Page images

though not a direct, proof of our Lord's deity is contained in the passage: and, allowing the words to relate to the Messiah, (which the ancient Jews did not deny,) the question, "If David in spirit called him Lord, how is he then his son?" remains unanswered and unanswerable.




IV. Matthew gives us the genealogy of Joseph, the husband of Mary, which neither proves nor disproves the descent of Mary herself from David; and it does not appear why her genealogy ❝ought' to be found in Matthew. Luke gives us, as it appears to me, the genealogy of Mary from Heli her father, through Nathan, to David and to Adam. The angel in Luke more fully attests the miraculous conception of Jesus than he in Matthew does, adding, "And the Lord God shall give him the throne of his father David." So far, therefore, no discordancy between the evangelists appears. When I said, in my view,' I referred to the contrary opinion of some Christian expositors, and to that exclusively. My opinion certainly proves nothing: the proof must arise out of the genealogy itself, which it seems clearly to do. Suppose it were required to prove a woman's descent from David, by genealogies in which it was not customary to insert the names of women; in what other way could it be done than by tracing it back from her father to David; and, if she was married, from her husband, as son-in-law to her father? It is self-evident that Joseph could not be the son both of Heli and of Jacob, by natural generation; so that adoption, or affinity

Luke i. 31-35.

by marriage, must be implied: "Being, as it was "supposed, the son of Heli:" (ŵs èvoμíleto—voμileodai pro moris esse, sive in more positum esse; Leigh:) that is, according to the custom of calling the husband of a man's daughter his son. It does not appear why this should be thought an interpolation for that supposition would set Luke at variance with himself, even more than with Matthew. I do not mean to libel the Jewish genealogies: but, supposing the case to be placed within the line of possibilities, I would ask it as a favour of a Jew, to shew me, how, in his view, the proof should have been given, if that could possibly have been done.-As none of the Jews in the primitive ages objected to these genealogies, as far as we know, I merely meant, in speaking of this, that, now the books whence they were taken are lost, it is too late to object to them; for no proof can be adduced on either side. It is evident that Matthew did not profess to give the genealogy of Mary, but of "Joseph "the husband of Mary." Probably he took the registers in use among the Jews as he found them: and his reasons, or those of the Holy Spirit by whose inspiration we believe he wrote, as far as we know, were taken from the usages and sentiments of the Jews at that time. He certainly could not mean that Joseph was the real father of Jesus: for, besides the testimony of the angel, the concluding verse demonstrates the contrary. But Joseph, as the husband of Mary, was the reputed or legal father of Jesus; and it was proper that his genealogy should be inserted."The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the

"son of David," &c.-réveris does not mean only genealogy, but also beginning, as the book of Genesis: and it is the title not of the first chapter, but of the gospel of Matthew. He asserts that Jesus was the Son of David, and he begins with the genealogy of Joseph, his reputed father: but he never states that this exclusively was the proof that Jesus was the son of David. All his miracles, and the prophecies fulfilled in him, proved this, insomuch that he was 'by numbers called on, as the Son of David, in his life time. After his crucifixion, his resurrection, and all the testimony of man and of God to that event, demonstrated him to be the Messiah, and by consequence the son of David. In another gospel, inspired by the same Spirit, a genealogy of Mary is given: but tens and hundreds of thousands had been convinced by other proofs, that he was the Son of David, and the Son of God, before these genealogies were published. They were added by the evangelists, no doubt, as an additional evidence; but have never been considered by Christians as the only, or even the chief, proof of that fact. Every proof of the kind is given which was customary among the Jews at that time: but the proof of Jesus being the Messiah, the son of David, does not rest on these genealogies, taken from the Jewish registers; but on prophecies fulfilled in him, in his miracles, doctrine, &c. Should it be thought that we have a difficulty in proving, in this way, Jesus to be the Messiah, how do the Jews intend

'Matt. ix. 27. xii. 23. xv. 22. xxi. 9, 15.

to give this kind of proof, should their expected Messiah come, now that all their genealogies are lost? How could they thus prove that he is the son of David? It will be said, perhaps, This will be proved by miracles or some immediate testimony of God. Be it so have we not proofs abundant of this kind, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of David, independent, as theirs must be, of genealogies? It suffices, as to these, if no evidence can be given that the evangelists altered or misreported the registers. As coadjutors, Matthew and Luke have together given as full a genealogy of Christ from David, as the nature of the case could admit; indeed, as can well be conceived: and he who requires more, is unreasonable.

A great deal of what follows concerning the genealogies, I find much difficulty in understanding, especially about inverting or subverting the laws and order of nature. If Mary were indeed the descendent of David, and Jesus her Son, I concluded that he must be of the seed of David, without taking the question concerning his father into the account. But I suppose it to be meant, that, though a man be the son of his mother, he is the seed of his father only, and not of his mother, who is the ground, not the secd. If this be the meaning, it aims to prove that it is impossible for one born of a woman, without a human father, to be the seed of David, or indeed of any other man: that is, to deny that any arguments could possibly prove our doctrine of the incarnation of Christ to be true. If so, all the argument about the genealogies comes to nothing.

But this subject must be reserved for discussion in another way; when it will be attempted to prove, that the Messiah was predicted in the Old Testament, as one who would have no human father. I shall here only add, that the word seed, in this sense, is generally if not always used of the father, and not the mother, except the first promise of the Messiah. "I will put enmity "between thee and the woman, and between thy "seed and her seed, it shall bruise thy head, and "thou shalt bruise his heel." Here one is called "the seed of the woman:" but it cannot be expected, that Jews will accord with Christians in the interpretation. The circumstance, however, is very remarkable. Eve says, "God hath ap"pointed me another seed, instead of Abel: " this may be an exception, but it is not elearly so..


-But of the five proofs ascribed to me, as given of Christ's descent from David, I meant only one as a direct proof; namely, that Mary being the daughter of Heli who was descended from David, she was descended from David, and that Jesus was her son which is fully conclusive. The others were adduced, as collateral circumstances, favourable to the interpretation given of the genealogy in Luke. A father-in-law cannot constitute his wife's son a lineal descendent: but if it be clear, that Joseph married the daughter of Heli, who descended from David, it proves that this wife and her son were the lineal descendents of David.

I was not conscious, that in speaking of Zach

[ocr errors]

1 Gen. iii. 15.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »