subsisted between Mary and Elizabeth, is it probable that for thirty years Jesus should be unknown to John?" (Vol. ii, p. 447.)

It is not at all improbable that two persons should be thirty years unacquainted with each other. As for the "miraculous events" of which Mr. G. speaks, none of them had any reference to their ever being brought together nor can Mr. G. prove from those chapters that they had had any opportunity of knowing each other.

9. "All the Jews considered Jesus as the son of Joseph, and the evangelists, so far from contradicting this opi nion, appear to have encouraged it, and to have believed it themselves." (Vol. ii, p. 447.)

(1.) That the Jews in general believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph, is not denied. Nor is it denied that they were never better informed during our Lord's ministry. Until he was" declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead," they were not likely to believe it; because the proofs of his being the Messiah were the only proofs that, in the nature of the thing, could be given of the miraculous conception, had it been announced to them. To have explicitly published this circumstance before, would have been only to throw a stumbling block in their way. But though the Jews thought him the son of Joseph, neither Jesus nor his dis ciples, when they were well informed, ever acquiesced in that opinion, or encouraged it. The truth is, that they seem to have always evaded it. Mr. G. has attempted to prove the contrary: but without success. "When he was come into his own country, his countrymen said, Is not this the carpenter's son ? and they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house," Matt. xiii, 54-57. Was this either an acknowledgment, or a denial, that he was the carpenter's son? In the next passage Mr. G. quotes, his being the son of Joseph is no part of the question. They said, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary ?" Mark vi, 3. The next passage runs thus: "And they said, Is not this Joseph's And he said unto them, Ye will surely say, Physi cian, heal thyself. And he said, Verily, I say unto you, no prophet is accepted in his own country," Luke iv, 22-24.

son?

"This (says Mr. G.) is most assuredly an acknowledg ment, by Jesus himself, that he was the son of Jo. seph." (Vol. ii p. 478.) But who beside Mr. G. can see it? It is an acknowledgment that Nazareth was his own country. Mr. G. thinks, however, that the evangelists believed it because they have recorded these things without any note of censure. (Vol. ii, p. 479.) Just as well might he argue that they believed Jesus to be a blasphemer!

(2.) The correlative terms, father and son, are sometimes used properly, and sometimes improperly. If this were not the case, how could "the author of the two miraculous chapters, generally ascribed to Luke," after he had recorded the miraculous conception, put into the mouth of Mary those words, “ Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing?" and how could Jesus "call God his Father," and be the proper son of Joseph? Joseph might be called the father of Jesus, as being a kind of father-in-law, and the term might be so used with perfect innocence, when it did not involve the question of procreation. But Joseph is never styled his proper father; whereas when "the Jews sought to kill him, because he said that God was idov Tareрa, his proper Father," John v, 18, so far from retracting, he proceeded to vindi cate the terms which he had used and Paul styles him Tov idiov viov, the proper Son of God," Rom. viii, 32.

10. "When Philip found Nathanael, he said unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph!" (Vol. ii, p. 479.)

At this time, whether the story of the miraculous conception be true or false, Nathanael knew nothing of it.— He had but just become acquainted with the person of Christ, and distinguished him by the compellation by which he was commonly known. This, therefore, proves nothing!

11. If Jesus were not the son of Joseph, what pro. priety or consistency can there be in that appellation, the Son of man? Would the same appellation be given to Adam?" (Vol. ii, p. 480.)

What a blunder! Was Adam born of a woman? But waiving this; when Mr. G. has told us with what propriety

Jesus was called "the Son of David," he will be able to assign a reason for his calling himself "the Son of man,' without supposing that Joseph was his proper father.

12. "We read in Mark that his friends said, 'He is beside himself.' How consistent this charge of supposed insanity is with the miraculous chapters, a few moments' consideration will enable any one to decide." (Vol. ii, p. 480.)

One moment is quite enough; for the charge is as consistent with those chapters, as with the miracles at his baptism, or the miracles which the inhabitants of Naza. reth had "heard were done in Capernaum," Luke iv, 23. He that can reconcile it in the one case will have overcome all the difficulty of the other.

13. "Luke is positive that he was the son of Joseph, really being, as he was supposed, the son of Joseph." (Vol. ii, p. 481.)

We may omit the passage already quoted from Eusebius, (p. 321,) for Mr. G. has answered his own argument. "It is rather remarkable (says he) that Grotius, when vindicating the two genealogies, although he says Jesus was not the son of Joseph, states that Luke, by the term evoμlSETO meant (not the natural, but) the legal descent." In plain words, Joseph was not the natural, but the legal father, the father-in-law of Jesus.

In concluding this important subject, it is but candid to observe that Mr. G. has taken immense pains to render the miraculous conception doubtful. If the question is to be decided by the number of his arguments, the victory will be indisputably his. But if a weak cause can need to be betrayed by the imprudent officiousness of its apologist, Mr. G. is the man to decide its fate. A few of his arguments have apparent force, and needed to be fairly examined and refuted: but the majority of them are the most unworthy of a man of sense that can be imagined; and precisely such as Mr. Paine has used against the whole Christian system. It is not, however, the business of a polemic to ridicule, but to answer the arguments of his opponent. We have answered far more than were deserving of notice, and after a close examination of them all, we see the doctrine in question stand unshaken as a temple, the main pillars of which have not been even

touched. It is not, however, Mr. G.'s fault that he has not succeeded in robbing the Redeemer of his peculiar glory, and in degrading him to a level with many of the sinners for whose salvation he came into the world.

CHAPTER XV.

Of the Ordinary Influence of the Holy Spirit.

Ir is an opinion of the Socinians, which has been frequently repeated by Mr. G., that the Holy Spirit is no other than the energy or operation of God. We think it right, for reasons already assigned, (chap. vi,) to hold a language which appears to us to agree most exactly with the general tenor of Scripture, and to conceive of the Holy Spirit as of God energizing or operating on his creatures, in their formation, sustenance, or improvement. But whether, on this occasion, we adopt our own language or that of our antagonist, we are warranted to say it is not possible that any creature should be without a divine influence. For whether the divine Spirit be the divine energy or operation, or God operating on his creatures, if that Spirit be (as the Scriptures assert) everywhere present, God is every where operating upon his creatures.

1. The Spirit of God operated on all the creatures at their creation. (1.) On things inanimate: "The Spirit of God moveth on the face of the waters," Gen. i, 2. "By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens," Job xxvi, 13. (2.) On things animate, and on man in particular :"God breathed into man the breath (spirit) of life, and he became a living soul," Gen. ii, 7. "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life," Job xxxiii, 4.

2. The same Spirit still operates on all nature for the support of the creatures of his power. (1.) On all the vegetable world: "Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created: thou renewest the face of the earth," Psalm civ, 30. (2.) On all the animal world: "If he gather unto himself his Spirit, all flesh shall perish together," Job xxxiv, 14, 15. (3.) And on man in particular: "For in

him we live, and move, and have our being," Acts xvii, 28.

66

If the Spirit of God be the principal, immediate author of every thing in the natural world, we may justly expect to find him a principal agent in the spiritual and moral world. Whether man be considered as an intelligent being, it is God that "teacheth him knowledge.""There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding," Job xxxii, 8. Or whether he be considered as a moral agent, it is but just in him to acknowledge, "Thou Lord hast wrought all our works in us," Isa. xxvi, 12. God "poured out his Spirit, of old upon the house of Israel," Ezek. xxxix, 29. He gave his good Spirit to instruct them," Neh. ix, 20. His "Spirit strove with" them, Gen. vi, 3. He "upheld" them by his "free Spirit," Psa. li, 12. Some of them prayed him "not to take from them his Holy Spirit," Psalm li, 11. And others of them "rebelled and vexed his Holy Spirit," Isaiah Ixiii, 10. But the plenitude of the Spirit was reserved for the latter days, and to do honour to the immediate reign of Messiah, who should “ baptize" his followers" with the Holy Ghost and with fire," Luke iii, 16. In this enlarged sense, "the Holy Ghost was not (previously) given, because that Jesus was not then glorified," John vii, 39. But when he "ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them," Psalm lxviii, 18.

When the great Head of the church sent forth his apostles to set up and establish the new dispensation, and to Christianize the world, he fitted them for the vast undertaking by endowing them with supernatural wisdom and miraculous power. That they might speak the truth of God, "not in words which human wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth," the Spirit of truth was given to them to guide them into all truth. And to corroborate their testimony, they were enabled, in the name of the Lord Jesus, to work the most astonishing miracles. They "received power from on high, when that the Holy Ghost was come upon them, and became witnesses" of their Lord. The "great salvation which at first began to be spoken by the Lord was thus confirmed by them that