"To support these Gnostic fancies, Marcion rejected the whole of the Old Testament as proceeding from the Creator, the author of all the sin and misery in the world. He argued that the law and gospel could not come from the same being, as they are inconsistent one with the other. The New Testament he mutilated to render it subservient to his view. He rejected the history of Christ's incarnation, because, from his opposition to matter, he would have it that Christ had no real body. He rejected altogether the gospels of Matthew, and Mark, and John, the Acts of the Apostles, and twelve of the other books. Even those which he received he abridged, interpolated, or altered to suit his purpose, rejecting all passages which admitted the authority of the Old Testament, or which related to the law and the prophets, or which were quoted from thence, as plainly foretelling the coming of Jesus Christ, or which spoke of his Father as the Creator of the world. Such is the account which Lardner himself furnishes of Marcion; and all his statements are supported by their respective authorities at the foot of the page." Will Mr. Barker tell us whether he allows such opinions as these to be heresy; and whether the man who held them was likely to be one of the best men of the day?

To understand however the full merits of the case we must proceed to examine,

II. The particular facts relative to Marcion's gospel. These are very clearly stated by Dr. J. P. Smith, in his scripture testimony to the Messiah. "The gospel used by Marcion certainly did not contain the first two of Luke; but neither did it contain the third chapter, nor more than one half of the fourth and in the subsequent parts, (as we are informed by Dr. Lardner, who had examined this subject with his usual minuteness and accuracy) it was mutilated and altered in a great variety of places. He would not allow it to be called the gospel of St. Luke, erasing the name of that evangelist from the beginning of his copy. His alterations were not made on any critical principles, but in the most arbitrary manner, in order to suit his extravagant theology. Indeed the opinion that he used Luke's gospel at all rests upon no sufficient foundation. So different were the two works, that the most distinguished biblical scholars of modern times have rejected that opinion altogether. Griesbach maintained, that Marcion compiled a work of his own, for the service of his system and the use of his followers, from the writings of the Evangelists, and particularly of St. Luke." "That Marcion used St. Luke's gospel at all," says Bishop Marsh, "is a position which has been taken for granted without the least proof. Marcion himself never pretended that it was the gospel of St. Luke, as Tertullian acknowledges. It is probable therefore that he

used some apochryphal gospel that had much matter in common with that of St. Luke, but yet was not the same." In addition to this we need only remind you as before, that Marcion's copy was mutilated on our opponents' own showing; for they acknowledge the genuineness of the third chapter, which was cut out of his gospel as well as the two first. And yet this man, who believed in two Gods, a good and a bad one; who denied that Christ had any real body; who disbelieved in the doctrine of the resurrection; who rejected all the Old Testament as coming from the bad God; and all the New Testament, except a few of the epistles, which he mutilated and corrupted just to suit his own fancy-this man is the ONLY evidence brought forward to overthrow the unanimous testimony of all the writers of antiquity, and of all the manuscripts and versions now extant in the world. And when we come to examine even his evidence, we find that he has none whatever to give; that he said nothing at all about St. Luke's gospel, but rejected all the four gospels together, and patched up one for himself from any or no source. But because this gospel of Marcion's happened to bear some resemblance to St. Luke's, without containing any account of the miraculous conception, the two first chapters are coolly thrown aside as a forgery, in face of the most overwhelming proof of their genuineness. If it was possible for anything to show more clearly than this Mr. Barker's utter contempt of facts in conducting an argument, it would be the motive which he imputes to the orthodox party for forging them; namely, to throw discredit on marriage. For it so happens, that Marcion was the man who reviled marriage, which he said the good God hated; while the orthodox Fathers opposed him, and refuted his arguments against it.

So much for the external evidence. Let us now see whether any better case can be made out, from the objections which the chapters themselves are thought to supply.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE ALLEGED AGAINST

THEM.

I. In the first place it is argued, that the genealogies of Matthew and Luke prove Jesus to be the Son of Joseph, and are therefore inconsistent with the story of his miraculous conception. To which we reply, that both the genealogies prove exactly the reverse; namely, that Jesus was not the son of Joseph. In St Matthew's, after some forty generations have been given in exactly the same words-" Abraham begat Isaac: and Isaac begat Jacob: and Jacob begat Judas," &c.-upon reaching Joseph, the expression suddenly changes; and, instead of saying and Joseph begat Jesus,' it says, "and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus."

66

The word "whom," being in the original of the singular number and the feminine gender, cannot possibly refer to any one but Mary; so that Joseph is by this genealogy excluded from being the father of Jesus, as plainly as words can speak. And scarcely less plainly does St. Luke's genealogy also exclude him, in the words "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.' It is contended that the expression as was supposed" ought to be translated "as he was enrolled in the public register." It would be a waste of time to argue this, pro or con, as the question is so very little affected by it: for why should the Evangelist put this in, but to guard himself against being thought to mean, that Jesus was really Joseph's son? If it be asked, why the genealogy should be given through Joseph instead of through Mary, if Jesus was not his son-we reply, The genealogy is given through Joseph by St. Matthew, because he wrote chiefly for the Jews; who only reckoned their pedigrees in the male line, and according to whose law Joseph became the legal father of Jesus by marrying his mother, St. Luke on the other hand, who wrote for Gentiles, gives the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, his real mother: for having mentioned that Jesus was supposed to be the son of Joseph, he immediately turns to his mother's line, by saying that Joseph was the son (that is, son-in-law) of Heli. This first objection then turns out to be an exceedingly strong confir mation of the truth of the narrative.

II. Next we are reminded, that Jesus calls himself eighty six times "the son of man ;" and he could be the son of no other man, but Joseph. Now there are two Greek words, both of which are translated "man," but which are quite distinct in the original,-aner, which means strictly "a man;" and anthropos, which means "a human being" whether man or woman. * If Jesus, by calling himself "the son of man," intended to teach that he was the son of Joseph, how very remarkable that he should never once, out of all those eighty six times, have used the word aner, (which would have settled the matter entirely) but should invariably use the doubtful word anthropos. By calling himself "the son of aner," he would distinctly have taught that Joseph was his father; by calling himself "the son of anthropos," he only teaches that he was

When Mr. Cooke mentioned this in his discussion with Mr. Barker, he happened to say that anthropos meant both a man and a woman. Then, replied Mr. Barker, as Jesus calls himself "the son of anthropos," he must be the son of both a man and a woman; that is, of Joseph and Mary. So because a beast means both a horse and a cow, therefore, if I say that I have purchased a beast, it means that I have purchased both a horse and a cow! Mr. Cooke of course meant, that anthropos was sometimes used for a man and sometimes for a woman; and no one could understand him to mean anything else. Further comment is unnecessary.

a human being, a partaker of human nature. In the same sense as the Greek word anthropos, we use the English word man; as when we say, "the fallen nature of man,"

66 reason raises man above the brute, &c., &c." including both men and women without distinction. This second objection then, like the first, only adds to the previous weight of evidence in their favour.

III. Mr. Barker comments on the indelicacy of Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem together unmarried; although the narrative states, that long before their journey to Bethlehem Joseph "did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife." Matt. i. 24.

66

IV." In those days came John the Baptist preaching." Matt. iii. 1. According to this, it is argued, John must have begun to preach immediately after the events just mentioned had occurred; that is, while Jesus was a little child, which was evidently not the case.-On looking at the last verse of the 2nd chapter, we read that "he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth." His dwelling at Nazareth therefore fills up the time from his going there to John's preaching. The narrative does not tell us how long he dwelt there; but only that “in those days" while he was dwelling there, came John the Baptist." If Mr. Barker's objection however is harmless against our theory, it is absolutely destructive of his own: for he cuts out from v. 17 of Ch. i. to v. 23 of Ch. ii; so that the narrative would stand thus; "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. In those days came John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness." This would make John the Baptist preach in the days when Jesus was born; for there is nothing here to fill up the gap, as there is in the other case.

V. Certain prophecies are said to be applied to Christ in these chapters, which in reality have no reference to him at all. For instance, a prophecy from Hos. xi. 1, which refers to the Israelites coming out of Egypt under Moses, is applied to Christ returned from Egypt with Joseph and Mary. This shews, according to Mr. Barker, that the chapters were forged by some "ignorant half-instructed Gentile convert," who knew little or nothing of the Old Testament, and consequently fell into this gross blunder.-May we ask whether the whole body of Christians who received the forgery, admitted it into the Canon of Scripture, and acknowledged it to be genuine, were "ignorant half-instructed Gentile converts!" Even if they had all agreed (notwithstanding the bitter quarrels and disputes amongst them) to corrupt the gospels in such an extraordinary manner, and could have succeeded so cleverly, that not a pure copy should remain in the world, nor a hint be left of the fraud by any writer of the day, friend or foe-is it not

66

very strange that not one of them should discover the apparent inconsistency, and have it rectified? Or did they not calculate upon there being such clever people in the nineteenth century as to find it out? Why the fact, that Mr. Barker mentions, stares you broadly in the face the moment you turn to the prophecy. The most ignorant and least instructed convert in the world could see at a glance, that it referred to the Israelites; and the very fact of its being applied to Christ is a strong proof that the writer was inspired: for no one, unless under the immediate inspiration of God, would ever have dreamt of its further reference to Christ, or indeed of its having any other than its natural obvious meaning. Mr. Barker however calls this doctrine of prophecies having a double meaning, the second of which was not understood till afterwards, a fiction of theologians:" and so it is, but-of inspired theologians. The application of this prophecy of Hosea's to Christ is " a fiction" of St. Matthew's. It of course relates primarily to the Israelites; Mr. Barker says it relates to nothing else; St. Matthew says it does, and that it was fulfilled in Jesus coming out of Egypt. Which is right? If the prophecy about the Virgin be thought to have had any limited partial application to events of that day, then Matt. i. 23, will be another inspired fiction of a similar kind. Matt. ii. 18, is undoubtedly one. Indeed, any one of the commonest scriptural knowledge, knows that the New Testament abounds with such fictions. David says in Ps. lxxviii. 2, "I will open my mouth in a parable;" and St. Matthew (probably while he was an ignorant half-instructed convert) says that was fulfilled by Christ speaking parables. Matt. xiii. 35. Again, David says in Ps. xli, "Yea mine own familiar friends, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me;" in Ps. lxix. 4. They that hate me without a cause ;" and both of these are applied to Christ by himself. Instances might be multiplied without end; but these are quite enough to shew the gross ignorance, or else something worse, of arguing against these chapters, because they point out the concealed reference to Christ in some prophecies, which otherwise we might not have so understood.

9.

66

VI, Matt. i, 20-23. "We are here told," says Mr. Barker, "that he was called Jesus to fulfil a prophecy which said he should be called Emmanuel." We are told nothing of the kind. What we are told is, that he was born of Mary without the instrumentality of a human father, to fulfil the prophecy which said that he should be born of a virgin. But if it had been as Mr. Barker would make out, the thing would have been perfectly consistent. The prophecy said he should be called Emmanuel, which means "God with us." Now calling him Jesus, which means in the Hebrew "Saviour," was just the same (in the pre