ARGUMENTS, &c.

THE relations contained in the two first chapters of the Gofpels of St. Matthew, and St. Luke, of a variety of miraculous events, there affirmed to have accompanied the conceptions, and births, of John the Baptift, and Jefus, muft either,

FIRST, have been written by the two Evangelifts respectively; of whofe Gofpels, as they have been tranfmitted to us, thefe relations form a part; Or,

SECONDLY, they must have been forged, by fome perfons unknown; and clandeftinely inferted in the genuine Gospels of thofe Evangelists.

To form a fatisfactory judgement, therefore, of the authenticity of these relations, the most direct, and decifive method will be, to enquire, Whether it is credible, that fuch forgeries, as thofe in queftion, could have been devised, and attempted; and further, fuppofing it poffible for them to have been devised and attempted, Whether

it is credible, that they could have escaped a speedy and effectual detection.

IN the first place, therefore, is it credible, that the forgeries under confideration could have been devised and attempted?

I. It is obvious, that the very defign, which must have been intended to be answered by them, could not have been formed by any one who had not embraced the faith in Jefus. And the only motive that can be fuggefted, as capable of having urged any believer in Jefus to fo ftrange, and iniquitous a forgery, must be a fuppofed, over zealous defire to inculcate more exalted ideas of the nature of Jefus, than the genuine Gofpels, as they were written, and delivered to the difciples, by the two Evangelifts themfelves, would afford any ground for entertaining.

Is it then credible, that any believers in Jefus ; and especially in that early age of Christianity, in which alone the forgeries in queftion must be fuppofed, if at all, to have been invented; that is, at the lateft, within a few years after the death of the Apostle, and Evangelift, St. John; could become animated with fo extravagant, and at the fame time fo impious, a zeal; as to break through every moral, and religious, principle which Jefus had inculcated, by thus, endeavouring to corrupt

the

the Gospels; thofe very Gospels in which they muft themselves have believed, and on the genuine contents of which they must have founded their own faith; for no other end, than to deceive their fellow Chriftians into the reception of more exalted ideas of the nature of Jefus, than the genuine, unadulterated, Gofpels afforded any ground for entertaining? We may venture to affirm, that fuch a fuppofition, though it does not imply an abfolute, natural impoffibility, is however utterly incredible.

AND this utter incredibility of the forgeries in queftion, arifing from their extreme impiety, will, if poffible, be exceedingly heightened, if we add the confideration of the great number, and aftonishing nature, of the particulars they contain; and that part of the two Gospels in which they are introduced. For, in the firft place, we must be forced to believe, that the author, or authors, of these supposed forgeries, for no other end than to accomplish this wicked impofition upon their fellow Chriftians, actually invented all thofe miraculous particulars relating to the conceptions, and births, both of John the Baptift and Jefus, which are recorded in the first and second chapters of the Gospel of St. Matthew; and take up almoft the whole firft and fecond chapters of that of St. Luke. And, in the next place, we must like

a 2

likewife believe, that they fcrupled not to infert all these most aftonishing particulars of their own inventing; no one of which could ever have been heard of till they invented, and inferted them; even in the very beginning of the two Gofpels which they determined to corrupt; where it was abfolutely impoffible for fo many miraculous events, of fo fingularly aftonifhing a nature, not to excite the particular notice of every one already acquainted with the genuine contents of thofe Gospels; that is, of every Chriftian; immediately upon perufing them, or hearing them read, after their infertion. When it is deliberately confidered, that we cannot fuppofe the paffages in question to have been furreptitiously. added to the genuine Gofpels, without admitting. likewife fuch abfolutely incredible fuppofitions as thefe; it must surely be acknowledged, that all ideas of the forgeries under confideration múft be given up, and utterly exploded.

BESIDES, the paffages themfelves contain internal evidence, that they could not be forged. It cannot be believed, that any one who fat down to forge an interpolation of the Gofpels, in order. to exalt the divine character of Jefus, could in that interpolation apply to him any prophecy, which was fure to be interpreted by the Jews as foretelling, that Jefus would conduct himfelf,

with refpect to a most striking, and important particular, in a manner directly opposite to that conduct, which the Gofpels fhewed he actually had obferved. But if the narratives in queftion had been forged, this is what the authors of thefe forgeries must knowingly, and defignedly have done. For in the Gofpels it is recorded, that when, more than once, the Jews had endeavoured to excite Jefus to declare himself againft, and to oppose the Roman power; he had fhewn it to be his determined refolution, not to give occafion even to the smallest oppofition to it*. But in the narratives under confideration, Zacharias is introduced, applying to Jefus, at the time of giving John his name, the prophecy, that he "would fave the "Jews from their enemies, and from the hand "of all that hated them;" which prophecy, it was certain would be understood by the Jews as foretelling, that Jefus would rescue them from their state of subjection to the Romans. As the introduction of this particular prophecy could not, therefore, be the forgery of any one, who was defirous of exalting the character of Jefus; it is, in fact, an abfolutely decifive internal proof, that the narratives in queftion could not be forged additions to the Gospels.

* Matthew xxii. 15-21. Mark xii. 13-17. Luke xx. 20-25. John vi. 15.