preme; 'Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother; and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour,' Exod. xxxii. 27. Then the Levites knew neither brother, nor friend, not kinsman. By this illustrious zeal, they ac quired the enconium, 'He said to his father an his mother, I have not seen them; and to his brethren, and his children, I have not known them.'

My brethren, if we must break the closest ties with those who dissolve the bon is of union with God, we ought to form the most intimate connexion with those who are joined to him by the sincerest piety. The degree of attachment they have for God should proportion the degree of attachment we have for them. Of this disposition you have, in the words of my text, a model the most worthy of imitation. One apprised Jesus Christ, that his mother and brethren requested to speak with him. Who is my mother? And who are my brethren?' replied he; And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples he said, Behold my mother, and my brethren, for whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.'

The nobility of this world, those men of whom the Holy Spirit somewhere says, 'Men of high dgree are a lie,' have by this consideration been accustomed to enhance the dignity of their descent. Tit'es and dignities, say they, may be purchased with money, obtained by favour, or acquired by distinguished actions; but real nobility cannot be bought, it is transmitted by an illustrious succession of ancestors, which monarchs are unable to confer. Christian! obscure mortal! offscouring of the world! dust and ashes of the earth, whose father was an Amorite, and whose mother was a Hittite, the source of true nobility is opened to thee; it is thy exclusive prerogative, (and may the thought animate with holy ambition every one in this assembly!) it is thy exclusive prerogative to be admitted into the family of the blessed God. Take his moral perfections for thy model; and thou shalt have his glory for thy reward. To thee Jesus Christ will extend his hand; to thee he will say, here is my brother, and mother, and sister.

The Holy Spirit presents a double object in the words of my text.

I. The family of Jesus Christ according to the flesh.

II. The family of Jesus Christ according to the Spirit. One said, thy mother, and thy brethren, desire 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.

1. The idea which our Divine Master has given us of this first family, will supersede our minuter efforts to trace its origin. It is obvious from what he has said, that our chief

attention should be to develop 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 essiah, 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 pretensions 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 seemed 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 the 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 establishes 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 farther 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 Judah; of which Moses spake nothing concerning the priest hood after the similitude of Melchisedec there arises another priest, who is made, not after the law 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. Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus Christ, and he is so called in the second 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 superintendence 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 be

gan 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 partisans, 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 acquaintance, the people of Nazareth, talked of him in this way; Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? This James is unquestionably the same who is called the less. Now it is indisputable that he was the son of Mary, who was living at our Saviour's death: she was sister to the holy virgin, and stood with her at the foot of the cross during the crucifixion. Hence, if James were the son of Joseph, he must have been betrothed to the holy virgin, while married to her sister, who was living when he contracted his second marriage, which is insupportable.

Let us, therefore, follow here the general course of interpreters. The name of brethren, is not always used in the strictest sense by the sacred authors. It is not peculiarly applied to those who have the same father and the same mother: it frequently refers to the relatives less connected. In this sense we use it here. Mary the wife of Cleophas was sister to the holy virgin; and the term sister the evangelists apply in the closest sense. She had four sons, above named, and they are called the brethren of Christ, because they were his cousins-german. She had two daughters, who for the same reasons, are called his sisters. If this hypothesis be attended with some difficulties, this is not the place for their removal.

It was a most glorious consideration to the holy virgin, to James, to Judas, to Joses, to Simon, and to their sister, to be so nearly related to Jesus Christ in the flesh. How honourable to say, this man, whose sermons are so sublime, this man, whose voice inverts the laws of nature,-this man, whom winds, seas, and elements obey,-is my brother, is my son! So the woman exclaimed, after hearing him so conclusively refute the artful interrogations of his enemies. Blessed

is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.' But how superior are the ties, which unite the family of Jesus Christ according to the Spirit, to those which unite them according to the flesh! So he said to the woman above named, 'Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it,' Luke xi. 27, 28. In my text, when apprized that his most intimate relations, in the flesh, desired an audience, he acknowledged none to be of his family but the spiritually noble. Behold thy mother, and thy brethren,' said one, stand without, desiring to speak with thee. Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? replied he, and he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, and said, behold my mother, and my brethren. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. This we shall proceed to illustrate in the second part of our discourse.

II. Our Saviour did not, in these words, design to exclude from his spiritual family all those who belonged to his family in the flesh. Who can entertain any doubt but that the holy virgin, who belonged to the latter did not also belong to the former? Whoever carried to greater perfection than this holy woman, piety, humility, obedience to the divine precepts, and every other virtue which has distinguished saints of the highest order?

The Scriptures afford also various examples of the love of Mary, the wife of Cleophas, to Jesus Christ. She followed him to Jerusalem when he went up to consummate the grand sacrifice, for which he came into the world; she stood at the foot of the cross with the holy virgin, when he actually offered up himself; she went to water his tomb with 1 her tears, when apprized of his resurrection. As to those whom the evangelists call the brethren of Christ, I confess, that to him they were not equally devoted. St John affirms expressly, That his brethren did not believe in him,' John vii. 5. But 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

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 invariably sought the happiness of their children;-those children, who, animated with gratitude, after sharing the indul_ence 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 examples 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 duty 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 natural household. Of this spiritual family I proceed to speak. And I have further to say, my dear brethren, that I would associate you in this spiritual family, in the latter period of this discourse. Condescend to follow us in the few remarks we have yet to make. We will show, 1. The nature, and 2. The strength of this family connexion. 3. Its effects; or to speak with more propriety, its wonders. 4. Its superior felicity. 5. The persons it includes.

1. The nature of this relation consists in sincere obedience to the will of God. 'Whosoever shall do the will of my Father, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.' Here we have two extremes to avoid: the one is the forming of too severe an idea, the other of conceiving notions too relaxed, of this disposition of heart.

Do not, therefore, conceive too severe an idea of obedience. I do not mean, that devotion to the will of God can ever be carried too far. No: though you were ready, like Abraham, to immolate an only son; though you had such exalted views of 'the recompense of the reward,' that, like Moses, you would prefer the reproach of Christ to Egypt and its treasures; though you had the fervour of Elijah, the piety of David, the zeal of Josiah, the affection of St. John, and the energy of St. Peter; though you were all ready, like the cloud of witnesses mentioned in the epistle to the Hebrews, to be stoned, to be slain, to endure cruel torments, to be killed with the sword, to wander about in sheep-skins, and in goat-skins, in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth, you would not exceed a due devotion to the will of God.

But though it is not possible to carry this disposition too far, it is, nevertheless, possible to exaggerate that degree which constitutes us members of the Saviour's spiritual family. He knows whereof we are made. Religion is not for angels, but for men; and, however holy men may be, their virtues always participate of the infirmities inseparable from human nature. Those disciples, towards whom Jesus Christ extended his hand, committed, during the early period of their piety, faults, and great faults too. They sometimes misconceived the object of their mission; sometimes distrusted his promises; they were sometimes slow of heart to believe