صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

could not have thought there was any contradiction between the two; any more than I did, when I spoke just now of “his earthly parents." Nor is there the least inconsistency. How often do we speak of a child's "parents" or of "his father and mother," when the child only has a step-father. This was the case with Joseph. By marrying the mother of Jesus, he became his legal father, and would be always called his father.

XXIII.That John the Baptist should be ignorant of the person of Christ," say the Editors of the Unitarian Version, "is not probable if this narrative be true." "Though it has been pretty generally supposed," replies Dr. Nares, "that John knew not the person of Jesus before his baptism, we are not quite certain that this was actually the case. In two instances John does certainly declare, that he "knew him not :" but we much question if more was implied by these terms than that he knew him not as the Messiah, till it was especially revealed to him on his approach to be baptised. Grotius is disposed to adopt this interpretation.* But those who do not adopt it, very rationally attribute his ignorance to the providential interposition of God, to take off all suspicion of conspiracy. At all events no argument can be drawn from a circumstance, which, for anything we know, might be accidental, and from what we know, would appear to be provi

dential."

XXIV. But how very strange that not even his brothers should have known it!-Not at all. How could they know it, without their father or mother told them? And the same reason, which prevented Jesus from speaking publicly about it, would also keep his parents silent on the subject,

XXV. But how very strange that the story of the Magi, and of the shepherds, with the prophecy of Simeon and Anna, should all be forgotten, and no general expectation excited by them amongst the Jews!-Just what might have been expected. Every body of course supposed that he was murdered with the infants at Bethlehem, and so they would naturally think no more of him; or if they did, the fear of Herod would keep them quiet. Besides, the time Jesus was concealed in Egypt was quite enough for any excitement that may have been raised to die away: and on his return, he passed a retired life with his parents at Nazareth. God could easily so order things, that no one should even suspect this young carpenter to have been the child, who a few years back caused such a disturbance at Jerusalem and Bethlehem: or in the words of the Unitarian Editors on another occasion, he might "exert his divine power to restrain men from so beholding him as to know him."

* Priestly does adopt it.

XXVI. But some of the Fathers give very strange reasons for the Miraculous Conception.-"Perhaps they do: what then." Some historians give very strange reasons for Napoleon's conduct on certain occasions. Does that alter the facts?

XXVII. A contradiction is thought to exist between the declaration of the angel, "Of his kingdom there shall be no end," and the Apostle's saying, that a time will come, "when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father." Much the same apparent inconsistency is observable in what is said of the saints, who reign with Christ; that they shall reign a thousand years," and that " they shall reign for ever and ever." In both cases, the kingdoms spoken of are of different kinds. It would occupy far too much time to enter at all into this subject here: but we may remind that one, whom our Lord himself calls "the prophet Daniel," saw a vision in which "an everlasting dominion" was given to the Son of man; which removes any cavil against the angel's message to Mary, however you may understand the expression about the Son delivering up his (probably mediatorial) kingdom.

you,

Such are some of the "at least a hundred" objections, which Mr Barker says can be raised against these chapters: and after what we have already seen, there is little doubt that a hundred might be raised, or indeed as many as ever the objector choose to invent. But as these twenty-seven are all I can find in his writings, we may calculate that the remaining seventy-three are of the same stamp, if indeed it be not more probable that those already mentioned were selected as being the strongest of the set. And what do they all come to when put together? Why just nothing. Some of them being utterly futile, others being easily explained by giving a little "attention to reading," and others actually furnishing strong internal evidence in favour of their genuineness.

We shall now conclude our evidence by producing demonstrative proof from the chapters which are acknowledged to be genuine, that neither Matthew's nor Luke's gospel could possibly have been written as Mr. Barker would make out. 1. The first sentence of St. Matthew's third Chapter contains the word de, usually translated "now," though omitted in our translation of this verse, which should be "Now in those days." This word de is never thus used in the Greek, except when something has gone before; nor indeed could the words "in those days" have any sense, if they had commenced the book. So that the Ebionite gospel which began with this verse is evidently mutilated. Mr. Barker would make the first sixteen

verses of Chap. i. go before Chap. iii. 1: but the impossibility of that has been already shewn; for the expression "in those days" would then refer to the birth of Christ, which is pal pably untrue, instead of to his dwelling at Nazareth (according to the received version) which is as palpably true. 2. Precisely the same thing is observable in St. Luke's gospel, which Mr. Barker would make to begin at Chap. iii. 1: for this verse also begins with the Greek word de, "Now in the fifteenth year. The gospel then could not possibly have commenced here, but must have had something before. Nor could it have commenced with the second Chapter; for the first verse of that also has the decisive word de, which is in this passage translated "and."

Upon the whole then, considering the overwhelming proof we possess of the truth of this account, as well as the total absence of anything like a valid objection to it of any kind whatever, a candid mind capable of understanding an argument will be disposed to think the parable we commenced with rather under, than over, coloured. We may safely say, that not a chapter in the whole Bible can be proved to be genuine more positively than these four. You may just as rationally cut out any other portion of scripture whatever from Genesis to Revelation, as these accounts of the Miraculous Conception. Nor would it be one atom_more absurd to deny that such persons as Alexander the Great, Julius Cæsar, or Napoleon Buonaparte, ever existed, than it is to deny that St. Matthew and St. Luke were the authors of the two narratives in question.

One important point yet remains to be noticed, namely, the necessity that existed for the Saviour being thus born. This is pointed out in the words of our text, "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." If Jesus had been begotten by man, he would have received man's corrupt nature, for "that which is born of the flesh is flesh "* But though God sent forth his Son in real flesh, yet it was not in "sinful flesh," (for how then could he have offered up a pure sacrifice for the sins of the world?) but only "in the likeness of sinful flesh." If there were no other passage in scripture to prove the two doctrines, that the nature which man receives by generation from his father is a fallen nature; and therefore, that Jesus must have received his human nature in some other way-this would be of itself sufficient. For in the first place flesh" generally is pronounced "sinful;" and in the second place, the word "likeness" distinctly shews that the flesh, which Jesus had, was not sinful,-which

66

*See previous lecture on Man's Fallen Nature.

it must have been, if he had received it in the ordinary way. He would then have had to say with David, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. The Saviour's Immaculate Conception then is not only necessarily referred to, but may be absolutely proved from, those numberless passages of scripture, which speak of him as "holy, harmless, undefiled," "without sin," "without blemish and without spot." And is not this striking testimony, which the Miraculous Conception thus bears to the reality of original sin, a main cause of the attempt that is made to get rid of it? We would not class together the deceiver and the deceived, or accuse all who disbelieve the Miraculous Conceptiou of wilful dishonesty: but knowing what a blinding effect deep-rooted error has upon the mind, we have no hesitation in expressing our conviction, that a dispute on the subject would never have been heard of in the Christian Church, if the scriptural account had not stood in the way of some theory, which the advocates of it were determined not to yield.

A very little reflection will soon convince any one, that the objection about original sin being usually attached to the fact of being "born of a woman" is a mere cavil: inasmuch as in no case, except that of Jesus, was any one born of a woman without a human father; and in his case, the Apostle has pointed out the peculiarity of his birth by the expression "made of a woman," which in the original is very marked.

LECTURE XI.·

THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST.

I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world. Again I leave the world, and go to the Father. His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. John xvi. 29.

HAVING already shown, that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners," or in other words that he was the foretold Messiah from his birth; and further, that he " was conceived of the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary;" we now advance another step, to prove his previous existence with God in some form or other before he was born into the world. No argument is wanted here, inasmuch as the objections, which are raised against our Lord's Deity, do not affect the question of his pre-existence. It will take us but a very short time to adduce the few passages of Scripture that are required for the proof; but as the question is a distinct one of itself, it appeared better to bring forward the evidence for it in a separate Lecture, instead of intermixing it with the proofs of Christ's Godhead.

Let us then begin with the testimony of John the Baptist. John i 30. "This is he, of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.” John here states the pre-existence of Jesus to be one ground on which he had a right to higher honour than himself.

John iii. 30, 31. "He must increase but I must decrease. He that cometh from above is above all; he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all." If any one should think that the expressions "cometh from above" and "cometh from heaven" may only mean commissioned or sent by God, I would remind them that John himself was sent by God; and yet he is here show. ing the difference between himself and Jesus, one of whom was "of the earth," and the other "from heaven." If then " coming from heaven" means that Jesus was sent by God, "being of the earth" must mean that John was not sent by Godwhich is manifestly false.

Equally strong are the words of Jesus himself.

John iii. 13. "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man, which is

I

« السابقةمتابعة »