Testament; and Süskind, Symbolarum ad illustranda quaedam evangeliorum loca. The following are the principal arguments for the genuineness of these chapters.-1. The manuscripts are all in their favour, with the exception of only a few. -2. The earliest fathers of the church were acquainted with them. They were evidently the ground work of the similar but more circumstantial narratives of the earliest history of Jesus, which were found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, and were transferred out of it into the Gospel which Justin used.3 It is evident that Celsus (to whose silence Stroth appeals) was acquainted with them, and specifically with the genealogy contained in the first chapter; for he speaks of historians who trace the genealogy of Jesus from the first father of the human family and from Jewish kings (γενεαλογησαντες απο του πρωτου φυντος και των εν Ιουδαιοις βασιλεων τον Ιησουν).5 By the former must be meant Luke, by the latter, Matthew. That Celsus should pass over unnoticed, the apparent contradiction of the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, is no more remarkable than that he should omit to mention many other things.-If Tatian, according to the testimony of Theodoret in his Monotessaron, omitted the genealogy of Matthew, it is certain that he also omitted that of Luke, and acted as a known heretic on doctrinal (systematic) grounds.—3. The words Matth. 4: 13, Inoovs naταλιπων την Ναζαρετ Jesus leaving Nazareth, presuppose what is said in ch. 2: 23, he resided at Nazareth. The apparent inconsistency between Matth. 2, and Luke 2: 39, compared with v. 22, is reconciled by Hug (sup. cit).-4. The reason why neither Mark nor Luke inserted any thing into their Gospels from the first two chapters of Matthew is, because they

1 Vol. I. p. 179-195.

2 Pars I, 1802, p. 3—9.

3 On the Object of John's Gospel, p. 272. Hug, sup. cit. p. 190-194. 4 Dissert. II. in lib. N. T. hist. p. 13. Süskind Dissert.

5 § 1. Ill. 3.

6 Diss. II. p. 12. Hug, p. 194.

made no such extracts from any part of Matthew.1-5. In the I and II chapters of Matthew, we find quotations made from the O. Test. in the same manner as in the other parts of Matthew. Moreover, the want of a genealogy in Matthew's Gospel, which was written for Jewish christians of Palestine, would be a deficiency in the work. On the conjecture, that Marcion's Gospel of Luke, in which the genealogy of Jesus and the account of his birth are wanting, is more probably the genuine one than our own, see what has been said § 2. Ill. 8, where are adduced the proofs that Marcion adulterated the genuine Gospel of Luke.

66

The principal arguments contained in the "Attempt at a scriptural proof that Joseph is the true father of Christ (by Walter), and in Oertel's Antijosephism, are the following.-1. Agreeably to Rom. 9: 5, Jesus is descended from Abraham naτα σαonα according to the flesh, and according to Gal. 4: 4, he was born of a woman, en yuvaixos not ex naodevov. Answer. In regard to his birth from his mother he of course is descended from Abraham (and David). And Mary could with propriety be called yuvn woman at the time of Christ's birth (Matth. 1:24); for this name designates a person of the female sex in general. See Schleusner on the word, No. 1.-2. Jesus was generally regarded by his contemporaries, as a son of Joseph. Matth. 13: 55. Mark 6: 3. Luke 4: 22. John 1: 46. 6: 42.Answer. This common opinion proves nothing, and Luke expressly contradicts it (3:23).--3. The testimony of Matthew and Luke can be of no weight, because the latter was not an immediate apostle of Jesus, and the former, did not write the first two chapters of his Gospel.--Answer. The authority of Luke (see 5, 12) and the genuineness of the first two chapters of Matthew, cannot be invalidated.--4. John says nothing about the

1 Dissert. p. 12.

2 Hug, sup. cit. p. 195.

supernatural conception of Jesus, and yet he wrote against Cerinthus, who regarded Jesus as a natural man.-Answer.—a) "Of how many things must John have been doubtful if his mere silence proves his doubt? In short, the silence of an author, excepting in particular circumstances, affords no valid proof." This same remark also affords a reply to the objection that Jesus and his apostles never appealed to his supernatural birth.2 -b) This objection is answered by the circumstance, stated in § 12, that John, in writing his Gospel, presupposed in his readers an acquaintance with the others.-5. Another objection stated by Walter, and urged also in Henke's Magazine,3 is this : "the miracle of the supernatural origin of Jesus would be superfluous and without an object." Answer. This is refuted by the declaration in § 75, "ut vitiositatis expers esset, that he be free from sin;" compared with § 55, and by the general remark, that arguments a priori are of no avail against facts.*

The following hypothesis has been advanced in the Allgem. Lit. Zeit. (1792, p. 464), and in Henke's Magazine.5 "The whole narrative of the supernatural birth of Jesus, may have been added at a later day, partly in consequence of the increasing veneration for Jesus after his death, partly from the passage Isaiah 7: 14, and partly also from some of Jesus' friends having misunderstood the statement of Mary herself, and having made additions to it."—Auswer. This is refuted by the credibility and authority of Matthew and Luke, which have been proved in § 5, 9; and by the accordance between their statement and the genealogy in Matth. 1: 2, which was probably written by a relative of Jesus and Mary who was not a disciple

1 New Theol. Journal, Vol. I. p.155.

2 Henke's Mag. sup. cit. 154. Schmidt's Bibliothek des N. T. p. 3 Vol. 5. No. 1, p. 154 &c.

4 New Theol. Journal, p. 153.

5 Henke's Mag. sup. cit. p. 194, 152, 160.

401.

of Jesus. The same authority overturns the conjecture, that this narrative may perhaps have originated from the peculiar notions of the Jews, or from a high estimation of a life of celibacy, or from the notions of the Docetae. As long as the genuineness of the first two chapters of Matthew and the authority of Luke cannot be controverted on solid grounds, so long we cannot doubt the supernatural conception of Jesus.3

VIII. Luke 1: 34-37, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, Matth. 1: 18-20, that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. In the Tübingen Gelehrt. Anzeigen (1799, p. 317), it is stated that that explanation of the latter of these passages, which is found in the Dissertation "The Conception of Jesus explained from the customary notions of the Jews," is totally inapplicable to it.1 It is grounded on the following statement: "According to the Jewish mode of thinking, children born of a pure and virtuous father and mother, possessed the Holy Ghost, and were begotten by the Holy Ghost." Paulus in his Comment. in loc. gives a similar explanation; "The conception of the Messiah shall take place in thee, in a manner which is sinless and wellpleasing to God." In reply to this, it is stated in the Tüb. gel. Anzeig. (for 1801 p. 260), that the expressions power of the highest, the Holy Spirit, duvaus ύψιστου, πνευμα άγιον (εκ πνευματος άγιου Matth. 1:20), always signify divine causation.

IX. Luke 1: 35, Therefore also, that holy one who shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.

1 Schmidt's Bibliothek, p. 104, 109.

2 Ibid. p. 407.

3 Theol. Journal, p. 159. Eichhorn's Bibliothek, Vol. 5, p. 507. 4 Schmidt's Biblioth. Vol. I, p. 101.

§ 76.
S

The close union of the man Jesus with the Godhead.

Another reason why the name "Son of God” (1) is given to the man Jesus, is, because, according to the will of the Father, he is partaker of his divine perfections (2); inasmuch as the wellbeloved Son of the Father (John 1: 18, 2), who in consequence of his very close union with him, is himself God and the Creator and Preserver of the universe (3), has united himself to the man Jesus in a union so close (4), that no other union like it is found between God and any other man, and indeed any other creature. Hence Jesus is also called the "only (6) Son of God (7)," the most perfect image of God (8), to whom in reference to his close union with God, no person can be compared.

ILLUSTRATIONS.

I. Several names of Christ.-In John 1: 14, Christ is called μovoyevns only begotten, because he, this man [oao§], was also, at the same time, the λoyos Word, who was in the beginning with God and who was God (v. 1-3). Compare Ill. 5. infra. In like manner this man who shed his blood upon the cross, is called in Col. 1: 20, 22, ò vios τns aɣaлns tov Deov the Son of his love v. 13, εικων του θεου του αορατου the image of the invisible God, inasmuch as he possesses excellences in preference to all creatures [προτοτοκος πασης κτίσεως ν. 15] which are grounded in this, that he can be regarded as Creator and Preserver of all things (v. 16. comp. John 1: 3). In Heb. 1: 2, also, this divine Messenger to men is called vios Son because he can at the same time be regarded as the Creator and the Preserver of the world (v. 2, 3, 10—12); and is, by