"rinthus and Carpocrates," fays Epiphanius," used the fame gofpel with the Ebionites, and endeavoured to prove from the

66

genealogy that Chrift is the fon of Jo

seph and Mary*." Theodoret also says, that "Carpocrates believed that Jefus was "born of Jofeph and Mary, like other "ment."

Thus it appears, that the earliest and most distinguished of the Gnoftics agreed with the ancient unitarians, in disbelieving the miraculous conception. Now, what could bring perfons fo oppofite to each other, as the unitarians and Gnoftics are always represented to have been, to agree in this one thing, but fuch hiftorical evidence as was independent of any particular system

et qui fimilis reliquis hominibus fuerit, distaffe a reliquis fecundum id, quod anima ejus firma, et munda cum effet, commemorata fuerit. Lib. 1. cap. 24. p. 99.

* Ο μεν γαρ Κηρίνθα και Καρποκρας, τω αύτω χρωμένοι δηθεν παρ αυτοίς ευαγγελίω, απο της αρχής τε καλα Μαλθαιον ευαγγελια δια της γενεαλογίας βελονίαι παριςαν εκ σπερμαίος Ιωσηφ και Μαρίας EVO TOV XRisov. Hær. 30. Opera, vol. 1. p. 138.

† Τον δε κύριον Ιησεν εκ τε Ιωσηφ Ιησεν εκ τε Ιωσηφ και της Μαρίας γεννηθηναι τοις άλλοις ανθρωποις παραπλησίως, Hær. Fab. lib. 1. cap. 5.

Opera, vol. 4. p. 196,

of

of chriftian faith; and which, in the cafe of the Gnostics, must have been so strong, as to overbear the natural influence of their

fyftem.

With respect to the unitarians, it may be faid, that many of them, having been Jews, who had expected that their Meffiah would be a mere man, born as other men are, and especially a proper defcendant from David, would not, without particular evidence, admit that he had any other kind of birth; and that the gentile unitarians, having learned christianity of them, would naturally adopt their opinion; though, I doubt not, but that the idea of aggrandizing the founder of their religion, which was fo eagerly catched at in thofe times, would foon. overbear the influence of that Jewish prejudice. But the Gnoftics, who did not believe that Chrift had any proper birth at all, but merely paffed through his mother (to use their own favourite comparison) as water through a pipe, would naturally wish that it might be done in fuch a manner, as might be imagined (and the whole was an VOL. IV. affair

H

affair of imagination) to be in the least degrading manner. And that, in that age, it was supposed to be less degrading to be born of a virgin, than in the common way, is evident from what I have already quoted concerning their fentiments and ideas.

On what grounds or principles, or from what authority, the ancient Jewish chriftians, and many of the Gentiles, as well as the Gnoftics, difbelieved the miraculous conception, we can only conjecture, as their writings on this, as well as on all other fubjects, are long fince buried in oblivion. But the fact of fo general a difbelief, both of the unitarian chriftians and the Gnoftics, at first universal, and giving way to the prefent popular opinion (which may easily be accounted for from the very general difpofition to magnify the perfonal dignity of Chrift, whose meanness was continually objected to them) very flowly, cannot, I think, be accounted for without fuppofing fome confiderable defect in the original evidence. Otherwise, it could not but, in the circumftances of the primitive christians, have very foon

foon and univerfally established itself. And the question now before us is fimply this, viz. whether it be eafier to account for the existence of this fact, viz. the general, and, to appearance, univerfal difbelief of the miraculous conception, at the only period in which it was poffible fully to authenticate it, or the existence of the prefent records of it, viz. the introductions to the gospels of Matthew and Luke, at fo early a period as that to which they may certainly be traced, without fuppofing the history they contain to be authentic.

In order to throw fome farther light upon the subject, I shall now freely confider the circumstances of this story, which has been fo differently received; appearing to have gained no credit at first, but, by a flow cefs, to have come at length to be held abfolutely facred.

pro

SECTION

V.

The internal Evidence for the Credibility of the Miraculous Conception confidered.

IN

comparing the four gofpels, we can

not but he ftruck with the remarkable difference between thofe of Matthew and Luke, and thofe of Mark and John, in this refpect; neither of the latter giving the leaft hint of a miraculous conception. And yet it might well be thought that, if any part of the history required to be particularly authenticated, by the teftimony of different hiftorians, it was this; and many things of far lefs confequence are recorded by them all, and very circumftantially. With respect to John, it may, indeed, be faid, that as he knew that Matthew and Luke had recorded the circumstances of the miraculous conception, he had no occafion to do it.

But what fhall we fay with respect to Mark? If he was an epitomizer of Matthew,