other manner. This only we know, his wisdom is infinite; his power is boundless. We may therefore rest assured that whatever is, is right, without pretending to put shackles on the operation of his will, or the might of his arm'.

Q. But is it not contrary to reason to suppose that God adopted such a mode of bringing about a reconciliation with his fallen creatures?

A. By no means. Reason can suggest many arguments to justify the ways of God to man.

First, It was fit that our Redeemer should be the Son of God, that he might have power to contend against and overcome the machinations of our great enemy, who goeth about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

Secondly, From the magnitude of the sacrifice for sin, God requiring no less than the blood of his own and only Son to wash away its stain, we cannot fail to notice in what abhorrence every kind of iniquity is held by the Almighty and if we are wise, we shall profit by this knowledge, and repent and turn unto the Lord, ere it be too late.

Thirdly, We are at liberty to suppose that the merit of no mere mortal could be sufficiently great to atone for the demerit of the whole human race. A far more dignified sacrifice was

'Sherlock's Discourses, Vol. iv. Disc. ii. p. 72.

required, and such was he who sat on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Fourthly, The weight and authority which the dispensation of Christ derives from its divine original is of incalculable importance in bending the stubborn will of man to obedience. And probably no authority but that of the Son of God, visibly descending upon earth, could have checked the overwhelming spread of licentiousness and irreligion.

Fifthly, The hope and expectation of turning a few sinners to righteousness, is sufficient to call forth the zeal, and exercise the best talents of the best men that ever lived. To save all created beings is an honour too great for any but such an one as our blessed Redeemer, who descended from heaven for that express purpose".

Q. Was our Saviour really born of a woman, as other mortals are?

A. The description we have of his conception and birth assure us that he derived his existence from his mother like other men *.

* Stillingfleet on Scripture Mysteries, part ii. § 6.

"See Bishop Newton's Fourteen Reasons, Dissert. iv. On our Saviour's Incarnation.

* Ea credatur esse natura Christi, qui factus est ex Virgine, quæ fuit natura Virginis, ex quâ Christus formatus et natus est. Augustin, tom. x. De Temp. serm. cxciii.

First, "Behold a Virgin shall conceive," said the prophet Isaiah. "Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb," said the angel to Mary'.

Secondly, Accordingly we read, that "she was found with child," and "being great with child," she went with her husband to Judea, to be taxed, according to the decree of Cæsar Augustus," and so it was, that while she was there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered"

"

"she brought

Thirdly, Her full time being come, forth her first born Son," and his name was called Jesus".

Fourthly, "In all things, saith St. Paul, it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God." "Both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one (original and nature); for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren "."

Q. Why is the mother of our Lord called the Virgin?

A. To mark and express the miracle of the conception of our Lord, by a Virgin without the instrumentality of man. An event which

Isaiah vii. 14. Luke i. 31. * Matt. i. 25.

Matt. i. 18. Luke ii. 5, b Heb. ii. 11, 17.

6.

Jeremiah had foretold, and which was fulfilled in the instance of the Virgin Mary, and in no other case before or since. The prophecy of Isaiah, which we have just noticed, is to the same effect". And the Evangelists who wrote under the guidance of inspiration inform us, that the angel was sent to a Virgin, that she said, "I know not a man," that she was found with child of the Holy Ghost before she and her husband came together, and that she knew not her husband till after the birth of our Saviour.

Q. Do you see any particular reason, in the divine dispensation, to account for the miracle of our Saviour's birth, and why he did not owe his generation to Joseph as well as Mary?

A. Christ was born of a woman, that he might truly inherit our nature, as the Son of man. He was born of a Virgin, that he might at the same time be the Son of God.

Had he been born of Joseph and Mary, like other fruits of marriage, he would have been a mere man, like other men. Besides it was fit that the fleshly tabernacle, which our Lord inhabited, should be pure and undefiled. Nothing

• Jer. xxxi. 22.

Isaiah vii. 14.

e Luke i. 27. 34. Matt. i. 18. Vide St. Ambrose, tom, v. epist. vii. ad Syric.

gross, nothing sensual, should by possibility be attached to the perfect purity of his nature'.

Q. What is known of the history of Mary, the mother of our Lord?

A. We have little information that can be relied upon on that head. The holy Evangelists, full of the miracles, eventful life, and doctrines of their Divine Master, had little time or inclination to turn aside to any enquiry not immediately relating to himself, or to his revelation. Whatever is necessary however to the truth of prophecy, is known. We know, for instance, that Mary was born at Bethlehem; lived at Nazareth in Galilee; was married to Joseph the carpenter; and was of the seed and lineage of David. We are further given to understand,

Spiritu Sancto illustrante et sanctificante cor Virginis, caro Christi de solâ carne Virginis nullâ se mentivâ carnis origine operante concepta est. Augustin. App. de Divers. Serm. LIX. cap. 2.

• Luke i. 26, 27. ii. 3—5. iii. 23. 38. Matt. i. 1. 17. xiii. 55. By referring to the genealogical tables in St. Matthew and St. Luke, it will be found that they differ considerably from each other. This circumstance has naturally engaged the attention of the learned, and led to various endeavours to clear up the difficulty. The plan however and design of this work will not allow of our doing more than referring the reader to the critical disquisitions of Lightfoot, in his Har. Evang.; Whitby, in his preface to the reader; and Grotius in loco; only adding a