hireling editors. I. But all the soldiers, who had been at the battle themselves, said the same; and say so still. S. No doubt they do because they would lose their pensions, if they dared to tell the truth. I. But every history of the war, that has come from the press, states that Napoleon was beaten on that occasion. S. Perhaps so-because it flatters the vanity of the English, and makes their books sell. I. But the French writers confess it themselves. S. Because they are bribed to do so. I. But the government published official notices of it. S. Yes; and no doubt it answered some purpose of their own, to make the nation believe it. Probably it was to make them more willing to pay the immense additional taxes I. But how incredible that such a thing could be palmed upon the public without detection; and that it should always have been so universally believed! S. Why, you see, in those days, "complete emancipation" had not come in: people let their minds be held in bondage by "interested parties," instead of thinking for themselves. They are beginning now to throw off their fetters, and see through the deception that has been practised on them But you will find it was not so universally believed as you seem to think, when I state my authority for disbelieving it-which is this. A certain person told me, that he had in his possession an account of the battle, written by a soldier who was present; in which it was clearly shewn that Napoleon gained a splendid victory. I. But are you aware that your informant was branded as a deserter; that he was a notorious inventor of the most absurd and monstrous falsehoods conceivable; and that this very account, which he pretended to have received from an eye-witness, he was proved to have patched up himself from several others, leaving out, putting in, and altering just as he pleased? S. I know all this was said by his enemies; indeed I cannot altogether defend him myself, or believe all his statements. But, whatever he may be in other things, I am quite satisfied he is a credible witness in this particular point, and that his evidence is amply sufficient to overthrow all you have brought on the other side. Besides, it is so very unlikely that Napoleon should be beaten after conquering nearly all Europe; the reasons that are given to account for it are so very unsatisfactory; and the difference to be found in the various histories of it are so many, that the internal evidence alone is conclusive against the commonly received opinion. There are so many things too, that I cannot make out about the occurrence. I have examined all the accounts of it, and seen a plan of the locality; but still I cannot ascertain precisely where each particular regiment was placed, and how long it stayed there, and where it went to, and why it did this, and why it did not do that. Nor can any one give me satisfactory information as to the name of the first

soldier that fell, and whether he was shot through the head or through the heart. In fact the whole thing is involved in such mystery, that it is quite clear all the narratives of it are mere fictions.

Now every one, who has fairly investigated the subject before us, knows perfectly well, that such an argument as this would have just as much ground to rest on, as the argument against the authenticity of the two first chapters in Matthew and Luke. The evidence in their favour may be briefly stated under three heads. 1. There is not a single copy of the New Testament in the world, whether in manuscript or print, of whatever age, or in whatever language, that does not contain them. How utterly incredible (supposing the original gospels not to have contained them, which is Mr. Barker's theory) that not one single unadulterated copy should be in existence! That amidst all the multitude of various readings, which abound in the different manuscripts and versions, not one should be found in any corner of the world, which disagrees with their unanimous verdict about these chapters, or gives the least hint of their being spurious!* 2. All the Fathers of the Christian Church, from Ignatius the companion of Peter and Paul downwards, assent to that article of the Apostle's Creed, "Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary;" and nearly, if not quite, all of them refer to the disputed chapters, as the genuine writings of Matthew and Luke, and of inspired authority. We are not, observe, bringing forward the opinion of the Fathers to decide a matter of doctrine, but their evidence, as witnesses to decide a matter of fact; namely, that the disputed chapters have always formed part of the New Testament. Their evidence on this point is as conclusive as anything can possibly be: so that, if the chapters are spurious, they must have been forged, and received as part of the genuine gospels, in the very life-time of the Apostles. And how this could be accomplished, I leave for others to explain. 3. In all the controversies that took place between the early Christians and their heathen opponents, no doubt was ever raised on either side about the authenticity of these parts of the New Testament, nor any charge of forgery ever made against the Christians. "They stated many objections to particular circumstances in the narrative of the miraculous conception, but never entertained the most remote idea of treating the whole as spurious. They did not contend as our modern objectors do, that Matthew and Luke never wrote these accounts, but that, in writing them, they committed errors, or related falsehoods. To these decisive testimonies

• The Unitarian translation, published within the last half century, is of course excepted.

of the adversaries of Christians we add a fact by no means unimportant, as an accessory proof; which is, that no objections were ever brought against these chapters in the early centuries, during the heat of religious contention, when all parties sought to defend themselves, and to assail their opponents, by arguments of all kinds, industriously drawn from every quarter."* Really if a thing, resting on such an overwhelming mass of evidence, should after all be found untrue, there can be no certainty about any event that has ever happened in the world. Indeed we can scarcely conceive any possible amount of objections, that could overbalance such proof. Mr. Barker surely must have something very startling indeed to produce, as his authority, for rejecting this part of God's word. And startling enough it is to a person accustomed to any ordinary method of reasoning. He tells us, that a sect called the Ebionites had a copy of St. Matthew's gospel, which did not contain the two first chapters; and that a sect called the Marcionites had a copy of Luke's gospel, which did not contain the first two chapters. This is the entire external evidence brought against them! Several hundred persons swear to having seen a man commit a certain act; two persons swear an alibi-and the jury in consequence say, Not guilty !! What would be said in such a case? That the jury went by the evidence? No; but that they went in the very teeth of it. And what would be said, if the two witnesses adduced were notorious and convicted liars? Why that their denial made the fact rather more likely to be true than otherwise. This is the precise state of the case with regard to the Ebionites and Marcionites. Let us begin with the former.

THE EBIONITES.

It is assumed, that these were the early Jewish Christians, or Nazarenes, for whose use especially St. Matthew's gospel was written; and therefore that their copy was more likely to be the correct one than any other. But the learned Unitarian Lardner, Bishop Horsley, and others, have shown beyond all doubt, that the Hebrew Christians, Nazarenes, and Ebionites, were quite distinct sects.

"The Hebrew Christians, to whom St. Matthew wrote, were the body of Jewish converts in his time, who laid aside the use of the Mosaic law.

"Of the Nazarenes there were two descriptions: 1. The Nazarenes of the better sort, who were orthodox in their creed, though they continued to observe the Mosaic law: but

* Hartwell Horne.

being great admirers of St. Paul, they could not esteem the law generally necessary to salvation. 2. The Nazarenes of a worse sort were bigotted to the Jewish law, but still orthodox in their creed, for any thing that appears to the contrary. These were the proper Nazarenes mentioned by Epiphanius and Jerome. Both of these classes of Nazarenes believed Jesus Christ to be born of a virgin by the special interposition of God, and consequently received the two first chapters of St. Matthew's gospel.

"The Ebionites also were divided into two classes: 1. Those who denied our Lord's Divinity, but admitted the fact of the Miraculous Conception: consequently the two first chapters of Matthew were admitted by them; and 2. Ebionites of a worse sort, who, though they denied the Miraculous Conception, still maintained the Union of Jesus with a Divine Being, which commenced upon his baptism. These Ebionites, Epiphanius relates, made use of a Hebrew gospel of Matthew, which was not only defective, but also contained many fabulous stories. The Ebionites, he adds, branched off from the Nazarenes, and did not appear till after the destruction of Jerusalem.

"Now since the Ebionites "of a worse sort," as Bishop Horsley terms them, did not make their appearance until the commencement of the second century, and as they used a mutilated and corrupted copy of St. Matthew's gospel, the absence of the two first chapters of Matthew from their gospel, is so far from making any thing against the authenticity of those chapters, that on the contrary it affords a strong evidence for it; since we are enabled satisfactorily to account for the omission of those chapters in their copy, and to prove from the united antecedent, concurrent, and subsequent testimonies of various writers, both Christians and adversaries of Christianity, that they did exist in all the other copies of St. Matthew's gospel, and were explicitly referred to or recited by them.'

All that need be added to this is, that the Ebionite gospel was a mutilated one, by our opponent's own showing: for they acknowledge that the genealogy was a genuine part of the original gospel, although the Ebionites cut it out of their copy with the rest of the two chapters. And yet these same Ebionites, who both added to, and took from, St. Matthew's gospel, who made the ceremonial law necessary to salvation, who denied that the prophets of the Old Testament spoke by inspiration of God, who considered St. Paul an apostate and impostor these are the ONLY witnesses brought forward to disprove the genuineness of St. Matthew's account of the Miraculous Conception !!

*Hartwell Horne.

THE MARCIONITES.

But the case attempted to be made out against St. Luke's account is, if possible, weaker still. We are told that Marcion possessed a copy of his gospel, which did not contain the two first chapters. Here then are two things to be considered: 1. The character of Marcion in general; and, 2. The particular facts relative to his gospel.

I. Every one with the smallest knowledge of Church History knows that, if there ever was a heretic, Marcion was undoubtedly and pre-eminently one. Mr. Barker tries to shuffle out of this, by saying that the orthodox writers often told lies of their opponents; and he quotes John Wesley's opinion, that many of the men, who were called heretics, were the best men of the day. Now we are no more inclined, than he is, to condemn a man for a heretic, merely because he was called one: nor should we think Lardner was a person at all likely to be led away by a name, or admit the statements of the Fathers without the strongest reason; yet his opinion of Marcion (with which every one agrees, who has investigated the subject as learnedly and deeply as he did) is very well known. I cannot give it better than by the following extract from a tract on the Incarnation, by the Rev. W. Cooke.-"Dr. Lardner has given a copious account of Marcion in his Credibility of the Gospel History; and, as he is a Socinian writer, I shall extract from him an account of this propagator of heresy. Marcion taught, that besides the good and benevolent Deity, there was another who was evil, That the evil Deity was the creator of the world, against the will of the benevolent Deity: he taught that this malignant Deity was the God of the Jews-the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and the author of the Jewish law of sacrifice, He said that this Deity was cruel, severe, jealous, and the enemy of the good Deity, and of mankind. He maintained that Jesus had no real body, and, therefore, denied that he was either miraculously conceived or born at all in any way; that his body was a mere phantom. According to Tertullian, who lived in the same century, he held that human actions were not free, but controlled by necessity. He denied the resurrection of the body. According to Tertullian, Origen, and Athanasius: he believed there were to be two Christs, the one sent by the good Deity to deliver men from the Creator of the world and from the malignant influence of matter, and another to be sent by the evil principle. He contemned marriage-pronounced it sinful, impure, and odious in the eyes of the true God, whom he called a hater of marriage. The Marcionites fasted on the Sabbath or seventh day, out of their hatred to the God of the Jews, who was the Creator of this world.