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 Reve"lation 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 symbo

lical 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, page 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 as

suredly 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 demonstration.

Thus much premised, let us hear the objection.

Page 33. "Matthew reckons twenty-seven gene"rations 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-inlaw, by 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."

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, 66 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."

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

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 ob jectors, 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 attention of all Judea; yet we "find the historians totally silent."

What historians? A pagan historian would not concern himself with the report of a Jewish prodigy; nor would a Jewish historian have related a circumstance favourable to Christianity, unless he had himself become a Christian. But would any writer of common sense have hazarded the relation of such a fact, as having happened in the presence of a multitude of witnesses, if it never had so happened?