that most of the Greek names for drinking veffels were defignated by names applicable to fhips. Some of them were called Carchefia from a word fignifying the illuftrious ark; others were called Menes, a name frequently given to Noah. They were often adorned with the figure of a dove; fometimes they were dedicated to Bacchus or Noah, to Venus or the ark. The Babylonians called the moft ancient Ogyges or Noah, Gallus, and hence from their attachment to the rites of the deluge, a nation, who once over. fpread the greater part of Europe, was called Celtæ, Galatæ, Galli, Gauls, or Gaels, all which were from the fame original word, Galim, the waves of the fea. Hence the people in whose country Noah quitted the ark, called a fhip gallerie, and hence the priests of Cybele were called Galli or Arkites. In the rites of Cybele and Ifis, a pine tree was formed into a canoe, and in it was placed the image of a man. In the mysteries of Proferpine and Ceres, a wooden figure of a virgin was bewailed for forty days. The ark was fometimes reprefented as a virgin, and its fymbol was a beautiful woman. For forty days the waters of the flood increafed.

After all this evidence, is there a man who denies the deluge of Noah, who ridicules it as a fable of the Jews, as a tale repeated by Christians?

Could a traveller on the fourth of July glance an eye from Maine to Georgia; in the morning could hear the artillery of every thip and fortrefs; the bells of every town and village; could he afterwards fee the proceffions form, the churches thronged, and hear ten thoufand addreffes of gratitude for independence; could he hear

the orators relate the number of the agents concerned, the caufe and iffue of the event; could he fee the drinking veffels of the feftal board, adorned with emblems of national independence, and presidents drawn with the far famed declaration in their hands; could he fee iflands, mountains, cities and countries named incommemoration of the glorious day, what would be faid of his understanding, what of his fenfelefs depravity, thould he deny there ever was a declaration of independence? All this is diminutive and unimpreffive evidence, compared with the evidence of the flood? Look from pole to pole; in every continent, and almost every con fiderable nation, in fome era of their history we find, for fubftance, all thefe evidences of the general deluge. The temples, the altars, the priefs of religion; the names of the islands, mountains, cities, and countries of the world, proclaim the truth of Noah's flood. Is not the historical information of thofe, who deny it, notwithstanding their proud claims, as contracted as their profellion of religion is hypocritical and impious? Is not their acquaintance with antiquity as fuperficial, as their knowledge of religion is trifling and vain?

PHILO.

he clearly intimates that Jefus was not the real fon of Jofeph. For inftead of continuing the phrafeology, which he had ufed all along, and faying, Jofeph begat Jefus, he fays, "Jofeph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jefus was born." The fame is intimated in Luke iii. 23. "Jefus, being, as was fuppofed, the fon of Jofeph." If we adopt the opinion of a wellknown critick, the original words, which we render, as was suppofed, rather fignify, referring to this genealogy as it was legally fettled, or found on

record.

If it be afked, what purpose then is answered, while giving the genealogy of Jefus Chrift, by introducing Jofeph, if Jofeph were not the real father of Jefus? We reply; Jofeph was the oldeft furviving branch of David's pofterity; and it was understood, that by marrying Mary, after he knew the miraculous conception of Jefus, he adopted Jefus for his fon, and fo raifed him to the dignity and privileges of David's heir. Matthew does not call Jofeph the father of Jefus, but the bufband of his mother; and fo proves the title, which Jefus acquired to the kingdom of Ifrael through his adoption.

but under the names of their hufbands. And this account was copied out, according to the custom of the Jews, from their authentick records, under the husband's name.

In Luke iii. 23, the words, for of Heli, applied to Jofeph, need not imply any more, than that Jofeph was Heli's fon in law, or fon by marriage with his daughter Mary.

Luke teaches us the natural de fcent of Jefus; that is, he gives us his genealogy by his mother's fide. Mary was undoubtedly the daughter of Heli. Becaufe the is called fo by the Talmud; and chiefly because we otherwife have no true genealogy of Chrift, but only two different views of the line of Jofeph, his reputed father. But this would not prove that Jefus was properly of the feed of Abraham and of the houfe of David. The omiffion of Mary's name in this genealogy is eafily accounted for. The families of women were not enrolled under their own names,

The apparent difficulty, here confidered, conftitutes one of the objections of deifts against the bible; and this is one of the inftances, in which their objections fpring from a mind, greatly needing inftruction.

This genealogy is very impor tant, as it fhows that the innume rable prophecies, which speak of Chrift as the feed of the woman, the defcendant of Abraham, and the offspring of David, are all fulfilled in Jefus of Nazareth. CRITO.

For the Panoplist.

OBSERVATIONS ON MYSTERIES.

It has been justly remarked, that " he, who refufes a myftery, because he cannot understand it, will be as ready to flight a precept, because he does not like it." In either cafe the difficulty exifts, not in the object, but in the mind. It is the fruit of human pride and perverfenefs. It arifes from a reluctance to pay homage to fuperior wifdom and authority, and from a difpofition to reduce every thing to the level of our own faculties and inclinations. If any truth is clear, it is this, that arevelation from heaven must be expected to contain many things myfterious and incomprehenfible. Thefe attributes are prominent in all the other productions of the Deity. How natural then, that they fhould conftitute a principal

he clearly intimates that Jefus was not the real fon of Jofeph. For inftead of continuing the phrafeology, which he had ufed all along, and faying, Jofeph begat Jefus, he fays, "Jofeph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jefus was born." The fame is intimated in Luke iii. 23. “Jefus, being, as was fuppf ed, the fon of Jofeph." If we adopt the opinion of a wellknown critick, the original words, which we render, as was suppofed, rather fignify, referring to this genealogy as it was legally fettled, or found on

record.

If it be afked, what purpose then is anfwered, while giving the genealogy of Jefus Chrift, by introducing Jofeph, if Jofeph were not the real father of Jefus ? We reply; Jofeph was the oldeft furviving branch of David's pofterity; and it was understood, that by marrying Mary, after he knew the miraculous conception of Jefus, he adopted Jefus for his fon, and fo raised him to the dignity and privileges of David's heir. Matthew does not call Jofeph the father of Jefus, but the bufband of his mother; and fo proves the title, which Jefus acquired to the kingdom of Ifrael through his adoption.

Luke teaches us the natural de feent of Jefus; that is, he gives us his genealogy by his mother's fide. Mary was undoubtedly the daughter of Heli. Because the is called fo by the Talmud; and chiefly because we otherwife have no true genealogy of Chrift, but only two different views of the line of Jofeph, his reputed father. But this would not prove that Jefus was properly of the feed of Abraham and of the boufe of David. The omiffion of Mary's name in this genealogy is easily accounted for. The families of women were not enrolled under their own names,

It has been justly remarked, that he, who refufes a myftery, because he cannot understand it, will be as ready to flight a precept, because he does not like it.” In either cafe the difficulty exifts, not in the object, but in the mind. It is the fruit of human pride and perverfenefs. It arises from a refuctance to pay homage to fupcrior wifdom and authority, and from a difpofition to reduce every thing to the level of our own fac ulties and inclinations. If any truth is clear, it is this, that arevelation from heaven must be expected to contain many things myf terious and incomprehenfible. These attributes are prominent in all the other productions of the Deity. How natural then, that they fhould conftitute a principal