version of the original. Did the Evangelist mean to convey this idea, he would, beyond doubt, have used the negative oʊ, and said oux wv ws evoμiČETO, being not, as was supposed, the son of Joseph. But as the words now stand, he positively and unequivocally asserts that Jesus was the son of Joseph.

In support of this assertion, I beg my reader to weigh the four following remarks, for the truth of which I appeal to every competent judge of the Greek language. 1. wv, being, the use of which occurs so frequently in Greek writers, always conveys the idea of something positive, something founded in truth and reality. 2. This participle is frequently employed to express some matter of fact, some cause, some circumstance of time and place, to account for what follows in the context. Thus, here Luke accounts for Jesus being registered as the son of Joseph, by premising that he was in reality his son.' 3. When a writer has to employ a word to signify that one man is the son of another, wv is the term appropriate for that purpose. Nor could Luke insinuate that Jesus was not the son of Joseph, by a word that necessarily meant that he was his son. This participle is often used to denote reality, in opposition to such verbs as δοκω, ονομάζω, φαινομαι; and this, because it means something real, in contradistinction to what has the name or appearance of being so. 4. ειμι or εω, 1 am, the verb of wv, and all its corresponding branches, on the same principle, means existence, reality and truth. Hence i wy means the existing One, the great Reality, Jehovah; To, ov, substance; ovтws, or T ovTI, in truth, truly, equivalent to αληθως.

Besides, Luke, having asserted that Jesus was really the son of Joseph, not only appeals to the register of Jesus's birth, but actually produces that register in attestation of the fact, thus tracing his genealogy in the line of Joseph. To suppose that Luke intimates that Jesus was not the son of Joseph, while at the same

ενομίζετο,

breath he produces the register in which he is stated to be the son of Joseph, and recorded as such, would imply such a degree of carelessness about truth and consistence, or such a confusion of intellect, as would render him unworthy of credit on any subject whatever. The clause as evoμLIETO, rendered "as was supposed," should be translated, "as he was registered conformably to law or to custom: " for the origin of the verb is voμos, a law; and the primary, and even the usual acceptation of it, is to enact a law, introduce a custom, act conformably to custom, and the like. I do not indeed deny that voi may often mean to think, or even to suppose. The context is the just clue to its meaning, wherever it occurs; and in connexion with the genealogy of Jesus, it cannot be diverted from its natural signification, without the grossest perversion.

The Evangelist is not content with asserting on his own authority that Jesus was really the son of Joseph, -he is not content with producing the register to prove the same thing; but he also produces the testimony of the best judges of the fact, namely, that of the people of Nazareth. "And all bore him testimony; and they wondered at the words, though gracious, which dropped from his lips, saying, Is not this the son of Joseph ?” chap. iv. 22. It is clear from the sequel, as well as from the parallel places in Matthew and Mark, that the wonder here mentioned proceeded not from admiration, but from resentment and indignation. The Evangelist says that they bore testimony to Jesus. And what was this testimony? He cites the testimony meant, in their own words. "Is not this the son of Joseph ?" And that this testimony might be deemed decisive, as the testimony of men who knew the truth, and who had no bias to say any thing in his favour, Luke asserts, verse 16, that Jesus had been brought up in the midst of them.

If we take a view of this brief argument, we obtain the surprising fact that Luke, who is supposed to have

C

written an account of the miraculous birth of Jesus, 'does in reality contradict it as a falsehood. He asserts that he begins his gospel with the word of God which came to John the Baptist; and he defines the period of that event with unexampled precision; he demonstrates the whole scheme to be a fiction, by showing that Jesus was not really born till after the death of Herod the Great;—he asserts, in language the most positive and unequivocal, that Jesus was the son of Joseph; and confirms this as a fact, by the register of his birth, and the testimony of the people of Nazareth.

CHAPTER III.

The divinity of Christ suggested by Heathenism, in order to account for his miracles, and adopted by the Pagan philosophers to set aside the truth of his gospel. ̧

SUCH was the genius of Heathenism, that its votaries, as soon as they heard of the miracles of Jesus, and had reason to believe them to be true, were unavoidably led to consider him as a god.

1

The Heathens, it is well known, believed in the existence and agency of many gods. These, as they supposed, often appeared in the shape, or entered the bodies of men. The Greek and the Roman writers abound with instances of their interposition in both these respects; and the notion was as familiar as that of ghosts or evil spirits, entertained by the vulgar in modern days. When Christ appeared, and exhibited, in the miracles which he performed, the proofs of his divine mission, the conclusion was natural, that he was himself one of the

1

gods, acting by virtue of his own power, and not with the authority of a higher Being. I will illustrate this by three examples of unquestionable authenticity. When Paul miraculously healed the infirm man in Lystra, Acts xiv. 11, "the people," we are told, "lifted up their voice, in the language of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men." If Christ had been the author of this miracle, the people of that place would doubtless have said the same thing of him. The inhabitants of other places would certainly have drawn a similar inference; differing only as to what god he might be, each supposing him to be that divinity to which he was most particularly devoted: and if they would suppose him to be a god from this miracle, they would à fortiori, have had recourse to the same supposition from all his miracles, and especially from the stupendous miracle of his resurrection. Another example, illustrative of the genius of Paganism, presents itself in the discourse of Paul at Athens. His hearers immediately concluded that he was "a setter forth of new gods;" and the sacred historian subjoins the reason, "because he preached Jesus and the resurrection," Acts xvii. In the estimation of a Heathen, superiority to death was the most decisive proof of divinity; so that, in their opinion, to assert that Jesus survived death, was the same thing as to assert that he was a god.

To introduce a new god at Athens was a capital crime. Three centuries before, Socrates was put to death under that very charge; and they instantly conducted the Apostle to the Areopagus, to have him condemned for the same offence. Paul effectually sets aside the charge, by holding forth Jesus as a man appointed of God to judge the world; and raised from the grave by the power of the Almighty. The notion of one supreme God as the creator and governor of the universe, was not unknown to the Athenian philosophers; but lest the preaching of this Great Being should be made the grounds of a new

accusation against the apostle, he, with admirable wisdom and presence of mind, precludes it by an appeal to their own writers, and especially to an altar erected to the unknown God in that very city. Here we are presented with a very remarkable fact, most worthy the notice of those who believe that Paul taught the Deity of our Saviour. The people of Athens, misled by polytheism, charged that apostle with holding forth the divinity of Christ as an object of their acceptance. And what did this great champion of the religion of Jesus do, in consequence? Did he meet the charge and avow it? This he certainly would have done, had it been wellfounded, even at the risk of his life. On the contrary, he cuts up the charge by the roots, as grounded in misconception: and he was accordingly discharged. Had he attempted to justify that doctrine, he would have been instantly condemned. His acquittal is an unequivocal fact that he negatived it, as a mere dictate of Heathenism.

Peter was sent for to explain the first principles of the gospel to Cornelius, a Roman officer and a Heathen. This man, when told of the miracles and resurrection of Christ, must necessarily have concluded that he had a demon, or was himself a supernatural being: and the precaution which the apostle took to prevent this conclusion, is worthy of observation. "Peter having opened his mouth, said, In truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but that in every nation he who feareth him and doeth righteously, is accepted of him. The Word (Logos) which he sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ, this (Word) is Lord of all. You know the report which spread throughout all Judea, beginning in Galilee, after the baptism which John preached, Jesus of Nazareth, how God endued him with the holy spirit and power; who went about doing good, healing all those that were oppressed by the devil, because God was with him. This Jesus, God raised on the third day, and showed him