other meanings, all the sentences by which the doctrines of the divinity of our Saviour and of the atonement are proved.1

Belsham. The expression of being "born of a woman," bears no allusion to the supposed miraculous conception of Christ. It is a common Jewish phrase to express a proper human being.2

Witness. But the expression "born of a woman," is manifestly too general to mark out him who, in a particular manner, was to be the "seed of the woman, who was to bruise the serpent's head;" and, when taken in conjunction with other passages of similar import, surely cannot be misunderstood. "God sent

1 The Improved Version reviewed by the Quarterly, vol.i. p. 328.

Improved Version, Gal. iv. 4. note.

The condemnation of the iniquity of Adam's progeny was universal. To reverse the universal sentence, and to purge the universal corruption, a Redeemer was to be found, pure of every strain of inbred and contracted guilt and since every person produced in the natural way could not but be of the contaminated race, the purity requisite to the efficacy of the Redeemer's atonement made it necessary that the manner of his conception should be supernatural. The incarnation of the Divine WORD, so roundly asserted by St. John, and so clearly implied in innumerable passages of Holy Writ, in any other way had been impossible, and the Redeemer's atonement inadequate and ineffectual; insomuch that, had the extraordinary manner of our Lord's generation made no part of the Evangelical narrative, the opinion might have been defended as a thing clearly implied in the Evangelical doctrine." - Bp. Horsley's Sermons, vol. iii, p. 80.

his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.'

"The

WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us." "God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the law."

Belsham. I say, with the disciples of Jesus, "This is a hard saying, who can bear it?" I proceed, therefore, to state, in the last place, that John the Baptist should have been ignorant of the person of Christ is not probable, if this narrative be true; and there are many other circumstances in the story which bear an improbable and fabulous aspect.1

Witness. It has been pretty generally supposed, that John knew not the person of Jesus before his baptism. I do not feel certain that this was the case. John, indeed, in two instances, declared that he "knew him not:" but I question if more be implied in these than that he knew him not as the Messiah, till he was especially revealed on his approach to be baptized. And as to your charge, that some of the facts have a fabulous appearance, surely this is no other than a direct departure from real argument to vague and unintelligible insinuation. I would ask, where are these marks of fiction? From what proofs is

Improved Version, Luke i., note.

2 Nares's Reply, p. 34. This is the opinion of Beza, Lightfoot, Grotius, and Doddridge.

this inference drawn? Saviour's history, his several miracles, his resurrection, bear the same fabulous appearance? that is, are they not facts wholly out of the common course of nature, which we should never have believed if they had not been pressed upon our conviction by evidence which we cannot question? How far the Defendants may carry this sort of scepticism, I know not; but the same reasoning, and the same grounds for disbelief, would consistently carry them to regard all that our Saviour taught and did, to be a "cunningly devised fable." 1

Do not all the facts of our

Belsham. We proceed on principles of reason for the confirmation of our belief, not upon the mere dicta of others. I affirm, that our Lord is repeatedly spoken of as the son of Joseph, without any intimation on the part of the historian that this language is incorrect.

Witness. I admit that our Saviour is mentioned, I think, as many as five times, as the son of Joseph. In one, the name is given by a new convert, ignorant, as yet, of his nature and ministry. (John i. 45.) In another, it is urged as an objection to his mission by the unbelieving Jews. (John vi. 42.) In two others, his hearers, astonished at what they hear and see, exclaim, "Is not this

Quarterly Review on Improved Version, p. 328.

Joseph's son?" (Luke iv. 22. Mark vi. 3.) and he expressly disclaims the title, by saying, "No prophet is accepted in his own country." In the fifth instance, his genealogy begins: "Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph."

Belsham. The last instance you have mentioned should be rendered, "Being entered in the public registers, the son of Joseph."

Witness. I will take it either way: for the first refers only to the vulgar opinion; the second regards the legal mode of tracing his ancestry through the espoused husband of his mother: neither tends to prove what you regard as the fact of his being the actual son of Joseph.1

Belsham. Sufficient authority, of a clear and undisputed kind, and natural probabilities, compel us to regard the story of his miraculous conception, if not his birth, as a fable.

Witness. It must be borne in mind that the Gospels were read in different churches from the earliest times, and copies of them were widely dispersed. Would, then, the Evangelists themselves have concurred in such a forgery? Would Christians of all countries, sects, and opinions, have been willing, silently and at once, to adopt it? Would history have preserved no record of such an alteration in the code of Christian faith?

Quarterly Review of the Improved Version, p. 330.

Would no doubts or suspicions have remained in the minds of any? Would no enemies of Christianity have heard of such an interpolation, and gladly have exposed it? Would the contending sects of Christians never have urged it against each other, in the heat of religious warfare?1

Belsham. How all this might have been, I cannot stop to enquire, though I think all your difficulties capable of an easy solution. I now advert to another topic which you have urged against us. You endeavour to prove that Christ is the Angel sent, "the appearing Angel" of the Old Testament. We allow that he was an Angel or Messenger as the prophets which preceded him were; and that he was the highest of this order of celestial messengers; but beyond this we cannot go.

Witness. We read in the third chapter of Malachi," Behold, I will send my Messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his Temple, even the Messenger of the Covenant, whom ye delight in, saith the Lord of Hosts." This is the passage as it stands in the received text. Now, let us observe, first, that the person speaking is described to be the Lord of Hosts, who, in the

' Quarterly Review on the Improved Version, vol. i. p. 33).

L