eftablished character, and the highest veneration for his memory) this, which is intended as a proof of the truth of the former affertion, is itfelf only an affertion, which can not be admitted without proof, and appears to be incapable of receiving For, every fact, relative to our Saviour, muft reft upon it's own proper and Separate evidence, and the proof, therefore, of ever fo many different miraculous facts, relative to him, is no proof of the truth of any other, which is not infeparably connected with it.*

one.

* A SIMILAR ERROR has been embraced, by fome writers of great reputation, relative to PROPHECY, as I have had occafion to remark, in a treatise, written almoft twenty years fince, but which is not yet published.

To admit, with Dr. Clark, the contrary fuppofition, is, to defend Christianity, by what logicians call an argument in a circle. For, Chriftianity cannot be true, unless the SEPARATE facts related of Chrift, be proved to be true; and yet the truth of a single, separate fa&, is (according to Dr. Clark's argument) to be inferred from the general truth of the whole.

Secondly. Could we even grant, that if the divine miffion of our Saviour be once proved, it would neceffarily involve in it the proof of a particular fact, yet the fact here meant; cannot be of that kind, because it

is not effential to a divine mission. Though, if the fact itself be true, the divine miffion of Jefus neceffarily follows from it;-yet, independent of the prophecy, the truth of the latter does not neceffarily follow from the former.

Thirdly. Though every fingle, separate fact, must ultimately rest upon it's own proper evidence, yet there are fome facts, related in the New Teftament, fo connected and complicated with each other, that the proof of the truth of one, comprehends the evidence of the other. And fuch is precifely the nature of this fact. For, the Evangelifts

gelifts do not mention THIS, as one fingle, folitary fact, totally Jeparate and unconnected with any other;-butboth St. Matthew and St. Luke, appeal to other facts, fo intimately and infeparately connected with it, that, befides having it's own feparate evidence to reft upon,-whoever is convinced of the truth of any one of them, muft likewife be convinced of the truth of THIS. When, therefore, the truth of this, is once admitted, if it can be fhown, that the prophecy was completed, in the miraculous birth of Jefus, as is afferted by St. Matthew, THIS is a PROOF, which MUST CONVINCE THEM, who were BEFORE UNBELIEVERS,-that

JESUS,

JESUS was the EMANUEL, foretold by Isaiah.

This great writer's argument, to prove the other part of his affertion, is not better founded than the foregoing. For, he fays, "And that "in fact, it was never by the Evan

gelifts intended as a proof, appears "no lefs evident from hence; that though both by St. Matthew and "St. Luke, it be laid down as the beginning and foundation of the Life of Chrift, yet, in the account

they give us of his preaching, 'tis << never once mentioned by either "of these two Evangelifts, or by "either of the two other Evangelifts,