This is a truth incontrovertible; but it cannot be admitted by him who really thinks, that "no other qualifications are requifite for judging of the matter of fact in the controverfy between our author and his opponents than a found underftanding and an honeft mind!" A found understanding and an honeft mind are certainly very important qualifications for judging in this or any other controverfy; but they will here be of little avail unlefs combined with a competent knowledge of the original language of the New Teftament, a knowledge which Mr. B. feems to think unneceffary to thofe whom he wishes to constitute arbiters between himself and the Trinitarians.

The author having thus prepared his readers for the mode in which he is to conduct this most important inquiry, and having informed them that the fubject is divided into two parts, proceeds to confider:

"1. The arguments which are alleged to prove that the Jews in the time of Chrift believed in the pre-existence of their expected Meffiah. 2. The narratives of the miraculous conception and birth of Jefus Chrift. 3. The texts which are conceived to exprefs in the most direct and unequivocal language the preexistence of Jefus Chrift. 4. The texts, which, if they are not to be admitted as direct arguments, are nevertheless thought to be moft correctly interpreted as alluding to this important fact, 5. Thofe, in which attributes appear to be afcribed to Chrift, which are thought to eftablish his pre-existence, and by many even his Divinity. 6. Thofe paffages which are understood as affirming the fuperiority of Chrift to Angels. 7. Thofe paffages which afcribe names, titles, and characters to Chrift, which are fuppofed to infer great original dignity in a pre-exiftent ftate, and by many το prove his fupreme divinity. 8. Thofe which are fuppofed to teach that Chrift is the Maker, Supporter, and Governor of all things. 9. Thofe paffages from which it is inferred that Chrift was the medium of the divine difpenfations to mankind, antecedently to his fuppofed incarnation, and particularly of the difpenfations of divine Providence to the patriarchs, and to the Jewish mation. 10. Those which exprefs the exaltation to which Chrift is advanced, and the offices with which he is now or will here after be invefted, and which it is argued are incompatible with the fuppofition of his proper humanity. 11. The paffages which require or exemplify homage and worship to be offered to Chrift, to which it is conceived that no creature, at least no man however exalted, can be entitled. And 12. A felection of paffages from the New Teftament to prove, if it were neceffary, the in feriority and proper humanity of Jefus Chrift."

With this laft felection, the former part of the work is concluded. That the arrangement of thefe topics is not ex

actly

1

actly fuch as might have been expected from a philofophical divine, will be admitted, we think, by every man, who has ftudied the principles of Logic in any other fchool than that of Mr. Bellham. But we have objections, of a more serious nature than a perplexed and tedious arrangement to urge against this fummary of the contents of the volume. In one inftance at least, there is an ambiguity in the ufe of words, which, whether ftudied or not, is certainly calculated to excite ftrong prejudices in the mind of the reader against the Trinitarian doctrines. Every Trinitarian, and even fome Semi-Arians, have taught that the Divine Being ftyled 'O Aoyos, who in the fulness of time took upon him our nature, was the immediate Maker of all things; and a doctrine fomewhat refembling this was taught by the Platonic philofophers; but a reader unacquainted with the controverfy before us might be led by the title of this author's eighth fection, to fuppofe that Jefus Chrift incarnate is the person whom the Trinitarians reprefent as the Maker of all things! There are other ambiguities in the work itself, fome of which we may point out as they occur to us; but we request it to be obferved that we do not intend to follow the author through every minute topic which he difcuffes, but merely to give fuch opinions of his affertions, arguments, and criticisms, as may enable the reader to judge whether the volume be worth. the reading.

The fubftance of the first section is that, "one text only is alledged with any plaufibility in favour of the fuppofition that the Jews expected a pre-exiftent Meffiah;" and that text is John vii. 27, in which we are informed that " fome of them of Jerufalem said, "we knew this man whence he is: but when Chrift cometh, no man knoweth whence he is!"

But if this be indeed the only text which can be urged in favour of this fuppofition with any plaufibility, we should be glad to know what is the meaning of Micah. v. 2. "But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee fhall he come forth unto me, that is to be ruler in Ifrael; whofe goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." This paffage is by the Chaldee Paraphraft exprefsly applied to the Meffiah; and that it was fo understood by the Jews, in the time of our Saviour, is put beyond all controverfy by the reply of the chief-priefts and fcribes to Herod, when he confulted them on the unexpected vifit of the wife men from the eaft, inquiring for the new-born King of the Jews. We should likewife be glad to know what Martha meant, when she said "I believe, BRIT. CRIT. VOL. XXXVIII. NOV. 1811.

Hh

I believe that thou art the Chrift (i. e. the Meffiah,) the Son of God, which fhould come into the world ;" and what was the meaning of the High Prieft, when he faid to our blessed Lord, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Chrift the Son of God." It is evident that both Martha and the High Priest expected the Meffiah to be the Son of God in a fenfe peculiar to himfelf; and yet there is no probability that either of them, when they expreffed themselves thus, had heard of the miraculous conception, to which the High Prieft, if he had heard of it, would probably have paid almost as little regard as Mr. Belfham does.

In the fecond pfalm, which, by the Jewifh doctors of that age, was univerfally applied to the Meffiah, there is a divine perfon fpoken of as the Son, and reprefented as entitled to worship; and is it poffible to doubt but that Martha, the High Priest and indeed all the Jews looked upon their Meffiah as that divine, and therefore pre-exiftent perfon? From their captivity in Babylon, and the long refidence of fome of them in Egypt, the Jews had brought back to Jerufalem many dogmas of the Eaftern philofophy, as well as feveral opinions maintained by the Platonifts of the Alexandrian School. The learned Cudworth, and his tranflator Mofheim have proved, with the force of demonftration that among those dogmas and opinions was a trinity of Hypoftafes in the divine nature; that fome of the Platonifts called thefe divine perfons, the Grandfather, the Son, and the Nephew or Grandfon (TTπos, tyloves, azóуovos;) and that many of the Jews had, before the coming of Chrift in the flesh, adopted fimilar notions*. If to all this we add that the Being, whom the Ifraelites are reprefented, in the twentyfirst chapter of the book of Numbers (ver. 5 and 6,) and in the feventy-eighth Pfalm (ver. 56,) as having tempted in the wildernels, is by St. Paul faid to have been Chrift or the Melliah, there cannot we think, be a doubt that the Jews, whether reasonably or unreasonably, expected a pre-exiftent Meiliah. At any rate it is paft dilpute that many more texts than ane may be alledged in favour of this fuppofition, with Tomething far above plaufibility; and that Mr. Belfhain has, in this fection, been influenced by the fame kind of candour which he had fo confpicuoufly difplayed in the introduc

tion.

In the fecond fection Mr. Belfham repeats what he had formerly urged against the miraculous conception of Jefus,

See Mofheim's Edition of Cudworth's Intellectual Syftem, published at Leyden 1773, vol. i. p. 829, &c.

wit hout

without taking the fmalleft notice of the reply made, by the Rev. Edward Nares of Biddenden, to thofe confident affer tions as they appear in the notes on the Unitarian Version of the New Testament. Thus he repeats here what he had affirmed there, that

"From Luke iii. 1. compared with ver. 23, it appears that Jefus was born fifteen years before the death of Auguftus, that is at least two years after the death of Herod; a fact which completely falfifies the whole narative contained in the preliminary chapters of Matthew and Luke." P. 12.

When our author first made this affertion, he referred his readers to Lardner's works, vol. i. p. 432, whence they would naturally fuppofe that he had at leaft Lardner's au thority for what he had affirmed. "And yet," fays Mr. Nares, "Lardner, to whom they fo confidently refer, actually enters upon this very difficulty, with the following remark;"" it may be made appear feveral ways, that Jefus was born above a year, probably above two years before He rod died!"" So that here," continues Mr. Nares, "I fhall beg leave to join in the reference, and entreat the reader to turn to Lardner, and fee how ably and fatisfactorily he come bats the difficulty, and in how many ways he unravels the mystery."

In this reference we heartily join our learned friend; and beg leave to inform our readers that Mr. Belfham might have feen, and in all probability did fee this work of Mr. Nares's before his own volume was fent to the prefs. With his usual candour, however, and skill in controverfy, he makes no mention of it whatever, nor avails himself of it any further than to withdraw the reference, which he had formerly made to the works of Lardner !

But fays Mr. Belfham again repeating what he had faid elsewhere,

"If the relation given of the miraculous conception were true, it is utterly unaccountable that these extraordinary events should have been wholly omitted by Mark and John, and that there should not be a fingle allufion to them in the New Testament;

See Remarks on the Verfion of the New Teftament, lately edited by the Unitarians, with the title of an improved Verfion upon the Bafis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation with a corrected Text, and Notes critical and explanatory, &c. By the Rev. EDWARD NARES, M. A. Rector of Bid. denden, Kent.

. Hh z

and

and particularly, that in John's hiftory, Jefus fhould be fo frequently fpoken of as the son of Joseph and Mary, without any comment, or the least hint that this statement was

P. 13.

erroneous.'

Jefus frequently fpoken of in St. John's history as the fon of Jofeph ! To the beft of our recollection aided by a concordance, he is never fpoken of in that history as the fon of Jofeph but twice; firft, by Philip immediately on his being called to be a difciple, and before he knew or could know much of his mafter's character; and fecondly, by the unbelieving Jews, who could then know nothing of the miraculous conception. The evangelift merely records the words of thofe people as he probably heard them uttered; but had he interrupted his narrative for the purpose of correcting a mistake fo natural and unimportant, a critic under the influence of this author's candour might have drawn an inference from fuch eagernefs not very favourable to the fimplicity and integrity of St. John's character.

The other part of the objection, that it is utterly unaccountable that St. Mark and St. John fhould have omitted fuch a detail of the miraculous conception as that which has been given by St. Matthew and St. Luke, is ridiculous as applied to St. John, who is univerfally admitted to have feen the three first Gospels, and to have fet his feal to them, before he wrote his own, If not abfolutely ridiculous, this objection is likewife very trifling, at least when applied to the Gofpel by St. Mark. In the opinion of Michaelis the genealogy of Chrift was without impropriety omitted by St. Mark who wrote his Gofpel for the use of the Romans; but if the genealogy was to be omitted, it is not eafy to be conceived how the miraculous conception and birth of our Lord could be properly introduced. Without infifting however on this, it is obvious, as the fame learned writer obferves, that there are in St. Matthew's gofpel, feveral accounts befide the miraculous conception, and fome of them pretty remarkable, which are entirely omitted by St. Mark; a fact, from which no inference can be fairly drawn but that neither of thefe Evangelifts copied from the other.

The other objection, that no allufion is made to the miracu lous conception and birth of Jefus in any other paffages of Scripture, depends entirely upon the conftruction put upon various paffages which might be felected. To an Unitarian, fuch ex; preffions as God fent his own Son in the likeness of finful flesh; the Ward was made flesh and dwelt among us; God fent forth his Son

MADE