genealogies bear upon the face of them, viz. that he was, and was considered to be, the son and heir of David in virtue of the descent of Joseph his (reputed) father. And there is consequently not the slightest encouragement from Scripture to understand the genealogies otherwise than in their obvious meaning, as the genealogies of Joseph.

As, however, so many learned men, though entirely among the moderns, and chiefly among Protestant Divines, have embraced the theory of St Matthew's genealogy being that of Joseph, and St Luke's that of Mary', it may be well to observe that this opinion has been advocated mainly for two reasons. One, in order to explain the double line of ancestry deduced through Solomon and Nathan respectively. The other, in order to satisfy the feeling which is natural to us, that Mary's genealogy ought to have been given, and that if she was not of the seed of David, the promise that 'of the fruit of David's loins, God would raise up

exception. But its almost identity with Matt. xiii. 55, prevents us from considering that the omission of Joseph's name arose from their not looking upon Joseph as his father. Some MSS. and VV. read for ὁ τέκτων, ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός, as in Matt. xiii.

55.

1

Dr Mill (Vindication of our Lord's Genealogies, p. 182), tells us that not one of the fathers was ever tempted 'to transfer either of these genealogies from the reputed legal father to her;' and that Petrus Galatinus, in the 16th century, was apparently the first of the Roman communion who did so. He mentions Spanheim, Luther, Chemnitz, Gomar, as having advocated this view. Of commentators and writers whom I have had the opportunity of seeing, I may add, besides Gomar, Vossius, Yardley, Broughton, Kuinoël, Hug, &c.

Christ to sit upon His throne,' would not have been fulfilled, inasmuch as in no real sense could Jesus then be said to be of the seed of David.' If, then, any other explanation of the double line of ancestry can be given, which is equally satisfactory, and yet leaves both the genealogies for Joseph, and if Mary's descent from David can be supported with as much probability on this last hypothesis as on the other, then I apprehend few persons will be found who will not gladly return to the natural and primitive interpretation, which considers both St Matthew and St Luke to have traced the genealogy of Christ through Joseph, His reputed father. Certainly to any person of a plain understanding and a candid mind, and a moderate knowledge of Greek, it must be a great relief not to be forced by any stress of weather into such unsafe and unquiet harbours as the notion that es évoμileTo in Luke iii. 23, was intended to qualify the whole remainder of the chapter, instead of only the assertion that he was the Son of Joseph; or that we are to understand viós (in the nominative), before τοῦ Ἡλί, and before τοῦ Ματθὰτ, &c., &c., and to construe the words as signifying that Jesus (not Joseph) was the son of Heli, and that Jesus (not Heli) was the son of Matthat, and so on to the end. Instead, therefore, of arguing against these and similar violent wrestings of the text, it will be sufficient, I conceive, to propose such an interpretation as will render them unnecessary, when they will at once fall to the ground.

CHAPTER III.

The principle upon which these Genealogies are

WE

framed.

SECTION I.

E proceed then to consider our second question, viz. upon what principle are these genealogies framed, and whence does it happen that while in one the line is traced through Solomon, in the other it is traced through Nathan, and yet both pass through Salathiel and Zerubbabel. Now if we look at the genealogy of Jesus which is given by St Matthew, we shall see that sixteen of the middle generations are a succession of kings who reigned over the house of Jacob, and that after a further succession of twelve private individuals who were not kings, the list closes with the name of Him who was born King of the Jews,' and was declared on the cross to be 'Jesus the King of the Jews.' But as during the whole period that those twelve private persons lived, the royalty of the house of Judah was violently suppressed, it is natural to conclude that they are the persons who would have been kings on the throne of Judah, from generation to generation, had the throne of David continued to stand. In other words, St Matthew gives us the succession of the heirs of David's and Solomon's throne. But as,

according to the Jewish law, this succession was from father to son as long as there were male heirs, we should have no reason to doubt but that this list was also a genealogical stem in the strictest sense of the word, except for two circumstances. The one, that we have in St Luke's Gospel another genealogical stem for Joseph, which gives a list of ancestors from David downwards, quite different from this of St Matthew's, with the exception of three names (Matthan or Matthat, Zerubbabel, and Salathiel) and the other, that we have the express declaration of Scripture that one of the persons inserted in St Matthew's list should be childless, and that neither his nor his father's descendants should sit upon the throne of Judah.

As these two circumstances are of vital importance to our argument, we must examine them with the utmost attention.

1. I maintain that the mere fact of the existence of another genealogy, besides that of St Matthew which gives the royal successions in a genealogical form, amounts almost, if not quite, to a proof that St Matthew's list is not Joseph's real parentage. Because if the steps of Joseph's parentage had coincided exactly with the steps of the royal succession to Solomon's kingdom, so that one and the same table exhibited Joseph's direct ancestors and Solomon's successors, what possible room could there have been for a second genealogy1?

1

Since the above was written, the author has read the same view very forcibly stated by Grotius on Luke iii. 23. After

Is it likely that those who were at the same time Solomon's male lineal descendants, and, consequently, legal heirs of his kingdom, would have

laying the blame upon Africanus of misleading all who came after him, by his statement that the term éyévvnoe proved that St Matthew gave the natural descent; he adds, 'Ego vero non conjecturis, sed liquidis, ni fallor, rationibus adductus, certissimum arbitror a Matthæo spectari juris successionem. Nam eos qui regnum obtinuerunt......privato nemine admixto recenset. Deinde Jechonias, inquit, genuit Salathiel. Atqui Jechoniam sine liberis hac vita exiturum non obscure prædixerat Jeremias... Quare cum Salathieli Neri parentem ascribit Lucas, privatum hominem, Matthæus autem Jechoniam, apertissimum est a Luca jus sanguinis, a Matthæo jus successionis, et præcipue jus ad regiam dignitatem spectatum; quod jus sine liberis mortuo Jechonia, et si qui alii erant e Solomonis posteris, ad Salathielem caput familiæ Nathanis, legitimo ordine devolutum est.' This view is also taken by William Cowper, bishop of Galloway in the time of James I., who in his treatise on the genealogy of Christ, has the following passages: 'Saint Luke deduces the natural line of Christ from David, making it known how Christ by Nathan is the natural son of David, according to the flesh; but St Matthew deduces the legal line of Christ from David, making it known how Christ as Solomon's heir and lawful King of the Jews, succeeded as nearest of kin, to sit upon the throne of David his father.' Works, p. 591. And again, 'Christ our Lord is not the natural son of Solomon, neither read we, that at any time it was promised that so he should be, but he is the natural son of David by Nathan, and yet Solomon's lawful heir.' Ib. And again, 'Where Saint Matthew calls Salathiel the son of Jeconiah, understand his legal son, succeeding as nearest of kin. Where St Luke calls Salathiel son of Neri, understand the natural son of Neri.' It is singular, however, that a writer who so clearly saw and expressed what I do not hesitate to call the true view, should have fallen into the mistake and inconsistency of making St Matthew give Joseph's natural lineage from Zerubbabel to Christ, and Luke that of Mary, whose name he actually inserts in the genealogical table; in this one instance leaving the authority of Scripture, and consequently, as I doubt not, falling into an error.