pated father. The laws of the Jews made these matters identical and reciprocal. If Jofeph was the hufband of Mary, it has always been pretty generally allowed that he could not have been fa, had he not been exactly of the fame tribe and family as herself, and if fo the genealogy applies to both and of Mary he was moft indifputably born. There is no commentator of any repute, ancient or modern, to whom we might not refer to settle this point. Mary's pedigree and defcent was involved in that of her husband Jofeph; and "an author writing for the inftruction of HEBREW Chriftians," must have known this.

The note next proceeds to fay, that if it be true as Luke relates, Chap. iii. 23, that Jefus was entering upon his thirtieth year (fee Wakefield's Tranflation) in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, he must have been born two years at least after the death of Herod, "a circumftance which alone invalidates the whole ftory." See Lardner's Works, Vol. I. p. 432. Here again they come moft decifively to the point. We fhould at leaft fuppofe that this "must have been" has the fanction of the great authority they cite, and yet, Lardner (to whom they fo very confidently refer) actually enters upon this very difficulty with the following remark; "It may be made appear feveral ways, that Jefus was born above a year, probably above two years, before Herod died!" So that we fhall here beg leave to join in the reference, and intreat the reader to turn to Lardner, and fee how ably and fatisfactorily he combats the difficulty, and in how many feve ral ways he unravels the mystery.

We are next told in thefe notes on St. Matthew (for those on St. Luke are fill to come) that "it is indeed highly improbable that no notice fhould have been taken of thefe extraordinary events by any contemporary writer; that no expectation should have been excited by them; and that no allufion thould have been made to them in any other paffage of Scripture." We would afk, what contemporary writer was there to notice them? Jofephus was not born till many years after, and he had great reafon for fuppreffing fuch re lations. Could any author be particularly named that was fo fituated and circumftanced as to be likely to record fuch tranfactions, the Evangelifts excepted? Though indeed it fhould be noticed, that the Unitarians often intimate that thefe accounts were borrowed from the fpurious Gofpels and narratives relating to Jefus particularly, and his virgin mother. Such hiftories were certainly written, and by contemporary authors, but it remains to be proved that, extravagant as they were, they had yet no foundation whatever

B 4

in truth. The "Gospel of the infancy of Jefus," and "the Gofpel of the birth of Mary," are titles that rather imply the actual truth of the accounts in Matthew and Luke. Why take the trouble of going back to the very infancy of Jefus, or why dwell upon the birth of Mary, if as an infant Jefus was generally held to have been merely fuch, and Mary but a common mother? Why not write a Gofpel of the birth of Joleph, as well as Mary, or of the infancy of John the Baptift? It cannot however be pretended that no contemporary writer noticed thefe events. The cenfual tables and public records of the empire may be faid to have borne fome teftimony to them. The temporary fojournment of the parents of Jefus at Bethlehem, accords fo particularly and so remarkably with the prophecies relating to the birth of the Meffiah, that this event alone is as extraordinary and providential as any, and this appears to have been exprefsly registered. We muft confefs that the appeals made by Juftin Martyr and Tertullian to the public regifters of the empire, and the particular mention of thefe evidences by St. Chryfoftom, fully fatisfy us that fomething of the kind notoriously exilled.

As for the expectations excited, if the account is but true, there were many fuch. The vifit of the Magi, the alarm of Herod, the aftonifhment, of the Shepherds, the prophecies of Simeon and Anna, are furely remarkable enough. That great opponent of Chriflianity, Mr. Collins, in his Scheme of literal Prophecy, admits that very extraordinary expectations were railed by the birth of Jefus. He exprefsly mentions the opinion of the Virgin Mary, that the child with which he was big fhould help Ifrael. He mentions and dwells upon the prophecy of Zacharias, who declared that that child was the perfon fpoken of by the Prophets, who fhould "fave Ifrael from their enemies, and from the hand of all that hated them." He fpeaks also of the infurrections of the Jews in confequence of fuch expectations, and other matters. But, in our opinion, St. Luke's account is at once a fufficient answer to all fuch objections. The conduct of the virgin mother is defcribed in a very ftriking manner, and is exactly fuch as we might expect and fuppole, if we con fider that it was manifeftly among the purposes of God, not fully to reveal the Meffiah, till a long time afterwards. She is reprefented as doubtful in fome degree, and yet by no means difpofed to question the interpolition of Providence. Upon the report made by the Shepherds, that they had been favoured with an angelic vifion concerning the child, "all that heard it," we are told, "wondered at thofe things which

were

were told them by the Shepherds.' "But," it is added, "MARY kept all these things in memory, confidering them in her heart," a circumftance particularly repeated, upon the extraordinary occafion of his being found, when only twelve years of age, among the teachers in the Temple.

Were fuch events to occur in our days at the birth of any child, no doubt we fhould be inclined to think the story would fpread rapidly, and not be easily forgotten. But the miraculous occurrences, the figns and vifions vouchsafed under the Jewish polity, had made fuch matters too familiar to admit of fo general a furprise, as we might apprehend would follow. The Jews of thole days were particularly difpofed to difpute all miracles; thofe that they even faw our Saviour perform, they referred to magic. Nihil non nugaciffini fingunt," (favs Vorftius, of the Jews in after times; and the fame might have been applied to many of thofe who lived during our Saviour's appearance in the flesh.)" Thefe egregious triflers invent any thing to avoid being obliged to confefs that our Jefus performed his miracles by the power, and, as it were, the finger of God." So far from attending much to the circumitances that ac companied our Lord's birth, most of his contemporaries were more likely to have turned away from thofe who teftified of fuch matters, while his low birth and early fufferings muft even have been offenfive to those whofe expectations of a temporal deliverer had been excited by the prophets. To Abraham and Sarah, as well as to Jofeph and Mary, much was revealed of the future fortunes of their fon: much that was quite out of the course of nature, (as thefe editors admit) attended the birth of Ifaac; yet we do not find that the eyes of the world in general were fixed upon him, or that even his own parents fully understood the whole purport of the promises and figns vouchfafed to them. Herod does not appear to have been ever certified whether Jefus was cut off among the infants flaughtered at Bethlehem. The angel that warned his parents to flee with him into Egypt, we may be very certain did not appear or make known his errand to Herod, or any others at Jerufalem. This was evidently done fecretly; and whatever conftruction we may be difpofed to put upon the vifion, it plainly fhows, that, in the opinion of the writer, an open and general manifeftation of the Meffiah was at that time by no means intended. It appears from the hiftory of our Lord, that thirty years were to elapfe before he entered upon his miniftry. During this period it feems to have been requifite, that, fo far from his being generally made known, God

fhould

66

fhould even exert his divine power," (as the editors. remark upon another occafion) "to restrain men from so beholding him as to know him." We are reminded by the editors themselves, that there was a tradition among the Jews, that after the Meffiah fhould be born, he would be conveyed away, and miraculously concealed, till Elias came to reveal and anoint him. The Jews would refer this to fome future coming of the real Elias; but if we apply to it to the Baptift, as we are juftified in doing, it comes nigh to the truth.

Though, however, a temporary concealment and obfcurity feem to have been thus entirely confiftent with the purpofes of God, yet in order that all the prophecies thould meet in him, and him alone, such occurrences as are related to have taken place, were indifpenfable to the grand scheme of the Christian difpenfation. His birth and birth-place required to be marked and diftinguished by peculiar evidences: all which, as we obferved before, is remarkably confirmed, by the reprefentation given us of Mary's conduct. SHE, we are told, noticed and regarded all that paffed with wonder and aftonishment; by no means fo carelefsly as to fuffer any thing to elcape her obfervation. She kept every thing in her memory," pondering them in her heart." Mary furvived her Son, and muft needs have been questioned about his birth and childhood, when his miniftry and miracles, fufferings, death, and refurrection, became matters of fo great intereft to his followers. Now the account given by the Evangelifts feems to be exactly fuch an account as the mother of our Lord would have given. All the extraordinary events, as they occurred, are mentioned, as matters which at the time excited wonder and amazement, mixed with a becoming refignation to the will of God, and submiffion to his difpenfations. She praised God, it feems, for the appearances vouchfafed, and pondered every thing in her heart, but ftill waited for further revelations. One incident occurred during his childhood which particularly drew her attention: at twelve years of age the found him fitting among the teachers in the temple, both hearing them. and afking them queftions; many being aftonished at his understanding and answers. This then fet her again confidering. "She kept," we are told, "all these things, alfo in her heart*:" nor fhould it be omitted that our Sa

Grotius upon this fays, "Quod ideo videtur a Lucas expreffum quia ipfam habebat harum narrationum auctorem.”

viour's

viour's reply to her on this occafion feems to carry in it an allufion to the miraculous conception." Know ye not that I must needs be in my FATHER'S houfe." It is added indeed that his parents underftood not the thing which he fpake unto them. But the force of the Greek term suvnxav, as well as of the correfpondent Latin term intellexerunt, is, that they did not perfectly and entirely apprehend all that he intended by this fpeech, (fee Leigh's Critica Sacra, Doddridge, &c.) This agrees therefore with the imperfect knowledge they then had of God's defigns. That they might have understood it in part, our Lord's own words exprefsly imply. That Mary attained to a full understanding of his divine powers, even before they were openly exerted, is evident from her behaviour at the marriage feaft at Casa, and the directions she gave as preparatory to his firft miracle. During his minority, and private converfation, as he wrought no miracles, his conduct and character must needs have been lefs noticeable: but when the events of his life and ministry were to be recorded, who could more exactly supply the materials relating to his birth, infancy, and childhood, than his mother; and who could doubt her teftimony, after the refurrection and afcenfion of her crucified Son? We have dwelt the longer on this, because to those who have not time or difpofition to examine thoroughly into matters, the objection may appear to have fome degree of plausibility; whereas the flight expectation excited, and the little notice taken of Jefus before his baptifm, were particularly confiftent with the views of Providence.

That no allufion is made to thefe extraordinary events in any other paffage of the facred writings, (the next objection of the editors) and that the reasoning from the prophecies of the Old Teftament are inconclufive, are mere pretences. The reafoning from the prophecies of the Old Testament must have been conclufive to the extent that the writer intended, whether he was an impoftor or infpired; and though expofitors fhould differ for ever, as to the precife manner in which the events and the prophecies are to be accommodated to each other, no difficulty of this kind can tend to prove the narrative not genuine. But the fact is, that to many wife men, and most profound fcholars, the reafoning has been held to be most ftrikingly conclufive, and therefore no bare affertion to the contrary can be any fubject of criticism. (See, among other writers, Bishop Kidder's Demonftration of the Meffiah; Jenkin's Reasonableness of the Christian Religion; Leslie's Method with the Jews and Deifts; Leland's Deiftical Writers, &c. &c. &c.)

The