CHAP. V. The New Testament. THE GOSPELS. 6 MR. P. opens his attack on this part of Scripture by saying, The New Testament, they tell us, is founded on the prophecies of the old; if so, it must ⚫ follow the fate of its foundation*.'-Injudicious concessions have often been made by the friends of truth: and this seems to be one. The prophecies of the Old Testament prepared the way for the coming of Christ; and, as accomplished in him, they constitute an unanswerable proof that christianity is a divine revelation and the testimony of our Lord and his apostles so confirms the divine inspiration of the Old Testament, that if strict demonstration could be brought against it, believers would be reduced to great difficulty; but that is impossible.-In other respects the New Testament stands on its own basis: : * P. ii. p. 64. internal and external evidence confirm most fully its divine original; and this alone might be sufficient to support the authority of the Old Testament also, if we had not other proof in abundance. But indeed the two parts of Scripture give stability and symmetry to each other. The Old Testament led to an expectation of the New, as its completion; the New Testament presupposes the truth of the history, and the divine authority of the laws, ordinances, and instructions of the Old. Mr. P. admits in an hesitating manner that such a person as Christ might exist : adding, that there is no ground either to believe or disbelieve* !' Indeed! Why, was the existence of any one man since the creation so undeniably proved? It would be comparatively a moderate degree of skepticism, to doubt the existence of Alexander, Julius Cæsar, or Mahomet; for the effect of their existence, on the state of mankind in all succeeding ages, is very small, compared with that produced by christianity : and how could that religion have existed, if Christ had not existed? It is now generally allowed, that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph in the line of Solomon, and Luke that of Mary in the line of Nathan, sons of David. The method in use among the Jews, in keeping their registers, required the name of Joseph to be inserted, instead of Mary his wife, as constituting a link in the chain or pedigree: and it was proper that both genealogies should be given. This solution of the difficulty is so obvious and satisfactory, that it is wonder * P. ii. p. 65. 6 ful any difference in sentiment should have prevailed among learned men on the subject. The writers of the New Testament would not have had common sense, if they had inserted manifest contradictions in their narratives: and forgery could have no occasion for them, as it would have been very easy for one of them to copy from the others. Indeed lists of names are strange things to forge! Though I firmly believe that the evangelists wrote by the superintending inspiration of the Holy Spirit: I suppose they copied such matters from the public registers and as none of the ancient enemies of christianity attempted to disprove these genealogies, while the original registers existed; it will be wonderful, if proof should now be given that they were falsified. The genealogy of Matthew, from David to Christ, contains no more than twenty-seven generations, and Mr. P. asserts on this account that it is not so much age as a reasonable lie:' for he computes, that upon an average, every one in this succession lived to the of forty, before his eldest son was born. He should have said, his eldest surviving son, yet that would have been but little to the purpose. For Solomon was not David's eldest son; Abijah was not Rehoboam's*: and after the captivity, the line might be continued in the younger male branches. We know also from the history, that the three immediate successors of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat, are omitted in the genealogy, it is uncertain on what account; as is likewise Jehoiakim the father of Jeconiah. There were, therefore, nineteen generations from David to *2 Chron. xi. 18-21. the captivity and similar omissions might occur in the subsequent part of the genealogy. Mr. P. to strengthen this argument asserts, that Solomon had his house full of wives and mistresses at the age of one and twenty.' But where did he learn this? Solomon had one wife when his father died, and soon after he married Pharaoh's daughter. He might have many other wives and concubines at the same time for any thing we know; but the Scripture no where mentions them. Mr. P.'s language concerning the miraculous conception of Christ, is such a mixture of misrepresentation, absurdity, indecency, and blasphemous impiety, as perhaps never was equalled! It deserves and requires no answer: and it is too vile even to bear being further exposed to just contempt and abhorrence! The Holy Ghost has hitherto been supposed to be, either a divine person, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, or a created spirit of supra-angelic dignity; or a peculiar mode of divine operation: but who ever thought of understanding that expression to mean a ghost, or departed spirit, according to the vulgar acceptation of the word?—The language of Scripture teaches us nothing more, than that the divine power of the Holy Spirit miraculously produced the human nature of Christ in the womb of the virgin; and that he was thus truly man, though conceived and born without the defilement, which is communicated to all the natural descendants of fallen Adam. Had Mary's testimony to the appearance of the angel, and the miracle of her pregnancy, been single and unsupported, it would not have been entitled to credit: but connected with the preceding prophecies, the testimony of Zacharias and Elizabeth, and the well-known circumstances attending the birth of John .Baptist, and confirmed by all the subsequent events, it becomes credible in the highest degree: for every proof of christianity authenticates it. Mr. P. touches but slightly on the disagreement of the evangelists, in their histories of the events that occurred from the birth to the death of Christ: but it is an old objection which must not pass unnoticed. Had the four evangelists recorded precisely the same miracles, discourses, and events, with the same circumstances; the charge of forgery would have been more plausible. If four authors should give us as many histories of certain interesting transactions in China or Japan, not writing by concert, each would record such facts as had more immediately fallen under his observation, with such circumstances as most engaged his attention; and each would follow his own peculiar plan. When these histories were published, events would be found recorded in one, which were not mentioned in the other, with apparent incongruities, which a little attention might reconcile; and the order of the narrative would not be exactly the same in them all. And on this ground a man might stand forth, and affirm that they were impostures and contradictory legends.-Now suppose four other men to give each an account of some transactions in a remote part of the world; and no difference at all to be found in their books, but that of style and manner; and another person should on this ground exclaim, These men have combined to deceive us: had "not this been the case, there must have been some |