In a long note, appended to the 16th verse of the 1st chapter of St. Matthew, reasons are given for rejecting the story of the miraculous conception. Among other things it observes, "The account of the miraculous conception of Jesus was probably the fiction of some early Gentile convert, who hoped, by elevating the founder, to abate the popular prejudices against the sect. See upon this subject, Dr. Priestley's History of Early Opinions, Vol. IV. Book iii. c. 99; Pope on the Miraculous Conception; Dr. Williams's Free Enquiry; Dr. Bell's Arguments for the Authenticity of the Narratives of Matthew and Luke, and Dr. Williams's Remarks; Dr. Campbell's and Dr. Newcombe's Notes upon the Text; Mr. Evanson's Dissonance, chap. i. sect. 3. chap. iii. sect. S.; Jones's Developement of Events, Vol. I. p. 365," &c. In a note to the 1st chapter of Luke, the Improved Version has six articles, containing reasons for rejecting both that and the succeeding chapter. The six articles are summed up by the following observation: "And there are many other circumstances in the story which wear an improbable and fabulous aspect." "It has," they continue, "been objected, that so large and gross an interpolation could not have escaped detection, and would never have been so early and so generally received. In reply to this objection it is observed, that the interpolation was not admitted into the Hebrew 1 copies of Matthew's Gospel, nor into Marcion's 2 copies of Luke. 1 The language in which Matthew is supposed to have written. 2 Marcion was the leader of a sect in the second century. That it is notorious that forged writings, under the names of the apostles, were in circulation almost from the apostolic age. See 2 Thessalonians, chap. ii. ver. 2. That the orthodox charge the heretics with corrupting the text; and that the heretics recriminate upon the orthodox. Also, that it was much easier to introduce interpolation when copies were few and scarce, than since they have been multiplied by means of the press. And, finally, that the interpolation in question would, to the generality of Christians, be extremely gratifying, as it would lessen the odium attached to Christianity from its founder being a crucified Jew, and would elevate him to the dignity of the heroes and demi-gods of the heathen mythology." The Unitarians, reject all that is related of the birth of Christ, as spurious and interpolated, and of course consider him as the son of Joseph and Mary, begotten in the ordinary way; and they give references to many scholars and inquisitive men, in whose works the curious reader will find a number of learned arguments against the stories of Matthew and Luke being received, and to these he is referred. What follows is a short examination of the two stories on the principles of what is usually called common sense, in the way in which an ordinary man would investigate a tale in which he was interested in knowing the truth.