prejudicial to the great interests of the Gospel of Christ; but that rather, by God's mercy and grace, they may tend to the elucidation of the truth, to the edifying of the Church, to the confirmation of Christ's disciples, to the conversion of the Jews to their Messiah, the Son of David and the King of Israel, and to the promotion of the glory of our common Master and Saviour the LORD JESUS, for whose Presence and Kingdom we are waiting, and at whose hands it is our hope that we may receive a crown of righteousness and of glory which fadeth not away. Believe me, yours affectionately, ICKWORTH, June 20th, 1853. ARTHUR HERVEY CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. Difficulties and importance of the subject. The three main points of enquiry stated p. 1 CHAPTER II. The Genealogies in St Matthew's and St Luke's Gospels shewn to be both the Genealogies of Joseph p. 5 Direct proofs of this from Scripture. All the incidental notices of Jesus as the Son of David connected with his being the son of Joseph. Reasons which have induced learned men to advocate the opposite opinion. Violent wrestings of the text of Scripture by which such views have been supported. These rendered unnecessary by the interpretation about to be proposed. CHAPTER III. The principle upon which these Genealogies are framed. SECTION I. P. 11 St Matthew's list shewn to be the succession to David's and Solomon's throne. Reasons why it cannot be the list of Joseph's direct ancestors (1) Because there is another pedigree given by St Luke, which there could not be if the steps of Joseph's ancestry coincided with the steps of the succession. (2) Because one of the persons in St Matthew's list was childless. Jer. xxii. 29, 30, considered. The interpretation of it confirmed by Jer. xxiii. 5, 6, and Isai. xi. 1. (3) Remarkable confirmation of this view from the fact that immediately after that person said to be childless, the two Genealogies coincide for three or four generations. The principle of the Genealogies, therefore, shewn to be that Matthew gives the succession to Solomon's throne, and Luke the descent from David through Nathan. Consistency of this with the promises to David and Solomon respectively. SECTION II. Further support of this view: (1) From the accounts preserved by Josephus and others, of the method in which the Jewish genealogies were kept, both public and private. (2) From the fact that we have several double genealogies in Scripture, the one according to birth, the other according to inheritance. Instances of this: Jair, Caleb,the sons of Zeruiah, Amasa, Ahlai, &c. (3) By the names in the lists themselves, from which it may be inferred that Joseph and his ancestors in St Luke's list were lineal descendants of Nathan, and that those in St Matthew's list, subsequent to Jehoiachin, while they also were descendants of Nathan, were adopted into the line of Solo mon. SECTION III. Three chief objections answered, by shewing, (1) That the scheme propounded by Africanus has no authority as a tradition, nor intrinsic merit. (2) That the term 'begat,' used by St Matthew, by no means necessarily implies paternity in the strict sense. (3) That we do not weaken the evidence of the Virgin Mary being of the lineage of David by our scheme. Proofs that she was so. CHAPTER IV. The Genealogies reconciled with the Genealogy of the House of David contained in the Old Testament, as far as regards that portion of them which synchronizes with it. SECTION I. p. 62 THE GENEALOGY OF ST MATTHEW SHEWN TO AGREE WITH THE OLD TESTAMENT GENEALOGIES FROM ABRAHAM TO JEHOIAKIM AND THE CAPTIVITY. I. Comparison of the names in St Matthew with those in the LXX. from Abraham to David. Their identity. Chronological difficulty reserved till Chap. ix. Reasons for believing that St Mat- thew framed his list from some existing genealogy, and not directly from Scripture. (1) St Stephen has nearly the same words for a part of the Genealogy, which does not occur in Scripture in the shape in which St Matthew gives it. (2) The mention of Rahab. (3) The omission of several kings. (4) The necessity for consulting such Genealogy for the times after the close of the canon. Probable source of St Matthew's information concerning Rahab. II. Comparison of the names in St Matthew with those in the LXX., from Solomon to Jehoiakim. Resemblance less close than in the first tesseradecade. Division into fourteens. Omission of three kings: reasons of this. Omission of Jehoiakim. The first-named Jechonias proved to mean Jehoiakim. (1) From the mention of his brethren, as compared with 1 Chron. iii. 15. (2) Because the num- ber 14 cannot be complete, without reckoning Jehoiakim in the first, and Jehoiachin in the second tesseradecade. (3) Because he was be- gotten by Josiah, though not at the time of the Captivity. Proof from these words that a clause has fallen out of the text. (4) From the constant confusion in the Apocryphal books, and in the fathers, between the two names. Instances of this. Conjectural emendation St Luke's genealogy as traced from Adam in harmony with the scope of his Gospel. No evidence from this circumstance that he gives the genealogy of Mary. Descent from Nathan shews the ful- filment of the promise to David: that from Adam, that Jesus was the Saviour of the whole world. Agreement of St Luke's list with Old Testament, except in the insertion of the second Cainan. Shewn by placing names in St Luke, the Septuagint, and the English Version of the Hebrew, side by side. Difficult questions arising from the dis- crepancies between Hebrew text and LXX. Consideration of the second Cainan reserved to Ch. VIII. True age of Terah when he begat Abram. Abram not his eldest son. Opinions of Petavius and |