Why Chrift is emphatically ftiled the font of man, by way of diftinction from all other fons of men, and why he is alike honorably distinguished by that high title, the fon of God, from us, his disciples, who are only termed fons of God, I have before explained, and therefore fhall only here add, that the figure of fpeech applyed to Christ, in Heb. i. 5. I will be to him a father, and he thall be to me a fon, is în

fufficient to prove, that God was the father of Chrift, by the miraculous conception of Mary, without the natural inftrumentality of Jofeph; elle we might, with equal truth, affirm, that thefe mifreprefented Words of the Old Teftament, which, in fact, are fpoken of Solomon, in 2 Sam. vii. 14. and in 1 Chron. xxii. 10. will fupport us in afferting that God was the father of Solomon, by the miraculous conception of Bathheba, without the natural inftrumentality of David. However, no one difputes that David was the father of Solomon, notwithstanding God declares to David, by the mouth of his prophet Nathan, I will be his father, and he shall be my fon.' By parity of reason, the parental

rental relationship of Jofeph to Jefus would be no lefs indifputable, if the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews had not erred in his application of the aforefaid paffage of the Old Teftament to Jefus. In fhort, this phrafe, in the ftile of the Old Teftament, means no more than that God would take Solomon into his immediate care and protection, and bestow fignal marks of his favor upon him,, in like manner as a good father affiduously promotes the welfare of his fon, and that God fulfilled his promife in this refpect, the long and remarkably flourishing reign of Solomon exhibits one continued proof.

Now, as Jefus, the defcendent of Solomon and David, was the object of God's particular favor, in a much higher degree than Solomon, or any other man, ever was, being the Meffiah, or the anointed of God, to publish his moft merciful and glorious fcheme of pardon to mankind, for their past fins, and the promise of eternal dife and happiness, on the terms of their repentance, their faith in Jefus, as the Meffiah, and their future moral obedience, and under God their king and judge, he is dif tinguished

F

tinguished by the glorious appellation of ⚫the beloved Son of God,' and, in the strong figurative language of the Orientalifts, the only-begotten fon of God,' and emphatically, the fon of God,' as 'being the firstborn from the dead.' Thus, agreeably to this only rational explication of such modes of fpeech, Chriftians are called fons of God, and heirs of the hope of eternal life.' This glorious inheritance, bestowed on them by the unmerited bounty of their Creator, intitles them to the most honorable diftinction of fons of God.'

As then it is no where pre-fignified in the prophecies of the Old Teftament, that God would effect the birth of the Meffiah, by fupernaturally depofiting the vivifying principles of a man in the womb of a woman ; and, as he is therein described as a Man of forrows,' and, moreover, repeatedly represented in the New Teftament as a 'man, the fon of man, and the fon of Jofeph' I cannot but regard him as fuch, and confequently, conclude the paffages in Matthew and Luke, which militate against this natural representation of the great fon

of

of David, to be no parts of the true Gofpel.

in

It is a matter worthy of inquiry to trace the rife and progrefs of the prefent canon of the New Teftament; but as many are better qualified, and more inclined to engage this laborious undertaking than myself, and poffefs in perfection the abilities requifite for it, to them I seriously wish to recommend the arduous and meritorious task. That there were other Gofpels, befides thofe, which we now receive under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, is manifeft from the exordium of Luke's evangelic history; For as much,' fays he,

as many have taken in hand to fet forth in order a declaration of those things, which are most furely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witneffes, and miniftefs of the word.' Moreover, from this paffage it is evident, that these declarations, or Gofpel-accounts, were not inspired writings, but merely narratives of matters of fact, which the feveral compilers had received from the apoftles themselves. Nor does Luke himself give us to understand,

that he wrote his Gofpel under the imme 'diate and extraordinary inspiration of God, On the contrary, by the expreffion, 'it feemeth good unto me alfo, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order,' &c. he intimates that he derived the materials for his Gofpel from the fame apoftolic fource.

Again, as Luke was the infeparable asfociate of the great itinerary preacher to the Gentiles, the infpired Paul, who received the Gospel by immediate revelation from Jefus Chrift himself, and who carefully diftinguishes between his fpeaking from himfelf, and his fpeaking from the Lord,' he was completely qualified to defcribe the labors and travels of this apoftle in particular, and accordingly gives us a very circumstantial account of them, in his treatise, initled The Acts of the Apostles.'

Having now corroborated my opinion, that Jefus was truly the fon of Joseph, with arguments deduced from genuine Christian Scripture; having, in like manner, demon

ftrated