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 whofe 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 fhip 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 cause and iffue of the event; could he fee the drinking veffels of the feftal board, adorned with emblems of national independence, and prefidents drawn with the far famed declaration in their hands; could he fee islands, mountains, cities and countries named incommemoration of the glorious day, what would be faid of his underftanding, what of his fenfelefs depravity, thould he deny there ever was a declaration of independence? All this is diminutive and unimpreflive evidence, compared with the evidence of the flood? Look from pole to pole; in every continent, and almost every confiderable nation, in fome era of their history we find, for fubftance, all thefe evidences of the general deluge. The temples, the altars, the priests of religion; the names of the iflands, 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 fu perficial, as their knowledge of religion is trifling and vain ? PHILO. For the Panoplist. MATTHEW'S AND LUKE'S GENE ALOGIES. THE following attempt to fhow that thefe genealogies furnish no argument againit infpiration, but a frong argument against Socinianifm, is fubmitted to the editors of the Panoplift. Matthew plainly gives the genealogy of Jofeph, the reputed father of Jefus. At the fame time he clearly intimates that Jefus was not the real fon of Jofeph. For inftead of continuing the phrateology, 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. but under the names of their hufbands. And this account was copied out, according to the cuftom 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 for by marriage with his daughter Mary. 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 If it be asked, 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; Joseph was the oldeft fur-rable prophecies, which speak of viving branch of David's pofteri- Chrift as the feed of the woman, the ty; and it was understood, that by defcendant of Abraham, and the offmarrying Mary, after he knew the fpring of David, are all fulfilled in miraculous conception of Jefus, he Jefus of Nazareth. CRITO. 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 husband 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 fcent of Jefus; that is, he gives us his genealogy by his mother's fide. Mary was undoubtedly the daughter of Heli. Because fhe 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, For the Panoplist. OBSERVATIONS ON MYSTERIES. It has been justly remarked, that " he, who refufes a mystery, 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 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 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. spread 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 whofe 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 increased. 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 fhip 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 cause 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 underftanding, what of his fenfeleis 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 iflands, mountains, cities, and countries of the world, proclaim the truth of Noah's flood. Is not the historical information of those, 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. For the Panoplist. MATTHEW'S AND LUKE'S GENEALOGIES. THE following attempt to fhow that thefe genealogies furnifh no argument againit infpiration, but a frong argument against Socinianifm, is fubmitted to the editors of the Panoplift. Matthew plainly gives the gen ealogy of Jofeph, the reputed father of Jefus. At the fame time 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. 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. 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 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 fur-rable prophecies, which speak of viving branch of David's pofteri- Chrift as the feed of the woman, the ty; and it was understood, that by defcendant of Abraham, and the offmarrying Mary, after he knew the fpring of David, are all fulfilled in miraculous conception of Jefus, he Jefus of Nazareth. CRITO. 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 husband of his moth er; and fo proves the title, which Jefus acquired to the kingdom of Ifrael through his adoption. Luke teaches us the natural de feent of Jesus; 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 eafily accounted for. The families of women were not enrolled under their own names, For the Panoplist. OBSERVATIONS ON MYSTERIES. It has been justly remarked, that" he, who refufes a mystery, because he cannot understand it, will be as ready to flight a precept, becaufe 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 perverienefs. 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 myf terious and incomprehenfible. Thefe attributes are prominent in all the other productions of the Deity. How natural then, that they fhould conftitute a principal characteristick of his writtenword! Efpecially, when it is confidered, that the grand defign of revelation is to place before our eyes the INCOMPREHENSIBLE JEHOVAH, and to relieve apoftate, guilty creatures in a cafe, where all their faculties are confounded, all their fpeculations unfatisfactory, and every refource fails. Humbly and gratefully to receive every difcovery of this kind is one of the higheft acts of reafon. Where we are well affured, that infinite intelligence addreffes us, the moft implicit faith is the most rational. Nor are any more diftant from the character of true philofophers, than those who prefume to try ev. ery revealed truth by the standard of their own limited faculties, and believe nothing, which they cannot fully comprehend and explain. This fubject has been forcibly illuftrated by Saurin in his fermon on the omniprefence of God. It will be to confult at once the reader's profit and delight, to prefent him the remarks of this eloquent writer. To all, who perufe them, the appeal may be fafely made, whether they be not equally the dictates of fober reafon and fublime piety: equally worthy of the philofopher and the Chrif tian. "I freely grant," fays he, "that had I confuited my own reafon only, I could not have discovered fome mysteries of the gofpel. Nevertheless, when I think on the immentity of God, when I caft my eyes on that valt ocean, when I confider that immenfe All, nothing aftonishes me, nothing ftum bles me, nothing feems to me inadmiffible, how incomprehenfible foever it may be. When the fubject is divine, I am ready to believe all, to admit all, to receive all; provided I be convinced, that it is God himself, who fpeaks to me, or any one on his part. After this, I am no more astonished, that there are three distinct perfons in one divine effence; one God, and yet a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost. After this, I am no more aftonished, that God forefees all without forcing any; permits fin without forcing the finner; ordains free and intelligent creatures to fuch and fuch ends, yet without destroying their intelligence, or their liberty. After this, I am no more aftonifhed, that the juf tice of God required a fatisfaction, proportional to his greatnefs, that his own love hath provided that fatisfaction, and that God, from the abundance of his compaffion, defigned the mystery of an incarnate God; a mystery, which an gels admire, while fkepticks oppofe; a mystery, which absorbs human reafon, but which fills all heaven with fongs of praife; a mystery, which is the Great MYSTERY, by excellence, (1 Tim. iii. 16,) but the greatness of which nothing fhould make us reject, fince religion propofes it, as the grand effort of the wisdom of the incomprehenfible God, and com mands us to receive it on the testimony of the incomprehenfible God himself. Either religion must tell us nothing about God, or what it tells us must be beyond our capacities; and, in difcovering even the borders of this immenfe ocean, it muft needs exhibit a vast extent, in which our feeble eyes are loft. But what furprises me, what stum bles me, what frightens me, is to fee a diminutive creature, a contemptible man, a little ray of light glimmering through a few feeble organs, controvert a point with the Supreme Being, oppofe that Intelligence, who fits at the helm of the world; question, what he |
