many years ago, by a learned writer, well skilled in biblical knowledge and criticism. That it is entirely free from objection, or will solve all difficulties, is more, perhaps, than can be affirmed. But it is curious, and certainly deserves " If

attention.

On the whole, to adopt the words of Dr. Chandler, they who object, credit the history of the Old Testament in this part of it, and think it is true, that one of these three plagues was offered to David as the punishment of his offence; that he chose the pestilence; that it came accordingly, and was removed upon his intercession; they are as much concerned to account for the difficulties of the affair, as I or any other person can be. If they do not believe this part of the history, as the sacred writers represent it, let them give us the account of it, as it stands in their own imagination; and tell us, whether there was any plague at all, how and why it came, and how it went and disappeared of a sudden.'

LETTER XVII.

A FEW more doubts remain, touching the prophecies, and some passages in the New Testament.

Page 39. "The great evangelical prophet could foretel the downfall of Babylon by Cyrus, but could not tell the name of the Messiah."

Who enabled him to foretel the downfall of Babylon by Cyrus?" He might take the advantage of writing that prophecy after the events took place," say the infidels, page 40. But how so? Isaiah spake of Cyrus at least one hundred years before his birth. Had a history of Cyrus been among the books of Scripture, under the name of Isaiah, they would have placed the author, for longevity, in the same class with their friend Jasher.

"Isaiah could not tell the name of the Messiah." He could have told it, had it been communicated to him, as that of Cyrus was. He has described Messiah in a manner not to be mistaken. There might be very good reasons why the name was not declared beforehand. And as God

did not see proper to do it, there certainly were such

rasons.

But if Christ were intended by the name Immanuel, the prophet was mistaken, for he was never called by that name."

The first commentator one opens will inform one that, in Scripture language, to be called is the same as to be. Thus, of Messiah it is said, chap. ix. 6. " His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor," &c. though he was never called by any of the names there enumerated; of the same person, Jer. xxiii. 6. "This is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness;" of Jerusalem, Isa. i. 26. "Thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness." No man should presume to criticise a book, if he will not be at the pains to study the phraseology peculiar to it.

Page 40." If the prophecies are evident and clear, how happened it, that the whole Jewish nation, together with the angel Gabriel, should mistake, and suppose the kingdom of Messiah to be temporal ?"

The angel Gabriel was certainly under no mistake upon this point, because of Christ he says expressly, Luke i. 33. "He shall reign for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end." And as to the case of the Jews, it is treated of at large in a discourse under that title, by the author before mentioned, at page 173, to which these gentlemen are referred.

Page 40. "Could not those inspired writers, who prophesied concerning things of no consequence, as the thirty pieces of silver, and the casting lots for Christ's garments, have predicted with equal certainty the more important circumstance of his death and resurrection?"

The death and resurrection of Christ are predicted in the strongest terms, Psal. xxii. cx. Isa. liii. And what can add more weight to this kind of evidence, than the prediction of particulars so minute and circumstantial as those of the thirty pieces, and the division of the garments by lot? One would think, at the contemplation of them, all infidelity would stop its mouth, instead of opening it.

Page 41. "In short, they beg to be shown a single prophecy, concerning which divines are agreed."

What Tully said of philosophers may be true perhaps of divines, considering the multitude of them that have

lived from the days of the apostles to the present times; namely, that there never was an opinion, however absurd, which has not been maintained by some one or other. And therefore, to reject the evidence of prophecy, till all divines shall agree exactly about it, argues a conduct as wise in the infidels, as if they should decline sitting down to a good dinner, till all the clocks in London and Westminster struck four together.

Page 41. "They desire to know, why the Revelation of St. John should be more obscure and enigmatical than any which was written during the typical and shadowy dispensation of Moses?"

Much valuable instruction in the doctrines and duties of religion may be gathered from the Revelation, in the most clear and perspicuous manner; witness the Moral Reflections on that book, by Pere Quesnelle. Of the predictions in the former part of it, many have been explained to general satisfaction; and others may be so explained hereafter, as, by the studies and labours of different persons, the symbolical language of Scripture becomes better understood, and the events predicted are brought forward in their order. If sufficient reasons may be assigned why prophecy should be in some degree obscure for a time, they will hold with regard to those of the New, as well as those of the Old Testament. Let gentlemen bestow due attention on the evidences of Christianity so often set before them. When they shall thereby be happily induced to believe, it will be time enough to argue with them on such points as the obscurity of St. John's Revelation, and the doctrine of the Trinity, which is scoffed at in a very unbecoming manner, p. 32.

Thus much for prophecy. We proceed to some objections against particular passages in the New Testament.

Of these, the first respects the difference between the genealogy of our Lord Christ as given by St. Matthew, and that given by St. Luke. On this subject let it be observed,

1st. That genealogies in general, and those of the Jews in particular, with their method of deriving them, and the confusion often arising from the circumstance of the same person being called by different names, or different persons by the same name, are in their nature, and must be to us,

at this distance of time, matters of very complicated consideration, and it is no wonder they should be attended with difficulties and perplexities.

2dly. The evangelists, in an affair of so much importance, and so open then to detection, had there been any thing wrong to be detected, would most assuredly be careful to give Christ's pedigree as it was found in the authentic tables, which, according to the custom of the nation, were preserved in the family, as is evident from Josephus, who says, "I give you this succession of our family, as I find it written in the public tables."

3dly. As it was well known the Messiah must descend from David, the genealogical tables of that family would be kept with more than ordinary diligence and precision.

4thly. Whatever cavils the modern Jews and others make now against the genealogies recorded by the evangelists, the Jews, their contemporaries, never offered to find fault with, or to invalidate the accounts given in the Gospels. As they wanted neither opportunity, materials, skill, nor malice, to have done it, and it would have offered them so great an advantage against the Christians, this circumstance alone, as Dr. South well remarks, were we not now able to clear the point, ought with every sober and judicious person to have the force of a moral demon

stration.

Thus much premised, let us hear the objection.

Page 33. "Matthew reckons twenty-seven generations from David to Christ; Luke reckons forty-two, and the names totally disagree. Matthew traces the descent from Solomon, and Luke from Nathan, both sons of David. According to our feeble notions, twenty-seven cannot be equal to forty-two, neither can Nathan be imagined to be Solomon."

But were the objectors never informed that, in the opinion of those who have most considered this question, and were best qualified to consider it, St. Luke deduces the genealogy of our Saviour, not as St. Matthew does, on the side of Joseph, but on the side of Mary, who by Jews and Christians is agreed to have been the daughter of Heli? If therefore Jacob, according to St. Matthew, were Joseph's father by nature, Heli, who is said by St. Luke to have been his father, could only have been his father-in-law, by

Ff

his marriage with Mary, the daughter of Heli, whose genealogy is then given by St. Luke; to show that every way Christ " sprang from Judah," as was EVIDENT (by the testimony of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews) to all of that age; and that he was of the seed of David;" his real mother, no less than his supposed father, being "of the house and lineage of David."

66

Disputes may be raised and maintained to the end of the world on many other difficulties which occur in the two genealogies. "But those who are acquainted with the customs of the Jews, know there are many genealogies which seem repugnant, and yet are not so. And that may happen various ways, as may easily be proved from books which the Jews and we jointly acknowledge. There are several methods of reconciling these difficulties, though it be often hard to say which is the best, at the distance of so many ages, all records and even memory of these things being utterly lost *."

I would gently admonish the infidels, if they touch upon this subject again, to behave with better manners than they have done in their thirty-fourth page.

The excellent Pascal has observed, as many others have done before and after him, that the evangelists, by differing in some things from each other, have afforded us a proof of their not having written in concert, and that such difference is so far an argument in their favour. The observation is sensible and just. Not so the inference drawn by the objectors, page 35, that therefore "contradiction in evidence is a mark of truth." For Mr. Pascal did not allow, or suppose, any more than we do, that the evangelists, when rightly understood and explained, really contradicted each other. His words, as cited by themselves, are, les foiblesses les plus APPARENTES sont de forces," &c. This is a piece of coin from the mint of Ferney, and bears strongly impressed upon it the image and superscription of the coiner.

Page 35. "When Christ was baptized by John, the heavens were opened, and a voice was heard, declaring his divine origin; such a prodigy must have awakened the

* Dr. Trapp on the Gospels, p. 82, second edition. See likewise Dr. South's seventh Sermon of his third volume, and Macknight's Harmony.