sire to speak with thee. Here is the family of Jesus Christ, according to the flesh. Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. Here is the family of Jesus Christ according to the Spirit. Both these objects must be kept in view.

I. The idea which our Divine Master has given us of his first family, will supersede our minuter efforts to trace its origin. It is obvious, from what has been said, that our chief attention sould be to develope the character of those who belong to his family, according to the. Spirit, rather than to trace those who belong to him according to the flesh. Whatever, therefore concerns this Divine Saviour, claims, though not equal, at least, some degree of attention. For we find in our researches concerning the family of Jesus Christ, according to the flesh, proofs of his being the true Messiah, and consequently information which contributes to the confirmation of our faith.

There is no difficulty in determining concerning the identity of the person, called in my text, the mother of Jesus. The expression ought to be literally understood; it designates that holy woman, whose happiness all ages must magnify, she, by peculiar privilege, being chosen of God to be overshadowed by the Highest, to bear in her sacred womb, and bring into the world, the Saviour of men. She is called Mary, she was of the tribe of Judah, and of the family of David. This is nearly all we know of her; and this is nearly all we ought to know, in order to recognise in our Jesus, one characteristic of the true Messiah, who, according to early predictions, was to descend of this tribe, and of this family.

It is true that Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, those execrable men, distinguished by their hatred of Christianity, have disputed even this: at least, they have

defied us to prove it. They have insinuated, that there are so many contrarieties in the genealogies of St. Luke, and St. Matthew, concerning the ancestors of our Jesus, as to leave the pretentions of his descent from David, and Judah uncertain. It is to be regretted, that the manner in which some divines, and divines of distinguished name, have replied to this objection, has, in fact, given it weight, and seem. ed the last efforts of a desperate cause, rather than a satisfactory solution.

Is it a solution of this difficulty? is it a proof that Jesus descended from the family of David, as had been predicted, to say that the evangelists insert the genealogy of Joseph, and omit that of Mary, Jesus Christ being reputed the son of a carpenter, and having been probably adopted by him, was invested with all his rights, the genealogy of the reputed father, and adopted son, being accounted the same, though of different extraction? Would not this have been the way to flatter a lie, not to establish a truth? Did the prophets merely say, that the Messiah was the reputed son of a man descended from David's line? Did they not say in a manner the most clear and explicit in the world, that he was lineally descended from that family ?....Is it a solution of the difficulty, to say that Mary was heiress of her house, that the heiresses were obliged by the law, to marry in their own tribe; and that giving the genealogy of Joseph, was giving the genealogy of Mary, to whom he was betrothed? Is it not rather a supposition of the point in dispute? And what record have we left of Mary's family sufficiently authentic to prove it?

Is it a solution of the difficulty to say, that St. Matthew gives the genealogy of Christ, considered as a King, and St. Luke the genealogy of Christ, considered as a priest; that the one gives the genealogy of Mary, whom they pretend was of the tribe of Levi, which establishes the right of Christ to the High-priesthood; the other gives the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David's family, which es

tablishes his right to the kingdom? Is not this opposing the words of St. Paul with a bold front? If perfection were by the. Levitical priesthood, what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not to be called after the order of Aaron. For he of whom these things are spoken, pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar for it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which Moses spake nothing concerning the priest hood....after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, who is made, not after the laze of carnal commandments, but after the power of an endless life, Heb. vii. 11.... 13. These are the words of our apostle.

Without augmenting the catalogue of mistaken solutions of this difficulty, we shall attend to that which seems the only true one. It is this: St. Mat thew gives the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus Christ, and he is so called in the se cond chapter, and forty-eighth verse, of St. Luke. And it is very important, that posterity should know the family of the illustrious personage; to whose superintendance Providence had committed the Messiah in early life..

St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, to identify that Jesus Christ had the essential characteristic of the Messiah, by his descent from David's family. It was also very important for posterity to know that he descended from David; that he had a right to the throne, not only as being the reputed son of one of his offspring, who could confer it by adoption; but also that being conceived by the Holy Ghost, and having for his mother a woman descended from David, according to the flesh, he himself descended from him, as much as it is possible for a being to descend, introduced so supernaturally into the world.

According to what has been advanced, it may be objected, that there is no mention made of Mary in the latter genealogy, more than in the former, that

both concern Joseph alone; that St. Luke, whom we presume to have given the genealogy of Mary, closes his catalogue with the name of Joseph, as well as St. Matthew, whom we allow to have given the genealogy of Mary's husband.

But this objection can strike those only, who are unacquainted with the method uniformly adopted by the Jews, in giving the genealogy of married women. They substituted the name of the husband for that of the wife, considering a man's son-in-law as his own offspring. According to this usage, which I could support by numerous authorities; these words of St. Luke, Jesus began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, amount to this, Jesus began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, which was the son in law of Heli, having betrothed his daughter Mary. This is sufficient on the genealogy of Mary.

But who are those called by the evangelist, brethren of Christ? One said unto him, and these are the words of my text, Behold thy mother, and thy brethren, stand without desiring to speak with thee.

The opinion which has had the fewest partizans, and fewer still it merits, (nor should we notice it here, were it not to introduce a general remark, that there never was an opinion, how extravagant soever, but it found supporters among the learned,) the opinion, I say, is that of some of the ancients: they have ventured to affirm, that the persons called in my text, the brethren of Christ, were sons of the holy virgin, by a former husband. To name this opinion is sufficient for its refutation.

The conjecture of some critics, though less extravagant, is equally far from truth: they presume, that the brethren of Christ were sons of Joseph: a single remark will supersede this notion. Four persons are called the brethren of Christ, as appears from Matt. xiii. 54; it is there said that his acquaintancey

whether we may take this assertion in a more extended sense than in the text; or whether St. John spake of the early period of our Saviour's ministry; certain it is, that among the four persons, here called the brethren of Christ, all of them had received the seeds of piety, and avowed his cause; as I could prove if the limits of this discourse would permit.

If, therefore, Jesus Christ designated none as the members of his spiritual family, but those who were then recognised as his disciples, it was not intended to exclude his relatives according to the flesh, but to mark that the former then afforded more distinguished evidences of their faith and devotion to the will of his Father....

1

Neither was it our Saviour's design....when he seemed to disown his brethren, and his mother, properly speaking....to detach us from persons to whom we are united by consanguinity, and to supersede the duties required by those endearing connexions. By no means those affectionate fathers, who have inva riably sought the happiness of their children....those children, who, animated with gratitude, after sharing the indulgence of a father during his vigour, become, when age has chilled his blood, and enfeebled his reason, the support of his declining years....those brothers who afford example of union and concord.... are actuated by the religion of Jesus Christ. The laws of nature ought, in this view, to have a preference to the laws of grace. I would say, that although religion may unite us more closely to a pious stranger, than to an impious father, I think it the du ty of a child to bestow more care in cherishing a wicked father, than a deserving stranger.

What our Saviour would say in the text is, that though he had a family according to the flesh, he had also a preferable family according to the Spirit; and that the members of his spiritual family are more closely united to him, than the members of his natu ral household. Of this spiritual family I proceed to