acknowledge that he hath a Son truly born, as he is called a possessor who possesseth anything, and a governor who governs anything; so God the Father is a term of a secret mystery, whose true Son is the Word."-(Serm. de Temp. 181.)

LETTER XV.

TO THE REV. CHARLES LE BLANC.

A REPLY ΤΟ THE OBJECTION OF THE SUPPOSED
SILENCE OF SCRIPTURE.

REV. SIR,

To the objection from the supposed silence of the Scripture I reply as follows; and in order that I may not be suspected of weakening the arguments of our adversaries, I shall make use of their own words; and if, to avoid prolixity, I contract them a little, their objections will not be the less forcible. The argument, then, which appears to me to be the first in order, and one of the most plausible, is that which they form on the supposed silence of the Scripture, as to the mystery of the incarnation.

"We see," say they, "that those things which are difficult to be believed, yet absolutely necessary to salvation, are very frequently and plainly expressed in the Scriptures. Such, for instance, as the creation of heaven and earth; the care which God takes of human affairs; his know

L

For example,

Now, if the

ledge of our thoughts; the resurrection of the dead, and eternal life. Various things also of less importance are clearly and distinctly contained in holy writ. 'That Jesus Christ is of the seed of David.' incarnation of the Supreme God were a fact, it would be an article of faith absolutely necessary, and at the same time very difficult to be believed. It ought, therefore, to have been very clearly asserted in the Scripture, and so frequently inculcated by the sacred writers, who design to promote and secure our happiness, that none should have any reason to doubt whether it was a part of Divine Revelation. Yet it appears to us that there is no such thing contained in their writings. For the passages, produced by our adversaries to prove the tenet, are of such a nature that they are obliged to draw several consequences from them, before they can infer the incarnation of the Most High God; or, that he was made man. Nor is the doctrine of the incarnation mentioned where it should be, supposing it were true. For, when Matthew and Luke wrote the history of the birth of Christ, and relate a variety of particulars, of much less importance than the incarnation of the Supreme God; how is it possible they should have omitted, should have entirely passed over in silence, that wonderful fact, had it been true? They inform us, that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost; that he was born of a Virgin, in the days of Augustus, and at the town of Bethlehem, with many other particulars. Why, then, should they omit the most important and wonderful thing, and that which was more necessary to be known and believed than any other in the whole narration? Luke has not forgotten the manger, in which the new-born Saviour was laid; yet he has omitted the incarnation of the supreme God, and says nothing about the hypostatical union of the divine and human nature. How came it to pass,

that Mark should forget the whole history of Christ's birth, which should have included the incarnation; and John, whom they will have to speak of it, should pass over it so slightly, and express himself with so much obscurity? Again: How came the Apostles to make no mention of so important a doctrine, when they preached the gospel, and exhorted men to believe in Jesus Christ, and to induce them so to do, set his majesty before their eyes? Read the first sermon that Peter preached to the people, after he had received the Holy Ghost; the success of which was so great that about three thousand souls believed in Jesus Christ and were baptized. Consider also his second exhortation to the people, and you may see that he makes no mention of the incarnation in either of them. Nor will you find it in any of this Apostle's discourses concerning Christ; whether to the rulers and elders of the people, or to Cornelius, or to others. Paul says nothing of it in the Synagogue at Antioch, in the Areopagus at Athens, nor before Felix and Agrippa at Cesarea. Yet, certainly, he had a very favourable opportunity at Athens, to have explained this mystery, when he talked to the Athenians about "the "unknown God."

In answer to this objection, let the following things be considered. It seems very extraordinary that they who have so little regard for the Scripture should improve its very silence into an argument against us. At one time they declare, "Though the Scripture should expressly and repeatedly say, that God was made man, they would not believe it." At another, they argue against us from the supposed silence of that sacred volume. Such conduct is neither candid nor consistent.

This objection proceeds on a very dubious principle. It supposes that those truths which are absolutely necessary to be known, yet very difficult to be believed, are most ex

pressly and repeatedly mentioned in the Scripture. But if they mean every book, Rev. Sir, of the Scripture, the maxim is false; if the body of the Scripture, the reasoning is useless; for we maintain, that the mystery of the incarnation is expressly and repeatedly contained in the body of the Scripture. The maxim understood in the former sense is so evidently false, that we need no other examples to prove it, than those which are mentioned in the objection. The resurrection of the dead and eternal life, so expressly revealed in the gospel, are neither so clearly nor so frequently mentioned in the Old Testament. On the other hand, the work of Creation and the conduct of Providence, which are so repeatedly and strongly expressed in the Old Testament, are not so frequently found in the New. But must an important and essential truth be contained in all the books of the Scripture, or in every part of the New Testament? This is neither necessary nor possible. It is not necessary—because, as the Holy Spirit has given us for the rule of our faith, not any particular book, but the whole canon of the Scripture, it is quite sufficient if the necessary doctrines be found in the volume of Revelation, though they may not be included in every particular book. Nor is it possible-for in the Bible there are several epistles and books too much contracted to contain all that is necessary to be known, believed, and performed.

The objection supposes, that a truth is not evidently contained in Scripture when it must be inferred by conse quences. But here the objector is under a great mistake, as appears from the conduct of our Lord, who proves the immortality of the soul by a passage in the Pentateuch, though that capital truth is not contained in it in express terms, but was only inferred consequentially. The authors of these objections are under an equal mistake when they suppose that these truths,-Jesus Christ was conceived by

the Holy Ghost, -Our Lord was born of a Virgin, are of less importance to be known and believed, than the Doctrine of the Incarnation, had it been true. For supposing the Incarnation to be a greater mystery than the Conception of Christ by the Holy Spirit, yet the latter is no less necessary to be believed than the former. That Jesus Christ came not into the world by ordinary means, is a fact so necessary to be known, that without it we cannot be assured either of the mystery of the Incarnation, or of the benefits of his death. For if the Humanity of Jesus had not been free from original guilt and original depravity, it could neither have been united to the Divine Person of the Son of God, nor have suffered a death capable of expiating the sins of mankind.

But may we not retort, Rev. Sir, upon our adversaries? May not the silence of the Scripture be alleged with equal force against the Conception of Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost, and his birth of a Virgin? Yet these are Truths, essentially necessary truths, by the confession of all the world. Our opponents cannot dispute them any more than we; because the Conception of Christ by the Holy Spirit is the first foundation, according to them, of his august character, THE SON OF GOD. Nor will they deny, that ancient prophecy would have been unfulfilled, if Jesus had not been born of a Virgin.—(Isa, vii. 14.) These truths are also absolutely necessary, although they are difficult to be believed; for there have been few things in the world more surprising, than for a man to be born of a virgin. We may, therefore, put the same question to our opponents, on the Miraculous Conception and Birth of Christ, which they do to us, on the Incarnation. We ask, then, if the Conception of Christ occurred as it is generally supposed, how came it to pass that Mark should pass it over in silence? Why does not John mention it? Why did not