has advanced, or for the elevation of his fubject, by the aid of ornament. But, to fuppofe, that the Evangelift quotes the paffage in the Prophet, by way way of ACCOMMODATION, which, they who maintain this doctrine of accommodation, must fuppofe, denotes only a common event, is, to suppose him guilty of the greateft abfurdity.

For, first, fhould a writer, when he is relating a miraculous fact, refer to words, which were used seven hundred years before, only to denote a COMMON event, this would be, to involve his narration in the greatest cbfcurity, and to weaken his argument,

not

not to illuftrate and confirm it. And to exprefs his declaration of a MIRACLE, in language common to ORDINARY EVENTS, is not to elevate his fubject, but debafe it.

Secondly. If any will allow, that the prophet did really foretell a miraculous event, then, it must neceffarily have been fulfilled, at the birth of Jefus, as the Evangelift declares. Because, the prophecy is applicable to no other event, but that, which was then accomplished.

Thirdly. If any one is irrational enough to fuppofe, that the prophet did ufe fuch words, as, in their

literal fignification, are properly defcriptive of a miraculous, though he meant by them only to denote a common event; and the Evangelift quotes them exactly in the fame manner, and with the fame intention; -this would be, fo intirely to confound all fcriptural language, that it is impoffible we fhould ever be able at any time, to afcertain from the context, the true fenfe of an infpired writer. And it is, to reprefent both Prophet and Evangelift, as guilty of a mean art, and a wilful fallacy. Nay, it would be, if I may be allowed the expreffion,even plainly, and without difguife, -to maintain,-that both St. Matthew

and

and St. Luke, have afferted, what, was not true. For, the former, does not leave the miraculous fact, to be inferred from his quotation of the Prophet, but, directly and pofitively afferts it. And the latter relates a long chain of miraculous. facts, previous to the miraculous birth, all closely connected with it, and infeparable from it.

There is no alternative therefore left, but, either to admit the fact, as related by the Evangelifts, which then evinces, that the prophecy was PREDICTIVE of, and COMPLETED in our SAVIOUR'S BIRTH :—or, at once, openly to difavow all belief,

in the writers of the New Teftament. There can be no poffible medium: For, the teftimony of the Evangelists, upon this point, is plain, and pofitive. And if any one, who was one of Chrift's Apoftles, could either

INTENTIONALLY DECEIVE, or even UNINTENTIONALLY be DECEIVED, then was "their preaching vain, and "our faith is alfo vain." For, our Saviour has himfelf affured us, if we are at all to believe one, who was not only an Apoftle, but his moft beloved Disciple, John, xiv. 26.

cr

These things have I Spoken unto

you, being yet prefent with you. "But, the COMFORTER, which is

"the