to conftitute it a lying wonder; for all the various miracles of God, recorded in the Scriptures of the old and new covenant, were performed in the presence of eye-witneffes to the truth of them, the cafe of Zacharias perhaps alone excepted, whose miraculous dumbness however [was an irrefragable teftimony of his miraculous vifion in the temple. God never requires from his creatures faith in his miracles, without giving them competent vouchers for the truth of them. It is highly improbable, that God should feem as it were to fix an indirect ftigma on his own inftitution of marriage, the original of fo many bleffings to mankind, by withholding from the husband, Jofeph, the privilege of becoming the father of your Meffiah, and yet grant to his wife Mary, the privilege of becoming his mother. There is no warrant from your prophecies for the belief of this improbability, thofe divine Scriptures, which testify Jefus to be the Meffiah, and present the only only clue, which can fafely guide both Jews and Chriftians through the otherwise intricate labyrinth of Christian knowledge, and the fole infallible criterion whereby to distinguish between genuine and fpurious Gospels. Both the parents of Jesus, Joseph and Mary, are faid to be of the house and lineage of David;' but, when it is farther exprefsly faid, that he, the Chrift, was of • the feed of David;' it is impoffible to suppofe, that the feed of a man defcended from his royal progenitor was unconcerned in begetting him. 6 Befides, when the people of Nazareth, where Jefus had been brought up, expreffing their aftonishment, faid, is not this Jofeph's fon?' Luke iv. 22. it is remarkable, he did not difavow Jofeph for his father, whereas, if Jefus had been conscious he was not the fon of Jofeph, it cannot, I think, be doubted, that he would have embraced this opportunity of rectifying the error of the Nazarenes in this matter. I cannot I cannot close this long fupplement without declaring, that though your converfion, my Jewish friends, as a people, depend greatly on proving, that an husband of the feed of David, was as much concerned in begetting Jefus, your Meffiah, as a wife fo defcended was in bearing him, and that the merely maternal origin of Chrift is an hypothesis, which militates as well against common-fenfe, as against your divine prophecies; yet I judge my free exposure of the futility of the various hypotheses of Athanafians, Arians and Socinians, is very confiftent with the most extenfive Chriftian charity for their perfons. In fhort, I would defire to be confidered as a Christian philanthropist; and all the harm I wish to them, or to any fect of Chriftians, Jews, Mohammedans, Deists, and Pagans, is, that fome more able man than myself may arife, who shall treat the only true manhood of Jefus with more critical acumen, than falls to my fhare, and set it in a still more ftriking point of view, than I have placed it. Let fuch a man, if he deem my ex ample ample worthy of his imitation, follow it, and may fuccefs attend him! My undiffembled good-will to the respective advocates of Athanafianism, Arianism, and Socinianifm, induces me to hope, that fome of all among them will reflect, that the more rational a Christian's faith is, the more moral will naturally be his practife; and that a man's fins are not imputable to the rationality of his faith, but to his own unhappy choice to be enslaved by his tyrant paffions, rather than governed by the fober dictates of his understanding, which cannot but approve of the moral precepts of the Gospel. On the performance of these depends the fulfilment of that glorious hope of eternal life and happiness, which an all-merciful God has given to men by Jefus Chrift; and whereof he hath given affurance, or offered faith, unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.' Acts xvii. 31. The refurrection of Jefus being a pledge and earnest of our own. My My heart's wifh, O houfe of Ifrael, is FINI S. ERRA T'A. Page 16, line 11, for Socianinifm, read Socinianifm ; p.20,l. 13, af- OCT 10 1916 |