devils, were not thus possessed, but solely insane, and of course that the scriptures are not true.

If we believe the first of these, we must believe that the laws of nature are so changed, since the days of Christ, that causes are different, though the effects remain the same. The second is doubtless the correct supposition, but as it is not commonly received, many will be induced to adopt the third. I therefore think it would have been better, if the sacred scriptures had not mentioned these miracles.

Matthew, xiii. 58. And he did not many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.

Was this the physician who came not to heal the whole, but the sick; was this the prophet who was sent, not to call the righteous, but the wicked to repentance. We should suppose that such a personage would perform his mightiest miracles in the countries of unbelievers, that he might convert them. The conduct of Christ in this instance, however, agrees with that of all beings, possessing supernatural power or knowledge. Prophets seldom open their mouths, where their prophesies are doubted, but among people that believe, hundreds have been assembled on one occasion. Miracles are performed only where the people are ready to receive them; ghosts appear only to the superstitious; and witches prefer those nations where they are punished with death, to those where their existence is doubted.

I have before observed that the reasoning of Christ is never very accurate. I could bring many instances, but the reader may search for himself. I have only to add, that this inaccuracy can only be accounted for, by supposing that Christ himself had no interest in the success of his religion.

The last defect in the testimony concerning Christ, which I shall mention, is the obscurity in the prophe

cies relating to him, their apparent application, and relation, in many instances, to other events, and the want of evidence of the performance of many of the events prophesied, which leaves room for the infidel to suspect that the evangelist related them for the sake of the prophecies.

Matthew, i. 22. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the mouth of the prophet, saying,

23. Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel; which, being interpreted, is, God with us.

We find in the seventh chaper of Isaiah, that Tyrea and Israel were leagued against Ahaz, king of Judea. The Lord informs Ahaz by the mouth of Isaiah his prophet, that they shall not succeed. For (says he v. 8,) the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin, and within three score and five years shall Ephraim be broken that it be not a people.

9. And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not be lieve, surely ye shall not be established.

10. Moreover the Lord spake unto Ahaz, saying,

11. Ask thee a sign of the Lord, etc.

14. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel,

15. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest, (Syria and Israel,) shall be forsaken of both her kings.

This passage has the appearance of promising a sign to Ahaz, that his enemies should be destroyed, as the Lord had foretold. Of course the sign ought to have

been given, before the event, of which it was a sign, took place. As it was promised to Ahaz, it ought to have been given during his life. It seems that the conquest of Syria and Israel, should have taken place between the birth of the child, and his learning to refuse the evil (butter and honey) and choose the good. But waving this objection, this prophecy cannot profit the Christian, because the event prophecied, the birth of a son from a virgin, is one incapable of proof.

Matthew, ii. 4. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them, where Christ should be born.

5. And they said unto him in Bethlehem in Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet.

6. And thou Bethlehem in the land of Judea, art not the least among the princes of Judea, for out of thee shall come a governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

I have already shown that Matthew and Luke do not agree concerning Christ's birth at Bethlehem.As both his parents were Nazarines, and as Christ was ⚫brought up at that place, the infidel may suspect, without much danger of refutation, that his birth really took place there, but was transfered to Bethlehem, for the sake of this prophecy.* It may likewise be observed, that Chirst cannot well be called a ruler of Israel, for temporal authority he certainly never had, and his spiritual authority the Jews never acknowledg ed. If it be said that he was of right their spiritual ruler. I answer that every man born in Bethlehem, might make the same pretence, and claim the benefit of the prediction of the prophet. But let us turn to

the prophecy itself.

In Micah, v. 2. we read

Joseph is said to have come with his wife Mary, then big with child, from Nazareth to Bethlehem, (passing by Jerusalem) to be taxed. The distance by the nearest route was over three.. days travel. There is something singular in this.

But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judea, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting.

3. Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she that travaileth hath brought forth, then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.

4. And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God, and they shall abide for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

5. And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land, and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men :

6. And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod, in the entrance thereof, thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrians, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

This prince was to be a descendant of David, and was therefore said to come out of Bethlehem. The scribes and priests erred in supposing that he must necessarily be born at that place:

Matthew, ii. 14. When he arose he took the young child, and his mother, by night and departed into Egypt.

15. And was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord, saying, out of Egypt have I called my son. Hosea, xi. 1. When Israel was a child then I loved him, and I called my son out of Egypt.

After relating the murder of the innocents, Matthew says, ii. 17. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken of Jeremy the prophet saying:

18. In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation and weeping and great mourning. Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted because they

were not.

Jeremiah, xxxi. after promising the restoration of Israel, the lord says, v. 15. A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.

16. Thus saith the Lord, refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord, and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.

17. And there is hope in thine end saith the Lord, that thy children, shall come again to their own border. A voice of weeping is here said to be heard in Rama, for the captives that had been carried from that place into Assyria. Rachel was said to weep, because she was the mother of the tribe of Benjamin, in which Rama was situated. Bethlehem and Rama were in opposite directions from Jerusalem; the persecution of Herod, therefore, could not extend to, or cause any weeping in Rama, nor could Rachel be said to mourn, for her children slain in Bethlehem, for that was a city of Judea.

After relating Joseph's return from Egypt, Matthew says, ii. 23. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: He shall be called a Nazarene.

Judges, xiii. 5. Speaking of Sampson, it is said, He shall be called a Nazarite unto God from the womb.

This is the only passage I can find, bearing the most distant relation to the one mentioned by Matthew: how close a resemblance this bears to it, the reader may judge.

Matthew. iv. 12. Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee :