warned his followers against certain false teachers, and in the parable of the tares predicted the corruptions of his Gospel. To this parable, as soon as the nature of the subject admitted, the historian subjoined the conversation of the inhabitants of Nazareth, shewing thereby that the divinity and miraculous conception of Jesus were among the tares which the enemy had sown, and which formed no part of the good seed.

The story of our Saviour's miraculous birth supposes that he was from the first known to the Herodian family as the Messiah; which supposition the Evangelist next proceeds to contradict, by subjoining to the testimony of the people of Nazareth, that he had become known to Herod by means of his miracles. "AT THAT TIME Herod the Tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus:*" which is as though he had said, "The report propagated by certain impostors that Jesus, when born, was made known to Herod, is false; none of that family had ever heard of him, until the fame of his miracles was spread abroad in the world."

Herod must have been greatly moved by the miracles of Jesus, and by the growing belief founded thereon, that he was the Messiah; and

It appears from Origen, that Celsus represents Jesus as known to Herod the Tetrarch from his birth. Orig. Contra. Cels. p. 45. According to the authors of the Talmud, our Lord went into Egypt in the reign of this prince, (see Lard. vol. vii. p. 149), and this representation renders the incident stated by the Evangelist, and also the place and manner of stating it still more appropriate. This falsehood induced Luke, as we shall see, to relate a circumstance different indeed, but equally calculated to refute it.

in order to set aside the inference thus drawn by the people, he had recourse to the following curious hypothesis. In conformity to the doctrine then generally prevalent in Judea, that the human soul passes through a variety of corporeal forms, he said that he was John risen from the dead, adding, "On this account mighty works were wrought by him;" as if he had said, "This Jesus exhibits such signs, not because he has received power from heaven, and is thence proved to be the expected Messiah; but because the powerful spirit which animated John dwells within him." When others, however, adopted the same superstitious notion, and consequently appeared to him not to be infected with the dangerous idea, that Jesus was in reality the hoped for king, he found himself at liberty to discard the subterfuge borrowed from superstition, and to express the rational dictates of his understanding, see Luke ix. 7, 10.

The Christ was expected to appear among the Jews in the line of David. He was foretold as such by the prophets; and this is one strong argument to prove, that Jesus was not only a man, but a man in the character of Messiah. But the anti-christian teachers maintained that the Christ was a God, which had either entered into the virgin Mary, or into the man Jesus at his baptism. If this representation were admitted, it followed of course, that being a divine being, and not a man, he was not a descendant of David. The first authors of the divinity and miraculous birth of Jesus not only allowed this inference, but insisted on the truth of it; and the christian fathers who received the genuine gos

pels were hampered beyond measure by the inconsistency which subsisted between the genealogy of Christ, and his pretensions as a supernatural being. The subterfuges to which they were reduced, in reconciling them, sensibly illustrate the difficulties in which the Christian system has been involved, by the doctrine of the divinity and miraculous birth of Christ.

Matthew, addressing his gospel to the Jewish believers, that is, to those who were best qualified to understand, and most disposed to use the Jewish prophets, represents more frequently, and more distinctly, than any other of the Evange lists, our Lord as the descendant of David; and consequently as a man born like other men. "And all the multitude were astonished; and they said, Is not this the Christ, the son of David," xii. 32, see also xx. 30. And the chief priests and scribes seeing the wonders which he wrought, and the children crying out and saying, Hosanna to the son of David, were indignant," xxi. 15: see also Mat. xxii. 41.

I have already shewn (Ecclesiastical Researches, p. 57, 67), that our Lord on one occasion preached among the Esseans. The subjects of his discourse were generally suggested by the opinions or prejudices of those whom he addressed and if we compare the topics which he then discussed, with the accounts which Philo and Josephus have given of that people, we shall discover in his words additional beauty and propri ety. Some of the Esseans, as soon as they ranked with the disciples of Jesus, objected to the institution of marriage; and this prejudice became so strongly rooted as to require the authority of

the apostles to eradicate it: see Hebr. xiii. 3. The Saviour when preaching among the men who rejected the marriage institution, notices this feature in their system. "There are

some eunuchs, who are made so from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs, who are made eunuchs by men; and there are those who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven," Mat. xix. 12.

Among the Esseans arose those impostors who taught, that the Creator was an evil Being. Jesus, who distinctly foresaw all the errors that should debase his religion, could not help noticing this impious notion; and he makes suitable provisions to refute it; "And behold one having come, said to him, Good Master, what good shall I do, that I might obtain eternal life? But he said unto him, why callest thou me good, none is good except God who is one.' Here Jesus asserts the unity and goodness of God, and disclaims the application to himself of that attribute, in the sense it is applicable to God; and this assertion he has made in the midst of those false teachers, who raised Christ in the scale of divinity and goodness above the only true God. The advocates of the divinity of Jesus Christ in modern days, suppose him to have been the Creator of mankind and all other things. But the manner in which he speaks on this occasion of him who created the human race, shews that such a notion was as remote from the ideas of Jesus, as it is from the truth; "And the Pharisees came to him, tempting him, and saying to him, If it be lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? But he answering, said to them,

Have ye not read that he who made them from the beginning, made them male and female," Mat. xix. 3.

The notion that the Creator was an imperfect evil being was necessarily followed by another, namely, that mankind, the noblest of his works, was also naturally imperfect and evil. Against this impious tenet, which was borrowed from the Gnostic school, Jesus supplied a very appropriate provision. "Then they brought to him little children, that he might lay his hands on them, and pray for them; and his disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said unto them, suffer little children, and hinder them not, to come unto me; for to such as them belong the kingdom of heaven." Here our divine Master virtually asserts, that the nearer men approach in docility and simplicity, in freedom from pride, malice and prejudices, to the state in which they are born, the fitter they become for the kingdom of heaven. This language in the mouth of those who maintain original sin, would not only be improper, but profane; as it supposes that men become more qualified for heaven, the nearer they approach to natural depravity. On this occasion, Jesus, in opposition to certain deceivers, who arraigned the character and the works of God, asserts that he is good, and that the native innocence and purity of his creatures, are the best qualifications for eternal happiness.

The impostors who rose in the school where Jesus now stood, denied the distinction between virtue and vice, and rejected all moral obligation as founded in the nature of things, or enforced by the Prophets. Hence, Josephus says of them,