Our own Theory—ag-reeable to Primitive Opinion. —Notwithstanding the suffrages of so many learned men, we cannot shake off rhe impression that, while apparently representing the literal Scripture of the Genealogies with greatest fidelity, this scheme does great violence in. fact to both it and other passages ; nor can we concede to its zealous defenders the traditional support of the Fathers to anything like the extent they claim for it. It will clear the way, and at the same time illustrate the subject, if we briefly examine, first, the patristic opinions on the genealogies. It will lighten the invidiousness of our task in venturing (in the facc of so much learned opposition) to contend for the theory, which, while assigning St. Matthew's genealogy to Joseph, gives that of St. Luke to the Blessed Virgin—a theory which, it is admitted, has been maintained by many eminent men since the Reformation—if we shew that it was very far from being unknown to the early writers of the Church, that in fact it is sustained by earlier testimony of Fathers than the rival theory which has been lately recovering ground amongst us. Though Celsus was, we believe, the earliest impu,gner of the genealog,ies of the Gospel whose nanze we know, there seem to have been yet earlier gainsayers, whom Origen taunts his adversary for being ignorant of. These had brought against the evange lists even then the censure of incoherence and dis c; Oancy, which was afterwards revived by Faustus, Julian, and others (i.or6 TWCOV ths 1-yalipara vpoaa -yb,aEva 5ta5bcoviq -yepeaXirytiov, obacwan. dwa p.ao-ev, Origenis Opera, De la Rue, vol. i. p. 413). Celsus then derides the notion, that through so lowly a woman as the carpenter's wife (1) roD TEKTOPOS -min Jesus should trace his lineage through the Jewish kings and up to the first man ! Does not this indicate that, even in the former part of the 2d century, the opinion that St. Luke's genealogy [for that of course is alluded to by Celsus] was assigned to the mother of Jesus, and that, commonly enough, to reach the observation of this rude detractor of Christianity ? And Origen's re ply, so far from correcting this idea of Celsus, confirms it : 'Does it follow, then, that Jesus cannot be derived from the first man and those ancient kings of the Jews because of his mother's low estate ? Does Celsus think that the poor must needs have poor ancestors, and kings royal ones ? Is it not even in our own day a patent fact that persons poorer than Mary have had wealthy and illustrious ancestors in their pedigree ?' (Con tra Celsum, ii. 32.) We claim this as unquestion able evidence, all the stronger because of its popular and informal cast, in favour of the position we mean to defend, that St. Luke gives us the lineage of the Virgin mother of Christ. It tends to the same conclusion that, later in the same century, Trenmus (Adv. Hares, lib. iii. c. 29 [G. W. Harvey]) when arguing against the Cerinthians, who alleged that Jesus was the son of yoseph, contended that then He would not be a king. And he used an argument which destroys one of the bases on which Dr. Mill and Lord A. Hervey found their theory ; 'If Jesus were Joseph's son Ile would be neither king nor heir, according to Jeremiah. For Joseph is plainly shewn by Matthew in his genealo,gy to he the son of Jehoiakim and Jechoniah. Now, these princes and all their descendants were shut out from the throne by the prophet's denunciations (Jer. xxii. 24, 25 ; 28-30 ; XXXVi. 30, 3 O.' We regard Irenmus, then, as a competent witness to the opinion, that in the 2d century the genea logy contained in the first gospel was held to record Joseph's lineal descent from David through Solo mon ; and it is difficult, in an unstrained interpre tation of other passages of the same ancient writer, not to gather that, in his view, the genealogy of St. Luke* represents the lineal ancestors of the Virgin (See especially lib. iii. c. 32 ; where the compari. son between Eve at one end of the list, and Mary at the other, would be unmeaning on any other principle). The only alternative open to him, of supposing St. Luke to trace the legal descent of Joseph, is quite at variance with Tremens's argu ment and tone of thought. We might add Ter tullian (De Carne Christi, capp. 21, 22), for though not expressly bearing on the genealogies, still such language as An quia ipse est flos de virga profecta ex radice Jesse, etc.:' and jam nunc carnem Christi non tantum Markt, sed et David per Mariam, et Jesse per David, etc.:' and again, Utzque non aliam quays Abraham, nec aliam quam 2esse, net aliam plain David, nee aliam quam ex Maria, et adhuc superizts, nee allay! pans Adam, etc.:' does most naturally seem to connect Christ with His remotest ancestry by means of his mother, precisely as we have said the genealogy of St. Luke does. Before we proceed to consider the case of those later fathers, who are quoted as a catena of testimony in favour of the theory, which, we have just seen, was cer tainly not the primitive one, we will advert to some remarkable words of St. Athanasius, which are best explained on the supposition that in the third gospel the Virgin Mary's descent is given, and her husband's in the first ; Maplas ,a6vris IK roD 'ASCLy Karcz-yolarms, Kat etc ToD 'Agpaau Kat eK Too Acci316 -yeveaXo-youp.Ians 7-43 'I coo-W, ffil acp.v7iareimIvy abrip. . . 7EVVELTCLL 002, Xmards lp 13,79- Nee/I rijs qm3atas, r2a, 'Icocripp rarepa KaNl3v, raurin, Mapla irtryxcivovra Aciltii3. Here is a clear declaration (i) that Mary alone has her de scent deduced from Adam' [i.e., St. Luke's register belongs to her only] ; while (2) in that genealogy, \vhich is traced both from Abraham and from David [and what is this but Matthew's list ?] she shares her descent with Joseph, her betrothed hus band ; (3) Jesus accordingly is born at Bethlehem, calling Joseph His father, inasmuch as lie had one and the same origin as Mary from David [as the union of the two pedigrees simply shews]. How plain is this sentence in the light of the theory we have as yet but adumbrated ! How tortuous its interpretation on the terms of the rival opinion (see S. Athanasii Opera, ed. Benedict, vol. ii. p. 738, in the tract Contra Apollinarium i• 4)• Haw opposed by later Fathers.—With respect to the support which this rival opinion receives from ancient writers, we cannot but think that it is accepted at more than its worth by modern com mentators. We claim some diminution, on the strength of the quotations we have just adduced. And if we admit that among the later fathers viiho have noticed the question (for the majority of those we have consulted omit its discussion), there is an undoubted agreement to assign the genealogical lists of both evangelists to Joseph alone, we think it not unreasonable to suggest a !Urther diminution from the weight of their authority on two grounds— ° ) Because it is doubtful whether they, in all cases, really meant to exclude Mary from the possession of one of the genealogies, when they assigned both nominally to her husband. St Chrysostom, for in stance, in his fourth homily on St. Matthew, says that the two evangelists make out their lives both in the name of Joseph, because Jewish usage ex cluded thc names of women from such documents [this is strongly insisted on by many writers (Hil ary of Poitiers, St Jerome, and Theophylact on St.
Matt. ; St. Augustine, Sermo de Concord. Matt. et Luc. ; Theodoret, on Romans ix. ; Bede, 071 St. Luke iii., etc.)] ; but he adds these significant words : TOIPUP TO6S 71730751/OUS draVraS, Kai TEXEUT7jaa.3 TaP '14)0*A OOK &TT)) taxpt Tarot', dA.Na 71-p00-61)10EP, 'ICIJCI*6 TOY drbpa Maptas ' Scucvin, 31' gKEil/nY Kat TOOTOP b-yepeaX6yricrep, as much as to say that, although from Jewish usage the evan gelist inserted the name of Joseph, he yet con structed the genealogy for the Virgin's sake (Opera [ed. Bened.] vii. 4.8). (2) There is an avowed de ference on the part of some of the Fathers to the conclusions of Julius Africanus, who in the 3d century constructcd an elaborate scheme of recon ciling the genealogies of SS. Matthew and Luke (see fragments of Africani Aristirl. Geneal. Servataris, in Routh's Rel. SLIM ii. 2.28-237). This deference appears in St. Augustine, who changed his view on the subject* and ascribed the change to the work of Africanus, which, he says, he had not read when he wrote his own work against Faustus' (Retract, lib. ii. c. 7). Other Fathers express like deference to the treatise, which seems to have been accepted for several cen turies as having settled the question. (Hujus nodum quaestionis Africanus de consonantia evan geliorum scribeus apertissime solvit.' I3ede, c. ; Eusebius i. 7 ; vi. 31 ; St. Ambrose's explanation is given in almost the words of Africanus (Exposit. in Luc, lib. iii. c. 15) ; St. Jerome refers to the same authority for his own views (in Matt. 16); and so Theophylact (in Afatt. i.) ; John Damascene in the Sth century reproduced the scheme of Africanus with slight modifications (De Ortho doxa Fide, iv. 14). We shall have occasion to refer to this scheme again ; we here remark that the author put it forth as a well-meant contribution towards solving a Biblical difficulty ; frankly avow ing, that though it was the best explanation he could offer, he was not sure of his data (Routh, ii. 237 ; Lord A. Hervey, 44). To us the whole facts of the case detract considerably, it may not be in deed from the mental character of the Fathcrs, who in the mass of their subjects accepted the help on a knotty point which was close at hand, but at least from the value of that patristic catena which has been lately recommended so warrnly to us.
Effects of our Theory. —Wre proceed to consider that explanation of the two genealogies of our Lord which appears to us most closely coincident with the various portions of Holy Scripture con nected with the subject. We have already stated it to be our thesis that in St. Matthew we have the genealogy of ,oseph, and in St. Luke that of the blessed Virgin Maly. The effect of this is to con nect Jesus Christ (t) with his royal ancestor David by the tie of natural descent (Olio-El) through His only human parent Mary ; and by legal succession (vo,cui.,) by means of his reputed father Joseph, the last lineal heir of Solomon ; (2) with the great patriarch of the Jewish nation, Abraham—a con nection which St. Matthew especially developes, as suited his purpose, in writing his gospel for Jewish readers ; (3) with the father of the human race, Adam—as St. Luke alone demonstrates, consist ently with his character as the friend of St. Paul and the evangelist of the Gentiles.
The structure of the two lines both ending i n 7oseph, who is the terminus ad quem in Matthew and the ter minus a quo in Luke, is accounted for byboth Jewish and Christian writers, on that most prominent maxim of Israelite law, that genealogies must be reckoned by fathers and 2zot tnothers CEA- Irarlpeop yap, cl,XX' ant bc pvrepow 7€veaXo^yEiv Tf) 0Eici 7pacti), Theodoreti Opera, by Sirmond, 23).* On St. Matthew's Genealogy.—ln the first gospel _Joseph is related to his predecessor by birth ; in the third by law. This distinction is evident from the language of the two documents, 'Iaeci0 rov Icarriirp (‘ 2acob begat Yoseph,' Matt. i. 16), and HX/ (literally, yaseph of Hell ; Luke ill. 23). To all, who have no theory to serve, it must be clear that the former statement connects Jacob with Joseph in a parental relationship. The words are precise : with all deference to the learned men who take a different view (see Dr. worth, Gr. Test. vol. i., p. I, note 2 ; Lord A. vey, Genealogies, etc., pp. 48-56 ; and Dr. W. H. Mill, p. 173), we must demur to their including under the word gy4omre any relationship but that which arises from lineal descent, whether of the first degree (which is by far the most usual) or a remoter one (as in Alatt. i. 8, 'Itopaa Se 411,1,77Cre 7-61, '0VaV, where the descent is strictly lineal). We have examined the usage of the Hebrew tures, the LXX., and the Greek Testament, and we cannot but deem that criticism worse than ous, and absolutely rash, which is for extending the verb .-yEin,P and its Hebrew equivalent "6: [or 7,9in] to mere legal connection. We have patiently gone through the long columns of Bruder, Trommius, and Wigram, and have examined the copious references of Stephen's Thesaurus, and cannot discover the slightest trace of a usage which justifies such extension.* Throughout St. Matthew's genealogy, then, ..).4vInicrc indicates natu ral descent ; hence we can at once accept the t2th verse in its literal sense (` After they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel'), as strictly parallel with Chron. t7 (‘ The SODS of Je choniah in his captivity, or a captive,' "ITN [not Assir'—a proper name ; see Luther's Version of O. T, 1. c. ; Abarbanel, Haggaum, ii. 23; Surcnhusius, Coned. de G'eneal. .7. C. BOX. Ka TaXX. ; Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr., in loc. ; and Hug's Introduction, by Wait, vol. ii. 268] Salathiel, his son, etc.') By the help of these literal and plain statements, we assign to the denunciation of Jer. xxii. 30, the sense which it will bear without vio lence, namely, that the burden put upon Jechonias by the Lord was (1) the loss of his present children, if he had any (like the case of Zedekiah, 2 Kings xxv. 7, or of Hiel in t Kings xvi. 34) ; hence we read not of his children, but only of his mother and his wives accompanying him to Babylon, 2 Kings xxiv. ; (2) the loss of his own royal prosperity' or power ; and (3) the deposition of his seed, which might be born to him in captivity, from the throne of David for ever [comp. the remarkable words of Irenus, which we have quoted above].± To in sist that Jechonias was childless, on the strength of a prophetical passage of dubious meaning, and in the face of two clear historical statements, is an un safe method of handling Scripture ; and yet this is the main prop on which the theory rests, which makes St. Matthew's genealogy nothing, more than joseph's legal descent [vbuw cbb 0-et] in spite of the frequent repetition of the expressive eygonicre and the emphatic i--yEvp*n with which the apostle con cludes his line. Surely this weighty word at the end, and the twice told tilos at the beginning must be held to afford a strong clue to the author's mean ing suggested by himself, as intending to furnish his readers with the stem of Joseph's progenitors* I from David through Solomon.