CHAPTER II.

An objection from the fuppofed Silence of the Scripture, anfwered.

THAT

HAT we may not be fufpected of weakening the arguments of our adverfaries, we fhall make ufe of their own words; and if, to avoid prolixity, wę contract them a little, their objections will not be the lefs forcible. The argument, then, which appears to us to be the first in order, and one of the most plaufible, is that which they form on the fuppofed filence of the Scripture, as to the mystery of the Incarnation.

is reason in her fenses: prefuming to be equal with the All-wife; undertaking to comprehend his works, or daring to dispute his word; fhe is reason run mad. In this quality we disclaim and cashier her; in the other we cherish and employ her.Though I could not, by the powers of my reafon discover· though I cannot, by the excercise of my reason fully explainall the articles of my belief; yet I can give a reason," a very fatisfactory reason, "of the hope that is in me." This is what the apostle requires us to do; and without doing this, we are neither wife nor happy.'

The latter bears his testimony in the following words: The prerogative of God comprehends the whole [man; and is extended, as well to the reafon, as to the will of man: that is, that man renounce himself wholly, and draw near to God. Wherefore, as we are to obey his law, though we find a reluctation in our will; fo we are to believe his word, though we find a reluctation in our reafon, for if we believe only that which is agreeable to our reason, we give affent to the matter, not to the author; which is no more than we would do towards a fufpected and discredited witness-Sacred theology is ground'ed on, and must be deduced from, the Oracles of God; and not from the light of nature, or the dictates of reafon-" To "THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY; if they speak not "according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Lord Bacon's Advancement of Learning, p. 468, 469.

4

• We fee, fay they, that those things which are difficult to be believed, yet abfolutely neceffary to falvation, are · very frequently and plainly expreffed in the Scriptures. • Such, for instance, as the creation of heaven and earth; the care which God takes of human affairs; his knowledge of our thoughts; the refurrection of the dead, and eternal life. Various things also of lefs importance, are clearly and distinctly contained in holy 'Writ. For example, "That Jefus Chrift is of the feed of David."-Now, if the incarnation of the fupreme God were a fact, it would be an article of faith abfolutely neceffary, and at the fame time very difficult to be believed. It ought, therefore, to have 'been very clearly afferted, in the Scripture; and fo frequently inculcated, by the facred writers, who defigned to promote and fecure our happiness, that none should have had any reason to doubt whether it ⚫ was a part of Divine Revelation. Yet it appears to us, ♦ that there is no such thing contained in their writings. For the paffages; produced by our adverfaries to prove the tenet, are of fuch a nature, that they are obliged to 'draw feveral confequences from them, before they can infer the incarnation of the most High God; or, that ' he was made man.-Nor is the doctrine of the incarna ⚫tion mentioned where it fhould be, fuppofing it were true, For, when Matthew and Luke write the hiftory of the birth of Chrift, and relate a variety of particulars, of much less importance than the incarnation of the fupreme God; how is it poffible they fhould have ⚫ omitted, fhould have entirely paffed over in filence, that wonderful fact, had it been true? They inform us, that Jefus was conceived by the Holy Ghoft; that he was ⚫ born of a virgin, in the days of Auguftus, and at the ⚫ town of Bethlehem, with many other particulars; why then, fhould they omit the most important and wonder. ful thing, and that which was more neceffary to be known and believed than any other in the whole narration? Luke has not forgotten the manger, in

which the new-born Saviour was laid; yet he has ⚫ omitted the incarnation of the fupreme God, and fays ⚫ nothing about the hypoftatical union of the Divine and • human nature. How came it to pafs, that Mark fhould forget the whole hiftory of Chrift's birth, which 'fhould have included the incarnation; and John, whom they will have to fpeak of it, should pass over it so • flightly, and exprefs himself with so much obscurity?— Again: How came the apostles to make no mention of fo important a doctrine, when they preached the gofpel, and exhorted men to believe on Jefus Chrift; and, to induce them fo to do, fet his majesty before • their eyes ? Read the firft fermon that Peter preached to the people, after he had received the Holy Ghoft; the fuccefs of which was fo great, that about three ⚫ thousand fouls believed on Jefus Chrift and were baptized: Confider alfo his fecond exhortation to the people, and you may fee, that he makes no mention of the incarnation in either of them. Nor will you find it in any of this apoftle's difcourfes concerning Chrift; whether to the rulers and elders of the people, or to • Cornelius, or to others. Paul fays nothing of it, in 'the fynagogue at Antioch; in Areopagus, at Athens; nor before Felix and Agrippa, at Cefarea. Yet, certainly, he had a favourable opportunity at Athens, to have explained this mystery, when he talked to the Athenians about the unknown God.'

In answer to this objection, let the following things be confidered. It feems very extraordinary, that they who have fo little regard for the Scripture, fhould improve its very filence into an argument against us. At one time they declare, Though the Scripture fhould expressly and repeatedly fay, that God was made man, they would not believe it; at another, they argue against us from the supposed filence of that facred Volume. Such conduct is neither candid nor confiflent.

This objection proceeds on a very dubious principle. It fuppofes that thofe truths which are abfolutely

neceffary to be known, yet very difficult to be believed, are most exprefsly and repeatedly mentioned in the Scripture. But if they mean, every book of the Scripture, the maxim is falfe; if the body of the Scripture, the reafoning is ufelefs; for we maintain, that the mystery of the incarnation is exprefsly and repeatedly contained in the body of the Scripture. The maxim understood in the former fenfe is fo evidently falfe, that we need no other examples to prove it, than those which are mentioned in the objection. The refurrection of the dead and eternal life, fo exprefsly revealed in the gofpel, are neither fo clearly nor fo frequently mentioned in the Old Teftament. On the other hand, the work of creation and the conduct of Providence, which are fo repeatedly and ftrongly / expreffed in the Old Teftament, are not fo frequently found in the New.-But muft an important and essential truth be contained in all the books of the Scripture, or in every part of the New Testament? This is neither neceffary, nor poffible. It is not neceffary: because, as the Holy Spirit has given us for the rule of our faith, not any particular book, but the whole canon of the Scripture; it is quite fufficient if the neceffary doctrines be found in the volume of Revelation, though they may not be included in every particular book. Nor is it poffible: for in the Bible there are feveral epiftles and books too much contracted, to contain all that is neceffary to be known, believed, and performed.

The objection fupposes, that a truth is not evidently contained in Scripture, when it must be inferred by confequences. But here the objector is under a great miftake, as appears from the conduct of our Lord; who proves the immortality of the foul, by a paffage in the pentateuch; though that capital truth is not contained in it, in exprefs terms, but was only inferred confequentially. The author of this objection is under an equal mistake, when he fuppofes that thefe truths;

Jefus Chrift was conceived by the Holy Ghoft-Our Lord was born of a virgin; are of lefs importance to be known and believed, than the doctrine of the incarnation, had it been true. For fuppofing the incarnation to be a greater mystery, than the conception of Christ by the Holy Spirit; yet the latter is no less neceffary to be believed than the former. That Jefus Christ came not into the world by ordinary means, is a fact fo neceffary to be known, that without it we cannot be affured, either of the mystery of the incarnation, or of the benefits of his death. For if the humanity of Jefus had not been free from original guilt and original depravity, it could neither have been united to the Divine Perfon of the Son of God; nor have fuffered a death capable of expiating the fins of mankind. This confideration will be of use hereafter.

}

But may we not retort upon our adverfaries? May not the filence of the Scripture be improved, with equal force, against the conception of Chrift, by the power of the Holy Ghost, and his birth of a virgin? Yet these are truths, effentially neceffary truths, by the confeffion of all the world. Our opponents cannot difpute them any more than we; because the conception of Chrift, by the Holy Spirit, is the firft foundation, according to them, of his auguft character, THE SON OF GOD. Nor will they deny, that ancient prophecy would have been unfulfilled, if Jefus had not been born of a virgin *. Thefe truths are alfo abfolutely neceffary.-Befides, they are difficult to be believed: for there have been few things in the world more furprising, than to hear of a man born of a virgin.-We may, therefore, put the fame queftions to our oppofers, on the miraculous conception and birth of Chrift, which they do to us, on the incarnation. We afk, then, if the conception of Chrift had been as is generally fuppofed, how it came to pass that Mark fhould pafs it over in filence? Why

Ifaiah vii. 14.