gelifts, as ever alledged by Chrift, "in proof of his being the Messiah,

-nor in the book of Acts,-nor "in the Epistle of Paul, &c."

Now, FIRST, furely from St. Maithew's and St. Luke's making this fact, and the completion of the prophecy,

as the BEGINNING and FOUNDATION of the Life of Chrift, the proper inference is, the very reverfe of that, deduced by Dr. Clark.For, if the Evangelifts knew it could not be proved, without first admitting the divine miffion of Christ,— then, their thus laying it down as the beginning and foundation, was not the means of converting unbe

lievers,

lievers, to a belief of the dignity of Chrift's perfon, or the truth of his divine commiffion, for which very purpose only, their Gofpels were written; but, it was the most effectual means they could have taken, to prevent the converfion of mankind, -on account of their inability to admit this to be a fact.

Secondly. The fact, this writer gives as an argument, in defence of the other circumftance he has afferted, can not be formed into an argument, unless THIS PROPOSITION be first admitted as an AXIOM,-viz.— "that whatever fact is related of our "Saviour, by which, it is declared, a "prophecy

«

prophecy is fulfilled, (though the fact be related by two Evangelifts)

can not be admitted as a PROOF,

unless thofe Evangelifis, or one of. "the others, how, our Saviour ap

pealed to it in HIS preaching, or

"at leaft, that the writer of the

Acts, or St. Paul appealed to it." But, to admit this, as a poftulatum, is certainly, a fortiori to deny, that any thing can be admitted, as predictive of our Saviour in the Prophets, which is not referred to in the Gospels or Epifiles. Yet, our Saviour himself, without quoting particular prophecies, refers the Jews to Mofes, and the prophets in general, for their conviction of his

being the Meffiah, telling them, THEY

testify of HIM.

And after his refur

"HE beginning

rection, we find, that,

"at Mofes and all the Prophets, expounded (unto his Difciples) in all "the Scriptures, the things concerning himfelf." No pofition, then, can be more at variance with Scripture, than to affert, that no prophecy can relate to our Saviour, which the writers of the New Teftament have not quoted as fuch, EXCEPT, the

affertion, that ONE

WHICH

IS

QUOTED as fuch, was not intended as a PROOF of his divine miffion.

Dr. Clark, however, afterwards admits, "that this miraculous birth " of

"of Chrift, the Evangelift had just reafon, when affured of the truth.

«

"of the fact, from things which fol"lowed it, to infert at the beginning "of his History of our Saviour's

Life, and in the manner, and to

"that purpose, for which he relates it, had a just right, and good and fufficient grounds, to apply the prophecy here cited, as a prediction "of it." Hence, then, it follows, from Dr. Clark's own conceffion in this place, that the Evangelift must mean it, as a PROOF to unbelievers, of Chrift's divine miffion, IF, A PROPHECY COMPLETED, IS AT ANY TIME, ΤΟ BE ADMITTED AS A PROOF. And even admitting, that