to a beloved Son from a particular moment, to an only Son begotten in time" to day;" a Son of God to be declared with power by his resurrection from the dead. Let any unprejudiced enquirer read with reference to the particular question, the account of the Baptism, Transfiguration, the Crucifixion of Christ, and then let him lay his hand to his heart, and say to whether of the two Sons of God' the miraculous accompaniments of these events applied. One might safely rest the controversy on his answer." P. vii.

In illustration of the accuracy or honesty of the objector, it must be observed, in the first place, that not one of the immediate attestations from heaven, to the filiation of Christ, retains the phrase "to day." They are recorded in Matt. iii. 17. xvii. 5. Mar. i. 11. ix. 7. Luke ix. 25. 2 Pet. i. 17*. but all, in place of "this day have I begotten thee," have either "in whom I am well pleased," or, "hear ye him," or both these phrases together. And be it observed in the next place, that it is in the Psalms the phrase occurs; and it is there coupled with the eternal decree of God; Ps. ii. 7. "I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." From the Psalms the phrase is repeated in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but repeated merely as a quotation; and here again the subject is connected with eternity; Heb. v. 5. 6. "Christ glorified not himself to be made an high-priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another [Psalm.] Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchesedec." If consequently the term "to-day" defines the filiation of Christ, from "the particu lar moment" when the expression was uttered; it necessarily antedates his pre-existence to the times of the Psalmist, and thus, pierces at a stroke the heart of the Unitarian hypothesis. Unfortunately, however, for the credit of the objectors before us, they stand convicted of ignorance, in more respects than one, by proposing their objection; for the term, which is rendered "to-day," if we may believe those who were best qualified to decide the point, does not point out Christ, as " a Son from a particular moment +."

* Such however was the reading of the Ebionite Gospel; Ap. S. Epiph. Hær. xxx. p. 138. b. καὶ φωνὴ ἐδένετο ἐκ τῶ ἐρανε, λέγεσα σύ με εἶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς, ἐν σαι ηὐδόκησα. καὶ πάλιν ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγένηκά σε. καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τον τόπον φῶς μέγα.

+ Cellar. Instit. Rabbin. p. 93. "Exemplum si postulet Judæus ubin hodie a limitibus temporum circumscriptis eximatur, damus ex Ps. xcv. 7. cujus loci hodie' valet ‘semper,” xað ixásnv nμégav, ut Divinus Apostolus Ebr. iii. 13 reddidit" ap. Reland. Annalect. Babbin. ed. Ultraj. 1702.

The

The last witnesses cited to prove, that the filiation of Christ was not understood in that sense, in which the orthodox now understand it, after the whole Jewish nation, are the holy Apostles.

"Immediately after the solemn annunciation of his Son-ship, in a moment the mere circumstances of which seem to have well nigh bereft the immediate spectators of their senses-the three diciples, on finding themselves again alone with their companion, are all at once quite at their ease again also, and familiarly interrogate him as if nothing had happened. Not long afterwards- of these very objects of the divine revelation, one is seen lying on his bosom another is heard to rebuke him in common conversation-and all probably to concur in an opinion that "he is beside himself." Mark iii. 21. Strange, passing strange, surely this, if they had ever indeed thought that they had at their elbow Jehovah the Son.” P. viii.

The liveliness of this observatian, ought, surely to make up by its wit, for what it wants in decency. And yet, its appositeness even surpasses its humour: as two of those who were witnesses of the transfiguration, have left on record the effect which that scene had upon their minds, and have thus refuted, in express terms, the inference now deduced from their actions. We shall transcribe their account, as the best answer to the impious reflection of the objector; John i. 1. 14.-" the Word was God; -was made flesh, and dwelt [pitched his tabernacle] among us*, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of his Father, full of grace and truth." 2 Pet. i. 16, 17, 18. "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known

* Joh. ibid. Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο· καὶ ΕΣΚΗΝΩΣΕΝ ἐν ἡμῖν. The phrase is obviously adopted from Ps. lxxviii. 60. 1 nwn w cirà jɔw bas : "he forsook the tabernacle in Shilo: even the tent which he had pitched among men.' In which passage, it is observable, that the verb w is the root of ΣKHNH, an oriental word; and consequently the root of nr, improperly written schekinah, and used to denote the divine glory by the Rabbins: who most probably adopted the Greek term by changing H into ', according to the modern pronunciation; as they have adopted 10, EYNEAPION, and numberless other words from the same source. The full force of the passage before us consequently is, the Divine Logos, who was God, took a human body, as his shekinah, or the visible receptacle of his glory,' In this sense St. Paul clearly speaks, Heb. viii. 2. "of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man.' Ib. x. 20.-" of the new and living way which he hath consecrated for us through the vail, which is his flesh." And in the same sense our Lord speaks "of the temple of his body." Joh. ii. 21.

66

unto

unto you the power and coming of our LORD Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty. For he received from GOD the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from haaten we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount." It would be an idle waste of time to undertake by a comparison of Mark vii. 32. with Matt. xvi. 22. and of Mark iii. 21. with Ib. ix. 7.; to expose the dishonesty with which the Evangelists are misstated, in order to represent them as blaspheming their Lord and Saviour. In justice, however, to that knowledge of Greek, for which our opponents distinguish themselves, in every attempt to improve on the authorized version, we shall merely observe; that the rebuke of St. Peter stands thus, Matt. xvi. 22. Ιλεώς σοι Κύριε ὁ μὴ ἔσαι σοι τότο, and literally means "Be favourable unto thyself Lord; this shall not happen unto thee *"

From this observation we may now proceed, by an easy transition, to what our authors term their remarks on the Autho rized Version, with which they bring their "Introduction" to a conclusion. It is consequently, in the first place, objected that

"From its 18th verse the first chapter of Matthew's Gospel, (as it is named in the above-mentioned Version) and the whole of the second, is of doubtful authority. They were not found, it is upon good evidence believed, in the copies of the Gospel used by the Hebrew Christians." P. ix.

We have already had occasion to distinguish between the Hebrews of the orthodox and deistical communion; the Nazarenes having believed that Jesus was the Son of God; and the Ebionites, that he was merely the son of Joseph and Mary. If the testimony of the latter be of any service to our opponents, they are fully entitled to any benefit which may arise from it; for we frankly allow, that they not only rejected the opening chapters of St. Matthew, but what enhances the value of their testimony, they rejected the entire of the remaining Gospels, and the whole of the epistolary writings +. What respect, of course, may be due to their testimony, on any part of the canon, we refer it to our

*Thus also St. Jerome interprets the passage; Comm. in Matt. Lib. III. cap. xvi. Tom. VI. p. 34. e. " Absit a te Domine. Vel ut melius habetur in Grac»: ἵλεώς σοι Κύριε, ἐ μὴ ἔσαι σοι τέτο, hoc est, Propitius sis tibi Domine, non erft tibi hoc."

+ S. Epiph. Hær. xxx. p. 137. c. 127.

adversaries

adversaries to determine. But whatever benefit may arise from the testimony of the Nazarenes, of which we do not stand in much need, we beg leave to claim in our own behalf; as they not only received the whole of the Old and New Testament, but retained St. Matthew entire, and possessed his Gospel in the original Hebrew *. A doubt, has, we admit, been expressed by Epiphanius, whether they retained the genealogy +; and the wise and learned Mr. J. Jones, whose qualifications we have just sét forth, has consequently divined, in the depth of his penetration, that Epiphanius could not have seen their copies of the Evangelist, and that he is, of course, entitled to no attention. We, whose penetration does not pierce so very deep, would merely conjecture, that he had not seen the genealogy; the copy, which fell into his hands, having possibly lost one or two pages at the beginning : or, as we are rather inclined to believe, the sources from whence he drew his information, not having been accessible, when this particular point became, at a subsequent period, an object of accurate enquiry §. Allowing due credit to his testimony, we consequently assert, that upon no good evidence can it be believed, that the disputed chapters were wanting in the copies of the Hebrew Christians, while we admit they were suppressed in those of the Judaising Heretics.

* Id. Hær. xxix. p. 122. c. χρῶνται δὲ ἔτοι [οἱ Ναζωραίοι] ἐ μόνον Νέα Διαθήκη, ἀλλὰ καὶ Παλαιά, καθάπερ καὶ οἱ Ιεδαίοι. Id. ibid. p. 124. d. ἔχεσι δὲ τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον Εὐα[γέλιον πληρέςαίου Εβραϊςί. πας αὐτοῖς γὰρ σαφῶς τέτο, καθὼς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐγράφη Εβραϊκοῖς γράμμασιν, ἔτι σώζεται.

+ Id ibid. p. 124. d. u olda δὲ, εἰ καὶ τὰς γενεαλογίας τὰς ἀπὸ το Αβραὰμ ἀχρὶ Χρισῦ περιεῖλον.

Seq. to Eccl. Research. P. I. ch. x p. 179.

As the Cerinthians had tainted the Nazarenes who settled at Pella and Cochabis (Epiph. ibid. p. 123. a.); and had mutilated St. Matthew's Gospel (Id. ibid. p. 113. b. 110.); St Epiphanius might have well indulged a doubt, whether these sectaries had not corrupted their copies of the Evangelist. This he however states, merely as matter of surmise; while he is explicit in asserting, that the Nazarenes retained St. Matthew's Gospel entire ; such having been the possitive information he had collected respecting them. The very utmost, of course, which can be collected from his uncertainity of opinion, is, that he considered the general information which he had collected, respecting those sectaries, not sufficiently explicit; on a point which admitted of some doubt, though he had no means of ascertaining how far it was well or ill founded.

But

But it is further insinuated, that those chapters are defective in the internal evidence;

"If it be true, as St. Luke seems to relate, that our Saviour had completed his thirtieth year in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, he must have been born two years at least after the death of Herod." P. ix.

As the periods of Herod's death, and Tiberius's accession are determinable by an eclipse; the former having taken place near March 13, An. Jul. Per. 4710*, and the latter near Sept. 27. An. Jul. Per. 4727; in the fifteenth year after the latter period, our Lord, if born at the former period, must have been thirtytwo years old; which is the assumption on which the objector founds his exception, St. Luke having made him thirty, at that period. But Tiberius was admitted to a participation of power, two years previous to the time of his accession to the throne ; and from the former time it is that St. Luke calculates his age. (1) He speaks expressly of "the fifteenth year Ts leovias, of the government of Tiberius §;" (2) he fixes the meaning of the term which he thus uses by applying it, in the same sentence, to Pontius Pilate, who had not attained to supreme power; and (3) the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, would have been properly expressed by v étei tevlenaide

* Conf. Joseph. Antiq. Lib. XVII. cap. vi. § 4. p. 845. Petav. de Doct. Temp. Lib. XI. cap. i. p. 292. a. ed. Par. 1627. Hales Anal. of Ant. Chron. Vol. I. p. 190.

+ Conf. Tacit. Annal. Lib. I. cap. xxviii. Tom. I. p. 42. ed. Gronov. 1721. Petav. Ibid. cap. vi. p. 299. c. Hales, Ibid.

Suet. in Tiber. capp. xx. xxi. p. 353. ed. 1656. Tacit. Annal. Lib. I. cap. iii. p. 6. Vel. Paterc. Lib. II. cap. cxxi. p. 130. ed. Ox. 1711. Dio. Hist. Lib. LV. cap. vi. p. 776, s.

§ Arist. de Mund. Καθόλη ὅπερ ἐν νηῒ κυβερνήτης, ἐν χορῷ δὲ κορυ φαῖος, ἐν πολέι δὲ νόμος, ἐν ςρατοπέδῳ δὲ ἡγεμὼν, τἔτο Θεὸς ἐν κόσμῳ. This passage and the testimony of Paterculus shed mutual light on each other. "Eadem et virtus et fortuna subsequenti tempore ingressa animum imperatoris Tiberii fuit, quæ initio fuerat-et Senatus Populusque Rom. (postulante patre ejus) ut æquum ei jus in omnibus provinciis exercitibusque esset, quam erat ipsi, decreto complex, us esset," &c.

| Luc. iii. 1. ἐν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτω τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερία Καίσαρος, ἡ Γεμονεύοντος Ποντίς Πιλάτε τῆς Ιεδαίας, καὶ τετραχέντος τῆς Tannaías "How'de x... Conf. Matt. xxvii. 23, 24.

κάτω