"the Holy Ghoft, whom the Father "will fend in my name, ALL THINGS ΤΟ YOUR REMEM BRANCE, whatfoever I have faid "unto you. Again, John xv. 26, 27. "But, when the COMFORTER is ་ « come, whom I will fend unto you from the Father, even THE SPIRIT of TRUTH, which proceedeth from "the Father, HE fhall TESTIFY of << me: And ye alfo fhall bear witness, becaufe ye have been with me from "the beginning." There is, indeed, another, and a fingular opinion, advanced by a writer, far too refpe&table not to be noticed, H noticed, and whofe authority is too great, not to render it neceffary to refute his arguments, as they may lead some to suppose this relation of St. Matthew, and this prophecy of Ifaiah, to be of no great importance to the evidence of Chriftianity. The writer, is Dr. SAMUEL CLARK, in the first fermon of his fifth volume. A man, who is never to be mentioned, but with the greatest refpect for the variety of his attainments, and his more than common excellence in moft-though it is his fate, to be most celebrated for thofe attainments, in which he excelled the leaft.-Upon this fubject, though he feems to embrace the common common opinion, of a double completion, yet he fays, "This history "of our Lord's miraculous birth, evidently in fact was not, and in the nature of things, could not poffibly "be intended by the Evangelift, in "THIS PLACE, as any proof, for ་་ the conviction of unbelievers, ei"ther of the dignity of Chrift's perfon, or the truth of his doctrine, ་་ or of the reality of his divine "commiffion." This appears to be en affertion fo extraordinary, that, though it has never been refuted, one can not conceive, it has been ever adopted by any one, who did not at once embrace any opinion, upon the authority of a writer, without without paying any regard to his arguments. For, what reason can be affigned, for an Evangelift's relation, not only of this, but of any other miracle, relative to our Saviour, or any prophecy fulfilled in him, EXCEPT for ONE or ALL of the PURPOSES here enumerated ? If the facred writers have related any, without any fuch purpofe, then, there is no impropriety in maintaining, for no one can deny the affertion, that they have related them, to no purpose. But, having made this obfervation, which renders the GENERAL foundation of his pofition totally inadmif fible, fible, let us now examine the particular arguments, by which, he endeavours to prop the affertion, relative to this fact, and prophecy, in PARTICULAR. ་་ He says, "That it could not poffibly be alledged, by way of proof of any of these things, to unbelievers, is moft evident, for "this plain reafon ;-becaufe, in the nature of things, the fact was itfelf incapable of being proved, " 'till the truth of Chrift's miffion, "and the veracity of his followers, "had first been established." But, unfortunately, (I fpeak it with the greatest deference to the author's efta H |