LETTER II.

Of the miraculous Conception of Jefus, and of Contradictions in the Gospel Hiftory.

R. Levi fays, p. 9, I cannot be a chrif

MR

tian, becaufe I do not believe the miraculous conception of Jefus. But I imagine it is fufficient to denominate a perfon a chriftian, that he believes the divine miffion of Jefus, whether he believe any thing elfe concerning him, or not.

He fays that, in order to disbelieve this, I muft fuppofe fome parts of our present gofpels to be spurious; and then, he says, p. 82, "how are we fure that the remainder « is authentic ?" I cannot here repeat all that I have written on this fubject in the fourth volume of my Hiftory of Early Opinions concerning Chrift, but must content myself with referring you to that work. I shall only observe on this occafion, that I confider the evangelifts as mere hiftorians (indeed,

(indeed, they do not pretend to any thing more) faithful relaters of what they be lieved to be true. But no hiftories are received on the mere faith of the writers, but properly on the teftimony of the age in which they wrote, which would not have received their accounts, and have handed them down to pofterity as true, if they had not been known to be fo, at least in the main.

Now the great and leading facts in the gofpel history, the account of the doctrines, the miracles, the death, and refurrection of Christ, are fo handed down to us. They were believed by chriftians in all ages, and from the earliest times. But this is not the cafe with the account of the miraculous conception. The chriftians of your nation (I believe the great body of them, though with fome exceptions) never did believe it; and a very learned and highly respected perfon among the Jewish chriftians, I mean Symmachus, who tranflated the Hebrew fcriptures into Greek, wrote a treatise, in a very early period, to refute the story. It was

alfo

alfo difbelieved by all the early Gnoftics, with whose opinions it would have accorded remarkably well.

The miraculous conception, therefore, cannot be faid to have the teftimony of the age in which it was promulgated; and as the Jews, being natives of the country, had the best opportunity of informing themfelves concerning it, their teftimony, which is against it, is entitled to the greatest credit.

The gospel ufed by your countrymen was that of Matthew, without the two first chapters, which contain the account of the miraculous conception. It may be prefumed, therefore, that they faw fufficient reafon for rejecting thofe chapters, as, in their opinion, not written by Matthew; and if fo extraordinary a story had been true, it cannot be imagined that either he, or Mark, or John, would have omitted it. As to the account of Luke, whether it was written by him or not, I have fhewn that it abounds with the most manifest improbabilities.

As to the disbelief of the miraculous conception drawing after it the disbelief of the

whole

whole gofpel hiftory, judge from fact, and not from imagination. Was this the cafe. with the Ebionites? and, among them, of Symmachus? To fay nothing of myself, can it be fhewn to have been the cafe with any other person who has thought as I do with refpect to this fubject? The greater probability is, that perfons finding themfelves unable to believe this ftory, and not feeing how to separate the that of the reft of the

led to reject the whole.

belief of it from hiftory, may be

This, indeed, is,

in some measure, your own cafe.

If I

Mr. Levi's view in urging me with this ftory, is fufficiently confpicuous. fhould admit the truth of it, he would immediately fay, as all your countrymen have done, that there was an end of the argument between us; becaufe Jefus, not being defcended in the ufual course of generation from the male line of David, could not be your Meffiah. On the other hand, if the story be rejected, he will reject the whole gospel history, of which, he says, it is a part.

That

That the story of the miraculous conception should be started, and gain credit, in a very early period, I do not much wonder at, confidering, how willing the Chriftians were to think as highly as poffible of their mafter, with the meannefs of whofe birth and parentage, as well as the circumstances of his death, they were continually reproached.

One of the contradictions that Mr. Levi obferves in the gospel history, p. 81, is that, according to Matthew, Jefus was defcended from Nathan, but according to Luke from Solomon. As I reject the introduction to the gospel of Matthew, as not written by him, I am not concerned with this contradiction. There is another, however, on which he lays much stress, p. 80; which is that according to Mark, Jefus curfed the fig-tree the day after his arrival at Jerufalem, whereas, according to Matthew, it was on the day of his arrival.

But would Mr. Levi, or any reasonable man, reject, as of no value, any other two

hifto