rence between the genealogy of our LET. Lord Chrift, as given by St. Mat- xvII. thew, and that given by St. Luke. On this fubject let it be observed,

1. That genealogies in general, and thofe of the Jews in particular, with their method of deriving them, and the confufion often arifing from the circumftance of the fame perfon being called by different names, or différent perfons by the fame name, are in their nature, and must be to us, at this distance of time, matters of very complicated confideration, and it is no wonder they fhould be attended with difficulties and perplexities.

2. The Evangelifts, in an affair of fo much importance, and fo open then to detection, had there been any thing wrong to be detected, would most affuredly be careful to give Chrift's peS digree

LET. digree as it was found in the authentic XVII. tables, which, according to the cuf

tom of the nation, were preferved in the family, as is evident from Jofephus, who fays, "I give you this fucceffion "of our family, as I find it written "in the public tables."

3. As it was well known the Meffiah must descend from David, the genealogical tables of that family would be kept with more than ordinary diligence and precision.

4. Whatever cavils the modern Jews and others make now against the genealogies recorded by the Evangelifts, the Jews their contemporaries never offered to find fault with, or to invalidate the accounts given in the Gospels. As they wanted neither opportunity, materials, skill, nor malice, to have done it, and it would have

afforded

afforded them fo great an advantage LET. against the Chriftians, this circum- XVII. ftance alone, as Dr. South well remarks, were we not now able to clear the point, ought with every fober and judicious perfon to have the force of

a moral demonftration.

Thus much premifed, let us hear the objection.

P. 33. Matthew reckons 27 ge"nerations from David to Chrift, "Luke reckons 42, and the names totally difagree. Matthew traces

"the descent from Solomon, and "Luke from Nathan, both fons of "David. According to our feeble no❝tions, 27 cannot be equal to 42, nei"ther can Nathan be imagined to be "Solomon."

But were the objectors never informed, that in the opinion of those S 2 who

LET. who have moft confidered this quefXVII. tion, and were beft qualified to confider it, St. Luke deduces the genealogy of our Saviour, not, as St. Matthew does, on the fide of Jofeph, but on the fide of Mary, who by Jews and Christians is agreed to have been the daughter of Heli. If therefore Jacob, according to St. Matthew, were Jofeph's father by nature, Heli, who is faid by St. Luke to have been his father, could only have been his father in law, by his marriage with Mary, the daughter of Heli, whofe genealogy is then given by St. Luke; to shew that every way Chrift " fprang "from Judah," as was EVIDENT (by the testimony of the author of the epiftle to the Hebrews) to all of that age; and that he was "of the feed "of David," his real mother, no less than

than his fuppofed father, being "of LET. "the house and lineage of David."

Disputes may be raised and maintained to the end of the world on many other difficulties which occur in the two genealogies. "But thofe "who are acquainted with the cuf "toms of the Jews know there are "many genealogies which feem re

..

pugnant, and yet are not fo. And that may happen various ways, as may easily be proved from books "which the Jews and we jointly ac

knowlege. There are feveral me- . "thods of reconciling thefe difficul

ઃઃ

ties, though it be often hard to fay "which is the beft, at the diftance of fo many ages, all records and even

memory of thefe things being ut"terly loft." *

* Dr. Trapp on the Gofpels, P. 82. fecond Edit.

S 3

XVII.