of the whole being false :-again, if several honest men should agree in saying, that they saw the king of France beheaded, though they should disagree as to the figure of the guillotine, or the size of his exccutioner, as to the king's hands being bound or loose, as to his being composed or agitated in ascending the scaffold; yet every court of justice in the world would think, that such difference, respecting the circumstances of the fact, did not invalidate the evidence respecting the fact itself. When you speak of the whole of a story, you cannot mean every particular circumstance connected with the story, but not essential to it; you must mean the pith and marrow of the story; for it would be impossible to establish the truth of any fact (of admirals Byng or Keppel, for example, having neglected or not neglected their duty), if a disagreement in the evidence of witnesses, in minute points, should be considered as annihilating the weight of their evidence in points of importance. In a word, the relation of a fact differs essentially from the demonstration of a theorem. If one step is left out, one link in the chain of ideas constituting a demonstration is omitted, the conclusion will be destroyed; but a fact may be established, notwithstanding a disagreement of the witnesses in certain trifling particulars of their evidence respecting it.

You apply your incontrovertible proposition to the genealogies of Christ given by Matthew and Luke— there is a disagreement between them; therefore, you say, "If Matthew speak truth, Luke speaks falsehood; and if Luke speak truth, Matthew speaks falsehood; and thence, there is no authority for believing either; and if they cannot be believed even in the very first thing they say, and set out to prove, they are not entitled to be believed in any thing they say afterwards." I cannot admit either your premises or your conclusion:-not your conclusion, because two authors, who differ in tracing back the pedigree of an individual for above a thousand years, cannot, on that

account, be esteemed incompetent to bear testimony to the transactions of his life, unless an intention to falsify could be proved against them. If two Welsh historians should at this time write the life of any remarkable man of their country, who had been dead twenty or thirty years, and should, through different branches of their genealogical tree, carry up the pedigree to Cadwallon, would they, on account of that difference, be discredited in every thing they said? Might it not be believed, that they gave the pedigree as they had found it recorded in different instruments, but without the least intention to write a falsehood?—— I cannot admit your premises; because Matthew. speaks truth, and Luke speaks truth, though they do not speak the same truth; Matthew giving the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, and Luke giving the genealogy of Mary, the real mother of Jesus. If you will not admit this, other explanations of the difficulty might be given; but I hold it sufficient to say, that the authors had no design to deceive the reader; that they took their accounts from the public registers, which were carefully kept; and that, had they been fabricators of these genealogies, they would have been exposed at the time to instant detection; and the certainty of that detection would have prevented them from making the attempt to impose a false genealogy on the Jewish nation.

But that you may effectually overthrow the credit of these genealogies, you make the following calculation: From the birth of David to the birth of Christ, is upwards of 1080 years; and, as there were but 27 full generations, to find the average age of each person mentioned in St. Matthew's list at the time his first son was born, it is only necessary to divide 1080 by 27, which gives 40 years for each person. As the lifetime of men was then but of the same extent it is now, it is an absurdity to suppose, that 27 generations should all be old bachelors before they married. So far from this genealogy being a so

lemn truth, it is not even a reasonable lie."-This argument assumes the appearance of arithmetical accuracy, and the conclusion is in a style which even its truth would not excuse:-yet the argument is good for nothing, and the conclusion is not true. You have read the Bible with some attention; and you are extremely liberal in imputing to it lies and absurdities; read it over again, especially the books of the Chronicles, and you will there find, that, in the genealogical list of St. Matthew, three generations are omitted between Joram and Ozias; Joram was the father of Azariah, Azariah of Joash, Joash of Amaziah, and Amaziah of Ozias. I inquire not, in this place, whence this omission proceeded; whether it is to be attributed to an error in the genealogical tables, from whence Matthew took his account, or to a corruption of the text of the evangelist; still it is an omission. Now, if you will add these three generations to the 27 you mention, and divide 1080 by 30, you will find the average age when these Jews had each of them their first born, was 36. They married sooner than they ought to have done, according to Aristotle, who fixes thirty-seven as the most proper age when a man should marry. Nor was it necessary that they should have been old bachelors, though each of them had not a son to succeed him till he was thirty-six; they might have been married at twenty, without having a son till they were forty. You assume in your argument that the first born son succeeded the father in the listthis is not true. Solomon succeeded David; yet David had at least six sons, who were grown to manhood before Solomon was born; and Rehoboam had at least three sons before he had Abia (Abijah), who succeeded him. It is needless to cite more instances to this purpose; but from these, and other circumstances which might be insisted upon, I can see no ground for believing, that the genealogy of Jesus Chris, mentioned by St. Matthew, is not a solemn truth.

You insist much upon some things being mention ed by one evangelist, which are not mentioned by all, or by any of the others; and you take this to be a reason why we should consider the Gospels, not as the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but as the productions of some unconnected individuals, each of whom made his own legend. I do not admit the truth of this supposition; but I may be allowed to use it as an argument against yourself-it removes every possible suspicion of fraud and imposture, and confirms the Gospel history in the strongest manner. Four unconnected individuals have each written memoirs of the life of Jesus; from whatever source they derived their materials, it is evident that they agree in a great many particulars of the last importance; such as, the purity of his manners; the sanctity of his doctrines; the multitude and publicity of his miracles; the persecuting spirit of his enemies; the manner of his death; and the certainty of his resurrection. And, whilst they agree in these great points, their disagreement in points of little consequence, is rather a confirmation of the truth, than any indication of the falsehood of their several accounts. Had they agreed in nothing, their testimony ought to have been rejected as a legendary tale; had they agreed in every thing, it might have been suspected, that, instead of unconnected individuals, they were a set of impostors. The manner in which the evangelists have recorded the particulars of the life of Jesus, is wholly conformable to what we experience in other biographers, and claims our highest assent to its truth, notwithstanding the force of your incontrovertible proposition.

As an instance of contradiction between the evangelists, you tell us, that Matthew says, the angel announcing the immaculate conception appeared unto Joseph; but Luke says, he appeared unto Mary. The angel, Sir, appeared to them both; to Mary, when he informed her that she should, by the power of God, conceive a son; to Joseph, some months after.

wards, when Mary's pregnancy was visible; in the interim, she had paid a visit of three months to her cousin Elizabeth. It might have been expected, that, from the accuracy with which you have read your Bible, you could not have confounded these obviously distinct appearances; but men, even of candour, are iable to mistakes. Who, you ask, would now believe a girl, who should say she was gotten with child by a ghost? Who, but yourself, would ever have asked a question so abominably indecent and profane. I cannot argue with you on this subject.-You will never persuade the world that the Holy Spirit of God has any resemblance to the stage ghosts in Hamlet or Macbeth, from which you seem to have derived your

idea of it.

The story of the massacre of the young children by the order of Herod, is mentioned only by Matthew; and therefore, you think it is a lie. We must give up all history, if we refuse to admit facts recorded by only one historian. Matthew addressed his Gospel to the Jews, and put them in mind of a circumstance, of which they must have had a melancholy remembrance; but Gentile converts were less interested in that event. The evangelists were not writing the life of Herod, but of Jesus; it is no wonder that they omitted, above half a century after the death of Herod, an instance of his cruelty which was not essentially connected with their subject. The massacre, however, was probably known even at Rome; and it was certainly correspondent to the character of Herod. John, you say, at the time of the massacre, under two years of age, and yet he escaped; so that the story circumstantially belies itself."-John was six months older than Jesus; and you cannot prove that he was not beyond the age to which the order of Herod extended it probably reached no farther than to those who had completed their first year, without including those who had entered upon their second: but without insisting upon this, still I contend that

was