at liberty to begin.

Belsham. I would ask whether we have not assigned good and substantial reasons for our rejection of those parts of the Gospel which have been mentioned? and whether we have not adduced the testimony of the learned to support our disbelief of these being genuine parts of Scripture?

Witness. I, for one, think the reverse.

Belsham. My Lord, this is not candid. I will therefore state each of the six objections we have against considering nearly the whole of the first chapter of St. Matthew, and the two first chapters of St. Luke as spurious, when I will call upon the

1 Matt. xiii. 39.

2 2 Cor. xi. 14.

witness to grant at least the force and truth of the evidence we produce. Our rejection of these parts is founded, first, on the ground of the Evangelists having affirmed (if what is here said to be his writing is true) that Jesus had completed his thirteenth year in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, by which Jesus must have been born fifteen years before the death of Augustus: thus Herod, who died A. U. C. 751., must have been dead upwards of two years before Christ was born; a fact which at once invalidates the whole narrative.1

Witness. Stop, stop; you are rather too rapid in drawing your conclusion. Who says that Herod was dead two years before the birth of Christ? Belsham. I refer you to Lardner for the corroboration of the fact.2

Witness. Stay. Here, at page 432. of the first volume of his works, he says, "It may be made appear several ways, that Jesus was born above a year, probably above two years, before Herod died." And, after making a comparison of two other computations of Herod's death, he concludes thus:

"Which is the truth, I dare not determine."3 Belsham. This does not make against us. Witness. Nor for you. All that can be said is

1 Improved Version, note to Luke i. 4.

2 Ibid.

Nares's Reply, p. 12.

this, that Lardner makes the computation on the notion that Herod died A. U. C. 748. or 749., and not upon that of 751.; and he, and the learned who have endeavoured to clear this point, draw no such hasty conclusion as that at which you have arrived.

Belsham. The point at least is left undecided. But if this argument be deemed insufficient, I will go on to show, in the next place, that Epiphanius and Jerome state the copies of St. Matthew's Gospel used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, that is to say, the ancient Hebrew Christians, to omit these parts of St. Matthew and St. Luke; and, what is more, the two chapters of St. Luke were rejected by Marcion, a reputed heretic of the second century, who was a man of learning and integrity, though represented by his adversaries as holding some extravagant opinions.1

Witness. Your argument is this:-St. Matthew is known to have written his Gospel for the Hebrew Christians, therefore the Gospel used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites was the genuine one which St. Matthew wrote. Now, before we grant the conclusion, let us look at the premises. The terms Hebrew Christians, Nazarenes, and Ebionites, which are here artfully classed together, as if synonymous, were decidedly distinct. The Hebrew Christians

Improved Version, Matt. i., Luke i., notes.