expectation of a material Resurrection for ourselves. Footnote 32: Yet I have heard it said, “_So far as evidence goes_, you have no more reason for rejecting the Miraculous Conception than for rejecting the story that Jesus washed the feet of the Apostles: for two witnesses attest the former; but only one, the latter. Your objection is _a priori_.” Such arguments seem to me to fail to recognize the first principles of evidence. The omission of a stupendous marvel, an integral part (and is not the parentage an integral part?) of a biography, by biographers who have no motive for omitting it and every motive for inserting it, is a _strong proof that they did not know it_. For a similar instance, see above, p. 167. Footnote 33: You remember that the two accounts of the Miraculous Conception differ in respect of the “annunciation”; which St. Matthew describes as being made to Joseph, St. Luke as being made to Mary. It is interesting to note how these two variations correspond to two variations in the ancient prophecy. In the LXX the name is to be given to the child, not by the mother, but by the future _husband_: “The virgin shall be with child and bring forth a son, and _thou shalt_ call his name Immanuel”. In the Hebrew, the “virgin,” or “maiden,” is _herself_ to name the child; “A _virgin_ shall ... bring forth and _shall_ call, &c.” Adopting the former version, a narrator would infer that the announcement of the birth was to be made to Joseph, as the first Gospel does: “She shall bring forth a child and _thou_ (Joseph) shalt call his name Jesus.” Adopting the latter version, and changing the third into the second person for the purpose of an “annunciation,” the narrator would infer that since the name was to be given _by the mother_, the announcement was made _to the mother_, as the third Gospel does; “_Thou shalt_ be with child, and shalt bring forth a son, and _shalt_ call his name Jesus.” Note also that afterwards, when St. Matthew actually quotes the whole prophecy with the name “Immanuel” (i. 23), he alters the verb into the _third person plural_: “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a child, and _they shall_ call his name Immanuel.” The reason is obvious. It would not be true to say that _Mary_ called her son “Immanuel”; it would only be possible to suggest that _men in general_ (“they”), looking on the Child as the token of God’s presence among them, might bestow on him some such title (not name) as “God with us.” Consequently St. Matthew here alters “thou” into “they”. Footnote 34: _Contemporary Review_, Feb. 1886, p. 193. Footnote 35: