Matthew 1 commentary

Concerning this genealogy of our Saviour, observe the chief intention. It is not a needless genealogy. It is not a vain-glorious one, as those of great men often are. It proves that our Lord Jesus is of the nation and family out of which the Messiah was to arise. The promise of the blessing was made to Abraham and his seed; of the dominion, to David and his seed. It was promised to Abraham that Christ should descend from him, Ge 12:3; 22:18; and to David that he should descend from him, 2Sa 7:12; Ps 89:3, etc.; 132:11; and, therefore, unless Jesus is a son of David, and a son of Abraham, he is not the Messiah. Now this is here proved from well-known records. When the Son of God was pleased to take our nature, he came near to us, in our fallen, wretched condition; but he was perfectly free from sin: and while we read the names in his genealogy, we should not forget how low the Lord of glory stooped to save the human race.

Let us look to the circumstances under which the Son of God entered into this lower world, till we learn to despise the vain honours of this world, when compared with piety and holiness. The mystery of Christ's becoming man is to be adored, not curiously inquired into. It was so ordered that Christ should partake of our nature, yet that he should be pure from the defilement of original sin, which has been communicated to all the race of Adam. Observe, it is the thoughtful, not the unthinking, whom God will guide. God's time to come with instruction to his people, is when they are at a loss. Divine comforts most delight the soul when under the pressure of perplexed thoughts. Joseph is told that Mary should bring forth the Saviour of the world. He was to call his name Jesus, a Saviour. Jesus is the same name with Joshua. And the reason of that name is clear, for those whom Christ saves, he saves from their sins; from the guilt of sin by the merit of his death, and from the power of sin by the Spirit of his grace. In saving them from sin, he saves them from wrath and the curse, and all misery, here and hereafter. Christ came to save his people, not in their sins, but from their sins; and so to redeem them from among men, to himself, who is separate from sinners. Joseph did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, speedily, without delay, and cheerfully, without dispute. By applying the general rules of the written word, we should in all the steps of our lives, particularly the great turns of them, take direction from God, and we shall find this safe and comfortable.

As all are not agreed about these two genealogies, which are given by Matthew and Luke, we must first see whether both trace the genealogy of Christ from Joseph, or whether Matthew only traces it from Joseph, and Luke from Mary. Those who are of this latter opinion have a plausible ground for their distinction in the diversity of the names: and certainly, at first sight, nothing seems more improbable than that Matthew and Luke, who differ so widely from each other, give one and the same genealogy. For from David to Salathiel, and again from Zerubbabel till Joseph, the names are totally different.

Again, it is alleged, that it would have been idle to bestow so great pains on a thing of no use, in relating a second time the genealogy of Joseph, who after all was not the father of Christ. “Why this repetition,” say they, “which proves nothing that contributes much to the edification of faith? If nothing more be known than this, that Joseph was one of the descendants and family of David, the genealogy of Christ will still remain doubtful.” In their opinion, therefore, it would have been superfluous that two Evangelists should apply themselves to this subject. They excuse Matthew for laying down the ancestry of Joseph, on the ground, that he did it for the sake of many persons, who were still of opinion that he was the father of Christ. But it would have been foolish to hold out such an encouragement to a dangerous error: and what follows is at total variance with the supposition. For as soon as he comes to the close of the genealogy, Matthew points out that Christ was conceived in the womb of the virgin, not from the seed of Joseph, but by the secret power of the Spirit. If their argument were good, Matthew might be charged with folly or inadvertence, in laboring to no purpose to establish the genealogy of Joseph.

But we have not yet replied to their objection, that the ancestry of Joseph has nothing to do with Christ. The common and well-known reply is, that in the person of Joseph the genealogy of Mary also is included, because the law enjoined every man to marry from his own tribe. It is objected, on the other hand, that at almost no period had that law been observed: but the arguments on which that assertion rests are frivolous. They quote the instance of the eleven tribes binding themselves by an oath, that they would not give a wife to the Benjamites, (Judges 21:1.) If this matter, say they, had been settled by law, there would have been no need for a new enactment. I reply, this extraordinary occurrence is erroneously and ignorantly converted by them into a general rule: for if one tribe had been cut off, the body of the people must have been incomplete if some remedy had not been applied to a case of extreme necessity. We must not, therefore, look to this passage for ascertaining the common law.

Again, it is objected, that Mary, the mother of Christ, was Elisabeth’s cousin, though Luke has formerly stated that she was of the daughters of Aaron, (Luke 1:5.) The reply is easy. The daughters of the tribe of Judah, or of any other tribe, were at liberty to marry into the tribe of the priesthood: for they were not prevented by that reason, which is expressed in the law, that no woman should “remove her inheritance” to those who were of a different tribe from her own, (Numbers 36:6-9.) Thus, the wife of Jehoiada, the high priest, is declared by the sacred historian to have belonged to the royal family, —

“Jehoshabeath, the daughter of Jehoram, the wife of Jehoiada the priest,” (2 Chronicles 22:11.)

It was, therefore, nothing wonderful or uncommon, if the mother of Elisabeth were married to a priest. Should any one allege, that this does not enable us to decide, with perfect certainty, that Mary was of the same tribe with Joseph, because she was his wife, I grant that the bare narrative, as it stands, would not prove it without the aid of other circumstances.

But, in the first place, we must observe, that the Evangelists do not speak of events known in their own age. When the ancestry of Joseph had been carried up as far as David, every one could easily make out the ancestry of Mary. The Evangelists, trusting to what was generally understood in their own day, were, no doubt, less solicitous on that point: for, if any one entertained doubts, the research was neither difficult nor tedious. “Il, leur estoit aise de le monstrer comme au doigt, et sans long ropos.” — “It was easy for them to point it out, as with the finger, and without a long story.” Besides, they took for granted, that Joseph, as a man of good character and behavior, had obeyed the injunction of the law in marrying a wife from his own tribe. That general rule would not, indeed, be sufficient to prove Mary’s royal descent; for she might have belonged to the tribe of Judah, and yet not have been a descendant of the family of David.

My opinion is this. The Evangelists had in their eye godly persons, who entered into no obstinate dispute, but in the person of Joseph acknowledged the descent of Mary; particularly since, as we have said, no doubt was entertained about it in that age. One matter, however, might appear incredible, that this very poor and despised couple belonged to the posterity of David, and to that royal seed, from which the Redeemer was to spring. If any one inquire whether or not the genealogy traced by Matthew and Luke proves clearly and beyond controversy that Mary was descended from the family of David, I own that it cannot be inferred with certainty; but as the relationship between Mary and Joseph was at that time well known, the Evangelists were more at ease on that subject. Meanwhile, it was the design of both Evangelists to remove the stumbling-block arising from the fact, that both Joseph and Mary were unknown, and despised, and poor, and gave not the slightest indication of royalty.

Again, the supposition that Luke passes by the descent of Joseph, and relates that of Mary, is easily refuted; for he expressly says, that Jesus was supposed to be the son of Joseph, etc. Certainly, neither the father nor the grandfather of Christ is mentioned, but the ancestry of Joseph himself is carefully explained. I am well aware of the manner in which they attempt to solve this difficulty. The word son, they allege, is put for son-in-law, and the interpretation they give to Joseph being called the son of Heli is, that he had married Heli’s daughter. But this does not agree with the order of nature, and is nowhere countenanced by any example in Scripture.

If Solomon is struck out of Mary’s genealogy, Christ will no longer be Christ; for all inquiry as to his descent is founded on that solemn promise,

“I will set up thy seed after thee; I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son,” (2 Samuel 7:12-14.)

“The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne,” (Psalm 132:11.)

Solomon was, beyond controversy, the type of this eternal King who was promised to David; nor can the promise be applied to Christ, except in so far as its truth was shadowed out in Solomon, (1 Chronicles 28:5.) Now if the descent is not traced to him, how, or by what argument, shall he be proved to be “the son of David”? Whoever expunges Solomon from Christ’s genealogy does at the same time, obliterate and destroy those promises by which he must be acknowledged to be the son of David. In what way Luke, tracing the line of descent from Nathan, does not exclude Solomon, will afterwards be seen at the proper place.

Not to be too tedious, those two genealogies agree substantially with each other, but we must attend to four points of difference. The first is; Luke ascends by a retrograde order, from the last to the first, while Matthew begins with the source of the genealogy. The second is; Matthew does not carry his narrative beyond the holy and elect race of Abraham, “Matthieu, en sa description, ne passe point plus haut qu'Abraham, qui a este le pere du peuple sainct et esleu.” — “Matthew, in his description, does not pass higher than Abraham, who was the father of the holy and elect people.” while Luke proceeds as far as Adam. The third is; Matthew treats of his legal descent, and allows himself to make some omissions in the line of ancestors, choosing to assist the reader’s memory by arranging them under three fourteens; while Luke follows the natural descent with greater exactness. The fourth and last is; when they are speaking of the same persons, they sometimes give them different names.

It would be superfluous to say more about the first point of difference, for it presents no difficulty. The second is not without a very good reason: for, as God had chosen for himself the family of Abraham, from which the Redeemer of the world would be born, and as the promise of salvation had been, in some sort, shut up in that family till the coming of Christ, Matthew does not pass beyond the limits which God had prescribed. We must attend to what Paul says,

“that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers,” (Romans 15:8)

with which agrees that saying of Christ, “Salvation is of the Jews,” (John 4:22.) Matthew, therefore, presents him to our contemplation as belonging to that holy race, to which he had been expressly appointed. In Matthew’s catalogue we must look at the covenant of God, by which he adopted the seed of Abraham as his people, separating them, by a “middle wall of partition,” (Ephesians 2:14,) from the rest of the nations. Luke directed his view to a higher point; for though, from the time that God had made his covenant with Abraham, a Redeemer was promised, in a peculiar manner, to his seed, yet we know that, since the transgression of the first man, all needed a Redeemer, and he was accordingly appointed for the whole world. It was by a wonderful purpose of God, that Luke exhibited Christ to us as the son of Adam, while Matthew confined him within the single family of Abraham. For it would be of no advantage to us, that Christ was given by the Father as “the author of eternal salvations” (Hebrews 5:9,) unless he had been given indiscriminately to all. Besides, that saying of the Apostle would not be true, that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever,” (Hebrews 13:8,) if his power and grace had not reached to all ages from the very creation of the world. Let us know; therefore, that to the whole human race there has been manifested and exhibited salvation through Christ; for not without reason is he called the son of Noah, and the son of Adam. But as we must seek him in the word of God, the Spirit wisely directs us, through another Evangelist, to the holy race of Abraham, to whose hands the treasure of eternal life, along with Christ, was committed for a time, (Romans 3:1.)

We come now to the third point of difference. Matthew and Luke unquestionably do not observe the same order; for immediately after David the one puts Solomon, and the other, Nathan; which makes it perfectly clear that they follow different lines. This sort of contradiction is reconciled by good and learned interpreters in the following manner. Matthew, departing from the natural lineage, which is followed by Luke, reckons up the legal genealogy. I call it the legal genealogy, because the right to the throne passed into the hands of Salathiel. Eusebius, in the first book of his Ecclesiastical History, adopting the opinion of Africanus, prefers applying the epithet legal to the genealogy which is traced by Luke. But it amounts to the same thing: for he means nothing more than this, that the kingdom, which had been established in the person of Solomon, passed in a lawful manner to Salathiel. But it is more correct and appropriate to say, that Matthew has exhibited the legal order: because, by naming Solomon immediately after David, he attends, not to the persons from whom in a regular line, according to the flesh, Christ derived his birth, but to the manner in which he was descended from Solomon and other kings, so as to be their lawful successor, in whose hand God would “stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever,” (2 Samuel 7:13.)

There is probability in the opinion that, at the death of Ahaziah, the lineal descent from Solomon was closed. As to the command given by David — for which some persons quote the authority of Jewish Commentators — that should the line from Solomon fail, the royal power would pass to the descendants of Nathan, I leave it undetermined; holding this only for certain, that the succession to the kingdom was not confused, but regulated by fixed degrees of kindred. Now, as the sacred history relates that, after the murder of Ahaziah, the throne was occupied, and all the seed-royal destroyed “by his mother Athaliah, (2 Kings 11:1,) it is more than probable that this woman, from an eager desire of power, had perpetrated those wicked and horrible murders that she might not be reduced to a private rank, and see the throne transferred to another. If there had been a son of Ahaziah still alive, the grandmother would willingly have been allowed to reign in peace, without envy or danger, under the mask of being his tutor. When she proceeds to such enormous crimes as to draw upon herself infamy and hatred, it is a proof of desperation arising from her being unable any longer to keep the royal authority in her house.

As to Joash being called “the son of Ahaziah,” (2 Chronicles 22:11,) the reason is, that he was the nearest relative, and was justly considered to be the true and direct heir of the crown. Not to mention that Athaliah (if we shall suppose her to be his grandmother) would gladly have availed herself of her relation to the child, will any person of ordinary understanding think it probable, that an actual son of the king could be so concealed by “Jehoiada the priest,” as not to excite the grandmother to more diligent search? If all is carefully weighed, there will be no hesitation in concluding, that the next heir of the crown belonged to a different line. And this is the meaning of Jehoiada’s words,

“Behold, the king’s son shall reign, as the Lord hath said of the sons of David,” (2 Chronicles 23:3.)

He considered it to be shameful and intolerable, that a woman, who was a stranger by blood, should violently seize the scepter, which God had commanded to remain in the family of David.

There is no absurdity in supposing, that Luke traces the descent of Christ from Nathan: for it is possible that the line of Solomon, so far as relates to the succession of the throne, may have been broken off. It may be objected, that Jesus cannot be acknowledged as the promised Messiah, if he be not a descendant of Solomon, who was an undoubted type of Christ But the answer is easy. Though he was not naturally descended from Solomon, yet he was reckoned his son by legal succession, because he was descended from kings.

The fourth point of difference is the great diversity of the names. Many look upon this as a great difficulty: for from David till Joseph, with the exception of Salathiel and Zerubbabel, none of the names are alike in the two Evangelists. The excuse commonly offered, that the diversity arose from its being very customary among the Jews to have two names, appears to many persons not quite satisfactory. But as we are now unacquainted with the method, which was followed by Matthew in drawing up and arranging the genealogy, there is no reason to wonder, if we are unable to determine how far both of them agree or differ as to individual names. It cannot be doubted that, after the Babylonish captivity, the same persons are mentioned under different names. In the case of Salathiel and Zerubbabel, the same names, I think, were purposely retained, on account of the change which had taken place in the nation: because the royal authority was then extinguished. Even while a feeble shadow of power remained, a striking change was visible, which warned believers, that they ought to expect another and more excellent kingdom than that of Solomon, which had flourished but for a short time.

It is also worthy of remark, that the additional number in Luke’s catalogue to that of Matthew is nothing strange; for the number of persons in the natural line of descent is usually greater than in the legal line. Besides, Matthew chose to divide the genealogy of Christ into three departments, and to make each department to contain fourteen persons. In this way, he felt himself at liberty to pass by some names, which Luke could not with propriety omit, not having restricted himself by that rule.

Thus have I discussed the genealogy of Christ, as far as it appeared to be generally useful. If any one is tickled “Si quem titillat major curiositas.” — “S'il y a quelqu'un chatouille de curiosite qui en demande d'avantage.” — “If any one is tickled by a curiosity, which asks for more of it.” by a keener curiosity, I remember Paul’s admonition, and prefer sobriety and modesty to trifling and useless disputes. It is a noted passage, in which he enjoins us to avoid excessive keenness in disputing about “genealogies, as unprofitable and vain,” (Titus 3:9.)

It now remains to inquire, lastly, why Matthew included the whole genealogy of Christ in three classes, and assigned to each class fourteen persons. Those who think that he did so, in order to aid the memory of his readers, state a part of the reason, but not the whole. It is true, indeed, that a catalogue, divided into three equal numbers, is more easily remembered. But it is also evident that this division is intended to point out a threefold condition of the nation, from the time when Christ was promised to Abraham, to “the fullness of the time” (Galatians 4:4) when he was “manifested in the flesh,” (1 Timothy 3:16.) Previous to the time of David, the tribe of Judah, though it occupied a higher rank than the other tribes, held no power. In David the royal authority burst upon the eyes of all with unexpected splendor, and remained till the time of Jeconiah. After that period, there still lingered in the tribe of Judah a portion of rank and government, which sustained the expectations of the godly till the coming of the Messiah.

1. The book of the generation Some commentators give themselves unnecessary trouble, in order to excuse Matthew for giving to his whole history this title, which applies only to the half of a single chapter. For this ἐπιγραφή, or title, does not extend to the whole book of Matthew: but the word βίβλος, book, is put for catalogue: as if he had said, “Here follows the catalogue of the generation of Christ.” It is with reference to the promise, that Christ is called the son of David, the son of Abraham: for God had promised to Abraham that he would give him a seed, “in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed,” (Genesis 12:3.) David received a still clearer promise, that God would “stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever,” (2 Samuel 7:13;) that one of his posterity would be king “as long as the sun and moon endure,” (Psalm 72:5;) and that “his throne should be as the days of heaven,” (Psalm 89:29.) And so it became a customary way of speaking among the Jews to call Christ the son of David

2. Jacob begat Judah and his brethren While Matthew passes by in silence Ishmael, Abraham’s first-born, and Esau, who was Jacob’s elder brother, he properly assigns a place in the genealogy to the Twelve Patriarchs, on all of whom God had bestowed a similar favor of adoption. He therefore intimates, that the blessing promised in Christ does not refer to the tribe of Judah alone, but belongs equally to all the children of Jacob, whom God gathered into his Church, while Ishmael and Esau were treated as strangers. “Quum essent extranei.” — “En lieu qu'Ismael et Esau en avoyent este rejettez et bannis comme estrangers.” — “Whereas Ishmael and Esau were thrown out and banished from it as strangers.”

3. Judah begat Pharez and Zarah by Tamar This was a prelude to that emptying of himself, ᾿Αλλ ᾿ ἑαυτὸν ἐχένωσε, — but he emptied himself. Such is the literal import of the words which are rendered in the English version, But made himself of no reputation. — Ed. of which Paul speaks, (Philippians 2:7). The Son of God might have kept his descent unspotted and pure from every reproach or mark of infamy. But he came into the world to

“empty himself, and take upon him the form of a servant,” (Philippians 2:7)

to be

“a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people,” (Psalm 22:6)

and at length to undergo the accursed death of the cross. He therefore did not refuse to admit a stain into his genealogy, arising from incestuous intercourse which took place among his ancestors. Though Tamar was not impelled by lust to seek connection with her father-in-law, yet it was in an unlawful manner that she attempted to revenge the injury which she had received. Judah again intended to commit fornication, and unknowingly to himself, met with his daughter-in-law. “In nurum suam incidit.” — “Judas a commis sa meschancete avec sa bru, pensant que ce fust une autre.” — “Judah committed his wickedness with his daughter-in-law, supposing her to be a different person” But the astonishing goodness of God strove with the sin of both; so that, nevertheless, this adulterous seed came to possess the scepter. “Afin que neantmoins ceste semence bastarde vint a avoir un jour en main le scepter Royal.” — “So that nevertheless this bastard seed came to have one day in its hand the Royal scepter.”

6. Begat David the King In this genealogy, the designation of King is bestowed on David alone, because in his person God exhibited a type of the future leader of his people, the Messiah. The kingly office had been formerly held by Saul; but, as he reached it through tumult and the ungodly wishes of the people, the lawful possession of the office is supposed to have commenced with David, more especially in reference to the covenant of God, who promised that “his throne should be established for ever,” (2 Samuel 7:16.) When the people shook off the yoke of God, and unhappily and wickedly asked a king, saying, “Give us a king to judge us,” (1 Samuel 8:5,) Saul was granted for short time. But his kingdom was shortly afterwards established by God, as a pledge of true prosperity, in the hand of David. Let this expression, David the King, be understood by us as pointing out the prosperous condition of the people, which the Lord had appointed.

Meanwhile, the Evangelist adds a human disgrace, which might almost bring a stain on the glory of this divine blessing. David the King begat Solomon by her that had been the wife of Uriah; by Bathsheba, whom he wickedly tore from her husband, and for the sake of enjoying whom, he basely surrendered an innocent man to be murdered by the swords of the enemy, (2 Samuel 11:15.) This taint, at the commencement of the kingdom, ought to have taught the Jews not to glory in the flesh. It was the design of God to show that, in establishing this kingdom, nothing depended on human merits.

Comparing the inspired history with the succession described by Matthew, it is evident that he has omitted three kings. “Assavoir Ochozias fils de Joram, Joas, et Amazias.” — “Namely, Ahaziah son of Jehoram, Joash, and Amaziah,” (2 Chronicles 22, 23, 24, 25.) Those who say that he did so through forgetfulness, cannot be listened to for a moment. Nor is it probable that they were thrown out, because they were unworthy to occupy a place in the genealogy of Christ; for the same reason would equally apply to many others, who are indiscriminately brought forward by Matthew, along with pious and holy persons. A more correct account is, that he resolved to confine the list of each class to fourteen kings, and gave himself little concern in making the selection, because he had an adequate succession of the genealogy to place before the eyes of his readers, down to the close of the kingdom. As to there being only thirteen in the list, it probably arose from the blunders and carelessness of transcribers. Epiphanius, in his First Book against Heresies, assigns this reason, that the name of Jeconiah had been twice put down, and unlearned “Indocti;” — “quelques gens n'entendans pas le propos,” — “some peope not understanding the design.” persons ventured to strike out the repetition of it as superfluous; which, he tells us, ought not to have been done, because Jehoiakim, the father of king Jehoiakim, had the name Jeconiah, in common with his son, (1 Chronicles 3:17; 2 Kings 24:15; Jeremiah 27:20; 28:4.) Robert Stephens quotes a Greek manuscript, in which the name of Jehoiakim is introduced. “Robert Etienne a ce propos allegue un exemplaire Grec ancien, ou il y a ainsi, Josias engendra Joacim, et Joacim engendra Jechonias.”— “Robert Stephens, with this view, quotes an ancient Greek manuscript, which runs thus: Josiah begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jeconiah.”

12. After the Babylonish exile That is, after the Jews were carried into captivity: for the Evangelist means, that the descendants of David, from being kings, then became exiles and slaves. As that captivity was a sort of destruction, it came to be wonderfully arranged by Divine providence, not only that the Jews again united in one body, but even that some vestiges of dominion remained in the family of David. For those who returned home submitted, of their own accord, to the authority of Zerubbabel. In this manner, the fragments of the royal scepter “Qui avoit este mis bas, et comme rompu;” — “which had been thrown down, and, as it were, broken.” lasted till the coming of Christ was at hand, agreeably to the prediction of Jacob, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come,” (Genesis 49:10.) And even during that wretched and melancholy dispersion, the nation never ceased to be illuminated by some rays of the grace of God. The Greek word μετοικεσία, which the old translator renders transmigration, and Erasmus renders exile, literally signifies a change of habitation. The meaning is, that the Jews were compelled to leave their country, and to dwell as “strangers in a land that was not theirs,” (Genesis 15:13.)

16. Jesus, who is called Christ By the surname Christ, Anointed, Matthew points out his office, to inform the readers that this was not a private person, but one divinely anointed to perform the office of Redeemer. What that anointing was, and to what it referred, I shall not now illustrate at great length. As to the word itself, it is only necessary to say that, after the royal authority was abolished, it began to be applied exclusively to Him, from whom they were taught to expect a full recovery of the lost salvation. So long as any splendor of royalty continued in the family of David, the kings were wont to be called χριστοί, anointed. Every reader of the Bible is familiar with the phrase, the Lord's anointed, as applied to David and his successors, (2 Samuel 19:21; Lamentations 4:20.) — Ed. But that the fearful desolation which followed might not throw the minds of the godly into despair, it pleased God to appropriate the name of Messiah, Anointed, to the Redeemer alone: as is evident from Daniel, (9:25, 26.) The evangelical history everywhere shows that this was an ordinary way of speaking, at the time when the Son of God was “manifested in the flesh,” (1 Timothy 3:16.)

MATTHEW 1:18-25

Matthew 1:18-25

18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this manner. For when his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19. And Joseph her husband, as he was a just man, and was unwilling to injure her reputation, intended to send her away secretly. 20. And while he was considering these things, lo, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is by the Holy Spirit. 21. And she shall bear a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins. 22. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel: which, if one interprets it, means, God is with us. 24. Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife: 25. And knew her not, till she brought forth her first-born son: and called his name JESUS.

18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ Matthew does not as yet relate the place or manner of Christ’s birth, but the way in which his heavenly generation was made known to Joseph. First, he says that Mary was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit Not that this secret work of God was generally known: but the historian mixes up, with the knowledge of men, (“Qui voyoyent bien par signes externes que Marie estoit enceinte.”) —(“Who saw well by outward marks that Mary was pregnant.”) the power of the Spirit, which was still unknown. He points out the time: When she was espoused to Joseph, and before they came together So far as respects conjugal fidelity, from the time that a young woman was betrothed to a man, she was regarded by the Jews as his lawful wife. When a “damsel betrothed to an husband” was convicted of being unchaste, the law condemned both of the guilty parties as adulterers:

“the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife,” (Deuteronomy 22:23, 24.)

The phrase employed by the Evangelist, before they came together, is either a modest appellation for conjugal intercourse, or simply means, “before they came to dwell together as husband and wife, and to make one home and family.” The meaning will thus be, that the virgin had not yet been delivered by her parents into the hands of her husband, but still remained under their roof.

19. As he was a just man Some commentators explain this to mean, that Joseph, because he was a just man, determined to spare his wife: “Que Joseph a voulu pardonner a sa femme, et couvrir la faute, d'autant qu'il estoit juste.” — “That Joseph intended to forgive his wife, and conceal her offense, because he was just.” taking justice to be only another name for humanity, or, a gentle and merciful disposition. But others more correctly read the two clauses as contrasted with each other: that Joseph was a just man, but yet that he was anxious about the reputation of his wife. That justice, on which a commendation is here bestowed, consisted in hatred and abhorrence of crime. Suspecting his wife of adultery, and even convinced that she was an adulterer, he was unwilling to hold out the encouragement of lenity to such a crime. “Il ne vouloit point nourrir le mal en dissimulant et faisant semblant de n'y voir rien.” — “He did not wish to encourage wickedness, by dissembling and pretending that he did not see it.” And certainly he is but a pander “Leno;” — “macquereau.” to his wife, who connives at her unchastity. Not only is such wickedness regarded with abhorrence by good and honorable minds, but that winking at crime which I have mentioned is marked by the laws with infamy.

Joseph, therefore, moved by an ardent love of justice, condemned the crime of which he supposed his wife to have been guilty; while the gentleness of his disposition prevented him from going to the utmost rigor of law. It was a moderate and calmer method to depart privately, and remove to a distant place. “Le moyen le plus doux et le moins scandaleux estoit, que secretement il departist du lieu, et la laissast sans faire aueun bruit.” — “The mildest and least scandalous method was, that he should depart secretly from the place, and leave her without making any noise.” Hence we infer, that he was not of so soft and effeminate a disposition, as to screen and promote uncleanness under the pretense of merciful dealing: he only made some abatement from stern justice, so as not to expose his wife to evil report. Nor ought we to have any hesitation in believing, that his mind was restrained by a secret inspiration of the Spirit. We know how weak jealousy is, and to what violence it hurries its possessor. Though Joseph did not proceed to rash and headlong conduct, yet he was wonderfully preserved from many imminent dangers, which would have sprung out of his resolution to depart.

The same remark is applicable to Mary’s silence. Granting that modest reserve prevented her from venturing to tell her husband, that she was with child by the Holy Spirit, it was not so much by her own choice, as by the providence of God that she was restrained. Let us suppose her to have spoken. The nature of the case made it little short of incredible. Joseph would have thought himself ridiculed, and everybody would have treated the matter as a laughing-stock: after which the Divine announcement, if it had followed, would have been of less importance. The Lord permitted his servant Joseph to be betrayed by ignorance into an erroneous conclusion, that, by his own voice, he might bring him back to the right path.

Yet it is proper for us to know, that this was done more on our account than for his personal advantage: for every necessary method was adopted by God, to prevent unfavorable suspicion from falling on the heavenly message. When the angel approaches Joseph, who is still unacquainted with the whole matter, wicked men have no reason to charge him with being influenced by prejudice to listen to the voice of God. He was not overcome by the insinuating address of his wife. His previously formed opinion was not shaken by entreaties. He was not induced by human arguments to take the opposite side. But, while the groundless accusation of his wife was still rankling in his mind, God interposed between them, that we might regard Joseph as a more competent witness, and possessing greater authority, as a messenger sent to us from heaven. We see how God chose to employ an angel in informing his servant Joseph, that to others he might be a heavenly herald, and that the intelligence which he conveyed might not be borrowed from his wife, or from any mortal.

The reason why this mystery was not immediately made known to a greater number of persons appears to be this. It was proper that this inestimable treasure should remain concealed, and that the knowledge of it should be imparted to none but the children of God. Nor is it absurd to say, that the Lord intended, as he frequently does, to put the faith and obedience of his own people to the trial. Most certainly, if any man shall maliciously refuse to believe and obey God in this matter, he will have abundant reason to be satisfied with the proofs by which this article of our faith is supported. For the same reason, the Lord permitted Mary to enter into the married state, that under the veil of marriage, till the full time for revealing it, the heavenly conception of the virgin might be concealed. Meanwhile, the knowledge of it was withheld from unbelievers, as their ingratitude and malice deserved.

20. And while he was considering these things We see here how seasonably, and, as we would say, at the very point, the Lord usually aids his people. Hence too we infer that, when he appears not to observe our cares and distresses, we are still under his eye. He may, indeed, hide himself, and remain silent; but, when our patience has been subjected to the trial, he will aid us at the time which his own wisdom has selected. How slow or late soever his assistance may be thought to be, it is for our advantage that it is thus delayed.

The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream This is one of two ordinary kinds of revelations mentioned in the book of Numbers, where the Lord thus speaks:

“If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speechess,” (Numbers 12:6-8.)

But we must understand that dreams of this sort differ widely from natural dreams; for they have a character of certainty engraven on them, and are impressed with a divine seal, so that there is not the slightest doubt of their truth. The dreams which men commonly have, arise either from the thoughts of the day, or from their natural temperament, or from bodily indisposition, or from similar causes: while the dreams which come from God are accompanied by the testimony of the Spirit, which puts beyond a doubt that it is God who speaks.

Son of David, fear not This exhortation shows, that Joseph was perplexed with the fear of sharing in the criminality of his wife, by enduring her adultery. The angel removes his suspicion of guilt, with the view of enabling him to dwell with his wife with a safe conscience. The appellation, Son of David, was employed on the present occasion, in order to elevate his mind to that lofty mystery; for he belonged to that family, and was one of the surviving few, “Quia esset ex ea familia, et quidem superstes cum paucis;” — “d'autant qu'il estoit de cette famille, et mesmes que d'icelle il estoit quasi seul vivant, avec quelques autres en bien petit nombre;” — “because he was of that family, and even of that he was almost sole survivor, with some others in very small number.” from whom the salvation promised to the world could proceed. When he heard the name of David, from whom he was descended, Joseph ought to have remembered that remarkable promise of God which related to the establishment of the kingdom, so as to acknowledge that there was nothing new in what was now told him. The predictions of the prophets were, in effect, brought forward by the angel, to prepare the mind of Joseph for receiving the present favor.

21. And thou shalt call his name JESUS. I have already explained briefly, but as far as was necessary, the meaning of that word. At present I shall only add, that the words of the angel set aside the dream of those who derive it from the essential name of God, Jehovah; for the angel expresses the reason why the Son of God is so called, Because he shall SAVE his people; which suggests quite a different etymology from what they have contrived. It is justly and appropriately added, they tell us, that Christ will be the author of salvation, because he is the Eternal God. But in vain do they attempt to escape by this subterfuge; for the nature of the blessing which God bestows upon us is not all that is here stated. This office was conferred upon his Son from the fact, from the command which had been given to him by the Father, from the office with which he was invested when he came down to us from heaven. Besides, the two words ᾿Ιησοῦς and יהוה, Jesus and Jehovah, agree but in two letters, and differ in all the rest; which makes it exceedingly absurd to allege any affinity whatever between them, as if they were but one name. Such mixtures I leave to the alchymists, or to those who closely resemble them, the Cabalists who contrive for us those trifling and affected refinements.

When the Son of God came to us clothed in flesh, he received from the Father a name which plainly told for what purpose he came, what was his power, and what we had a right to expect from him. for the name Jesus is derived from the Hebrew verb, in the Hiphil conjugation, הושיע, which signifies to save In Hebrew it is pronounced differently, Jehoshua; but the Evangelists, who wrote in Greek, followed the customary mode of pronunciation; for in the writings of Moses, and in the other books of the Old Testament, the Hebrew word יהושוע, Jehoshua, or Joshua, is rendered by the Greek translators ᾿Ιησοῦς, Jesus But I must mention another instance of the ignorance of those who derive — or, I would rather say, who forcibly tear — the name Jesus from Jehovah They hold it to be in the highest degree improper that any mortal man should share this name in common with the Son of God, and make a strange outcry that Christ would never allow his name to be so profaned. As if the reply were not at hand, that the name Jesus was quite as commonly used in those days as the name Joshua Now, as it is sufficiently clear that the name Jesus presents to us the Son of God as the Author of salvation, let us examine more closely the words of the angel.

He shall save his people from their sins The first truth taught us by these words is, that those whom Christ is sent to save are in themselves lost. But he is expressly called the Savior of the Church. If those whom God admits to fellowship with himself were sunk in death and ruin till they were restored to life by Christ, what shall we say of “strangers” (Ephesians 2:12) who have never been illuminated by the hope of life? When salvation is declared to be shut up in Christ, it clearly implies that the whole human race is devoted to destruction. The cause of this destruction ought also to be observed; for it is not unjustly, or without good reason, that the Heavenly Judge pronounces us to be accursed. The angel declares that we have perished, and are overwhelmed by an awful condemnation, because we stand excluded from life by our sins. Thus we obtain a view of our corruption and depravity; for if any man lived a perfectly holy life, he might do without Christ as a Redeemer. But all to a man need his grace; and, therefore, it follows that they are the slaves of sin, and are destitute of true righteousness.

Hence, too, we learn in what way or manner Christ saves; he delivers us from sins This deliverance consists of two parts. Having made a complete atonement, he brings us a free pardon, which delivers us from condemnation to death, and reconciles us to God. Again, by the sanctifying influences of his Spirit, he frees us from the tyranny of Satan, that we may live “unto righteousness,” (1 Peter 2:24.) Christ is not truly acknowledged as a Savior, till, on the one hand, we learn to receive a free pardon of our sins, and know that we are accounted righteous before God, because we are free from guilt; and till, on the other hand, we ask from him the Spirit of righteousness and holiness, having no confidence whatever in our own works or power. By Christ’s people the angel unquestionably means the Jews, to whom he was appointed as Head and King; but as the Gentiles were shortly afterwards to be ingrafted into the stock of Abraham, (Romans 11:17,) this promise of salvation is extended indiscriminately to all who are incorporated by faith in the “one body” (1 Corinthians 12:20) of the Church.

22. Now all this was done It is ignorant and childish trifling to argue, that the name Jesus is given to the Son of God, because he is called Immanuel For Matthew does not confine this assertion to the single fact of the name, but includes whatever is heavenly and divine in the conception of Christ; and that is the reason why he employs the general term all We must now see how appropriately the prediction of Isaiah is applied. It is a well-known and remarkable passage, (Isaiah 7:14,) but perverted by the Jews with their accustomed malice; though the hatred of Christ and of truth, which they thus discover, is as blind and foolish as it is wicked. To such a pitch of impudence have many of their Rabbins proceeded, as to explain it in reference to King Hezekiah, who was then about fifteen years of age. And what, I ask, must be their rage for lying, when, in order to prevent the admission of clear light, they invert the order of nature, and shut up a youth in his mother’s womb, that he may be born sixteen years old? But the enemies of Christ deserve that God should strike them with a spirit of giddiness and insensibility, should

“pour out upon them a spirit of deep sleep and close their eyes,” (Isaiah 29:10.)

Others apply it to a creature of their own fancy, some unknown son of Ahaz, whose birth Isaiah predicted. But with what propriety was he called Immanuel, or the land subjected to his sway, who closed his life in a private station and without honor? for shortly afterwards the prophet tells us that this child, whoever he was, would be ruler of the land. Equally absurd is the notion that this passage relates to the prophet’s son. On this subject we may remark, that Christian writers have very strangely misapprehended the prediction contained in the next chapter, by applying it to Christ. The prophet there says, that, instructed by a vision, he “went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son,” and that the child whom she bore was named by Divine command, ”Maher-shalal-hash-baz,” “Making speed to the spoil, hasten the prey,” (Isaiah 8:3.) All that is there described is approaching war, accompanied by fearful desolation; which makes it very manifest that the subjects are totally different.

Let us now, therefore, investigate the true meaning of this passage. The city of Jerusalem is besieged. Ahaz trembles, and is almost dead with terror. The prophet is sent to assure him that God will protect the city. But a simple promise is not sufficient to compose his agitated mind. The prophet is sent to him, saying,

“Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above,” (Isaiah 7:11.)

That wicked hypocrite, concealing his unbelief, disdains to ask a sign. The prophet rebukes him sharply, and at length adds,

“The Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel,” (Isaiah 7:14.)

We expound this as relating to Christ in the following manner: “You, the whole posterity of David, as far as lies in your power, endeavor to nullify the grace which is promised to you;” (for the prophet expressly calls them, by way of disgrace, the house of David, Isaiah 7:13;) “but your base infidelity will never prevent the truth of God from proving to be victorious. God promises that the city will be preserved safe and unhurt from its enemies. If his word is not enough, he is ready to give you the confirmation of such a sign as you may demand. You reject both favors, and spurn them from you; but God will remain steady to his engagement. For the promised Redeemer will come, in whom God will show himself to be fully present to his people.”

The Jews reply, that Isaiah would have been at variance with everything like reason or probability, if he had given to the men of that age a sign, which was not to be exhibited till after the lapse of nearly eight hundred years. And then they assume the airs of haughty triumph, “Faisant grand cas de leur argument;” — “setting great store by their argument.” as if this objection of the Christians had originated in ignorance or thoughtlessness, and were now forgotten and buried. But the solution, I think, is easy; provided we keep in view that a covenant of adoption was given to the Jews, on which the other acts of the divine kindness depended. There was then a general promise, by which God adopted the children of Abraham as a nation, and on which were founded all the special promises. Again, the foundation of this covenant was the Messiah. Now we hold, that the reason for delivering the city was, that it was the sanctuary of God, and out of it the Redeemer would come. But for this, Jerusalem would a hundred times have perished.

Let pious readers now consider, when the royal family had openly rejected the sign which God had offered to them, if it was not suitable that the prophet should pass all at once to the Messiah, and address them in this manner: “Though this age is unworthy of the deliverance of which God has given me a promise, yet God is mindful of his covenant, and will rescue this city from its enemies. While he grants no particular sign to testify his grace, this one sign ought to be deemed more than sufficient to meet your wishes. from the stock of David the Messiah will arise.” Yet it must be observed that, when the prophet reminds unbelievers of the general covenant, it is a sort of reproof, because they did not accept of a particular sign. I have now, I think, proved that, when the door was shut against every kind of miracle, the prophet made an appropriate transition to Christ, for the purpose of leading unbelievers to reflect, that the only cause of the deliverance was the covenant that had been made with their fathers. And by this remarkable example has God been pleased to testify to all ages, that he followed with uninterrupted kindness the children of Abraham, only because in Christ, and not through their own merits, he had made with them a gracious covenant.

There is another piece of sophistry by which the Jews endeavor to parry our argument. Immediately after the words in question, the prophet adds:

“Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings,” (Isaiah 7:16.)

Hence they infer, that the promised birth of the child would be delayed for a very short time; otherwise, it would not agree with the rapidly approaching change of the kingdoms, which, the prophet announeed, would take place before that child should have passed half the period of infancy. I reply, when Isaiah has given a sign of the future Savior, and declared that a child will be born, who is the true Immanuel, or — to use Paul’s language — God manifest in the flesh, (1 Timothy 3:16,) he proceeds to speak, in general terms, of all the children of his own time. A strong proof of this readily presents itself; for, after having spoken of the general promise of God, he returns to the special promise, which he had been commissioned to declare. The former passage, which relates to a final and complete redemption, describes one particular child, to whom alone belongs the name of God; while the latter passage, which relates to a special benefit then close at hand, determines the time by the childhood of those who were recently born, or would be born shortly afterwards.

Hitherto, if I mistake not, I have refuted, by strong and conclusive arguments, the calumnies of the Jews, by which they endeavor to prevent the glory of Christ from appearing, with resplendent luster, in this prediction. It now remains for us to refute their sophistical reasoning about the Hebrew word עלמה, virgin “Le mot Hebrieu Alma, pour lequel l'Evangeliste a use du mot de Vierge;” — “the Hebrew word Alma, for which the Evangelist has used the word Virgin.” They wantonly persecute Matthew for proving that Christ was born of a virgin, “Le blamant de ce qu'il pretend prouver Jesus Christ estre nay d'une Vierge;” — “blaming him for offering to prove Jesus Christ to be born of a Virgin.” while the Hebrew noun merely signifies a young woman; and ridicule us for being led astray by the wrong translation “Abusez par un mot mal tourne;” — “deceived by a word ill translated.” of a word, to believe that he was born by the Holy Spirit, of whom the prophet asserts no more than that he would be the son of a young woman. And, first, they display an excessive eagerness for disputation, by laboring “Urgent;” — “ils veulent a toute force;” — “they attempt with their whole strength.” to prove that a word, which is uniformly applied in Scripture to virgins, denotes here a young woman who had known a man. The etymology too agrees with Matthew’s translation of the word: for it means hiding, עלמה is derived from עלם, to hide,—a verb not found in Kal, but so frequently in Niphal, (נעלם,) Hiphil, (העלים,) Hithpahel, (התעלם,) that its meaning is fully ascertained. — Ed. which expresses the modesty that becomes a virgin. “Car il emporte Retraitte ou Cachette, qui est pour denoter ceste honte honeste qui doit estre es vierges;” — “for it signifies Retreat or Concealment, which serves to denote that becoming shame which ought to be in virgins.” They produce a passage from the book of Proverbs, “the way of a man with a maids,” בעלמה, (Proverbs 30:19.) But it does not at all support their views. Solomon speaks there of a young woman who has obtained the affections of a young man: but it does not follow as a matter of course, that the young man has seduced the object of his regard; or rather, the probability leans much more strongly to the other side. “C'est bien autrement: car il y a plus d'apparence au contraire;”— “it is quite otherwise: for there is more probability on the opposite side.

But granting all that they ask as to the meaning of the word, the subject demonstrates, and compels the acknowledgment, that the prophet is speaking of a miraculous and extraordinary birth. He exclaims that he is bringing a sign from the Lord, and not an ordinary sign, but one superior to every other.

The Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, (Isaiah 7:14.)

If he were only to say, that a woman would bear a child, how ridiculous would that magnificent preface have been? Thus we see, that the insolence of the Jews exposes not only themselves, but the sacred mysteries of God, to scorn.

Besides, a powerful argument may be drawn from the whole strain of the passage. Behold, a virgin shall conceive Why is no mention made of a man? It is because the prophet draws our attention to something very uncommon. Again, the virgin is commanded to name the child. Thou shalt call his name Immanuel In this respect, also, the prophet expresses something extraordinary: for, though it is frequently related in Scripture, that the names were given to children by their mothers, yet it was done by the authority of the fathers. When the prophet addresses his discourse to the virgin, he takes away from men, in respect to this child, that authority which is conferred upon them by the order of nature. Let this, therefore, be regarded as an established truth, that the prophet here refers to a remarkable miracle of God, and recommends it to the attentive and devout consideration of all the godly, — a miracle which is basely profaned by the Jews, who apply to the ordinary method of conception what is said in reference to the secret power of the Spirit.

23. His name Immanuel The phrase, God is with us, is no doubt frequently employed in Scripture to denote, that he is present with us by his assistance and grace, and displays the power of his hand in our defense. But here we are instructed as to the manner in which God communicates with men. For out of Christ we are alienated from him; but through Christ we are not only received into his favor, but are made one with him. When Paul says, that the Jews under the law were nigh to God, (Ephesians 2:17,) and that a deadly enmity (Ephesians 2:15) subsisted between him and the Gentiles, he means only that, by shadows and figures, God then gave to the people whom he had adopted the tokens of his presence. That promise was still in force, “The Lord thy God is among you,” (Deuteronomy 7:21,) and, “This is my rest for ever,” (Psalm 132:14.) But while the familiar intercourse between God and the people depended on a Mediator, what had not yet fully taken place was shadowed out by symbols. His seat and residence is placed “between the Cherubim,” (Psalm 80:1,) because the ark was the figure and visible pledge of his glory.

But in Christ the actual presence of God with his people, and not, as before, his shadowy presence, has been exhibited. “Mais quand Christ est apparu en sa personne, le peuple a eu une presence de Dieu veritable, et non pas ombratile comme paravant.”— “But when Christ appeared in his person, the people had a real presence of God, and not shadowy, as before.” This is the reason, why Paul says, that “in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” (Colossians 2:9.) And certainly he would not be a properly qualified Mediator, if he did not unite both natures in his person, and thus bring men into an alliance with God. Nor is there any force in the objection, about which the Jews make a good deal of noise, that the name of God is frequently applied to those memorials, by which he testified that he was present with believers.

For it cannot be denied, that this name, Immanuel, contains an implied contrast between the presence of God, as exhibited in Christ, with every other kind of presence, which was manifested to the ancient people before his coming. If the reason of this name began to be actually true, when Christ appeared in the flesh, it follows that it was not completely, but only in part, that God was formerly united with the Fathers.

Hence arises another proof, that Christ is God manifested in the flesh, (1 Timothy 3:16.) He discharged, indeed, the office of Mediator from the beginning of the world; but as this depended wholly on the latest revelation, he is justly called Immanuel at that time, when clothed, as it were, with a new character, he appears in public as a Priest, to atone for the sins of men by the sacrifice of his body, to reconcile them to the Father by the price of his blood, and, in a word, to fulfill every part of the salvation of men. “Somme, pour faire et accomplir toutes choses requises au salut du genre humain;” — “in a word, to do and accomplish all things requisite for the salvation of the human race.” The first thing which we ought to consider in this name is the divine majesty of Christ, so as to yield to him the reverence which is due to the only and eternal God. But we must not, at the same time, forget the fruit which God intended that we should collect and receive from this name. For whenever we contemplate the one person of Christ as God-man, we ought to hold it for certain that, if we are united to Christ by faith, we possess God.

In the words, they shall call, there is a change of the number. But this is not at all at variance with what I have already said. True, the prophet addresses the virgin alone, and therefore uses the second person, Thou shalt call But from the time that this name was published, all the godly have an equal right to make this confession, that God has given himself to us to be enjoyed in Christ. “Il appartient a tous fideles d'advouer et confesser que Dieu s'est communique et baille a nous en Christ;” — “it belongs to all believers to own and confess that God has communicated and made over himself to us in Christ.”

24. Joseph, being raised from sleep The ready performance, which is here described, serves not less to attest the certainty of Joseph’s faith, than to commend his obedience. For, if every scruple had not been removed, and his conscience fully pacified, he would never have proceeded so cheerfully, on a sudden change of opinion, to take unto him his wife, whose society, he lately thought, would pollute him. “Laquelle un peu auparavant il ne vouloit recevoir, et lui sembloit qu'il se fust pollue en conversant avec elle;” — “whom a little before he refused to receive, and seemed to him that he would be polluted by conversing with her.” The dream must have carried some mark of Divinity, which did not allow his mind to hesitate. Next followed the effect of faith. Having learned the will of God, he instantly prepared himself to obey.

25. And knew her not This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. “Il est nomme Premier nay, mais non pour autre raison, sinon afin que nous sachions qu'il est nay d'une mere vierge, et qui jamais n'avoit eu enfant;” — “he is called First-born, but for no other reason than that we may know that he was born of a pure virgin, and who never had had a child.” It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

LUKE 2:1-7

Luke 2:1-7

1. Now it happened in those days, an edict came out from Augustus Caesar, that the whole world should be registered. “Mis par escrit;” — “put in writing.” 2. This first registration “Ceste premiere description.” was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. 3. And all went to make the return, “Ut profiteretur.” each in his own city. 4. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, into the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, (because he was of the house and lineage of David,) 5. To make the return with Mary “Pour estre enroule avec Marie;” — “to be enrolled with Mary.” his betrothed wife, who was pregnant. 6. And it happened while they were there, the days of bringing forth were fulfilled. “Et comme ils estoyent la, advint que les jours d'icelle furent accom-. plis pour enfanter.” — “And as they were there, it happened that her days were accomplished for bringing forth.” 7. And she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him in bandages, “Fasciis;” — “Bandelettes.” and laid him in a manger; “Une creiche.” because there was no room for them in the inn.

INTRODUCTION

The author of this Gospel was a publican or tax gatherer, residing at Capernaum, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. As to his identity with the "Levi" of the second and third Gospels, and other particulars, see on Mt 9:9. Hardly anything is known of his apostolic labors. That, after preaching to his countrymen in Palestine, he went to the East, is the general testimony of antiquity; but the precise scene or scenes of his ministry cannot be determined. That he died a natural death may be concluded from the belief of the best-informed of the Fathers--that of the apostles only three, James the Greater, Peter, and Paul, suffered martyrdom. That the first Gospel was written by this apostle is the testimony of all antiquity.

For the date of this Gospel we have only internal evidence, and that far from decisive. Accordingly, opinion is much divided. That it was the first issued of all the Gospels was universally believed. Hence, although in the order of the Gospels, those by the two apostles were placed first in the oldest manuscripts of the Old Latin version, while in all the Greek manuscripts, with scarcely an exception, the order is the same as in our Bibles, the Gospel according to Matthew is in every case placed first. And as this Gospel is of all the four the one which bears the most evident marks of having been prepared and constructed with a special view to the Jews--who certainly first required a written Gospel, and would be the first to make use of it--there can be no doubt that it was issued before any of the others. That it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem is equally certain; for as Hug observes [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 316, Fosdick's translation], when he reports our Lord's prophecy of that awful event, on coming to the warning about "the abomination of desolation" which they should "see standing in the holy place," he interposes (contrary to his invariable practice, which is to relate without remark) a call to his readers to read intelligently--"Whoso readeth, let him understand" (Mt 24:15)--a call to attend to the divine signal for flight which could be intended only for those who lived before the event. But how long before that event this Gospel was written is not so clear. Some internal evidences seem to imply a very early date. Since the Jewish Christians were, for five or six years, exposed to persecution from their own countrymen--until the Jews, being persecuted by the Romans, had to look to themselves--it is not likely (it is argued) that they should be left so long without some written Gospel to reassure and sustain them, and Matthew's Gospel was eminently fitted for that purpose. But the digests to which Luke refers in his Introduction (see on Lu 1:1) would be sufficient for a time, especially as the living voice of the "eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word" was yet sounding abroad. Other considerations in favor of a very early date--such as the tender way in which the author seems studiously to speak of Herod Antipas, as if still reigning, and his writing of Pilate apparently as if still in power--seem to have no foundation in fact, and cannot therefore be made the ground of reasoning as to the date of this Gospel. Its Hebraic structure and hue, though they prove, as we think, that this Gospel must have been published at a period considerably anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, are no evidence in favor of so early a date as A.D. 37 or 38--according to some of the Fathers, and, of the moderns, Tillemont, Townson, Owen, Birks, Tregelles. On the other hand, the date suggested by the statement of Irenæus [Against Heresies, 3.1], that Matthew put forth his Gospel while Peter and Paul were at Rome preaching and founding the Church--or after A.D. 60--though probably the majority of critics are in favor of it, would seem rather too late, especially as the second and third Gospels, which were doubtless published, as well as this one, before the destruction of Jerusalem, had still to be issued. Certainly, such statements as the following, "Wherefore that field is called the field of blood unto this day" (Mt 27:8); "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day" (Mt 28:15), bespeak a date considerably later than the events recorded. We incline, therefore, to a date intermediate between the earlier and the later dates assigned to this Gospel, without pretending to greater precision.

We have adverted to the strikingly Jewish character and coloring of this Gospel. The facts which it selects, the points to which it gives prominence, the cast of thought and phraseology, all bespeak the Jewish point of view from which it was written and to which it was directed. This has been noticed from the beginning, and is universally acknowledged. It is of the greatest consequence to the right interpretation of it; but the tendency among some even of the best of the Germans to infer, from this special design of the first Gospel, a certain laxity on the part of the Evangelist in the treatment of his facts, must be guarded against.

But by far the most interesting and important point connected with this Gospel is the language in which it was written. It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord; and that the Greek Matthew which we now possess is a translation of that work, either by the Evangelist himself or some unknown hand. The evidence on which this opinion is grounded is wholly external, but it has been deemed conclusive by Grotius, Michaelis (and his translator), Marsh, Townson, Campbell, Olshausen, Creswell, Meyer, Ebrard, Lange, Davidson, Cureton, Tregelles, Webster and Wilkinson, &c. The evidence referred to cannot be given here, but will be found, with remarks on its unsatisfactory character, in the Introduction to the Gospels prefixed to our larger Commentary, pp. 28-31.

But how stand the facts as to our Greek Gospel? We have not a tittle of historical evidence that it is a translation, either by Matthew himself or anyone else. All antiquity refers to it as the work of Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are ascribed to their respective authors. This Greek Gospel was from the first received by the Church as an integral part of the one quadriform Gospel. And while the Fathers often advert to the two Gospels which we have from apostles, and the two which we have from men not apostles--in order to show that as that of Mark leans so entirely on Peter, and that of Luke on Paul, these are really no less apostolical than the other two--though we attach less weight to this circumstance than they did, we cannot but think it striking that, in thus speaking, they never drop a hint that the full apostolic authority of the Greek Matthew had ever been questioned on the ground of its not being the original. Further, not a trace can be discovered in this Gospel itself of its being a translation. Michaelis tried to detect, and fancied that he had succeeded in detecting, one or two such. Other Germans since, and Davidson and Cureton among ourselves, have made the same attempt. But the entire failure of all such attempts is now generally admitted, and candid advocates of a Hebrew original are quite ready to own that none such are to be found, and that but for external testimony no one would have imagined that the Greek was not the original. This they regard as showing how perfectly the translation has been executed; but those who know best what translating from one language into another is will be the readiest to own that this is tantamount to giving up the question. This Gospel proclaims its own originality in a number of striking points; such as its manner of quoting from the Old Testament, and its phraseology in some peculiar cases. But the close verbal coincidences of our Greek Matthew with the next two Gospels must not be quite passed over. There are but two possible ways of explaining this. Either the translator, sacrificing verbal fidelity in his version, intentionally conformed certain parts of his author's work to the second and third Gospels--in which case it can hardly be called Matthew's Gospel at all--or our Greek Matthew is itself the original.

Moved by these considerations, some advocates of a Hebrew original have adopted the theory of a double original; the external testimony, they think, requiring us to believe in a Hebrew original, while internal evidence is decisive in favor of the originality of the Greek. This theory is espoused by Guericks, Olshausen, Thiersch, Townson, Tregelles, &c. But, besides that this looks too like an artificial theory, invented to solve a difficulty, it is utterly void of historical support. There is not a vestige of testimony to support it in Christian antiquity. This ought to be decisive against it.

It remains, then, that our Greek Matthew is the original of that Gospel, and that no other original ever existed. It is greatly to the credit of Dean Alford, that after maintaining, in the first edition of his Greek Testament the theory of a Hebrew original, he thus expresses himself in the second and subsequent editions: "On the whole, then, I find myself constrained to abandon the view maintained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original."

One argument has been adduced on the other side, on which not a little reliance has been placed; but the determination of the main question does not, in our opinion, depend upon the point which it raises. It has been very confidently affirmed that the Greek language was not sufficiently understood by the Jews of Palestine when Matthew published his Gospel to make it at all probable that he would write a Gospel, for their benefit in the first instance, in that language. Now, as this merely alleges the improbability of a Greek original, it is enough to place against it the evidence already adduced, which is positive, in favor of the sole originality of our Greek Matthew. It is indeed a question how far the Greek language was understood in Palestine at the time referred to. But we advise the reader not to be drawn into that question as essential to the settlement of the other one. It is an element in it, no doubt, but not an essential element. There are extremes on both sides of it. The old idea, that our Lord hardly ever spoke anything but Syro-Chaldaic, is now pretty nearly exploded. Many, however, will not go the length, on the other side, of Hug (in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 326, &c.) and Roberts ("Discussions of the Gospels," &c., pp. 25, &c.). For ourselves, though we believe that our Lord, in all the more public scenes of His ministry, spoke in Greek, all we think it necessary here to say is that there is no ground to believe that Greek was so little understood in Palestine as to make it improbable that Matthew would write his Gospel exclusively in that language--so improbable as to outweigh the evidence that he did so. And when we think of the number of digests or short narratives of the principal facts of our Lord's history which we know from Luke (Lu 1:1-4) were floating about for some time before he wrote his Gospel, of which he speaks by no means disrespectfully, and nearly all of which would be in the mother tongue, we can have no doubt that the Jewish Christians and the Jews of Palestine generally would have from the first reliable written matter sufficient to supply every necessary requirement until the publican-apostle should leisurely draw up the first of the four Gospels in a language to them not a strange tongue, while to the rest of the world it was the language in which the entire quadriform Gospel was to be for all time enshrined. The following among others hold to this view of the sole originality of the Greek Matthew: Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Lightfoot, Wetstein, Lardner, Hug, Fritzsche, Credner, De Wette, Stuart, Da Costa, Fairbairn, Roberts.

On two other questions regarding this Gospel it would have been desirable to say something, had not our available space been already exhausted: The characteristics, both in language and matter, by which it is distinguished from the other three, and its relation to the second and third Gospels. On the latter of these topics--whether one or more of the Evangelists made use of the materials of the other Gospels, and, if so, which of the Evangelists drew from which--the opinions are just as numerous as the possibilities of the case, every conceivable way of it having one or more who plead for it. The most popular opinion until recently--and perhaps the most popular still--is that the second Evangelist availed himself more or less of the materials of the first Gospel, and the third of the materials of both the first and second Gospels. Here we can but state our own belief, that each of the first three Evangelists wrote independently of both the others; while the fourth, familiar with the first three, wrote to supplement them, and, even where he travels along the same line, wrote quite independently of them. This judgment we express, with all deference for those who think otherwise, as the result of a close study of each of the Gospels in immediate juxtaposition and comparison with the others. On the former of the two topics noticed, the linguistic peculiarities of each of the Gospels have been handled most closely and ably by Credner [Einleitung (Introduction to the New Testament)], of whose results a good summary will be found in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament. The other peculiarities of the Gospels have been most felicitously and beautifully brought out by Da Costa in his Four Witnesses, to which we must simply refer the reader, though it contains a few things in which we cannot concur.

CHAPTER 1

Mt 1:1-17. Genealogy of Christ. ( = Lu 3:23-38).

1. The book of the generation--an expression purely Jewish; meaning, "table of the genealogy." In Ge 5:1 the same expression occurs in this sense. We have here, then, the title, not of this whole Gospel of Matthew, but only of the first seventeen verses.

of Jesus Christ--For the meaning of these glorious words, see on Mt 1:16; Mt 1:21. "Jesus," the name given to our Lord at His circumcision (Lu 2:21), was that by which He was familiarly known while on earth. The word "Christ"--though applied to Him as a proper name by the angel who announced His birth to the shepherds (Lu 2:11), and once or twice used in this sense by our Lord Himself (Mt 23:8, 10; Mr 9:41)--only began to be so used by others about the very close of His earthly career (Mt 26:68; 27:17). The full form, "Jesus Christ," though once used by Himself in His Intercessory Prayer (Joh 17:3), was never used by others till after His ascension and the formation of churches in His name. Its use, then, in the opening words of this Gospel (and in Mt 1:17, 18) is in the style of the late period when our Evangelist wrote, rather than of the events he was going to record.

the son of David, the son of Abraham--As Abraham was the first from whose family it was predicted that Messiah should spring (Ge 22:18), so David was the last. To a Jewish reader, accordingly, these behooved to be the two great starting-points of any true genealogy of the promised Messiah; and thus this opening verse, as it stamps the first Gospel as one peculiarly Jewish, would at once tend to conciliate the writer's people. From the nearest of those two fathers came that familiar name of the promised Messiah, "the son of David" (Lu 20:41), which was applied to Jesus, either in devout acknowledgment of His rightful claim to it (Mt 9:27; 20:31), or in the way of insinuating inquiry whether such were the case (see on Joh 4:29; Mt 12:23).

2. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren--Only the fourth son of Jacob is here named, as it was from his loins that Messiah was to spring (Ge 49:10).

3-6. And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4. And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5. And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6. And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her of Urias--Four women are here introduced; two of them Gentiles by birth--Rachab and Ruth; and three of them with a blot at their names in the Old Testament--Thamar, Rachab, and Bath-sheba. This feature in the present genealogy--herein differing from that given by Luke--comes well from him who styles himself in his list of the Twelve, what none of the other lists do, "Matthew the publican"; as if thereby to hold forth, at the very outset, the unsearchable riches of that grace which could not only fetch in "them that are afar off," but teach down even to "publicans and harlots," and raise them to "sit with the princes of his people." David is here twice emphatically styled "David the king," as not only the first of that royal line from which Messiah was to descend, but the one king of all that line from which the throne that Messiah was to occupy took its name--"the throne of David." The angel Gabriel, in announcing Him to His virgin-mother, calls it "the throne of David His father," sinking all the intermediate kings of that line, as having no importance save as links to connect the first and the last king of Israel as father and son. It will be observed that Rachab is here represented as the great-grandmother of David (see Ru 4:20-22; 1Ch 2:11-15)--a thing not beyond possibility indeed, but extremely improbable, there being about four centuries between them. There can hardly be a doubt that one or two intermediate links are omitted.

7-8. And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8. And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias--or Uzziah. Three kings are here omitted--Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (1Ch 3:11, 12). Some omissions behooved to be made, to compress the whole into three fourteens (Mt 1:17). The reason why these, rather than other names, are omitted, must be sought in religious considerations--either in the connection of those kings with the house of Ahab (as Lightfoot, Ebrard, and Alford view it); in their slender right to be regarded as true links in the theocratic chain (as Lange takes it); or in some similar disqualification.

11. And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren--Jeconiah was Josiah's grandson, being the son of Jehoiakim, Josiah's second son (1Ch 3:15); but Jehoiakim might well be sunk in such a catalogue, being a mere puppet in the hands of the king of Egypt (2Ch 36:4). The "brethren" of Jechonias here evidently mean his uncles--the chief of whom, Mattaniah or Zedekiah, who came to the throne (2Ki 24:17), is, in 2Ch 36:10, as well as here, called "his brother."

about the time they were carried away to Babylon--literally, "of their migration," for the Jews avoided the word "captivity" as too bitter a recollection, and our Evangelist studiously respects the national feeling.

12. And after they were brought to Babylon--after the migration of Babylon.

Jechonias begat Salathiel--So 1Ch 3:17. Nor does this contradict Jr 22:30, "Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man (Coniah, or Jeconiah) childless"; for what follows explains in what sense this was meant--"for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David." He was to have seed, but no reigning child.

and Salathiel--or Shealtiel.

begat Zorobabel--So Ezr 3:2; Ne 12:1; Hag 1:1. But it would appear from 1Ch 3:19 that Zerubbabel was Salathiel's grandson, being the son of Pedaiah, whose name, for some reason unknown, is omitted.

13-15. And Zorobabel begat Abiud, &c.--None of these names are found in the Old Testament; but they were doubtless taken from the public or family registers, which the Jews carefully kept, and their accuracy was never challenged.

16. And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus--From this it is clear that the genealogy here given is not that of Mary, but of Joseph; nor has this ever been questioned. And yet it is here studiously proclaimed that Joseph was not the natural, but only the legal father of our Lord. His birth of a virgin was known only to a few; but the acknowledged descent of his legal father from David secured that the descent of Jesus Himself from David should never be questioned. See on Mt 1:20.

who is called Christ--signifying "anointed." It is applied in the Old Testament to the kings (1Sa 24:6, 10); to the priests (Le 4:5, 16, &c.); and to the prophets (1Ki 19:16)--these all being anointed with oil, the symbol of the needful spiritual gifts to consecrate them to their respective offices; and it was applied, in its most sublime and comprehensive sense, to the promised Deliverer, inasmuch as He was to be consecrated to an office embracing all three by the immeasurable anointing of the Holy Ghost (Is 61:1; compare Joh 3:34).

17. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away--or migration.

into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon--the migration of Babylon.

unto Christ are fourteen generations--that is, the whole may be conveniently divided into three fourteens, each embracing one marked era, and each ending with a notable event, in the Israelitish annals. Such artificial aids to memory were familiar to the Jews, and much larger gaps than those here are found in some of the Old Testament genealogies. In Ezr 7:1-5 no fewer than six generations of the priesthood are omitted, as will appear by comparing it with 1Ch 6:3-15. It will be observed that the last of the three divisions of fourteen appears to contain only thirteen distinct names, including Jesus as the last. Lange thinks that this was meant as a tacit hint that Mary was to be supplied, as the thirteenth link of the last chain, as it is impossible to conceive that the Evangelist could have made any mistake in the matter. But there is a simpler way of accounting for it. As the Evangelist himself (Mt 1:17) reckons David twice--as the last of the first fourteen and the first of the second--so, if we reckon the second fourteen to end with Josiah, who was coeval with the "carrying away into captivity" (Mt 1:11), and third to begin with Jeconiah, it will be found that the last division, as well as the other two, embraces fourteen names, including that of our Lord.

Mt 1:18-25. Birth of Christ.

18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise--or, "thus."

When as his mother Mary was espoused--rather, "betrothed."

to Joseph, before they came together, she was found--discovered to be.

with child of the Holy Ghost--It was, of course, the fact only that was discovered; the explanation of the fact here given is the Evangelist's own. That the Holy Ghost is a living conscious Person is plainly implied here, and is elsewhere clearly taught (Ac 5:3, 4, &c.): and that, in the unity of the Godhead, He is distinct both from the Father and the Son, is taught with equal distinctness (Mt 28:19; 2Co 13:14). On the miraculous conception of our Lord, see on Lu 1:35.

19. Then Joseph her husband--Compare Mt 1:20, "Mary, thy wife." Betrothal was, in Jewish law, valid marriage. In giving Mary up, therefore, Joseph had to take legal steps to effect the separation.

being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example--to expose her (see De 22:23, 24)

was minded to put her away privily--that is, privately by giving her the required writing of divorcement (De 24:1), in presence of only two or three witnesses, and without cause assigned, instead of having her before a magistrate. That some communication had passed between him and his betrothed, directly or indirectly, on the subject, after she returned from her three months' visit to Elizabeth, can hardly be doubted. Nor does the purpose to divorce her necessarily imply disbelief, on Joseph's part, of the explanation given him. Even supposing him to have yielded to it some reverential assent--and the Evangelist seems to convey as much, by ascribing the proposal to screen her to the justice of his character--he might think it altogether unsuitable and incongruous in such circumstances to follow out the marriage.

20. But while he thought on these things--Who would not feel for him after receiving such intelligence, and before receiving any light from above? As he brooded over the matter alone, in the stillness of the night, his domestic prospects darkened and his happiness blasted for life, his mind slowly making itself up to the painful step, yet planning how to do it in the way least offensive--at the last extremity the Lord Himself interposes.

behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph thou son of David--This style of address was doubtless advisedly chosen to remind him of what all the families of David's line so early coveted, and thus it would prepare him for the marvellous announcement which was to follow.

fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost--Though a dark cloud now overhangs this relationship, it is unsullied still.

21. And she shall bring forth a son--Observe, it is not said, "she shall bear thee a son," as was said to Zacharias of his wife Elizabeth (Lu 1:13).

and thou--as his legal father.

shalt call his name JESUS--from the Hebrew meaning "Jehovah the Saviour"; in Greek Jesus--to the awakened and anxious sinner sweetest and most fragrant of all names, expressing so melodiously and briefly His whole saving office and work!

for he shall save--The "He" is here emphatic--He it is that shall save; He personally, and by personal acts (as Webster and Wilkinson express it).

his people--the lost sheep of the house of Israel, in the first instance; for they were the only people He then had. But, on the breaking down of the middle wall of partition, the saved people embraced the "redeemed unto God by His blood out of every kindred and people and tongue and nation."

from their sins--in the most comprehensive sense of salvation from sin (Re 1:5; Ep 5:25-27).

22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet--(Is 7:14).

saying--as follows.

23. Behold, a virgin--It should be "the virgin" meaning that particular virgin destined to this unparalleled distinction.

shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is, God with us--Not that He was to have this for a proper name (like "Jesus"), but that He should come to be known in this character, as God manifested in the flesh, and the living bond of holy and most intimate fellowship between God and men from henceforth and for ever.

24. Then Joseph, being raised from sleep--and all his difficulties now removed.

did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife--With what deep and reverential joy would this now be done on his part; and what balm would this minister to his betrothed one, who had till now lain under suspicions of all others the most trying to a chaste and holy woman--suspicions, too, arising from what, though to her an honor unparalleled, was to all around her wholly unknown!

25. And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: and he called his name JESUS--The word "till" does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different footing afterwards (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1Sa 15:35; 2Sa 6:23; Mt 12:20); nor does the word "first-born" decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as Lightfoot says, "The law, in speaking of the first-born, regarded not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before." (See on Mt 13:55, 56).

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ - I suppose these words to have been the original title to this Gospel; and that they signify, according to the Hebrew Phraseology, not only the account of the genealogy of Christ, as detailed below, hut the history of his birth, acts, sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension.

The phrase, book of the generation, ספר תולדות sepher toledoth, is frequent in the Jewish writings, and is translated by the Septuagint, βιβλος γενεσεως, as here, by the evangelist; and regularly conveys the meaning given to it above; e.g. This is the book of the generations of Adam, Gen 5:1. That is, the account of the life of Adam and certain of his immediate descendants. Again. These are the generations of Jacob, Gen 37:2. That is, the account or history of Jacob, his son Joseph, and the other remarkable branches of the family. And again. These are the generations of Aaron and Moses, Num 3:1. That is, the history of the life and acts of these persons, and some of their immediate descendants. The same form of expression is also used, Gen 2:4, when giving the history of the creation of heaven and earth.

Some have translated βιβλος γενεσεως, The book of the genealogy; and consider it the title of this chapter only; but the former opinion seems better founded.

Jesus Christ - See on Mat 1:16, Mat 1:21 (note).

The son of David, the son of Abraham - No person ever born could boast, in a direct line, a more illustrious ancestry than Jesus Christ. Among his progenitors, the regal, sacerdotal, and prophetic offices, existed in all their glory and splendor. David, the most renowned of sovereigns, was king and prophet: Abraham, the most perfect character in all antiquity, whether sacred or profane, was priest and prophet: but the three offices were never united except in the person of Christ; he alone was prophet, priest, and king; and possessed and executed these offices in such a supereminent degree as no human being ever did, or ever could do. As the principal business of the prophet was to make known the will of God to men, according to certain partial communications received from Heaven; so Jesus, who lay in the bosom of the Father, and who was intimately and thoroughly acquainted with all the mysteries of the eternal world, came to declare the Divine nature and its counsels to mankind; see Joh 1:18. As the business of the priest was to offer sacrifices to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people; so Christ was constituted a high priest, to make, by the sacrifice of himself, an atonement for the sins of the whole world; see 1Jn 2:2, and the whole Epistle to the Hebrews. As the office of king was to reign over, protect, and defend the people committed to his care by the Divine Providence; so Christ is set as a king upon Sion, having the heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession, Psa 2:6, Psa 2:8, etc. Of the righteousness, peace, and increase of whose government, there shall be no end, Isa 9:7. This three-fold office, Christ executes not only in a general sense, in the world at large; but, in a particular sense, in every Christian soul. He is first a prophet, to teach the heart of man the will of God; to convict the conscience of sin, righteousness, and judgment; and fully to illustrate the way of salvation. He is next a priest, to apply that atonement to the guilty conscience, the necessity of which, as a prophet, he had previously made known. And lastly, as a king, he leads captivity captive, binds and casts out the strong man armed, spoils his goods, extends the sway of the scepter of righteousness, subdues and destroys sin, and reigns Lord over all the powers and faculties of the human soul; so that As sin reigned unto death, Even so does grace reign through righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom 5:21.

It is remarkable, that the evangelist names David before Abraham, though the latter was many generations older: the reason seems to be this, that David was not only the most illustrious of our Lord's predecessors, as being both king and prophet; but because that promise, which at first was given to Abraham, and afterwards, through successive generations, confirmed to the Jewish people, was at last determined and restricted to the family of David. Son of David, was an epithet by which the Messiah was afterwards known among the Jews; and, under this title, they were led to expect him by prophetic authority. See Psa 89:3, Psa 89:4; Psa 132:10, Psa 132:11, compared with Act 13:23, and Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5. Christ was prophesied of under the very name of David. See Eze 34:23, Eze 34:24; Eze 37:24, Eze 37:25.

Abraham begat Isaac - In this genealogy, those persons only, among the ancestors of Christ, which formed the direct line, as specified: hence no mention is made of Ishmael, the son of Abraham, nor of Esau, the son of Isaac; and of all the twelve patriarchs, or sons of Jacob, Judah alone is mentioned.

Phares and Zara - The remarkable history of these twins may be seen, Genesis 38: Some of the ancients were of opinion, that the evangelist refers to the mystery of the youngest being preferred to the eldest, as prefiguring the exaltation of the Christian Church over the synagogue. Concerning the women whose names are recorded in this genealogy, see the note at the end of the chapter, (Mat 1:25 (note)).

Joram begat Ozias - This is the Uzziah, king of Judah, who was struck with the leprosy for his presumption in entering the temple to offer incense before the Lord. See 2Chr 26:16, etc. Ozias was not the immediate son of Joram: there were three kings between them, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, which swell the fourteen generations to seventeen: but it is observed that omissions of this kind are not uncommon in the Jewish genealogies. In Ezr 7:3, Azariah is called the son of Meraioth, although it is evident, from 1Chr 6:7-9, that there were six descendants between them. This circumstance the evangelist was probably aware of; but did not see it proper to attempt to correct what he found in the public accredited genealogical tables; as he knew it to be of no consequence to his argument, which was merely to show that Jesus Christ as surely descended, in an uninterrupted line from David, as David did from Abraham. And this he has done in the most satisfactory manner; nor did any person in those days pretend to detect any inaccuracy in his statement; though the account was published among those very people whose interest it was to expose the fallacy, in vindication of their own obstinate rejection of the Messiah, if any such fallacy could have been proved. But as they were silent, modern and comparatively modern unbelievers may for ever hold their peace. The objections raised on this head are worthy of no regard; yet the following statement deserves notice.

St. Matthew took up the genealogies just as he found them in the public Jewish records, which, though they were in the main correct, yet were deficient in many particulars. The Jews themselves give us sufficient proof of this. The Talmud, title Kiddushim, mentions ten classes of persons who returned from the Babylonish captivity:

I. כהני Cohaney, priests.

II. לוי Levey, Levites.

III. ישראל Yishrael, Israelites.

IV. חלולי Chululey, common persons, as to the priesthood; such whose fathers were priests, but their mothers were such as the priests should not marry.

V. גירי Girey, proselytes.

VI. חרורי Charurey, freed-men, or servants who had been liberated by their masters.

VII. ממזירי Mamzirey, spurious, such as were born in unlawful wedlock.

VIII. נתיני Nethiney, Nethinim.

IX. שתוקי Shetukey, bastards, persons whose mothers, though well known, could not ascertain the fathers of their children, because of their connections with different men.

X. אסופי Asuphey, such as were gathered up out of the streets, whose fathers and mothers were utterly unknown.

Such was the heterogeneous mass brought up from Babylon to Jerusalem; and although we learn from the Jews, that great care was taken to separate the spurious from the true-born Israelites, and canons were made for that purpose, yet it so happened, that sometimes a spurious family had got into high authority, and therefore must not be meddled with. See several cases in Lightfoot. On this account, a faithful genealogist would insert in his roll such only as were indisputable. "It is therefore easy to guess," says Dr. Lightfoot, "whence Matthew took the last fourteen generations of this genealogy, and Luke the first forty names of his: namely, from the genealogical rolls, at that time well known, and laid up in the public κειμηλια, repositories, and in the private also. And it was necessary indeed, in so noble and sublime a subject, and a thing that would be so much inquired into by the Jewish people, as the lineage of the Messiah would be, that the evangelists should deliver a truth, not only that could not be gainsayed, but also might be proved and established from certain and undoubted rolls of ancestors." See Horae Talmudicae.

Josias begat Jechonias, etc. - There are three considerable difficulties in this verse.

1. Josias was not the father of Jechonias; he was only the grandfather of that prince: 1Chr 3:14-16.

2. Jechonias had no brethren; at least, none are on record.

3. Josias died 20 years before the Babylonish captivity took place, and therefore Jechonias and his brethren could not have been begotten about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

To this may be added a fourth difficulty, viz. there are only thirteen in this 2nd class of generations; or forty-one, instead of forty-two, in the whole. But all these difficulties disappear, by adopting a reading found in many MSS. Ιωσιας δε εγεννησε τον Ιωακειμ· Ιωακειμ δε εγεννησε τον Ιεχονιαν. And Josias begat Jehoiakim, or Joakim, and Joakim begat Jechonias. For this reading, see the authorities in Griesbach. Josiah was the immediate father of Jehoiakim (called also Eliakeim and Joakim) and his brethren, who were Johanan, Zedekiah, and Shallum: see 1Chr 3:15. Joakim was the father of Joachin or Jechonias, about the time of the first Babylonish captivity: for we may reckon three Babylonish captivities. The first happened in the fourth year of Joakim, son of Josiah, about A. M. 3398. In this year, Nebuchadnezzar, having taken Jerusalem, led a great number of captives to Babylon. The second captivity happened under Jechoniah, son of Joakim; who, having reigned three months, was taken prisoner in 3405, and was carried to Babylon, with a great number of the Jewish nobility. The third captivity took place under Zedekiah, A. M. 3416. And thus, says Calmet, Mat 1:11 should be read: Josias begat Joakim and his brethren: and Joakim begat Jechonias about the time of the first Babylonish captivity; and Jechonias begat Salathiel, after they were brought to Babylon. Thus, with the necessary addition of Joakim, the three classes, each containing fourteen generations, are complete. And to make this the more evident, I shall set down each of these three generations in a separate column, with the additional Joakim, that the reader may have them all at one view. 1 Abraham 1 Solomon 1 Jechonias 2 Isaac 2 Rehoboam 2 Salathiel 3 Jacob 3 Abia 3 Zorobabel 4 Judah 4 Asa 4 Abiud 5 Pharez 5 Josaphat 5 Eliakim 6 Esrom 6 Joram 6 Azor 7 Aram 7 Ozias 7 Sadoc 8 Aminadab 8 Joatham 8 Achim 9 Naason 9 Achaz 9 Eliud 10 Salmon 10 Ezekias 10 Eleazar 11 Booz 11 Manasses 11 Matthan 12 Obed 12 Amon 12 Jacob 13 Jesse 13 Josias 13 Joseph 14 david 14 joachim 14 jesus

In all forty-two generations.

Jechonias begat Salathiel - After Jechonias was brought to Babylon, he was put in prison by Nebuchadnezzar, where he continued till the death of this prince, and the accession of Evilmerodach, who brought him out of prison, in which he had been detained thirty-seven years, and restored him to such favor that his throne (seat) was exalted above all the kings which were with him in Babylon: Jer 52:31, Jer 52:32. But though he thus became a royal favorite, he was never restored to his kingdom. And, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah, Jer 22:30, no man of his seed sat upon the throne of David; yet the regal line was continued through his son Salathiel, who died in Babylon: but Zorobabel, his son, returned from captivity, and by him the race of David was continued, according to Matthew, by Abiud; and, according to Luke, by Rhesa. See on Luk 3:23 (note), etc.

The term carrying away to Babylon, μετοικεσια, from μετοικεω, to change a habitation, or place of residence, would be more properly translated by the word transportation, which is here peculiarly appropriate: the change was not voluntary; they were forced away.

Jesus, who is called Christ - As the word Χριστος Christ, signifies the anointed or anointer, from χριω, to anoint, it answers exactly to the Hebrew משיח mashiach, which we pronounce Messiah or Messias; this word comes from the root משח mashac, signifying the same thing. As the same person is intended by both the Hebrew and Greek appellation, it should be regularly translated The Messiah, or The Christ; whichever is preferred, the demonstrative article should never be omitted.

Priests, prophets, and kings, among the Jews, were anointed in order to the legitimate exercise of their respective offices. Hence the word Χριστος Christ, or משיח Mashiach, became a name of dignity, and often signified the same as king. See Isa 45:1; Psa 105:15; Lev 4:3; Lev 6:20; 1Sam 2:10. The words משיח Mashiach and מלך melec, Χριστος and βασιλευς, Christ and king, are frequently interchanged. 1Sam 2:10; Psa 2:2, Psa 2:6; Luk 23:2; and see the Scholia of Rosenmuller on this place. The reason of this may be seen in the following note, which I extract from the comment on Exo 29:7. "It appears from Isa 61:1, that anointing with oil, in consecrating a person to any important office, whether civil or religious, was considered as an emblem of the communication of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit. This ceremony was used on three occasions, viz. the installation of prophets, priests, and kings, into their respective offices. But why should such an anointing be deemed necessary? Because the common sense of men taught them that all good, whether spiritual or secular, must come from God, its origin and cause. Hence it was taken for granted,

1. That no man could foretell events, unless inspired by the Spirit of God. And therefore the prophet was anointed, to signify the communication of the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge.

2. That no person could offer an acceptable sacrifice to God for the sins of men, or profitably minister in holy things, unless enlightened, influenced, and directed, by the Spirit of grace and holiness. Hence the priest was anointed, to signify his being divinely qualified for the due performance of his sacred functions.

3. That no man could enact just and equitable laws, which should have the prosperity of the community and the welfare of the individual continually in view, or could use the power confided to him only for the suppression of vice and the encouragement of virtue, but that man who was ever under the inspiration of the Almighty.

Hence kings were inaugurated by anointing with oil. Two of these offices only exist in all civilized nations, the sacerdotal and regal; and, in some countries, the priest and king are still consecrated by anointing. In the Hebrew language משח mashach signifies to anoint; and משיח mashiach, the anointed person. But as no man was ever dignified by holding the three offices, so no person ever had the title Mashiach, the anointed one, but Jesus, The Christ. He alone is King of kings, and Lord of lords: the king who governs the universe, and rules in the hearts of his followers; the prophet, to instruct men in the way wherein they should go; and the great high priest, to make atonement for their sins. Hence he is called the Messias, a corruption of the word המשיח ha-mashiach, The anointed One, in Hebrew; which gave birth to ὁ Χριστος ho Christos, which has precisely the same signification in Greek: of him, Melchisedeck, Abraham, Aaron, David, and others, were illustrious types. But none of these had the title of The Messiah, or The Anointed of God. This does, and ever will, belong exclusively to Jesus, The Christ."

Fourteen generations - See the note on Mat 1:11. The Jews had a sort of technical method of summing up generations in this way. In Synopsis Sohar, p. 132, n. 18, we have the following words; "From Abraham to Solomon were fifteen generations; and then the moon was at the full. From Solomon to Zedekiah were other fifteen generations; the moon was then in the wane, and Zedekiah's eyes were put out." That is, the regal state came to its zenith of light and glory in the time of Solomon; but decreased gradually, till it became nearly extinct in the days of Zedekiah. See Schoetgen.

Espoused to Joseph - The word μνηστευθεισης, from μνηστευω, to contract, or betroth, refers to the previous marriage agreement, in which the parties mutually bound themselves to each other; without which, no woman was ever married among the Jews. Among the Hindoos, a woman is espoused often a whole year, and even longer before the marriage takes place.

Before they came together - The woman was espoused at her own, or her father's house; and, generally, some time elapsed before she was taken home to the house of her husband: Deu 20:7; Jdg 14:7, Jdg 14:8. This custom has been immemorially observed among the inhabitants of Ireland, who have not only this, but many Asiatic customs, which, added to various authentic historic proofs, are collateral evidences that they received the Christian religion, not from the popes of Rome, but through the means of Asiatic missionaries.

Among the Jews, the espousal, though the marriage had not been consummated, was considered as perfectly legal and binding on both sides; and hence a breach of this contract was considered as a case of adultery, and punished exactly in the same way. See Deu 22:25, Deu 22:28. Nor could a contract of this kind, though there was no cohabitation, be broken but by a regular divorce, as Mr. Selden, in his Uxor Hebraica, has proved at large from the Jewish rabbins.

She was found with child - Her situation was the most distressing and humiliating that can be conceived. Nothing but the fullest consciousness of her own integrity, and the strongest confidence in God, could have supported her in such trying circumstances, where her reputation, her honor, and her life were at stake. What conversation passed between her and Joseph, on this discovery, we are not informed; but the issue proves that it was not satisfactory to him: nor could he resolve to consider her as his wife, till God had sent his angel to bear the most unequivocal testimony to the virgin's innocence. His whole conduct, on this occasion, was exceedingly benevolent and humane. He might at once have taken the advantage of the law, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:24, and had her stoned to death.

To make her a public example - Παραδειγματισαι, to expose her to public infamy; from παρα, near, and δεικνυμαι, I show, or expose; what is oddly, though emphatically, called in England, showing up - exposing a character to public view. Though Joseph was a righteous man, δικαιος, and knew that the law required that such persons as he supposed his wife to be should be put to death, yet, as righteousness is ever directed by mercy, he determined to put her away or divorce her privately, i.e. without assigning any cause, that her life might be saved; and, as the offense was against himself, he had a right to pass it by if he chose. Some have supposed that the term δικαιος should be translated merciful, and it certainly often has this signification; but here it is not necessary.

That which is conceived (or formed) in her - So I think γεννηθεν should be translated in this place: as it appears that the human nature of Jesus Christ was a real creation in the womb of the virgin, by the power of the Holy Spirit. The angel of the Lord mentioned here was probably the angel Gabriel, who, six months before, bad been sent to Zacharias and Elisabeth, to announce the birth of Christ's forerunner, John the Baptist. See Luk 1:36.

Jesus - The same as Joshua, יהושע Yehoshua, from ישע yasha, he saved, delivered, put in a state of safety. See on Exo 13:9 (note); Num 13:16 (note), and in the preface to Joshua.

He shall save his people from their sins - This shall be his great business in the world: the great errand on which he is come, viz. to make an atonement for, and to destroy, sin: deliverance from all the power, guilt, and pollution of sin, is the privilege of every believer in Christ Jesus. Less than this is not spoken of in the Gospel; and less than this would be unbecoming the Gospel. The perfection of the Gospel system is not that it makes allowances for sin, but that it makes an atonement for it: not that it tolerates sin, but that it destroys it. In Mat 1:1, he is called Jesus Christ, on which Dr. Lightfoot properly remarks, "That the name of Jesus, so often added to the name of Christ in the New Testament, is not only that Christ might be thereby pointed out as the Savior, but also that Jesus might be pointed out as the true Christ or Messiah, against the unbelief of the Jews." This observation will be of great use in numberless places of the New Testament. See Act 2:36; Act 8:35; 1Cor 16:22; 1Jn 2:22; 1Jn 4:15, etc.

By the prophet - Isaiah is added here by several MSS., versions, and fathers. The prophecy is taken from Isa 7:14.

Behold, a virgin shall be with child - We have already seen, from the preceding verse, that this prophecy is taken from Isa 7:14; but it may be necessary to consider the circumstances of the original promise more particularly. At the time referred to, the kingdom of Judah, under the government of Ahaz, was reduced very low. Pekah, king of Israel, had slain in Judea 120,000 persons in one day, and carried away captives 200,000, including women and children, together with much spoil. To add to their distress, Rezin, king of Syria, being confederate with Pekah, had taken Elath, a fortified city of Judah, and carried the inhabitants away captive to Damascus. In this critical conjuncture, need we wonder that Ahaz was afraid that the enemies who were now united against him must prevail, destroy Jerusalem, and the kingdom of Judah, and annihilate the family of David! To meet and remove this fear, apparently well grounded, Isaiah is sent from the Lord to Ahaz, swallowed up now both by sorrow and by unbelief, in order to assure him that the counsels of his enemies should not stand; and that they should be utterly discomfited. To encourage Ahaz, he commands him to ask a sign or miracle, which should be a pledge in hand, that God should, in due time, fulfill the predictions of his servant, as related in the context. On Ahaz humbly refusing to ask any sign, it is immediately added, Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son; and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, etc. Both the Divine and human nature of our Lord, as well as the miraculous conception, appear to be pointed out in the prophecy quoted here by the evangelist: - He shall be called עמנו־אל IM-MENU-EL; literally, The Strong God with Us: similar to those words in the New Testament: - The Word which was God - was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth: Joh 1:1, Joh 1:14. And, God was manifested in the flesh: 1Tim 3:16. So that we are to understand, God with us, to imply God incarnated - God in human nature. This seems farther evident from the words of the prophet, Isa 7:15. Butter and honey shall he eat - he shall be truly man, grow up and be nourished in a human, natural way; which refers to his being With Us, i.e. incarnated. To which the prophet adds, That he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good: - or rather, According to his knowledge, לדעתו le-daato, reprobating the evil, and choosing the good. This refers to him as God; and is the same idea given by this prophet, Isa 53:11 : By (or in) his knowledge (the knowledge of Christ crucified, בדעתו be-daato) shall my righteous servant sanctify many; for he shall bear their offenses. Now this union of the Divine and human nature is termed a sign or miracle, אות oth, i.e. something which exceeds the power of nature to produce. And this miraculous union was to be brought about in a miraculous way: Behold a Virgin shall conceive: the word is very emphatic, העלמה ha-almah, The virgin; the only one that ever was, or ever shall be, a mother in this way. But the Jews, and some called Christians, who have espoused their desperate cause, assert, that "the word עלמה almah does not signify a Virgin only; for it is applied, Pro 30:19, to signify a young married woman." I answer, that this latter text is no proof of the contrary doctrine: the words דרך גבר בעלמה derec geber be-almah, the way of a man with a maid, cannot be proved to mean that for which it is produced: beside, one of De Rossi's MSS. reads בעלמיו be-almaiu, the way of a strong, or stout, man (גבר geber) In His Youth; and in this reading the Syriac, Septuagint, Vulgate, and Arabic agree, which are followed by the first version in the English language, as it stands in a MS. in my own possession - the weie of a man in his waring youthe; so that this place, the only one that can with any probability of success be produced, were the interpretation contended for correct, which I am by no means disposed to admit, proves nothing. Beside, the consent of so many versions in the opposite meaning deprives it of much of its influence in this question.

The word עלמה almah, comes from עלם alam, to lie hid, be concealed; and we are told that "virgins were so called, because they were concealed or closely kept up in their fathers' houses, till the time of their marriage." This is not correct: see the case of Rebecca, Gen 24:43 (note), and my note there: that of Rachel, Gen 29:6, Gen 29:9, and the note there also: and see the case of Miriam, the sister of Moses, Exo 2:8, and also the Chaldee paraphrase on Lam 1:4, where the virgins are represented as going out in the dance. And see also the whole history of Ruth. This being concealed, or kept at home, on which so much stress is laid, is purely fanciful; for we find that young unmarried women drew water, kept sheep, gleaned publicly in the fields, etc., etc., and the same works they perform among the Turcomans to the present day. This reason, therefore, does not account for the radical meaning of the word; and we must seek it elsewhere. Another well known and often used root in the Hebrew tongue will cast light on this subject. This is גלה galah, which signifies to reveal, make manifest, or uncover, and is often applied to matrimonial connections, in different parts of the Mosaic law: עלם alam, therefore, may be considered as implying the concealment of the virgin, as such, till lawful marriage had taken place. A virgin was not called עלמה almah, because she was concealed by being kept at home in her father's house, which is not true, but literally and physically, because, as a woman, she had not been uncovered - she had not known man. This fully applies to the blessed virgin: see Luk 1:34. "How can this be, seeing I know no man?" and this text throws much light on the subject before us. This also is in perfect agreement with the ancient prophecy, "The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent," Gen 3:15; for the person who was to destroy the work of the devil was to be the progeny of the woman, without any concurrence of the man. And, hence, the text in Genesis speaks as fully of the virgin state of the person, from whom Christ, according to the flesh, should come, as that in the prophet, or this in the evangelist. According to the original promise, there was to be a seed, a human being, who should destroy sin; but this seed or human being must come from the woman Alone; and no woman Alone, could produce such a human being, without being a virgin. Hence, A virgin shall bear a son, is the very spirit and meaning of the original text, independently of the illustration given by the prophet; and the fact recorded by the evangelist is the proof of the whole. But how could that be a sign to Ahaz, which was to take place so many hundreds of years after? I answer, the meaning of the prophet is plain: not only Rezin and Pekah should be unsuccessful against Jerusalem at that time, which was the fact; but Jerusalem, Judea, and the house of David, should be both preserved, notwithstanding their depressed state, and the multitude of their adversaries, till the time should come when a Virgin should bear a son. This is a most remarkable circumstance - the house of David could never fail, till a virgin should conceive and bear a son - nor did it: but when that incredible and miraculous fact did take place, the kingdom and house of David became extinct! This is an irrefragable confutation of every argument a Jew can offer in vindication of his opposition to the Gospel of Christ. Either the prophecy in Isaiah has been fulfilled, or the kingdom and house of David are yet standing. But the kingdom of David, we know, is destroyed: and where is the man, Jew or Gentile, that can show us a single descendant of David on the face of the earth? The prophecy could not fail - the kingdom and house of David have failed; the virgin, therefore, must have brought forth her son - and this son is Jesus, the Christ. Thus Moses, Isaiah, and Matthew concur; and facts, the most unequivocal, have confirmed the whole! Behold the wisdom and providence of God!

Notwithstanding what has been said above, it may be asked, In what sense could this name Immanuel be applied to Jesus Christ, if he be not truly and properly God? Could the Spirit of truth ever design that Christians should receive him as an angel or a mere man, and yet, in the very beginning of the Gospel history, apply a character to him which belongs only to the most high God? Surely no. In what sense, then, is Christ God With Us? Jesus is called Immanuel, or God with us, in his incarnation. - God united to our nature - God with man - God in man. - God with us, by his continual protection. - God with us, by the influences of his Holy Spirit - in the holy sacrament - in the preaching of his word - in private prayer. And God with us, through every action of our life, that we begin, continue, and end in his name. He is God with us, to comfort, enlighten, protect, and defend us in every time of temptation and trial, in the hour of death, in the day of judgment; and God with us, and in us, and we with and in him, to all eternity.

Her first - born son - Τον υιον αυτης τον πρω-οτοκον. Literally, That son of hers, the first-born one. That Mary might have had other children, any person may reasonably and piously believe; that she had others, many think exceedingly probable, and that this text is at least an indirect proof of it. However this may be, the perpetual virginity of Mary should not be made an article of faith. God has not made it one: indeed it can hardly bear the light of several texts in the Gospels.

He knew her not - Had no matrimonial intercourse with her - Till she had brought forth that son of hers, of whom the evangelist had been just speaking, the first-born, the eldest of the family, to whom the birthright belonged, and who was miraculously born before she knew any man, being yet in a state of virginity. See on Mat 13:55 (note). The virginity of Mary, previously to the birth of Christ, is an article of the utmost consequence to the Christian system; and therefore it is an article of faith: her perpetual virginity is of no consequence; and the learned labor spent to prove it has produced a mere castle in the air. The thing is possible; but it never has been, and never can be proved.

He called his name Jesus - This name was given by the command of God, see Mat 1:16, and was imposed on Christ when eight days old; for then, according to the Jewish law, he was circumcised: thus he had the name of Savior given when he first began to shed that blood without which there could be no remission of sins.

The goodness of God is manifested, not only in his giving his Son to save a lost world, but also in the choice of the persons who were his progenitors: among whom we find, First, Saints, to excite our courage: Abraham, remarkable for his faith; Isaac, for his obedience; and Jacob, for his fervor and constancy.

Secondly, Penitent Sinners, to excite our confidence: such as David, Manasses, etc.

Thirdly, Sinners, of whose repentance and salvation we hear nothing; to put us on our guard. Who can read the account of idolatrous Solomon, who, from the whole evidence of the sacred history, died In his sins, without trembling?

Four Women are mentioned in this genealogy: two of these were adulteresses, Tamar and Bathsheba; and two were Gentiles, Rahab and Ruth, and strangers to the covenant of promise; to teach us that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, and that, though strangers to his people, we are not on that account excluded from a salvation which God has designed for all men. He is not the God of the Jews only; he is also the God of the Gentiles.

The state of the royal family of David, the circumstances of the holy virgin and her spouse Joseph, the very remarkable prophecy of Isaiah, the literal and circumstantial fulfillment of it, the names given to our blessed Lord, the genealogical scroll of the family, etc., etc., are all so many proofs of the wisdom, goodness, and providence of God. Every occurrence seems, at first view, to be abandoned to fortuitous influence, and yet the result of each shows that God managed the whole. These circumstances are of the greatest importance; nor can the Christian reader reflect on them without an increase of his faith and his piety.

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ - That is, strictly speaking, the account of his birth and genealogy. This title therefore properly relates to the verses that immediately follow: but as it sometimes signifies the history of a person, in that sense it may belong to the whole book. If there were any difficulties in this genealogy, or that given by St. Luke, which could not easily be removed, they would rather affect the Jewish tables, than the credit of the evangelists: for they act only as historians setting down these genealogies, as they stood in those public and allowed records. Therefore they were to take them as they found them. Nor was it needful they should correct the mistakes, if there were any. For these accounts sufficiently answer the end for which they are recited. They unquestionably prove the grand point in view, that Jesus was of the family from which the promised seed was to come. And they had more weight with the Jews for this purpose, than if alterations had been made by inspiration itself. For such alterations would have occasioned endless disputes between them and the disciples of our Lord. The son of David, the son of Abraham - He is so called, because to these he was more peculiarly promised; and of these it was often foretold the Messiah should spring. Luke 3:31.

Of Thamar - St. Matthew adds the names of those women also, that were remarkable in the sacred history.

Naasson - Who was prince of the tribe of Judah, when the Israelites entered into Canaan.

Obed begat Jesse - The providence of God was peculiarly shown in this, that Salmon, Boaz, and Obed, must each of them have been near a hundred years old, at the birth of his son here recorded.

David the king - Particularly mentioned under this character, because his throne is given to the Messiah.

Jehoram begat Uzziah - Jehoahaz, Joash, and Amaziah coming between. So that he begat him mediately, as Christ is mediately the son of David and of Abraham. So the progeny of Hezekiah, after many generations, are called the sons that should issue from him, which he should beget, Isaiah 39:7.

Josiah begat Jeconiah - Mediately, Jehoiakim coming between. And his brethren - That is, his uncles. The Jews term all kinsmen brethren. About the time they were carried away - Which was a little after the birth of Jeconiah.

The husband of Mary - Jesus was generally believed to be the son of Joseph. It was needful for all who believed this, to know, that Joseph was sprung from David. Otherwise they would not allow Jesus to be the Christ. Jesus, who is called Christ - The name Jesus respects chiefly the promise of blessing made to Abraham: the name Christ, the promise of the Messiah's kingdom, which was made to David. It may be farther observed, that the word Christ in Greek, and Messiah in Hebrew, signify anointed, and imply the prophetic, priestly, and royal characters, which were to meet in the Messiah. Among the Jews, anointing was the ceremony whereby prophets, priests, and kings were initiated into those offices. And if we look into ourselves, we shall find a want of Christ in all these respects. We are by nature at a distance from God, alienated from him, and incapable of a free access to him. Hence we want a mediator, an intercessor, in a word, a Christ, in his priestly office. This regards our state with respect to God. And with respect to ourselves, we find a total darkness, blindness, ignorance of God, and the things of God. Now here we want Christ in his prophetic office, to enlighten our minds, and teach us the whole will of God. We find also within us a strange misrule of appetites and passions. For these we want Christ in his royal character, to reign in our hearts, and subdue all things to himself.

So all the generations - Observe, in order to complete the three fourteens, David ends the first fourteen, and begins the second (which reaches to the captivity) and Jesus ends the third fourteen. When we survey such a series of generations, it is a natural and obvious reflection, how like the leaves of a tree one passeth away, and another cometh! Yet the earth still abideth. And with it the goodness of the Lord which runs from generation to generation, the common hope of parents and children. Of those who formerly lived upon earth, and perhaps made the most conspicuous figure, how many are there whose names are perished with them? How many, of whom only the names are remaining? Thus are we likewise passing away! And thus shall we shortly be forgotten! Happy are we, if, while we are forgotten by men, we are remembered by God! If our names, lost on earth, are at length found written in the book of life!

A just man - A strict observer of the law: therefore not thinking it right to keep her.

Jesus - That is, a Saviour. It is the same name with Joshua (who was a type of him) which properly signifies, The Lord, Salvation. His people - Israel. And all the Israel of God.

They shall call his name Emmanuel - To be called, only means, according to the Hebrew manner of speaking, that the person spoken of shall really and effectually be what he is called, and actually fulfil that title. Thus, Unto us a child is born - and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Prince of Peace - That is, he shall be all these, though not so much nominally, as really, and in effect. And thus was he called Emmanuel; which was no common name of Christ, but points out his nature and office; as he is God incarnate, and dwells by his Spirit in the hearts of his people. It is observable, the words in Isaiah are, Thou (namely, his mother) shalt call; but here, They - that is, all his people, shall call - shall acknowledge him to be Emmanuel, God with us. Which being interpreted - This is a clear proof that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek, and not in Hebrew. Isaiah 7:14.

He knew her not, till after she had brought forth - It cannot be inferred from hence, that he knew her afterward: no more than it can be inferred from that expression, 2Sam 6:23, Michal had no child till the day of her death, that she had children afterward. Nor do the words that follow, the first - born son, alter the case. For there are abundance of places, wherein the term first born is used, though there were no subsequent children. Luke 2:7.

1. THe Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.

The Book of the Generation, Signifieth no more than the writing containing the Genealogy or Pedegree; for the Jews called all writings Books. Thus, Ier. 32.10, 11. The Evidences of a purchase is called the Book. So Isaiah, 50.1. and Mark. 10.4. the writings called a Bill of Divorce are both in the Hebrew, and the Greek called, a Book of Divorce. Thus in Ecclesiastical Courts still, the term Libel (which signifieth a [illegible: 1 letter]i[illegible: 1 letter]tle Book) is used, so as these words, are not to be lookt upon as the Title to the whole Gospel according to St. Mathew, b[illegible: 1 letter]t only to the following Pedegree of our Saviours Ancestors, of Iesus Christ, of that Person to whom the name of Iesus was given by the Angel, as we shall hear further, v. 20.21. Because he should save his People from their sins (for Iesus as also Ioshuah signifies a Saviour or Deliverer) and who also was the Christ, or the Messiah, prophesied of by Daniel, Dan. 9.25, 26. expected by the Iews, as doth appear from Ioh. 1.41. (for Messiah and Christ denoted the same Person, Ioh. 4, 25. only Messiah was an Hebrew word, and Christ of Greek extraction, both signifying Anointed, and so Gods designation of a Person to the Office of a Priest, a Prophet, or a King. The Christ signifyeth a designation to all three, The Son of David, the Son of Abraham: Not the immediate Son of either, but by a long Traduction, lineally descended from both. Abraham was long before David but is here put after him, either because he was a King, or because, the Iews expected Messiah, was to be the Son of David; Or because the Evangelists design was to begin the Pedegree from Abraham whom he therefore last mentioneth. Both are named, because both were concerned in the promise of Christ. It was made to Abraham, Gen. 12.3. & 22.18. and to David renewed, and enlarged. Psal. 89.36, 37. Hence it appeareth that the Iews, lookt that Christ should be the Son of David, Mat. 22.42. Mar. 12.35▪ Hence the Evangelist puts David in the front. From Abraham the Iews derived themselves, they usually Gloryed, they had Abraham to their Father. The Evangelist by proving Christ, to have descended from Abraham by Isaac, proveth him an Hebrew of the Hebrews, and to be descended from the seed to whom the Promise was made, and by proving him the Son of David, he proves him David's righteous Branch, or Branch of righteousness mentioned, Ier. 23.5, 6. & 33.15. and so to have descended from the Royal Family.

Marginal references: Luk. 3.23.

2. Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judas and his Brethren.

The Evangelist reckoneth the Genealogy of our Saviour, by three Periods; reckoning thrice fourteen Descents. The first Period began in Abraham, and ended in David. The second began in Solomon, and ended in Iehojachim. The third began with Iehojachim, and ended in Christ. Luke (as we shall see in its place) fetcheth our Saviours line, from Adam, from Abraham to David, there is no difference betwixt. Mathew and Luke, they both reckoned up the same fourteen Persons, Luk. 3.32, 33, 34. But Luke repeating our Saviours Pedegree by his Mothers side, and Mathew by his supposed Fathers side, Ioseph, after David they must differ, Mary descending from Davids Family by his Son Nathan, Ioseph descending from him by Solomon. All Interpreters agree that there are great Difficulties, about the Genealogy of Christ, (especially in reconciling Mathew and Luke.) And the Enemies of Christianity have in all times, made their advantage of them, to weaken our Faith as to the Gospel, but Christians ought to consider, 1. That the Iews had without doubt perfect Genealogies; and were more especially exact in keeping them as to the Royal Tribe of David, which was Iudah, and the Priestly Tribe of Levi, that they might have a right King, and High Priest, and it cannot be expected that after seventeen hundred years almost, we should make out Genealogies ▪ as they could. 2. That they were very apt to make Strifes, about words, and endless Genealogies. As appears by the Apostles cautioning both Timot[illegible: 1 letter]y and Titus against it, Tim. 1.4. & 6.4. Titus 3.9. 3. That it had been a sufficient exception against Christ if they could have proved he had not lineally descended from David. 4. That tho they c[illegible: 1 letter]villed at Christ for many things, yet, they never made any such Cavil. 5. That we are forbidden S[illegible: 1 letter]ife, and endless Labour about Genealogy. And therefore it is the most unreasonable thing imaginable for us, to make such little Dissatisfactions, Grounds for us to question, or disbelieve the Gospel, because we cannot unty every knot we meet with in a Pedegree, but in this first Period, no such Difficulties occur. Both the Evangelists are agreed, and the Old Testam[illegible: 1 letter]nt agrees both: That Abraham begat Isaac (when he was an hundred years old) we are assured by Moses, Gen. 21.2.5. that Isaac begat Iacob, he also telleth us, Gen. 25.26. So also that Iacob, begat Iudas and his Brethren, Gen. 29.35. Iudah was Iacob's third Son by Leah, and that Son of whom dying Iacob prophesied, That him should his Brethren praise, and to him should his Fathers Children bow down. That the Scepter should not depart from Iudah, nor the Lawgiver from between his Feet, until Shiloh came, and unto him should the gathering of the People be, Gen. 49.8, 9, 10. Tho Saul who was the first King of Israel (given them in wrath) was of the Tribe of Benjamin, 1 Sam. 9.21. yet David was of the Tribe Iudah, in whose Line the Kingdom held unto the Captivity. (and his Brethren) the Brethren of Iudah, are here mentioned, being the Heads of the Iewish Nation: Christ descended from Iudah.

3. And Judas begat Phares and Sarah of Tamar and Phares begat Esrom, and Esrom begat Aram.

That Iudas begat Pharez and Zarah (they were Twins begot of Thamar his Daughter-in-Law, the relict of his Son Er whom God slew Gen. 38.7.) appeareth from Gen. 38.27, 28, 29, 30. That Pharez begat Ezrom, appeareth from Ruth 4.18. and 1 Chron. 2.5. and from the same Texts appears also that Ezrom begat Aram, Ruth 4.19. 1 Chron. 2.9. where he is called Ram, some may possibly be offended that amongst all the Ancestors of Christ, there are but three Women named, and all of th[illegible: 1 letter]m such as had a great stain and blot upon their Reputation. [illegible: 1 word] Thamar, the Mother of Pharez and Zara was blotted with Incest, and Pharez was one of the Children begot in that Incest. Rahab also is mentioned, v. 5. whom the Scripture calleth an Harlot, Iosh. 2.1. and Bathsheba was stained with Adultery. But we ought to consider, 1. That (abating Original Corruption which we indeed all derive from our Parents) no man deriveth any intrinsick badness from the Vice of his Parents, tho he may derive, a blot upon his Honour and Reputation, from it. 2. That this was one degree of our Saviours Humiliation. 3. That it was no way incongruous, that he who came into the World to dye for great Sinners, should be born of some that were such.

4. And Aram begat Aminadab, and Aminadab begat Naasson, and Naasson begat Salmon.

This exactly agreeth with the Old Testament, Ruth 4.19.20. 1 Chron. 2.10.11. only it is there said, that Naasson, was Prince of the Children of Iudah, Num. 1.7. & 2, 3. and Salmon is there called Salma.

6. And Jesse begat David the King—▪

This agreeth with Ruth 4.22. and 1 Sam. 16.2.2.15. Here now ariseth the first Difficulty we meet with in this Genealogy, and it is rather an appearance of a Difficulty than a real one. Salmon being the Son of Aminadab, who was the Prince of the Children of Iudah in Moses time, Salmon cannot be imagined to have lived later than in the times of Ioshua. Booz seemeth to have lived in Elies time, which (if Chronologers count right) was 300 years after, here are but four men named to take up these years. Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Iesse. Ans. The World according to Chronologers wanted but five of 2500 years old, when the Israelites (under the Conduct of Ioshua) entred into Canaan: We will suppose Salmon, to have then been a young man. Eli is by them said to have lived about the 2810th. So that the distance is 315 years. David is said to have been born in the 2860th. So as from Salmon to David are 365 years Admit Salmon, Boaz, Obed and Iesse to have each of them lived an hundred years, or upward and this is no Difficulty. Nor can be any absurdity in admitting this, if we consider the Age, and Vigor of Persons in that age of the World. Moses (tho a man spent with Travels and Battels) lived 120 years, Deut. 34.7. Caleb at 85 years was strong, and as fit for War, as ever Ios. 14.11.12. If we allow these four men the Life of Moses they might live 480 years, which might allow to each of them 15 or 16 years apiece for the Concurrency of their Lives with their Parents, yet 365 years might be well allowed for all their time: Nor is it unreasonable for us to suppose that God might allow those whom he intended thus to dignifie a something longer Life, then the ordinary sort of men lived in that age of the World. So as the thing being neither naturally impo[illegible: 1 letter]sible (for in our Age we see particular Persons live upward of an hundred years) nor morally improbable, and directly affirmed in three or four Texts, they must have a great mind to quarrel with a Divine Revelation who quarrel the Truth of it upon such a pretence: Especially considering that the Lives of men in our declining, and Debaucht age of the World, are no measures by which we can guess at the Lives of extraordinary Persons who lived near three thousand years ago. [David the King] possibly that term is added to distinguish the David here intended, from others of the same name, or because he was the first King of the Tribe of Iudah to whom the Scepter of Israel was promised, Gen. 49 10. Or the first King not given to the Israelites in wrath, as Saul was upon their murmuring against Samuel, or to shew that Christ descended from that Family, to whom the Promise of the Messias was made, Ier. 23.5. and a Kingdom established for ever. Psal. 89.36, 37. Thus our Evangelist hath given us the Names in his first Period, or fourteen Generations. Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, Iudas, Pharez, Ezrom, Aram, Aminadab, Naasson, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Iesse, David.

Marginal references: 1 [illegible: 1 span] 12.

6 And David the King begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah.

Solomon was not the eldest Child of David by Bathsheba, that dyed, 2 Sam. 12.22, 23. He was born after David had taken Bathsheba (who had been the Wife of Vriah) for his Wife, v. 25. compared with 2 Sam. 11.27.

7 And Solomon begat Roboam, and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa.

This exactly agrees with the History of the Old Testament, 1 Kin. 11.43. (where he is called Rehoboam) he Reigned but seventeen years and dyed, 1 Kin. 14.21. and v. 31. Abijam his Son Reigned in his stead, he is here called Abia. But we shall observe frequent alteration of Names, both as to the final Terminations, and where the quiescent Letters in Heb. fall into the Name. Abia or Abijam Reigned but three years, and was succeeded by Asa his Son, 1 Kin. 15.2.8. Asa Reigned forty one years, 2 Chron. 16.13. So as these three Princes Reigned sixty years.

Marginal references: 1 Chro. 3.10.

8 And Asa begat Josaphat, and Josaphat begate Joram, and Joram begat Ozias.

Iehosaphat here called Iosaphat, in the Greek (they having no Letter to express the Hebrew [non-Latin text not transcribed] by) was the Son of Asa, a good Son of a good Father, 2 Chron. 17.1, 2. he Reigned twenty five years, 1 Kin. 22.42. Iehoram (here called Ioram) succeeded him in his Kingdom, he slew his Brethren, he walked in the ways of Ahab, 2 Chron. 21.2.6. he Reigned but eight years, lived, and dyed wickedly, and was buried infamously, 2 Chr. 21.20. But here ariseth another Difficulty from what is said, Ioram begate Ozias. It is certain that he did not beget him immediately, for Vzziah was the fourth from Ioram. Iehoram or Ioram begat Ahaziah, he was his youngest Son, he lived but one year as King, 2 Chron. 21.1, 2. then Athaliah usurped the Kingdom for six years, not counting her Usurpation. Ioash the Son of Ahaziah Reigned forty years, 2 Chron. 24.1. He dies, 2 Kin. 12.21. And Amaziah his Son Reigned in his stead, 2 Chron. 26.1. He was the Father of Vzziah called Azariah, 2 Kin. 14.21. So that when it is said: That Ioram begate Oziah, we must only understand, that Vzziah lineally descended from Ioram, thus, v. 1. Christ is called the Son of David, The Son of Abraham. Thus the Iews said, We have Abraham to our Father, and Elizabeth is said to be of the Daughters of Aaron, Luk. 1.5. But it is a greater Question, why the Evangelist leaves out Ahaziah, Ioash and Amaziah who were all three lawful Princes, and rightly descended from the Family of David. To pass by various Conjectures, the best account I find given of it is this. 1. It is manifest the Evangelist had a design to divide all the Generations from Abraham to Christ into three Periods. The first of which should contain the Growing State of the Iewish Common-Wealth, till it came at the heighth which was in Davids time. The second should contain its Flourishing State; which was from Davids time till the first carrying into Captivity. The third should contain its declining State, from the first carrying them into Captivity to the coming of Christ. 2. He designed to reduce all the Generations in each Period to fourteen, this appeareth from v. 17. Now altho the first Period contained exactly fourteen Descents or Generations, yet in the second there was manifestly seventeen, so as the Evangelist was obliged to leave out three to bring them to the number of fourteen; now tho it be a little too Curious to inquire why the Evangelist chose to leave out these three: Ahaziah, Ioash, and Amaziah, rather then any other three, yet there is the probable good Account of it given by learned Men, who have waded into these Speculations. Ahaziah was the Son of Iehoram by Athaliah the Daughter of Ahab, 2 Chron. 21.6. Ioash her Grand-child, Amaziah her Great Grand-child. Now God had cursed the house of Ahab, and threatned to root out all his House, 1 Kin. 21.21. This (as is supposed) made the Evangelist, who was necessitated to leave out three to bring the Generations to fourteen, rather to chuse to leave out these Princes, who were of Ahabs half Blood, then any others. If any say why then did he not leave out more? Besides that he was not obliged any other way (then as he would keep to his number to leave out these) he knew Gods Threatnings of Children, for the sins of Parents, usually terminate in the third, and fourth Generation.

9 And Ozias begat of Joatham, and Joatham begate Achaz, and Achaz begat Ezekias.

That Iotham succeeded his Father Ozias and Reigned sixteen years, agreeth with 2 Chron. 26.23. and that Ahaz his Son succeeded him, agreeth with 2 Chron. 28.1. he also Reigned sixteen years, Hezekiah his Son Reigned in his stead, 2 Chron. 28.27. Some here have cavilled at the Truth of the History of Holy-writ, because it appeareth from 2 Kin. 16.2. that Ahaz dyed at thirty six years of Age, and that Hezekiah began to Reign at twenty five years of Age, doth also appear from 2 Chron. 29.1. whence it appeareth that Hezekiah must be born when his Father was but eleven years of Age, which they think improbable: But those who will question the Truth of what we have so good a Proof of, as the Revelation of Holy-writ is, are obliged not only to tell us of things in it that are improbable to their apprehensions, but either in Nature impossible, or at least in consistent with some other piece of Divine Revelation. Of the latter sort, we hear of nothing objected in this Case. Now tho with us it be not ordinary for Persons at that Age to beget Children, yet that it is not impossible in Nature, nor more then hath happened in the World sometimes, Spanhemius hath largely proved in his Dubia Evangelica, Dub. 5. and that by no less Authorities then those of Hierome amongst the Ancients, and the learned Scaliger amongst the more Modern Writers, it is what may be. The Scripture telleth us it was so, that is enough for us, tho it be not a thing very ordinary.

10 And Ezekias begat Manasses, and Manasses begat Amon, and Amon begat Josiah.

All this exactly agreeth with the Scriptures of the Old Testament, these three Princes in a lineal Descent immediately succeeded each other, Manasseth, Reigning 55. Amon, 2. and Iosiah thirty one years, all together eighty eight years.

Marginal references: 2 Kin. 20.21. 1 Chron. 3.13.

11 And Josias begat Jeconias and his Brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

In this Ieconiah (who ever he was) determined the Evangelists second Period of fourteen Generations. But there is much Dispute, both about the Ieconiah who is here mentioned, and the Sons of Iosiah as they are reckoned up, 1 Chron. 3.15. where it is said. The Sons of Iosiah were the first born Iehanan, The second Iehojakim, The third Zedekiah. The fourth Shallum, 2 Kin. 23.31. 2 Chron. 36.1. It is plain that Iehoahaz succeeded Iosiah his Father: It is certain that amongst the Iews it was very ordinary for Persons to have two Names; thus King Vzziah in the Book of Kings called Azariah, 2 Kin. 14.21. Most if not all of Iosiahs Sons had two Names, it is plain that Iehoahaz his eldest Son is the same who in 1 Chron. 3.15. is called Iohanan, but he Reigned but three Months, probably set up by the People, and put down by Pharaoh Necho, in a Battle against whom Iosiah was slain, he pursuing his Victory put him down and set up Eliakim his next Brother, calling him Iehoiachim, as he is called 2 Chron. 3.15. he Reigned eleven years, 2 Chron. 36.5. The King of Babylon puts him down, and setteth up Iehojachin his Son, who is also called Ieconiah, and Coniah, 2 Chron. 36.9. he Reigned but three Months, and ten days, and the King of Babylon fetcheth him away, and sets up his Uncle Zedekiah (called also Mattaniah) he Reigned eleven years, as appeareth by 2 Chron. 36. v. 11. then the whole Body of the Iews were carried away Captive into Babylon. We do not read either in the Book of Kings, or Chronicles, that Shallum (Iosiahs fourth Son) ever Reigned, yet it should seem that he did, by Ieremiah, 22. v. 11. Some think that he was set up in stead of Iehoahaz, when he was carried away. But the Scripture saith nothing of it, nor is it very probable that the Conqueror should skip over the Second and Third Son, and set up the Fourth. But it is not my present Concern, to inquire after Shallum, but only after Ieconiah mentioned in this Verse, and the other Ieconiah mentioned in the 12 Verse, as the Head of those Generations which make up the last Period. As to this Ieconiah the most probable Opinion is, that it was Iehojakim, who was also called Ieconiah, and that the Ieconiah mentioned, v. 12. was Iehojakin, the Son of Iehojakim. In this I find some of the best Interpreters acquiescing, nor indeed is there any great Difficulty, in allowing Iehojachim the Father, as well as Iehojachin the Son to be called Ieconiah (so near are the Names akin, and the signification of both the same) but then the Question is, how Iosiah could be said to beget Iehojachim, About the time of the carrying into the Captivity of Babylon; for it appeareth by 2 Chron. 36.5. That Iehojachim was twenty five years Old when he began to Reign, and he Reigned eleven years; and in his time was the first carrying into Babylon, so that there must be thirty seven years betwixt the begetting of Iehojakim and the first Transportation into Babylon. The Margent of our Bibles tell us of another Reading, Iosias begat Iakim (Iakim and Iehojakim are the same) and Iakim begate Iechoniah (that is Iehojakim.) Beza thinks this the truest reading taken out of an old Copy of R. Stephens, magnified by Stapulensis and Bucor. But he thinks it should be thus, Iosias begate Iakim, and his Brethren (for we know that Iosiah had four Sons) and Iakim begat Ieconiah (that is, Iehojakin) about the time of the carrying into the Captivity of Babylon. For Iehojakin or Ieconiah was not nine years old when himself was carried away, and his Father was carried away before [about the carrying away into Babylon] The Greek Preposition [non-Latin text not transcribed] doth not signifie any determinate certain time, but doth include sometimes many, and distinct ti[illegible: 1 letter]es as it must do here, for Iosiah began to Reign at eight years old, and Reigned thirty one years, so that he dyed at thirty nine years of Age, 1 Chron. 34. v. 2. Iehoahaz (or Iohanan) his eldest Son succeeded him at twenty three years old, so he must be born when Iosiah was sixteen years of Age. Iehojachim began to Reign at twenty five years of Age. Zedekiah at one and twenty, as appeareth from 2 Chron. 36.1, 5, 11. so that Zedekiah must be but about nine years old when his Father dyed, which was not twelve years before Iehojachim was carried into Babylon, as appeareth by the History, 2 Chr. 36. Thus, the Persons in this Period, which) was the flourishing time of the Kingdom of Iudah) are fourteen: Solomon, Rehoboam, Abia, Asa, Iehosaphat, Ioram, Vzziah, Iotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasses, Amon, Iosiah, Iehojachim, only here is no mention made of Iehoahaz his Reign, who was Iosiah his eldest Son, who it may be is not mentioned by the Evangelist: Either, because Iehojachim (here called Ieconiah) was a second Son of the same Father, or in regard of his short Reign (for it was but three Months and odd days) or it may be, because in all Probability he was Tumultuously set up by the People, and not fixed in his Throne, before he was turned out by the Conqueror Pharaoh Necho, nor do we read of any Sons he left, to be sure he left none who could succeed him in the Throne, for Iehojachim was set up, and his Son Iehojachin succeeded him, as the History telleth us.

Marginal references: 2 Kin. 23.34. & 24.1. 2 Chron. 36.4.; Some read begate Jakim, and Jakim begate Jeconiah.

12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconia begat Salathiel, and Salathiel begat Zorobabel.

This Ieconiah is generally thought to be Iehojakin the Son of Iehojakim, he is called Ieconiah, 1 Chron. 3.16. as well as Iehojakin, 2 Chron. 36.8. so also Ier. 24.1. he is called Ieconiah the Son of Iehojakim, that this Ieconiah begat Salathiel, appeareth from 1 Chron. 3.17. It is here objected that God said concerning this Ieconiah, called also Coniah, Ier. 22.30. write you this man Childless, how then did he beget Salathiel; but it is easily answered, for that Verse, Ier. 22.30. will expound it self. Write you this man Childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the Throne of David, and ruling any more in Iudah: So as that Text is plainly to be understood without a Child that shall actually succeed in the Crown, for the Text it self supposeth that he should have seed but none that should prosper, sitting upon the Throne of David, and ruling in Iudah, which the Scripture, 2 Chron. 36. justifieth, for the King of Babylon set up Zedekiah his Uncle in his stead, who was the last King in Iudah, in the eleventh year of whose Reign the Iews were all carried Captive. This Ieconiah had eight Sons as we read, 2 Chron. 3.17.18. Salathiel is there reckoned as his second Son (possibly Assir dyed young, or at least Childless) so as the right of the Crown was in Salathiel, who is the Person alone here named. But how Salathiel is here said, to have begot Zorobabel is yet a greater Difficulty; for, 1 Chron. 3.19. it is said: The Sons of Pedajah (not of Salathiel) were Zorobabel, and Shimei, if Zorobabel were the Son of Pedajah, how could he be the Son of Salathiel? Several Answers are given to this. Some think that Zorobabel, because he descended lineally from Salathiel is called his Son, which were a sufficient Answer if the Supposition were true, that Zorobabel were lineally descended from Salathiel: But that it is not, for according to 1 Chron. 3.18. Pedajah was not the Son, but the Brother of Salathiel. Others think that Salathiel is here said to have begot Zorobabel, because Zorobabel succeeded him in the Kingdom, but as that is a strange Interpretation of the word begat, So neither was Salathiel a King, tho possibly the Title of the Crown was in him, as the Great Grand-child of Iosiah, nor did ever Zorobabel assume the Crown that we read of. Whereas others say, that there were two Zorobabels; and that this Son was the adopted Son of Salathiel, both these things are suggested without Proof. The most probable Opinion which I perceive the best Interpreters acquie[illegible: 1 letter]ce in, is, That Salathiel dying without issue Pedajah his Brother married his Wife according to the Law of God, Deut. 25.5. and begat Zorobabel of her that had been the Wife of Salathiel; and thence it is said Salathiel begat him. Pedajah so raising up seed to his Brother according to the Law aforesaid. To this it is objected by some, That the Law was, That the Child should succeed in the name of the Brother that was dead: So that if this were the Sense it should not have been, Salathiel begat Zorobabel, but Salathiel begat Salathiel. The Answer to this, is not Difficult: For to succeed in the name of the Brother that is dead, doth not signifie to be called by the very name with which he was called, but to be denominated his Son, as if begotten by him. And this is Evident from Ruth 4 10. where Boaz hath these words, Ruth the Moabitess, the Wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my Wife, to raise up the Name of the dead upon his Inheritance, that the Name of the dead, be not cut off from among his Brethren. Yet v. 21. Boaz having a Son by Ruth, did not call his name Mahlon, by the name of his Father, but Obed.

Marginal references: 2 Kin. 24.6.; Ezra 3.2.

15 And Eliud begate Eleazar, and Eleazar begate Matthan, and Matthan begate Jacob.

Here are divers Objections made to this last part of the Genealogy, and in a great measure caused from the difference between Mathew and Luke; but I shall not attempt any Reconciliation of those Differences, till I come to Luke, ch. 3. There is no Abiud reckoned amongst the Sons of Zorobabel, 1 Chron. 3.19.20. and for the others named, we have no certain Account of them, in any part of the Holy-writ. From the time of Iehojachim were above five hundred years to the Birth of Christ: Of which seventy were spent in the Captivity of Babylon, Zorobabel was alive at the end of the Captivity, Ezra 5.2. and, as it appears, the Ruler of the Iews tho not under the Title, and stile of King. For Eliakim, Azor, Sadoc, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Mathan, and Iacob. Tho we have no mention of them, in any Canonical Books of Holy-writ, but only this, yet Mathew's Credit in the Church of God, ought to out-weigh any other Writings, pretending any thing contrary to what he saith; we are therefore obliged to believe they all lineally descended from David, but living in a private State, and Condition, and Holy-writ not extending its History beyond Zorobabels time (the time when the Iews came out of Babylon) it is no wonder that we have no better means then we have, from Holy-writ to know their lineal Descent from the Royal Family. That Mathew in what he wrote was guided by the unerring Spirit, and that he had Rolls of Pedegrees which we want, we have reason to believe. This is enough for us Christians, who own the Books of the New as well as the Old Testament, to be wrote by Persons divinely inspired, so as to them we have nothing to do, but to reconcile Mathew and Luke both, whom we own to have had the same infallible Inspiration and Direction. If Iews or Pagans argue from any other Topick then this, it is enough to tell them, That the Iews kept exact Genealogies, and more especially as to the Descents in the Tribes of Iudah and Levi, that they might never be at loss as to the Messiah whom they expected, as the Son of David, nor yet as to the true High-Priest. Tho these Records, and Rolls of Genealogy be now lost, yet we have no reason to believe they were so in Mathews time, of which Genealogies (as to this part) doubtless what Mathew saith was but a Copy, directed by that Holy Spirit, by which he was inspired.

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the Husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.

How Luke cometh to make Ioseph the Son of Heli, we shall inquire (if God please) when we come to his third Chapter: But from this Verse ariseth a very Grave Question, viz. How, or wherefore, the Evangelist in deriving the Pedegree of Christ, bringeth the line down to Joseph, from whom our Saviour did not descend, being no flesh of his Flesh. Christ being the promised Messias, the Propechy, Isa. 7.14. must be, and was fulfilled in him. A Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and thou shalt call his name Emanuel. Now if Ioseph were not the true, but only the Legal or Supposed Father of Christ: What had the Evangelist to do with his Genealogy? Many Answers are given to this, some think that the Evangelist accommodateth himself to the Vulgar Opinion, they took him generally for the true and natural Son of Ioseph. They said, Is not this the Carpenters Son? But then the Holy Spirit, must have attempted to have proved a Conclusion true, from a Medium that was false, which must by no means be allowed: Besides, neither could this be Mathews design, who afterwards relateth the Mystery of our Saviours Incarnation plain enough; and tells us v. 18. That Mary was found with Child before Ioseph, and she came together, others therefore say that amongst the Iews the Genealogies of Women use not to be reckoned. How universally true that is, I cannot tell, generally it is (very probable) as being usual almost with all Nations to reckon Descents from the Males. In the present Case it is granted by most that Luke deriveth the Descent of Mary. In the present Case, it seemeth of high Concern that the Genealogy both of Ioseph and Mary should be counted: Tho our Saviours being the Messias, could not have been proved from his being the Son of Ioseph, for then he could not have been the Son of a Virgin (yet admitting the Jewish error in that Case, not knowing the Mystery of Christs Incarnation) Christ, by their own Confession was confirmed to be the Son of David, because Ioseph was so: On the other side, Luke deriving Maries Genealogy from David, and affirming Christ to be born of a Virgin espoused, confirmed him to all the World to be both the Son of David, descending from Mary a Virgin, that was a Daughter to one who was the Son of David, and also the true Messiah in whom the Propechy was fulfilled, of a Virgins conceiving and bearing a Son; so that by the reckoning of the Generation of two Persons, both of which were lineally descended from David, he was proved to be the Son of David both to the generality of the Iews, who could not deny but Ioseph was so, and to all believers both Iews and Gentiles, to whom God should give to believe the Mystery of the Incarnation by the Conception of the Holy Ghost. This to me seems a sufficient reason for the reckoning up our Saviours descent from David both by Father and Mother. Which is advantaged by considering that Ioseph was not only the reputed Father, but the legal Father of Christ, and altho his being not the Natural, but the legal Father of Christ, will not prove him the Son of David, further then to the Iews who would have him to be the Natural Son of Ioseph, yet the Genealogy reckoned from Abraham to Ioseph will prove Ioseph the Son of David (whom they judged Christs natural Father) so as they had nothing to say against that, and the other parts of this Gospel, and this Chapter indeed with the Genealogy of Mary, will prove that he was both the Son of David, and the true Messias, as a Son born of a Virgin. Whereas some say that Mary was of the Tribe of Levi, and think to prove it by her being Cousen to Elizabeth, who is expressly called a Daughter of Aaron, Luk. 1.1. Besides that Luke ch. 3. plainly proveth her of the Tribe of Iudah, and of the Family of David, the Proof is by no means sufficient, for altho the Law, Num. 36.8.9. for the avoiding of a Confusion of Inheritances, commanded them to Marry within their Tribes, yet this Law concerned not the Daughters of the Tribe of Levi, for that Tribe had no Inheritance as the rest. So as that kindred might easily be, tho Mary was not of the Tribe of Levi, but of Iudah, as indeed she was. But leaving this Question, let us come to the words of the Verse. And Iacob begat Ioseph, the Husband of Mary, that is, the espoused Husband of Mary. Espousals make a Marriage before God: The Angel afterward saith to Ioseph (but yet espoused) Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy Wife. And he was soon after the Legal, Actual Husband of Mary: Of whom was born Iesus, who was called Christ, that Person who was called Iesus by the Direction of the Angel, as we shall by and by see who was also called Christ, which as we said signifieth Anointed, and the same with Messiah. It is observed by some that the Name Christ was given to Kings of Iudah (because of their anointing) before the Captivity, but to none after, till he came who was the Christ, God by that Providence (if the Iews would have understood it) pointing out to them, that the Person was now come who was promised them under the Notion of the Messiah, Dan. 9.25 26. and whom they expected, as appeareth from Ioh. 1.41. & 4.25. and no longer to be expected.

17 So all the Generations from Abraham to David are fourteen Generations; And from David to the carrying away into Babylon, are fourteen Generations, and from the carrying away into Babylon, unto Christ are fourteen Generations.

The Evangelist for reasons which we cannot fathom, reduceth our Saviour's Progenitors to fourteen in each Period of the Jewish State, and in the first Period determining with David there were no more. In the second, he leaveth out three Kings descended from the Daughter of Ahab. In the third which was from the Captivity to Christ, there were doubtless more, Luke reckoneth up twenty four (taking in Christ for one) and agreeth in very few with Mathew, who was forced to leave out some to keep to his number of fourteen. Nor doth Mathew speak any thing false, or contradictious to Luke, in saying there were fourteen tho there were more. Besides, there might be many more Progenitors of Mary then Ioseph, whose Pedegree Mathew deriveth.

18 Now the Birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise, when as his mother Mary was espoused, to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the holy Ghost.

The Evangelist prefaceth this extraordinary Birth of our Saviour in this manner. Now, the Birth of Iesus Christ was on this wise, not in the ordinary Course and manner in which Children are conceived and brought forth into the World, but in this wonderful manner [when his mother Mary was espoused to Ioseph.] Betrothing, or Espousing, was nothing else but a Solemn promise of Marriage made by two Persons each to other, at such distance of time, as they agreed upon. It was a Decent usage approved of (if not ordained) by God, as appears by Deut. 20.7. That we are obliged still to use it, I dare not say, it might be a prudential Order and Constitution of that State. There was nothing in it Typical, nothing to bring it under the Notion of a Carnal Ordinance, (as the Apostle calls some of their Ordinances relating to the Worship of God) It seemeth Equitable, that the Parties to be Married might have some Convenient time to think seriously of the great Change they are soon to make in their Lives, and more solemnly seek unto God for his Blessing upon them, as also that they might more freely Discourse together about their Houshold Affairs, and the Settlement of their Families, then the modesty of the Virgins of that age would otherwise have allowed them. It made them Man and Wife before God, tho they came not together for some time after: The distance of time, seemeth to have been left to the Agreement of Parties, and Parents. In this Case we cannot certainly assert the distance, but it appeareth to have been such, as that she was found with Child, before they came together. Mary knew what the Evangelist here asserteth, that it was by the Holy Ghost: For as she must know, that she had not known Man, as she told the Angel, Luk. 1.34. So the Angel had satisfied her, saying, v. 35. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Power of the most high shall overshadow thee. Therefore also that Holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. It cannot be doubted but that she revealed this to some of her Friends, but how it came to be found, or who found it we are not told. Ioseph as yet had no such Revelation. God would have his Son to be born of a Virgin. 1. For the fulfilling of the Promise, Isa. 7.14.2. Of the Holy Ghost, that the Womb of the Virgin being sanctified by the Spirit of Holiness, there might be no Traduction of Original sin. Of a betrothed Virgin. 1. That he might not be under the Reproach of Illegitimacy. 2. Nor his Mother subjected to the Punishment of the Judaical Law. 3. That Maries stock might be by her betrothed Husband. 4. That Christ might have a Guard in his Infancy.

Marginal references: Luk. 1.27.

19 Then Joseph her Husband being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

It was found she was with Child (possibly her self, or some of her Friends told it to Ioseph) her espoused Husband, it is plain from this Text, he came to the knowledge of it, for upon it, the Evangelist saith, he was minded to put her away privily; had Ioseph at this time heard and believed, that the Holy Ghost had come upon her, and the Power of the most High overshadowed her, being a good Man, he would not have entertained Thoughts of putting her away: But tho she had before received this Revelation, and might possibly have Communicated it to some of her Friends, yet it is manifest that her Husband Ioseph had not heard it, or at least was not easie to believe a thing of so unusal and extraordinary a Nature. That she was with Child, was Evident, how she came to be so, was as yet hidden from him, in Nature, and so incredible a thing, as it had argued too much of easiness of belief for him to have believed, had not Ioseph had (as afterward he had) a divine Revelation for it, he therefore receiving such a Report, and finding it to be true, resolves to put her away in the privatest manner he could, rather then to expose her to a publick Shame, or to be made a publick Example. Their being betrothed was a thing publickly taken notice of, and he could not put her away so privately, but there must be Witnesses of it, the meaning therefore must be as privately as the Nature of the thing would bear. Ioseph in this Case had the choice of three things. 1. He might notwithstanding this, have taken her to his House, as his Wife, for the Law of Divorce or putting away, was but a Law giving a Liberty in Case of a discerned uncleanness to put away the Wife, it did not lay any under an Obligation so to do. 2. He might give her a Bill of Divorce, and leave her with her Friends. Now those skilled in the Iewsh Writings tell us this might be done; either, more privately before two or three Witnesses putting a Writing of that import into her Bosom, or more openly, and publickly before the Magistrate. 3. He might according to the Law, Deut. 22.23.24. &c. have brought her forth to be examined, whether she had only suffered a Rape, or had her self Consented. If it was done with her Consent she was by the Law to be stoned. Of these Ioseph, in his first Thoughts upon the Matter, and before he rightly did understand the thing, chuseth the Second, and the milder part, and resolves to put her away, but in the most private manner the Law would in that Case allow him: He did this (saith the Vangelist) because he was a just Man, where the term [non-Latin text not transcribed] signifieth Equitable, in opposition to Severity and Rigour; nor ought any to say Ioseph in this shewed himself an unjust Man, because by the Law, she ought to have been Stoned to Death, for that is a mistake, supposing she had been with Child by man, yet if she had been forced, the man only wa[illegible: 1 letter] to dye, Deut. 22.28, 29, or she might have been with Child before her betrothing, in which Case she was only obliged to marry him that had so abased her: A kind, and Equitable man always presumeth the be[illegible: 1 letter]t, especially in a Case where Life is concerned, besides that no doubt Mary had by this time told Ioseph the Truth, and what the Angel had said to her, to which (it being so incredible a thing as not to be believed, but upon a divine Revelation) tho Ioseph was not obliged having as yet no such Revelation to give a present easie Faith, yet he might reasonably give so much Credit as to resolve upon the mildest Course he could take, tho he was willing also to avoid the blot upon himself by taking her to him for his Wife according to his Contract. God will not leave so good a man long unresolved what to do.

Marginal references: Deut. 24.1.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.

What we have in this Verse assureth us, That Ioseph was not only inclined, by the Kindness and Benignity of his own natural Temper, and by his Charity to that moderate resolution he had taken up, but also more immediately influenced by God, who was now sending a Messenger to him to tell him, what he would have him to do in this Case. Whether this Angel was the Angel Gabriel, who Luke tells us ch. 1.26. was sent to Mary, to tell her that the Power of the most high should overshadow her, or some other Angel, none can assert, an Angel it was. He appeareth to Ioseph while he was asleep, and in and by a Dream. By Dreams was one way by which God revealed his mind to People formerly, Heb. 1.1. one of those ways by which God made himself known to Prophets, Num. 12.6. and not to Prophets only but to Pagan Princes sometimes, as appeareth by the instances we have in Scripture of the Dreams which Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezar both had Dreams, are either Natural, or Supernatural, or Preternatural. How to distinguish the former from the two latter, is not my work in this place, and possibly a difficult Task, especially in our times, when God having spoken to us by his Son, and given us his word as a perfect Rule, hath left off ordinary speaking to his Prophets by Dreams and Visions, tho not limited himself, but that he may sometimes so speak; we are assured of the Truth of a Divine Revelation to Ioseph, by this way of Dreams, while his Head was full of Thoughts what he was to do in this Case. God thinks of us, when we sleep, and one way or other will not be wanting to our Inquisition in sincerity to know his Will, in the difficult Cases of our Lives. The Angel saith unto Ioseph, Ioseph, thou son of David; By which Compellation he lets him know, he was to be the Supposed and Legal, tho not the Natural Father of the Messias, who was by the Confession of all men, to be the Son of David. Fear not to take to thee Mary thy Wife. She that is thy betrothed Wife, and so thy Wife in my sight, thou hast espoused her, and called me to Witness, that thou wilt Consummate this Marriage with her in a due time▪ and take her to thine House. I see what hath happened, which troubleth thy Thoughts, possibly thou art afraid lest thou should'st offend me, marrying one who appeareth unto thee, to be defiled, or thou art afraid of bringing a blot upon thy self if thou should'st Consummate this Marriage, but do not Fear any of these things, but go on, and Consummate ▪ thy Marriage, she is not as thou supposest, or may'st Fear, defiled by Man, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. That Holy thing, (as Luke speaks) that humane Body which is in her Womb, is created in her, and is, of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost by his Almighty creating Power, hath supplyed what is wanting from the help of the Creature▪ as to ordinary Productions of this Nature.

21 And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his People from their sins.

When the usual time of Women is accomplished, she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name Iesus. He shall not be thy Natural Son, but he shall be her Son, not begot by thee, but brought forth by her, so, Flesh of her Flesh, His namë shall be called Iesus by thee, or by his Mother. It is the Will of God thou should'st give him that Name. For he shall save his People from their Sins. It was the Custom of the Iews (Gods Ancient People) to give Names to their Children, either expressive of the Mercy which God had shewed them in giving them their Children, or of the Duty which their Children did owe unto God. This name was given by God, expressing the Mercy of God to his People, in giving them this Child. For, he shall save his People from their Sins (saith the Angel) Iesus comes from an Hebrew word, which signifies Salvation. Ioshua had his Name from the [illegible: 1 word] word, because he was to be a Temporal Saviour to save the Iews, the whole Body of the Iews from the Canaanites their Enemies. This Iesus was to save his People, all that should believe in his Name, whether Iews or Gentiles from their Sins: Hereby the Angel hints the mistake of the Iews, in thinking the Messias should be a Temporal Saviour, who should save the Iews from their Enemies, minding them, that he was to save them not from their Bodily but Spiritual Enemies, from their Sins: The Guilt of them, and the Power of them, and from the eternal Danger of them, and he alone should do it; Acts 4.12. There is no other Name under Heaven given amongst men, neither is there Salvation in any other.

Marginal references: Luk. 1.31.

23 Behold a Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted, is God with us.

By these great Acts of Divine Providence, that which was spoken, and Prophesied of by Isaiah, ch. 7.14. speaking by Inspiration from God, was fulfilled: Tho things are said in the Evangelists, to be fulfilled when the Types have had their accomplishment in the Antitype, and when something cometh to pass much like, or bearing some Proportion to something which before happened in the World (as I shall shew hereafter) yet I take the Sense of being fulfilled, here to be literally fulfilled; believing so much of that Prophecy as is here quoted, did literally concern Christ, and none but him. But we must take heed of interpreting the Particle that as signifying the end of Gods Action in this great work of Providence; for the End for which God sent his Son into the World, was before expressed, to save his People from their sins, not to fulfil a Prophecy. That here only signifies the consequent of that Act of divine Providence, and the Sense is but only this: By all this which was done, was fulfilled that which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, &c. But the Iews so much Clamouring against the Application of that Text, Isaiah 7.14. to Christ; and some learned Interpreters thinking the fulfilling mentioned to be no more then the fulfilling of a Type in the Antitype, it will be necessary that we make it appear that it was literally fulfilled. To which I know of but two Prejudices. 1. That it could be no relief to Ahaz, nor to the Iews against their Sense and Fear of their present Danger, to tell them that Christ should be born of a Virgin eight hundred years after. 2. That whereas v. 16. it is added. Before the Child shall know to refuse the Evil, and chuse the Good, the Land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her Kings. Supposing those two Kings, to be Pekah King of Israel, and Rezin King of Syria, who were at that time joyned in a Siege against Ierusalem, or at least preparing for it, and the Child mentioned v 16. to be the Son of a Virgin promised, v. 14. it could be no relief to Ahaz, nor any great News for the Prophet to have told Ahaz that they should both leave the Country before eight hundred years were Elapsed. Let us therefore first consider the History to which that Prophecy related, Isaiah 7.1. we are told that in the time of Ahaz, Rezin the King of Syria and Pekah the Son of Remaliah the King of Israel went up towards Ierusalem to War against it, v. 2. And it was told the House of David (that is Ahaz) saying, Syria is Confederate with Ephraim; and his Heart was moved, and the Heart of his People, as the Trees of the Wood are moved with the W[illegible: 1 letter]nd. The expedient which Ahaz thought upon in this Distress, was to get Tiglah Peleser, the King of Assyria, to joyn with, and help him (which he afterward did) hiring him with the Silver and Gold found in the House of the Lord, and in the Treasures of the Kings House, as we find 2 Kin. 1.6, 7. This Conjunction with Idolaters, was what the Lord had forbidden, and had often declared his abhorrence of. To prevent it, v. 3. he sends his Prophet Isaiah to him, Isa. 7.3. Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy Son at the end of the upper Pool in the High-way of the Fullers Field. And say unto him. Fear not, neither be Faint-hearted, &c. In short, he assureth him in the Name of the Lord, That the Counsel of these two Kings should not stand, nor come to pass, v. 7. that within threescore, and five years Israel should not be a People, &c. Ahaz knew not how to believe this. Isaiah offereth him from God to ask a Sign for the Confirmation of his word, either in the heighth, or in the depth. Ahaz refuseth it under pretence that he would not Tempt the Lord, as if it had been a tempting God to have asked a Sign at his Command, at this the Lord was angry as appeareth by the Prophets reply, v. 13. And he said, Hear ye now you House of David, is it a small thing for you to weary Men, but will you weary my God also? Then he goeth on. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a Sign. Behold a Virgin, &c. There was nothing more ordinary in the Prophets, then to Comfort the People of God amongst the Iews in their Distresses, with the Promise of the Messias, this we find they often did with reference to the Captivity of Babylon and in other Causes of Distress and Trouble. And certainly that is the design of the Prophet here, in these words: Behold a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son and shall call his Name Immanuel. Ahaz had refused to believe the Promise, God gave him, to defeat the Counsel of these two Kings, he had refused to ask a Sign, for the Confirmation of Gods word. Well (saith the Prophet) God▪ shall give you that fear him a Sign, he shall in his own time send you the Messias, whose name shall be called Immanuel, and he shall be born of a Virgin. Nor yet doth he leave Ahaz and his people Comfortless, as to their present Distress, for saith he v. 16. Before the Child shall know to refuse the Evil, and to chuse the Good, the Land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her Kings. The Hebrew is [non-Latin text not transcribed] which I think were better translated: This Child, then the Child, for [non-Latin text not transcribed] seems not to be a Relative (referring to the Child mentioned in v. 14.) but a Demonstrative referring to the Son of Isaiah Shear-jashub, whom God v. 3. Commanded the Prophet going to meet Ahaz to carry with him, (who probably) was a very young Child saith the Prophet. Here is a little Child whom God hath Commanded me to bring with me, before this Child be much older, this Land which thou art so much afraid of, shall be quitted of both those Kings, who have now some Possession of it, for at this time, 2 Kin. 16.6. Rezin had taken Elath a City of Iudah; and doubtless he, and Pekah had taken divers places, for they were come up to Ierusalem it self. And indeed if this be not the Sense, it is very hard to conceive, to what purpose God Commanded Isaiah to take Shear-jashub with him. Isa. 7.3. When he went upon this Errand. So that v. 14. remains as a Prophecy respecting the Messiah only, and given not for any relief of unbelieving Ahas as to his present Distress, but for some relief to Gods People among the Iews, with reference to their Posterity: This will appear a much more probable Sense than theirs, who think that Mahershalal-hashbaz is the Son mentioned, v. 14. whom we read of, Isa. 8.3. who was born to Isaiah of the Prophetess, who some think was at this time a Virgin, and was a Type of Christ, for the Scripture doth not tell us whether that Prophetess was a Virgin, or a Widow, neither was it any great wonder, that a Virgin being married should conceive, and bear a Son. Nor had this been any relief to Ahaz, as to his present Distress, for this Virgin (if she were such) was yet to be married, to conceive and bear a Son, so that according to that Notion, we must allow three or four years, before Ahaz could have expected relief. This is further advantaged by that passage, Isa. 8.18. Behold I and the Children which the Lord hath given me are for Signs. Not the Child but the Children. Shear-jashub, was for a Sign of Gods deliverance of the Iews from those two Kings, Maher-Shalal-hashbaz, was for a Sign of the Destruction of the Israelites, within five years, and also of Syria, which fell out afterward thus, v. 14. remains a litteral Prophecy of Christ. For the Jewish interpretation of it, concerning Hezekiah (born fifteen years after) it is too ridiculous to be mentioned.

Marginal references: Or, his [illegible: 1 word] shall be called.

25 And knew her not, until she had brought forth her first born Son. And he called his name Jesus.

The Will of God (as we heard) was revealed to Ioseph in a Dream. It is God that giveth a Power to sleep, and a Power to awake: Therefore it is said, being raised from sleep, he shewed both his Faith and Obedience, his Faith in the Divine Revelation, a certainty of which he had doubtless by some extraordinary divine Impression and his Obedience to the divine Precept: He took unto him his Wife, that is, he took her unto his House (for betrothed Virgins, used to abide at their own Friends Houses, till the Consummation of the Marriage) and owning her as his Wife, yet not fully using her as such, for the Text saith he knew her not (a modest Phrase used from the beginning of the World, as appears from Gen. 4.1. to express the Conjugal Act) till she had brought forth her first born Son. Some make a great stir in determining, whether he knew her afterwards, yea or no: Some of the Ancients were stiff in their Opinion, that he did not, so are the Popish Writers, and many Protestant Interpreters. Mr. Calvin I think determines best, That none will move such a Question, but such as are unwarrantably curious, nor contend for either part, but such as are unreasonably Quarrelsome. For as on the one side, none can conclude that she had more Children from the Word until, further than, they can conclude from Psal. 110.1. That Christ shall not for ever sit at his Fathers right hand (the word Vntil being a Particle only exclusive of a preceeding time, not affirming the thing in future time. Nor doth the term First born conclude any born afterward: So on the other side, there are no cogent Arguments, to prove that Mary had no more Children by Ioseph, we read of the Brother of our Lord Galath. 1.19. and of his Mother, and his Brethren, Math. 12.47. and tho it be true, Brethren may signifie Kinsmen according to the Hebrew dialect, yet that it doth so in these Texts cannot be prov'd. The Holy Ghost had made use of the Virgin for the Production of the Messias, why after this, her Womb should be shut up, and Ioseph take her home to be his Wife, and not use her as such, I cannot tell, nor yet, what reproach it could be to Mary or to our Saviour, Marriage being Go[illegible: 2 letters] Ordinance, and the undefiled Bed Honourable, and those who think our Saviour would have been dishonoured in any others lying in the same Bed, after him, seem to forget how much he humbled himself, in lying in that Bed first, and then in a Stable, and a Manger; we know he knew her not till Christ was born, whether he did afterward or no, we are willingly ignorant because God hath not told us. And he called his name Iesus: This is added to declare his Obedience to the Command received by the Angel. We shall meet with more Circumstances relating to the Birth of Christ, when we come to the two first Chapters of Luke.

Matthew to John

The one half of our undertaking upon the New TestamentIt may be proper to apprise the reader that the volume to which this preface was originally prefixed included the Acts of the Apostles, which in the present edition will commence the second volume, in order to secure a more equal division of the New Testament—the commentary on the remaining books being less extended than the author contemplated.—Ed . is now, by the assistance of divine grace, finished, and presented to the reader, who, it is hoped, the Lord working with it, may hereby be somewhat helped in understanding and improving the sacred history of Christ and his apostles, and in making it, as it certainly is, the best exposition of our creed, in which these inspired writers are summed up, as is intimated by that evangelist who calls his gospel A Declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Luke i. 1. And, as there is no part of scripture in the belief of which it concerns more to be established, so there is none with which the generality of Christians are more conversant, or which they speak of more frequently. It is therefore our duty, by constant pains in meditation and prayer, to come to an intimate acquaintance with the true intent and meaning of these narratives, what our concern is in them, and what we are to build upon them and draw from them; that we may not rest in such a knowledge of them as that which we had when in our childhood we were taught to read English out of the translation and Greek out of the originals of these books. We ought to know them as the physician does his dispensatory, the lawyer his books of reports, and the sailor his chart and compass; that is, to know how to make use of them in that to which we apply ourselves as our business in this world, which is to serve God here and enjoy him hereafter, and both in Christ the Mediator.

The great designs of the Christian institutes (of which these books are the fountains and foundations) were, to reduce the children of men to the fear and love of God, as the commanding active principle of their observance of him, and obedience to him,—to show them the way of their reconciliation to him and acceptance with him, and to bring them under obligations to Jesus Christ as Mediator, and thereby to engage them to all instances of devotion towards God and justice and charity towards all men, in conformity to the example of Christ, in obedience to his law, and in pursuance of his great intentions. What therefore I have endeavoured here has been with this view, to make these writings serviceable to the faith, holiness, and comfort of good Christians.

Now that these writings, thus made use of to serve these great and noble designs, may have their due influence upon us, it concerns us to be well established in our belief of their divine origin. And here we have to do with two sorts of people. Some embrace the Old Testament, but set that up in opposition to the New, pleading that, if that be right, this is wrong; and these are the Jews. Others, though they live in a Christian nation, and by baptism wear the Christian name, yet, under pretence of freedom of thought, despise Christianity, and consequently reject the New Testament, and therefore the Old of course. I confess it is strange that any now who receive the Old Testament should reject the New, since, besides all the particular proofs of the divine authority of the New Testament, there is such an admirable harmony between it and the Old. It agrees with the Old in all the main intentions of it, refers to it, builds upon it, shows the accomplishment of its types and prophecies, and thereby is the perfection and crown of it. Nay, if it be not true, the Old Testament must be false, and all the glorious promises which shine so brightly in it, and the performance of which was limited within certain periods of time, must be a great delusion, which we are sure they are not, and therefore must embrace the New Testament to support the reputation of the Old.

Those things in the Old Testament which the New Testament lays aside are the peculiarity of the Jewish nation and the observances of the ceremonial law, both which certainly were of divine appointment; and yet the New Testament does not at all clash with the Old; for,

1. They were always designed to be laid aside in the fulness of time. No other is to be expected than that the morning-star should disappear when the sun rises; and the latter parts of the Old Testament often speak of the laying aside of those things, and of the calling in of the Gentiles.

2. They were very honourable laid aside, and rather exchanged for that which was more noble and excellent, more divine and heavenly. The Jewish church was swallowed up in the Christian, the mosaic ritual in evangelical institutions. So that the New Testament is no more the undoing of the Old than the sending of a youth to the university is the undoing of his education in the grammar-school.

3. Providence soon determined this controversy (which is the only thing that seemed a controversy between the Old Testament and the New) by the destruction of Jerusalem, the desolations of the temple, the dissolution of the temple-service, and the total dispersion of all the remains of the Jewish nation, with a judicial defeat of all the attempts to incorporate it again, now for above 1600 years; and this according to the express predictions of Christ, a little before his death. And, as Christ would not have the doctrine of his being the Messiah much insisted on till the great conclusive proof of it was given by his resurrection from the dead, so the repeal of the ceremonial law, as to the Jews, was not much insisted on, but their keeping up the observation of it was connived at, till the great conclusive proof of its repeal was given by the destruction of Jerusalem, which made the observation of it for ever impracticable. And the manifest tokens of divine wrath which the Jews, considered as a people, even notwithstanding the prosperity of particular persons among them, continue under to this day, is a proof, not only of the truth of Christ's predictions concerning them, but that they lie under a greater guilt than that of idolatry (for which they lay under a desolation of 70 years), and this can be no other than crucifying Christ, and rejecting his gospel.

Thus evident it is that, in our expounding of the New Testament, we are not undoing what we did in expounding the Old; so far from it that we may appeal to the law and the prophets for the confirmation of the great truth which the gospels are written to prove—That our Lord Jesus is the Messiah promised to the fathers, who should come, and we are to look for no other. For though his appearing did not answer the expectation of the carnal Jews, who looked for a Messiah in external pomp and power, yet it exactly answered all the types, prophecies, and promises, of the Old Testament, which all had their accomplishment in him; and even his ignominious sufferings, which are the greatest stumbling-block to the Jews, were foretold concerning the Messiah; so that if he had not submitted to them we had failed in our proof; so far it is from being weakened by them. Bishop Kidder's Demonstration of the Christian's Messiah has abundantly made out this truth, and answered the cavils (for such they are, rather than arguments) of the Jews against it, above any in our language.

But we live in an age when Christianity and the New Testament are more virulently and daringly attacked by some within their own bowels than by those upon their borders. Never were Moses and his writings so arraigned and ridiculed by any Jews, or Mahomet and his Alcoran by any Mussulmans, as Christ and his gospel by men that are baptized and called Christians; and this, not under colour of any other divine revelation, but in contempt and defiance of all divine revelation; and not by way of complaint that they meet with that which shocks their faith, and which, through their own weakness, they cannot get over, and therefore desire to be instructed in, and helped in the understanding of, and the reconciling of them to the truth which they have received, but by way of resolute opposition, as if they looked upon it as their enemy, and were resolved by all means possible to be the ruin of it, though they cannot say what evil it has done to the world or to them. If the pretence of it has transported many in the church of Rome into such corruptions of worship and cruelties of government as are indeed the scandal of human nature, yet, instead of being thereby prejudiced against pure Christianity, they should the rather appear more vigorously in defence of it, when they see so excellent an institution as this is in itself so basely abused and misrepresented. They pretend to a liberty of thought in their opposition to Christianity, and would be distinguished by the name of free-thinkers. I will not here go about to produce the arguments which, to all that are not wilfully ignorant and prejudiced against the truth, are sufficient to prove the divine origin and authority of the doctrine of Christ. The learned find much satisfaction in reading the apologies of the ancients for the Christian religion, when it was struggling with the polytheism and idolatry of the Gentiles. Justin Martyr and Tertullian, Lactantius and Minutius Felix, wrote admirable in defence of Christianity, when it was further sealed by the blood of the martyrs. But its patrons and advocates in the present day have another sort of enemies to deal with. The antiquity of the pagan theology, its universal prevalence, the edicts of princes, and the traditions and usages of the country, are not now objected to Christianity; but I know not what imaginary freedom of thought, and an unheard-of privilege of human nature, are assumed, not to be bound by any divine revelation whatsoever. Now it is easy to make out,

1. That those who would be thought thus to maintain a liberty of thinking as one of the privileges of human nature, and in defence of which they will take up arms against God himself, do not themselves think freely, nor give others leave to do so. In some of them a resolute indulgence of themselves in those vicious courses which they know the gospel if they admit it will make very uneasy to them, and a secret enmity to a holy heavenly mind and life, forbid them all free thought; for so strong a prejudice have their lusts and passions laid them under against the laws of Christ that they find themselves under a necessity of opposing the truths of Christ, upon which these laws are founded. Perit judicium, quando res transit in affectum—The judgment is overcome, when the decision is referred to the affections. Right or wrong, Christ's bonds must be broken, and his cords cast from them; and therefore, how evident soever the premises be, the conclusion must be denied, if it tend to fasten these bands and cords upon them; and where is the freedom of thought then? While they promise themselves liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption; for of whom a man is overcome of the same is he brought into bondage. In others of them, a reigning pride and affectation of singularity, and a spirit of contradiction, those lusts of the mind, which are as impetuous and imperious as any of the lusts of the flesh and of the world, forbid a freedom of thinking, and enslave the soul in all its enquiries after religion. Those can no more think freely who resolve they will think by themselves than those can who resolve to think with their neighbours. Nor will they give others liberty to think freely; for it is not by reason and argument that they go about to convince us, but by jest and banter, and exposing Christianity and its serious professors to contempt. Now, considering how natural it is to most men to be jealous for their reputation, this is as great an imposition as can possibly be; and the unthinking are as much kept from free-thinking by the fear of being ridiculed in the club of those who set up for oracles in reason as by the fear of being cursed, excommunicated, and anathematized, by the counsel of those who set up for oracles in religion. And where is the free-thinking then?

2. That those who will allow themselves a true liberty of thinking, and will think seriously, cannot but embrace all Christ's sayings, as faithful, and well worthy of all acceptation. Let the corrupt bias of the carnal heart towards the world, and the flesh, and self (the most presumptuous idol of the three) be taken away, and let the doctrine of Christ be proposed first in its true colours, as Christ and his apostles have given it to us, and in its true light, with all its proper evidence, intrinsic and extrinsic; and then let the capable soul freely use its rational powers and faculties, and by the operation of the Spirit of grace, who alone works faith in all that believe, even the high thought, when once it becomes a free thought, freed from the bondage of sin and corruption, will, by a pleasing and happy power, be captivated, and brought into obedience to Christ; and, when he thus makes it free, it will be free indeed. Let any one who will give himself leave to think impartially, and be at the pains to think closely, read Mr. Baxter's Reasons for the Christian Religion, and he will find both that it goes to the bottom, and lays the foundation deep and firm, and also that it brings forth the top-stone in a believer's consent to God in Christ, to the satisfaction of any that are truly concerned about their souls and another world. The proofs of the truths of the gospel have been excellently well methodized, and enforced likewise, by bishop Stillingfleet, in his Origines Sacræ; by Grotius, in his book of the Truth of the Christian Religion; by Dr. Whitby, in his General Preface to his Commentary on the New Testament; and of late by Mr. Ditton, very argumentatively, in his discourse concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ; and many others have herein done worthily. And I will not believe any man who rejects the New Testament and the Christian religion to have thought freely upon the subject, unless he has, with humility, seriousness, and prayer to God for direction, deliberately read these or the like books, which, it is certain, were written both with liberty and clearness of thought.

For my own part, if my thoughts were worth any one's notice, I do declare I have thought of this great concern with all the liberty that a reasonable soul can pretend to, or desire; and the result is that the more I think, and the more freely I think, the more fully I am satisfied that the Christian religion is the true religion, and that which, if I submit my soul sincerely to it, I may venture my soul confidently upon. For when I think freely,

1. I cannot but think that the God who made man a reasonable creature by his power has a right to rule him by his law, and to oblige him to keep his inferior faculties of appetite and passion, together with the capacities of thought and speech, in due subjection to the superior powers of reason and conscience. And, when I look into my own heart, I cannot but think that it was this which my Maker designed in the order and frame of my soul, and that herein he intended to support his own dominion in me.

2. I cannot but think that my happiness is bound up in the favour of God, and that his favour will, or will not, be towards me, according as I do, or do not, comply with the laws and ends of my creation,—that I am accountable to this God, and that from him my judgment proceeds, not only for this world, but for my everlasting state.

3. I cannot but think that my nature is very unlike what the nature of man was as it came out of the Creator's hands,—that it is degenerated from its primitive purity and rectitude. I find in myself a natural aversion to my duty, and to spiritual and divine exercises, and a propensity to that which is evil, such an inclination towards the world and the flesh as amounts to a propensity to backslide from the living God.

4. I cannot but think that I am therefore, by nature, thrown out of the favour of God; for though I think he is a gracious and merciful God, yet I think he is also a just and holy God, and that I am become, by sin, both odious to his holiness and obnoxious to his justice. I should not think freely, but very partially, if I should think otherwise. I think I am guilty before God, have sinned, and come short of glorifying him, and of being glorified with him.

5. I cannot but think that, without some special discovery of God's will concerning me, and good-will to me, I cannot possibly recover his favour, be reconciled to him, or be so far restored to my primitive rectitude as to be capable of serving my Creator, and answering the ends of my creation, and becoming fit for another world; for the bounties of Providence to me, in common with the inferior creatures, cannot serve either as assurances that God is reconciled to me or means to reconcile me to God.

6. I cannot but think that the way of salvation, both from the guilt and from the power of sin, by Jesus Christ, and his mediation between God and man, as it is revealed by the New Testament, is admirable well fitted to all the exigencies of my case, to restore me both to the favour of God and to the government and enjoyment of myself. Here I see a proper method for the removing of the guilt of sin (that I may not die by the sentence of the law) by the all-sufficient merit and righteousness of the Son of God in our nature, and for the breaking of the power of sin (that I may not die by my own disease) by the all-sufficient influence and operation of the Spirit of God upon our nature. Every malady has herein its remedy, every grievance is hereby redressed, and in such a way as advances the honour of all the divine attributes and is suited and accommodated to human nature.

7. I cannot but think that what I find in myself of natural religion does evidently bear testimony to the Christian religion; for all that truth which is discovered to me by the light of nature is confirmed, and more clearly discovered, by the gospel; the very same thing which the light of nature gives me a confused sight of (like the sight of men as trees walking) the New Testament gives me a clear and distinct sight of. All that good which is pressed upon me by the law of nature is more fully discovered to me, and I find myself much more strongly bound to it by the gospel of Christ, the engagements it lays upon me to my duty, and the encouragements and assistances it gives me in my duty. And this is further confirming to me that there, just there, where natural light leaves me at a loss, and unsatisfied—tells me that hitherto it can carry me, but no further—the gospel takes me up, helps me out, and gives me all the satisfaction I can desire, and that is especially in the great business of the satisfying of God's justice for the sin of man. My own conscience asks, Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the most high God? Will he be pleased with thousands of rams? But I am still at a loss; I cannot frame a righteousness from any thing I am, or have, in myself, or from any thing I can do for God or present to God, wherein I dare appear before him; but the gospel comes, and tells me that Jesus Christ had made his soul an offering for sin, and God has declared himself well-pleased with all believers in him; and this makes me easy.

8. I cannot but think that the proofs by which God has attested the truth of the gospel are the most proper that could be given in a case of this nature—that the power and authority of the Redeemer in the kingdom of grace should be exemplified to the world, not by the highest degree of the pomp and authority of the kings of the earth, as the Jews expected, but by the evidences of his dominion in the kingdom of nature, which is a much greater dignity and authority than any of the kings of the earth ever pretended to, and is no less than divine. And his miracles being generally wrought upon men, not only upon their bodies, as they were mostly when Christ was here upon earth, but, which is more, upon their minds, as they were mostly after the pouring out of the Spirit in the gift of tongues and other supernatural endowments, were the most proper confirmations possible of the truth of the gospel, which was designed for the making of men holy and happy.

9. I cannot but think that the methods taken for the propagation of this gospel, and the wonderful success of those methods, which are purely spiritual and heavenly, and destitute of all secular advantages and supports, plainly show that it was of God, for God was with it; and it could never have spread as it did, in the face of so much opposition, if it had not been accompanied with a power from on high. And the preservation of Christianity in the world to this day, notwithstanding the difficulties it has struggles with, is to me a standing miracle for the proof of it.

10. I cannot but think that the gospel of Christ has had some influence upon my soul, has had such a command over me, and been such a comfort to me, as is a demonstration to myself, though it cannot be so to another, that it is of God. I have tasted in it that the Lord is gracious; and the most subtle disputant cannot convince one who has tasted honey that it is not sweet.

And now I appeal to him who knows the thoughts and intents of the heart that in all this I think freely (if it be possible for a man to know that he does so), and not under the power of any bias. Whether we have reason to think that those who, without any colour of reason, not only usurp, but monopolize, the character of free-thinkers, do so, let those judge who easily observe that they do not speak sincerely, but industriously dissemble their notions; and one instance I cannot but notice of their unfair dealing with their readers—that when, for the diminishing of the authority of the New Testament, they urge the various readings of the original, and quote an acknowledgment of Mr. Gregory of Christ-church, in his preface to his Works, That no profane author whatsoever, &c., and yet suppress what immediately follows, as the sense of that learned man upon it, That this is an invincible reason for the scriptures' part, &c.

But while we are thus maintaining the divine origin and authority of the New Testament, as it has been received through all the ages of the church, we find our cause not only attacked by the enemies we speak of, but in effect betrayed by one who makes our New Testament almost double to what it really is,Whiston—Ed . adding to the Constitutions of the Apostles, collected by Clement, together with the Apostolical Canons, and making those to be of equal authority with the writings of the evangelists, and preferable to the Epistles. By enlarging the lines of defence thus, without either cause or precedent, he gives great advantage to the invaders. Those Constitutions of the Apostles have many things in them very good, and may be of use, as other human compositions; but to pretend that they were composed, as they profess to be, by the twelve apostles in concert at Jerusalem, I Peter saying this, I Andrew saying that, &c., is the greatest imposition that can be practised upon the credulity of the simple.

1. It is certain there were a great many spurious writings which, in the early days of the church, went under the names of the apostles and apostolical men; so that it has always been complained of as impossible to find out any thing but the canon of scripture that could with any assurance be attributed to them. Baronius himself acknowledges it, Cum apostolorum nomine tam facta quam dicta reperiantur esse supposititia; nec sic quid de illis à veris sincerisque spriptoribus narratum sit integrum et incorruptum remanserit, in desperationem planè quandam animum dejicunt posse unquam assequi quod verum certumque subsistat—Since so many of the acts and sayings ascribed to the apostles are found to be spurious, and even the narrations of faithful writers respecting them are not free from corruption, we must despair of ever being able to arrive at any absolute certainty about them.—Ad An. Christ. 44, sect. 42, &c. There were Acts under the names of Andrew the apostle, Philip, Peter, Thomas; a Gospel under the names of Thaddeus, another of Barnabas, another of Bartholomew; a book concerning the infancy of our Saviour, another concerning his nativity, and many the like, which we all rejected as forgeries.

2. These Constitutions and Canons, among the rest, were condemned in the primitive church as apocryphal, and therefore justly rejected; because, though otherwise good, they pretended to be what really they were not, dictated by the twelve apostles themselves, as received from Christ. If Jesus Christ gave them such instructions, and they gave them in such a solemn manner to the church, as is pretended, it is unaccountable that there is not the least notice taken of any such thing done or designed in the Gospels, the Acts, or any of the Epistles.

Those who have judged the most favourable of these Canons and Constitutions have concluded that they were complied by some officious persons under the name of Clement, towards the end of the second century, above 150 years after Christ's ascension, out of the common practice of the churches; that is, that which the compilers were most acquainted with, or had respect for; when at the same time we have reason to think that the far greater number of Christian churches which by that time were planted had Constitutions of their own, which, if they had had the happiness to be transmitted to posterity, would have recommended themselves as well as these, or better. But, as the legislators of old put a reputation upon their laws by pretending to have received them from some deity or other, so church-governors studied to gain reputation to their sees by placing some apostolical man or other at the head of their catalogue of bishops (see bishop Stillingfleet's Irenicum, p. 302), and reputation to their Canons and Constitutions by fathering them upon the apostles. But how can it be imagined that the apostles should be all together at Jerusalem, to compose this book of Canons with so much solemnity, when we know that their commission was to go into all the world, and to preach the gospel to every creature? Accordingly, Eusebius tells us that Thomas went into Parthia, Andrew into Scythia, John into the lesser Asia; and we have reason to think that after their dispersion they never came together again, any more than the planters of the nations did after the Most High had separated the sons of Adam.

I think that any one who will compare these Constitutions with the writings which we are sure were given by inspiration of God will easily discern a vast difference in the style and spirit. What is the chaff to the wheat? "Where are ministers, in the style of the true apostles, called priests, high priests? Where do we find in the apostolical age, that age of suffering, of the placing of the bishop in his throne? Or of readers, singers, and porters, in the church?"Edit. Joan. Clerici, p. 245.

I fear the collector and compiler of those Constitutions, under the name of Clement, was conscious to himself of his honesty in it, in that he would not have them published before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; nor were they known or published till the middle of the fourth century, when the forgery could not be so well disproved. I cannot see any mysteries in them, that they should be concealed, if they had been genuine; but I am sure that Christ bids his apostles publish the mysteries of the kingdom of God upon the house-tops. And St. Paul, though there are mysteries in his epistles much more sublime than any of these Constitutions, charges that they should be read to all the holy brethren. Nay, these Constitutions are so wholly in a manner taken up either with moral precepts, or rules of practice in the church, that if they had been what they pretend they had been most fit to be published before all. And though the Apocalypse is so full of mysteries, yet a blessing is pronounced upon the readers and hearers of that prophecy. We must therefore conclude that, whenever they were written, by declining the light they owned themselves to be apocryphal, that is, hidden or concealed; that they durst not mingle themselves with what was given by divine inspiration; to allude to what is said of the ministers (Acts v. 13), Of the rest durst no man join himself to the apostles, for the people magnified them. So that even by their own confession they were not delivered to the churches with the other writings, when the New-Testament canon was solemnly sealed up with that dreadful sentence passed on those that add unto these things.

And as we have thus had attempts made of late upon the purity and sufficiency of our New Testament, by additions to it, so we have likewise had from another quarter a great contempt put upon it by the papal power. The occasion was this:—One Father Quesnel, a French papist, but a Jansenist, nearly thirty years ago, published the New Testament in French, in several small volumes, with Moral Reflections on every verse, to render the reading of it more profitable, and meditation upon it more easy. It was much esteemed in France, for the sake of the piety and devotion which appeared in it, and it had several impressions. The Jesuits were much disgusted, and solicited the pope for the condemnation of it, though the author of it was a papist, and many things in it countenanced popish superstition. After much struggling about it in the court of Rome a bull was at length obtained, at the request of the French king, from the present pope Clement 11 bearing date September 8, 1713, by which the said book, with what title or in what language soever it is printed, is prohibited and condemned; both the New Testament itself, because in many things varying from the vulgar Latin, and the Annotations, as containing divers propositions (above a hundred are enumerated) scandalous and pernicious, injurious to the church and its customs, impious, blasphemous, savouring of heresy. And the propositions are such as these—"That the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is the effectual principle of all manner of good, is necessary for every good action; for without it nothing is done, nay nothing can be done"—"That it is a sovereign grace, and is an operation of the almighty hand of God"—"That, when God accompanies his word with the internal power of his grace, it operates in the soul the obedience which it demands"—"That faith is the first grace, and the fountain of all others"—"That it is in vain for us to call God our Father, if we do not cry to him with a spirit of love"—"That there is no God, nor religion, where there is no charity"—"That the catholic church comprehends the angels and all the elect and just men of the earth of all ages"—"That it had the Word incarnate for its head, and all the saints for its members"—"That it is profitable and necessary at all times, in all places, and for all sorts of persons, to know the holy Scriptures"—"That the holy obscurity of the word of God is no reason for the laity not reading it"—"That the Lord's day ought to be sanctified by reading books of piety, especially the holy scriptures"—And "that to forbid Christians from reading the scriptures is to prohibit the use of the light to the children of light." Many such positions as these, which the spirit of every good Christian cannot but relish as true and good, are condemned by the pope's bull as impious and blasphemous. And this bull, though strenuously opposed by a great number of the bishops in France, who were well affected to the notions of father Quesnel, was yet received and confirmed by the French king's letters patent, bearing date at Versailles, February 14, 1714, which forbid all manner of persons, upon pain of exemplary punishment, so much as to keep any of those books in their houses; and adjudge any that should hereafter write in defence of the propositions condemned by the pope as disturbers of the peace. It was registered the day following, February 15, by the Parliament of Paris, but with divers provisos and limitations.

By this is appears that popery is still the same thing that ever it was, an enemy to the knowledge of the scriptures, and to the honour of divine grace. What reason have we to bless God that we have liberty to read the scriptures, and have helps to understand and improve them, which we are concerned diligently to make a good use of, that we may not provoke God to give us up into the hands of those powers that would use us in like manner!

I am willing to hope that those to whom the reading of the Exposition of the Old Testament was pleasant will find this yet more pleasant; for this is that part of scripture which does most plainly testify of Christ, and in which that gospel grace which appears unto all men, bringing salvation, shines most clearly. This is the New-Testament milk for babes, the rest is strong meat for strong men. By these, therefore, let us be nourished and strengthened that we my be pressing on towards perfection; and that, having laid the foundation in the history of our blessed Saviour's life, death, and resurrection, and the first preaching of his gospel, we may build upon it by an acquaintance with the mysteries of godliness, to which we shall be further introduced in the Epistles.

I desire I may be read with a candid, and not a critical, eye. I pretend not to gratify the curious; the summit of my ambition is to assist those who are truly serious in searching the scriptures daily. I am sure the work is designed, and hope it is calculated, to promote piety towards God and charity towards our brethren, and that there is not only something in it which may edify, but nothing which may justly offend any good Christian.

If any receive spiritual benefit by my poor endeavours, it will be comfort to me, but let God have all the glory, and that free grace of his which has employed one that is utterly unworthy of such an honour, and enabled one thus far to go on in it who is utterly insufficient for such a service.

Having obtained help of God, I continue hitherto in it, and humbly depend upon the same good hand of my God to carry me on it that which remains, to gird my loins with needful strength and to make my way perfect; and for this I humbly desire the prayers of my friends. One volume more, I hope, will include what is yet to be done; and I will both go about it, and go on with it, as God shall enable me, with all convenient speed; but it is that part of the scripture which, of all others, requires the most care and pains in expounding it. But I trust that as the day so shall the strength be.

We have now before us, I. The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; so this second part of the holy Bible is entitled: The new covenant; so it might as well be rendered; the word signifies both. But, when it is (as here) spoken of as Christ's act and deed, it is most properly rendered a testament, for he is the testator, and it becomes of force by his death (Heb. ix. 16, 17); nor is there, as in covenants, a previous treaty between the parties, but what is granted, though an estate upon condition, is owing to the will, the free-will, the good-will, of the Testator. All the grace contained in this book is owing to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour; and, unless we consent to him as our Lord, we cannot expect any benefit by him as our Saviour. This is called a new testament, to distinguish it from that which was given by Moses, and was not antiquated; and to signify that it should be always new, and should never wax old, and grow out of date. These books contain, not only a full discovery of that grace which has appeared to all men, bringing salvation, but a legal instrument by which it is conveyed to, and settled upon, all believers. How carefully do we preserve, and with what attention and pleasure do we read, the last will and testament of a friend, who has therein left us a fair estate, and, with it, high expressions of his love to us! How precious then should this testament of our blessed Saviour be to us, which secures to us all his unsearchable riches! It is his testament; for though, as is usual, it was written by others (we have nothing upon record that was of Christ's own writing), yet he dictated it; and the night before he died, in the institution of his supper, he signed, sealed, and published it, in the presence of twelve witnesses. For, though these books were not written for some years after, for the benefit of posterity, in perpetuam rei memoriam—as a perpetual memorial, yet the New Testament of our Lord Jesus was settled, confirmed, and declared, from the time of his death, as a nuncupative will, with which these records exactly agree. The things which St. Luke wrote were things which were most surely believed, and therefore well known, before he wrote them; but, when they were written, the oral tradition was superseded and set aside, and these writings were the repository of that New Testament. This is intimated by the title which is prefixed to many Greek Copies, Tes kaines Diathekes Hapanta—The whole of the New Testament, or all the things of it. In it is declared the whole counsel of God concerning our salvation, Acts xx. 27. As the law of the Lord is perfect, so is the gospel of Christ, and nothing is to be added to it. We have it all, and are to look for no more.

II. We have before us The Four Gospels. Gospel signifies good news, or glad tidings; and this history of Christ's coming into the world to save sinners is, without doubt, the best news that ever came from heaven to earth; the angel gave it this title (Luke ii. 10), Euangelizomai hymin—I bring you good tidings; I bring the gospel to you. And the prophet foretold it, Isa. lii. 7; lxi. 1. It is there foretold that in the days of the messiah good tidings should be preached. Gospel is an old Saxon word; it is God's spell or word; and God is so called because he is good, Deus optimus—God most excellent, and therefore it may be a good spell, or word. If we take spell in its more proper signification for a charm (carmen), and take that in a good sense, for what is moving and affecting, which is apt lenire dolorem—to calm the spirits, or to raise them in admiration or love, as that which is very amiable we call charming, it is applicable to the gospel; for in it the charmer charmeth wisely, though to deaf adders, Ps. lviii. 4, 5. Nor (one would think) can any charms be so powerful as those of the beauty and love of our Redeemer. The whole New Testament is the gospel. St. Paul calls it his gospel, because he was one of the preachers of it. Oh that we may each of us make it ours by our cordial acceptance of it and subjection to it! But the four books which contain the history of the Redeemer we commonly call the four gospels, and the inspired penmen of them evangelists, or gospel-writers; not, however, very properly, because that title belongs to a particular order of ministers, that were assistants to the apostles (Eph. iv. 11): He gave some apostles, and some evangelists. It was requisite that the doctrine of Christ should be interwoven with, and founded upon, the narrative of his birth, life, miracles, death, and resurrection; for then it appears in its clearest and strongest light. As in nature, so in grace, the most happy discoveries are those which take rise from the certain representations of matters of fact. Natural history is the best philosophy; and so is the sacred history, both of the Old and New Testament, the most proper and grateful vehicle of sacred truth. These four gospels were early and constantly received by the primitive church, and read in Christian assemblies, as appears by the writings of Justin Martyr and Irenæus, who lived little more than a hundred years after the ascension of Christ; they declared that neither more nor fewer than four were received by the church. A Harmony of these four evangelists was compiled by Tatian about that time, which he called, To dia tessaron—The Gospel out of the four. In the third and fourth centuries there were gospels forged by divers sects, and published, one under the name of St. Peter, another of St. Thomas, another of St. Philip, &c. But they were never owned by the church, nor was any credit given to them, as the learned Dr. Whitby shows. And he gives this good reason why we should adhere to these written records, because, whatever the pretences of tradition may be, it is not sufficient to preserve things with any certainty, as appears by experience. For, whereas Christ said and did many memorable things, which were not written (John xx. 30; xxi. 25), tradition has not preserved any one of them to us, but all is lost except what was written; that therefore is what we must abide by; and blessed by God that we have it to abide by; it is the sure word of history.

III. We have before us the Gospel according to St. Matthew. The penman was by birth a Jew, by calling a publican, till Christ commanded his attendance, and then he left the receipt of custom, to follow him, and was one of those that accompanied him all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out, beginning from the baptism of John unto the day that he was taken up, Acts i. 21, 22. He was therefore a competent witness of what he has here recorded. He is said to have written this history about eight years after Christ's ascension. Many of the ancients say that he wrote it in the Hebrew or Syriac language; but the tradition is sufficiently disproved by Dr. Whitby. Doubtless, it was written in Greek, as the other parts of the New Testament were; not in that language which was peculiar to the Jews, whose church and state were near a period, but in that which was common to the world, and in which the knowledge of Christ would be most effectually transmitted to the nations of the earth; yet it is probable that there might be an edition of it in Hebrew, published by St. Matthew himself, at the same time that he wrote it in Greek; the former for the Jews, the latter for the Gentiles, when he left Judea, to preach among the Gentiles. Let us bless God that we have it, and have it in a language we understand.

This evangelist begins with the account of Christ's parentage and birth, the ancestors from whom he descended, and the manner of his entry into the world, to make it appear that he was indeed the Messiah promised, for it was foretold that he should be the son of David, and should be born of a virgin; and that he was so is here plainly shown; for here is, I. His pedigree from Abraham in forty-two generations, three fourteens, ver. 1-17. II. An account of the circumstances of his birth, so far as was requisite to show that he was born of a virgin, ver. 18-25. Thus methodically is the life of our blessed Saviour written, as lives should be written, for the clearer proposing of the example of them.

The Genealogy of Christ.

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Concerning this genealogy of our Saviour, observe,

I. The title of it. It is the book (or the account, as the Hebrew word sepher, a book, sometimes signifies) of the generation of Jesus Christ, of his ancestors according to the flesh; or, It is the narrative of his birth. It is Biblos Geneseos—a book of Genesis. The Old Testament begins with the book of the generation of the world, and it is its glory that it does so; but the glory of the New Testament herein excelleth, that it begins with the book of the generation of him that made the world. As God, his outgoings were of old, from everlasting (Mic. v. 2), and none can declare that generation; but, as man, he was sent forth in the fulness of time, born of a woman, and it is that generation which is here declared.

II. The principal intention of it. It is not an endless or needless genealogy; it is not a vain-glorious one, as those of great men commonly are. Stemmata, quid faciunt?—Of what avail are ancient pedigrees? It is like a pedigree given in evidence, to prove a title, and make out a claim; the design is to prove that our Lord Jesus is the son of David, and the son of Abraham, and therefore of that nation and family out of which the Messiah was to arise. Abraham and David were, in their day, the great trustees of the promise relating to the Messiah. The promise of the blessing was made to Abraham and his seed, of the dominion to David and his seed; and they who would have an interest in Christ, as the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are to be blessed, must be faithful, loyal subjects to him as the son of David, by whom all the families of the earth are to be ruled. It was promised to Abraham that Christ should descend from him (Gen. xii. 3; xxii. 18), and to David that he should descend from him (2 Sam. vii. 12; Ps. lxxxix. 3, &c.; cxxxii. 11); and therefore, unless it can be proved that Jesus is a son of David, and a son of Abraham, we cannot admit him to be the Messiah. Now this is here proved from the authentic records of the heralds' offices. The Jews were very exact in preserving their pedigrees, and there was a providence in it, for the clearing up of the descent of the Messiah from the fathers; and since his coming that nation is so dispersed and confounded that it is a question whether any person in the world can legally prove himself to be a son of Abraham; however, it is certain that none can prove himself to either a son of Aaron or a son of David, so that the priestly and kingly office must either be given up, as lost for ever, or be lodged in the hands of our Lord Jesus. Christ is here first called the son of David, because under that title he was commonly spoken of, and expected, among the Jews. They who owned him to be the Christ, called him the son of David, ch. xv. 22; xx. 31; xxi. 15. Thus, therefore, the evangelist undertakes to make out, that he is not only a son of David, but that son of David on whose shoulders the government was to be; not only a son of Abraham, but that son of Abraham who was to be the father of many nations.

In calling Christ the son of David, and the son of Abraham, he shows that God is faithful to his promise, and will make good every word that he has spoken; and this. 1. Though the performance be long deferred. When God promised Abraham a son, who should be the great blessing of the world, perhaps he expected it should be his immediate son; but it proved to be one at the distance of forty-two generations, and about 2000 years: so long before can God foretel what shall be done, and so long after, sometimes, does God fulfil what has been promised. Note, Delays of promised mercies, though they exercise our patience, do not weaken God's promise. 2. Though it begin to be despaired of. This son of David, and son of Abraham, who was to be the glory of his Father's house, was born when the seed of Abraham was a despised people, recently become tributary to the Roman yoke, and when the house of David was buried in obscurity; for Christ was to be a root out of a dry ground. Note, God's time for the performance of his promises is when it labours under the greatest improbabilities.

III. The particular series of it, drawn in the direct line from Abraham downward, according to the genealogies recorded in the beginning of the books of Chronicles (as far as those go), and which here we see the use of.

Some particulars we may observe in the genealogy.

1. Among the ancestors of Christ who had brethren, generally he descended from a younger brother; such Abraham himself was, and Jacob, and Judah, and David, and Nathan, and Rhesa; to show that the pre-eminence of Christ came not, as that of earthly princes, from the primogeniture of his ancestors, but from the will of God, who, according to the method of his providence, exalteth them of low degree, and puts more abundant honour upon that part which lacked.

2. Among the sons of Jacob, besides Judah, from whom Shiloh came, notice is here taken of his brethren: Judas and his brethren. No mention is made of Ishmael the son of Abraham, or of Esau the son of Isaac, because they were shut out of the church; whereas all the children of Jacob were taken in, and, though not fathers of Christ, were yet patriarchs of the church (Acts vii. 8), and therefore are mentioned in the genealogy, for the encouragement of the twelve tribes that were scattered abroad, intimating to them that they have an interest in Christ, and stand in relation to him as well as Judah.

3. Phares and Zara, the twin-sons of Judah, are likewise both named, though Phares only was Christ's ancestor, for the same reason that the brethren of Judah are taken notice of; and some think because the birth of Phares and Zara had something of an allegory in it. Zara put out his hand first, as the first-born, but, drawing it in, Phares got the birth-right. The Jewish church, like Zara, reached first at the birthright, but through unbelief, withdrawing the hand, the Gentile church, like Phares, broke forth and went away with the birthright; and thus blindness is in part happened unto Israel, till the fulness of the Gentiles become in, and then Zara shall be born—all Israel shall be saved, Rom. xi. 25, 26.

4. There are four women, and but four, named in this genealogy; two of them were originally strangers to the commonwealth of Israel, Rachab a Canaanitess, and a harlot besides, and Ruth the Moabitess; for in Jesus Christ there is neither Greek, nor Jew; those that are strangers and foreigners are welcome, in Christ, to the citizenship of the saints. The other two were adulteresses, Tamar and Bathsheba; which was a further mark of humiliation put upon our Lord Jesus, that not only he descended from such, but that his decent from them is particularly remarked in his genealogy, and no veil drawn over it. He took upon him the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. viii. 3), and takes even great sinners, upon their repentance, into the nearest relation to himself. Note, We ought not to upbraid people with the scandals of their ancestors; it is what they cannot help, and has been the lot of the best, even of our Master himself. David's begetting Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias is taken notice of (says Dr. Whitby) to show that the crime of David, being repented to, was so far from hindering the promise made to him, that it pleased God by this very woman to fulfil it.

5. Though divers kings are here named, yet none is expressly called a king but David (v. 6), David the king; because with him the covenant of royalty was made, and to him the promise of the kingdom of the Messiah was given, who is therefore said to inherit the throne of his father David, Luke i. 32.

6. In the pedigree of the kings of Judah, between Joram and Ozias (v. 8), there are three left out, namely, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah; and therefore when it is said, Joram begat Ozias, it is meant, according to the usage of the Hebrew tongue, that Ozias was lineally descended from him, as it is said to Hezekiah that the sons which he should beget should be carried to Babylon, whereas they were removed several generations from him. It was not through mistake or forgetfulness that these three were omitted, but, probably, they were omitted in the genealogical tables that the evangelist consulted, which yet were admitted as authentic. Some give this reason for it:—It being Matthew's design, for the sake of memory, to reduce the number of Christ's ancestors to three fourteens, it was requisite that in this period three should be left out, and none more fit than they who were the immediate progeny of cursed Athaliah, who introduced the idolatry of Ahab into the house of David, for which this brand is set upon the family and the iniquity thus visited to the third and fourth generation. Two of these three were apostates; and such God commonly sets a mark of his displeasure upon in this world: they all three had their heads brought to the grave with blood.

7. Some observe what a mixture there was of good and bad in the succession of these kings; as for instance (v. 7, 8), wicked Roboam begat wicked Abia; wicked Abia begat good Asa; good Asa begat good Josaphat; good Josaphat begat wicked Joram. Grace does not run in the blood, neither does reigning sin. God's grace is his own, and he gives or withholds it as he pleases.

8. The captivity of Babylon is mentioned as a remarkable period in this line, v. 11, 12. All things considered, it was a wonder that the Jews were not lost in that captivity, as other nations have been; but this intimates the reason why the streams of that people were kept to run pure through that dead sea, because from them, as concerning the flesh, Christ was to come. Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it, even that blessing of blessings, Christ himself, Isa. lxv. 8, 9. It was with an eye to him that they were restored, and the desolations of the sanctuary were looked upon with favour for the Lord's sake, Dan. ix. 17.

9. Josias is said to beget Jechonias and his brethren (v. 11); by Jechonias here is meant Jehoiakim, who was the first-born of Josias; but, when it is said (v. 12) that Jechonias begat Salathiel, that Jechonias was the son of that Jehoiakim who was carried into Babylon, and there begat Salathiel (as Dr. Whitby shows), and, when Jechonias is said to have been written childless (Jer. xxii. 30), it is explained thus: No man of his seed shall prosper. Salathiel is here said to beget Zorobabel, whereas Salathiel begat Pedaiah, and he begat Zorobabel (1 Chron. iii. 19): but, as before, the grandson is often called the son; Pedaiah, it is likely, died in his father's lifetime, and so his son Zorobabel was called the son of Salathiel.

10. The line is brought down, not to Mary the mother of our Lord, but to Joseph the husband of Mary (v. 16); for the Jews always reckoned their genealogies by the males: yet Mary was of the same tribe and family with Joseph, so that, both by his mother and by his supposed father, he was of the house of David; yet his interest in that dignity is derived by Joseph, to whom really according to the flesh he had no relation, to show that the kingdom of the Messiah is not founded in a natural descent from David.

11. The centre in whom all these lines meet is Jesus, who is called Christ, v. 16. This is he that was so importunately desired, so impatiently expected, and to whom the patriarchs had an eye when they were so desirous of children, that they might have the honour of coming into the sacred line. Blessed be God, we are not now in such a dark and cloudy state of expectation as they were then in, but see clearly what these prophets and kings saw as through a glass darkly. And we may have, if it be not our own fault, a greater honour than that of which they were so ambitious: for they who do the will of God are in a more honourable relation to Christ than those who were akin to him according to the flesh, ch. xii. 50. Jesus is called Christ, that is, the Anointed, the same with the Hebrew name Messiah. He is called Messiah the Prince (Dan. ix. 25), and often God's Anointed (Ps. ii. 2). Under this character he was expected: Art thou the Christ—the anointed one? David, the king, was anointed (1 Sam. xvi. 13); so was Aaron, the priest (Lev. viii. 12), and Elisha, the prophet (1 Kings xix. 16), and Isaiah, the prophet (Isa. lxi. 1). Christ, being appointed to, and qualified for, all these offices, is therefore called the Anointed—anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows; and from this name of his, which is as ointment poured forth, all his followers are called Christians, for they also have received the anointing.

Lastly. The general summary of all this genealogy we have, v. 17, where it is summed up in three fourteens, signalized by remarkable periods. In the first fourteen, we have the family of David rising, and looking forth as the morning; in the second, we have it flourishing in its meridian lustre; in the third, we have it declining and growing less and less, dwindling into the family of a poor carpenter, and then Christ shines forth out of it, the glory of his people Israel.

The Birth of Christ.

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

The mystery of Christ's incarnation is to be adored, not pried into. If we know not the way of the Spirit in the formation of common persons, nor how the bones are formed in the womb of any one that is with child (Eccles. xi. 5), much less do we know how the blessed Jesus was formed in the womb of the blessed virgin. When David admires how he himself was made in secret, and curiously wrought (Ps. cxxxix. 13-16), perhaps he speaks in the spirit of Christ's incarnation. Some circumstances attending the birth of Christ we find here which are not in Luke, though it is more largely recorded here. Here we have,

I. Mary's espousal to Joseph. Mary, the mother of our Lord, was espoused to Joseph, not completely married, but contracted; a purpose of marriage solemnly declared in words de futuro—that regarding the future, and a promise of it made if God permit. We read of a man who has betrothed a wife and has not taken her, Deut. xx. 7. Christ was born of a virgin, but a betrothed virgin, 1. To put respect upon the marriage state, and to recommend it as honourable among all, against that doctrine of devils which forbids to marry, and places perfection in the single state. Who more highly favoured than Mary was in her espousals? 2. To save the credit of the blessed virgin, which otherwise would have been exposed. It was fit that her conception should be protected by a marriage, and so justified in the eye of the world. One of the ancients says, It was better it should be asked, Is not this the son of a carpenter? than, Is not this the son of a harlot? 3. That the blessed virgin might have one to be the guide of her youth, the companion of her solitude and travels, a partner in her cares, and a help meet for her. Some think that Joseph was now a widower, and that those who are called the brethren of Christ (ch. xiii. 55), were Joseph's children by a former wife. This is the conjecture of many of the ancients. Joseph was just man, she a virtuous woman. Those who are believers should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers: but let those who are religious choose to marry with those who are so, as they expect the comfort of the relation, and God's blessing upon them in it. We may also learn, from this example, that it is good to enter into the married state with deliberation, and not hastily—to preface the nuptials with a contract. It is better to take time to consider before than to find time to repent after.

II. Her pregnancy of the promised seed; before they came together, she was found with child, which really was of the Holy Ghost. The marriage was deferred so long after the contract that she appeared to be with child before the time came for the solemnizing of the marriage, though she was contracted before she conceived. Probably, it was after her return from her cousin Elizabeth, with whom she continued three months (Luke i. 56), that she was perceived by Joseph to be with child, and did not herself deny it. Note, Those in whom Christ is formed will show it: it will be found to be a work of God which he will own. Now we may well imagine, what a perplexity this might justly occasion to the blessed virgin. She herself knew the divine original of this conception; but how could she prove it? She would be dealt with as a harlot. Note, After great and high advancements, lest we should be puffed up with them, we must expect something or other to humble us, some reproach, as a thorn in the flesh, nay, as a sword in the bones. Never was any daughter of Eve so dignified as the Virgin Mary was, and yet in danger of falling under the imputation of one of the worse crimes; yet we do not find that she tormented herself about it; but, being conscious of her own innocence, she kept her mind calm and easy, and committed her cause to him that judgeth righteously. Note, those who take care to keep a good conscience may cheerfully trust God with the keeping of their good names, and have reason to hope that he will clear up, not only their integrity, but their honour, as the sun at noon day.

III. Joseph's perplexity, and his care what to do in this case. We may well imagine what a great trouble and disappointment it was to him to find one he had such an opinion of, and value for, come under the suspicion of such a heinous crime. Is this Mary? He began to think, "How may we be deceived in those we think best of! How may we be disappointed in what we expect most from!" He is loth to believe so ill a thing of one whom he believed to be so good a woman; and yet the matter, as it is too bad to be excused, is also too plain to be denied. What a struggle does this occasion in his breast between that jealousy which is the rage of man, and is cruel as the grave, on the one hand, and that affection which he has for Mary on the other!

Observe, 1. The extremity which he studied to avoid. He was not willing to make her a public example. He might have done so; for, by the law, a betrothed virgin, if she played the harlot, was to be stoned to death, Deut. xxii. 23, 24. But he was not willing to take the advantage of the law against her; if she be guilty, yet it is not known, nor shall it be known from him. How different was the spirit which Joseph displayed from that of Judah, who in a similar case hastily passed that severe sentence, Bring her forth and let her be burnt! Gen. xxxviii. 24. How good it is to think on things, as Joseph did here! Were there more of deliberation in our censures and judgments, there would be more of mercy and moderation in them. Bringing her to punishment is here called making her a public example; which shows what is the end to be aimed at in punishment—the giving of warning to others: it is in terrorem—that all about may hear and fear. Smite the scorner, and the simple will beware.

Some persons of a rigorous temper would blame Joseph for his clemency: but it is here spoken of to his praise; because he was a just man, therefore he was not willing to expose her. He was a religious, good man; and therefore inclined to be merciful as God is, and to forgive as one that was forgiven. In the case of the betrothed damsel, if she were defiled in the field, the law charitably supposed that she cried out (Deut. xxii. 26), and she was not to be punished. Some charitable construction or other Joseph will put upon this matter; and herein he is a just man, tender of the good name of one who never before had done anything to blemish it. Note, It becomes us, in many cases, to be gentle towards those that come under suspicion of having offended, to hope the best concerning them, and make the best of that which at first appears bad, in hopes that it may prove better. Summum just summa injuria—The rigour of the law is (sometimes) the height of injustice. That court of conscience which moderates the rigour of the law we call a court of equity. Those who are found faulty were perhaps overtaken in the fault, and are therefore to be restored with the spirit of meekness; and threatening, even when just, must be moderated.

2. The expedient he found out for avoiding this extremity. He was minded to put her away privily, that is, to give a bill of divorce into her hand before two witnesses, and so to hush up the matter among themselves. Being a just man, that is, a strict observer of the law, he would not proceed to marry her, but resolved to put her away; and yet, in tenderness for her, determined to do it as privately as possible. Note, The necessary censures of those who have offended ought to be managed without noise. The words of the wise are heard in quiet. Christ himself shall not strive nor cry. Christian love and Christian prudence will hide a multitude of sins, and great ones, as far as may be done without having fellowship with them.

IV. Joseph's discharge from this perplexity by an express sent from heaven, v. 20, 21. While he thought on these things and knew not what to determine, God graciously directed him what to do, and made him easy. Note, Those who would have direction from God must think on things themselves, and consult with themselves. It is the thoughtful, not the unthinking, whom God will guide. When he was at a loss, and had carried the matter as far as he could in his own thoughts, then God came in with advice. Note, God's time to come in with instruction to his people is when they are nonplussed and at a stand. God's comforts most delight the soul in the multitude of its perplexed thoughts. The message was sent to Joseph by an angel of the Lord, probably the same angel that brought Mary the tidings of the conception—the angel Gabriel. Now the intercourse with heaven, by angels, with which the patriarchs had been dignified, but which had been long disused, begins to be revived; for, when the First-begotten is to be brought into the world, the angels are ordered to attend his motions. How far God may now, in an invisible way, make use of the ministration of angels, for extricating his people out of their straits, we cannot say; but this we are sure of, they are all ministering spirits for their good. This angel appeared to Joseph in a dream when he was asleep, as God sometimes spoke unto the fathers. When we are most quiet and composed we are in the best frame to receive the notices of the divine will. The Spirit moves on the calm waters. This dream, no doubt, carried its own evidence along with it that it was of God, and not the production of a vain fancy. Now,

1. Joseph is here directed to proceed in his intended marriage. The angel calls him, Joseph, thou son of David; he puts him in mind of his relation to David, that he might be prepared to receive this surprising intelligence of his relation to the Messiah, who, every one knew, was to be a descendant from David. Sometimes, when great honours devolve upon those who have small estates, they care not for accepting them, but are willing to drop them; it was therefore requisite to put this poor carpenter in mind of his high birth: "Value thyself. Joseph, thou art that son of David through whom the line of the Messiah is to be drawn." We may thus say to every true believer, "Fear not, thou son of Abraham, thou child of God; forget not the dignity of thy birth, thy new birth." Fear not to take Mary for thy wife; so it may be read. Joseph, suspecting she was with child by whoredom, was afraid of taking her, lest he should bring upon himself either guilt or reproach. No, saith God, Fear not; the matter is not so. Perhaps Mary had told him that she was with child by the Holy Ghost, and he might have heard what Elizabeth said to her (Luke i. 43), when she called her the mother of her Lord; and, if so, he was afraid of presumption in marrying one so much above him. But, from whatever cause his fears arose, they were all silenced with this word, Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife. Note, It is a great mercy to be delivered from our fears, and to have our doubts resolved, so as to proceed in our affairs with satisfaction.

2. He is here informed concerning that holy thing with which his espoused wife was now pregnant. That which is conceived in her is of a divine original. He is so far from being in danger of sharing in an impurity by marrying her, that he will thereby share in the highest dignity he is capable of. Two things he is told,

(1.) That she had conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost; not by the power of nature. The Holy Spirit, who produced the world, now produced the Saviour of the world, and prepared him a body, as was promised him, when he said, Lo, I come, Heb. x. 5. Hence he is said to be made of a woman (Gal. iv. 4), and yet to be that second Adam that is the Lord from heaven, 1 Cor. xv. 47. He is the Son of God, and yet so far partakes of the substance of his mother as to be called the fruit of her womb, Luke i. 42. It was requisite that is conception should be otherwise than by ordinary generation, that so, so though he partook of the human nature, yet he might escape the corruption and pollution of it, and not be conceived and shapen in iniquity. Histories tell us of some who vainly pretended to have conceived by a divine power, as the mother of Alexander; but none ever really did so, except the mother of our Lord. His name in this, as in other things, is Wonderful. We do not read that the virgin Mary did herself proclaim the honour done to her; but she hid it in her heart, and therefore God sent an angel to attest it. Those who seek not their own glory shall have the honour that comes from God; it is reserved for the humble.

(2.) That she should bring forth the Saviour of the world (v. 21). She shall bring forth a Son; what he shall be is intimated,

[1.] In the name that should be given to her Son: Thou shalt call his name Jesus, a Saviour. Jesus is the same name with Joshua, the termination only being changed, for the sake of conforming it to the Greek. Joshua is called Jesus (Acts vii. 45; Heb. iv. 8), from the Seventy. There were two of that name under the Old Testament, who were both illustrious types of Christ, Joshua who was Israel's captain at their first settlement in Canaan, and Joshua who was their high priest at their second settlement after the captivity, Zech. vi. 11, 12. Christ is our Joshua; both the Captain of our salvation, and the High Priest of our profession, and, in both, our Saviour—a Joshua who comes in the stead of Moses, and does that for us which the law could not do, in that it was weak. Joshua had been called Hosea, but Moses prefixed the first syllable of the name Jehovah, and so made it Jehoshua (Num. xiii. 16), to intimate that the Messiah, who was to bear that name, should be Jehovah; he is therefore able to save to the uttermost, neither is there salvation in any other.

[2.] In the reason of that name: For he shall save his people from their sins; not the nation of the Jews only (he came to his own, and they received him not), but all who were given him by the Father's choice, and all who had given themselves to him by their own. He is a king who protects his subjects, and, as the judges of Israel of old, works salvation for them. Note, those whom Christ saves he saves from their sins; from the guilt of sin by the merit of his death, from the dominion of sin by the Spirit of his grace. In saving them from sin, he saves them from wrath and the curse, and all misery here and hereafter. Christ came to save his people, not in their sins, but from their sins; to purchase for them, not a liberty to sin, but a liberty from sins, to redeem them from all iniquity (Tit. ii. 14); and so to redeem them from among men (Rev. xiv. 4) to himself, who is separate from sinners. So that those who leave their sins, and give up themselves to Christ as his people, are interested in the Saviour, and the great salvation which he has wrought out, Rom. xi. 26.

V. The fulfilling of the scripture in all this. This evangelist, writing among the Jews, more frequently observes this than any other of the evangelists. Here the Old Testament prophecies had their accomplishment in our Lord Jesus, by which it appears that this was he that should come, and we are to look for no other; for this was he to whom all the prophets bore witness. Now the scripture that was fulfilled in the birth of Christ was that promise of a sign which God gave to king Ahaz (Isa. vii. 14), Behold a virgin shall conceive; where the prophet, encouraging the people of God to hope for the promised deliverance from Sennacherib's invasion, directs them to look forward to the Messiah, who was to come of the people of the Jews, and the house of David; whence it was easy to infer, that though that people and that house were afflicted, yet neither the one nor the other could be abandoned to ruin, so long as God had such an honour, such a blessing, in reserve for them. The deliverances which God wrought for the Old-Testament church were types and figures of the great salvation by Christ; and, if God will do the greater, he will not fail to do the less.

The prophecy here quoted is justly ushered in with a Behold, which commands both attention and admiration; for we have here the mystery of godliness, which is, without controversy, great, that God was manifested in the flesh.

1. The sign given is that the Messiah shall be born of a virgin. A virgin shall conceive, and, by her, he shall be manifested in the flesh. The word Almah signifies a virgin in the strictest sense, such as Mary professes herself to be (Luke i. 34), I know not a man; nor had it been any such wonderful sign as it was intended for, if it had been otherwise. It was intimated from the beginning that the Messiah should be born of a virgin, when it was said that he should be the seed of the woman; so the seed of the woman as not to be the seed of any man. Christ was born of a virgin not only because his birth was to be supernatural, and altogether extraordinary, but because it was to be spotless, and pure, and without any stain of sin. Christ would be born, not of an empress or queen, for he appeared not in outward pomp or splendour, but of a virgin, to teach us spiritual purity, to die to all the delights of sense, and so to keep ourselves unspotted from the world and the flesh that we may be presented chaste virgins to Christ.

2. The truth proved by this sign is, that he is the Son of God, and the Mediator between God and man: for they shall call his name Immanuel; that is, he shall be Immanuel; and when it is said, He shall be called, it is meant, he shall be, the Lord our righteousness. Immanuel signifies God with us; a mysterious name, but very precious; God incarnate among us, and so God reconcilable to us, at peace with us, and taking us into covenant and communion with himself. The people of the Jews had God with them, in types and shadows, dwelling between the cherubim; but never so as when the Word was made flesh—that was the blessed Shechinah. What a happy step is hereby taken toward the settling of a peace and correspondence between God and man, that the two natures are thus brought together in the person of the Mediator! by this he became an unexceptionable referee, a days-man, fit to lay his hand upon them both, since he partakes of the nature of both. Behold, in this, the deepest mystery, and the richest mercy, that ever was. By the light of nature, we see God as a God above us; by the light of the law, we see him as a God against us; but by the light of the gospel, we see him as Immanuel, God with us, in our own nature, and (which is more) in our interest. Herein the Redeemer commended his love. With Christ's name, Immanuel, we may compare the name given to the gospel church (Ezek. xlviii. 35). Jehovah Shammah—The Lord is there; the Lord of hosts is with us.

Nor is it improper to say that the prophecy which foretold that he should be called Immanuel was fulfilled, in the design and intention of it, when he was called Jesus; for if he had not been Immanuel—God with us, he could not have been Jesus—a Saviour; and herein consists the salvation he wrought out, in the bringing of God and man together; this was what he designed, to bring God to be with us, which is our great happiness, and to bring us to be with God, which is our great duty.

VI. Joseph's obedience to the divine precept (v. 24). Being raised from sleep by the impression which the dream made upon him, he did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, though it was contrary to his former sentiments and intentions; he took unto him his wife; he did is speedily, without delay, and cheerfully, without dispute; he was not disobedient to the heavenly vision. Extraordinary direction like this we are not now to expect; but God has still ways of making known his mind in doubtful cases, by hints of providence, debates of conscience, and advice of faithful friends; by each of these, applying the general rules of the written word, we should, therefore, in all the steps of our life, particularly the great turns of it, such as this of Joseph's, take direction from God, and we shall find it safe and comfortable to do as he bids us.

VII. The accomplishment of the divine promise (v. 25). She brought forth her first-born son. The circumstances of it are more largely related, Luke ii. 1, &c. Note, That which is conceived of the Holy Ghost never proves abortive, but will certainly be brought forth in its season. What is of the will of the flesh, and of the will of man, often miscarries; but, if Christ be formed in the soul, God himself has begun the good work which he will perform; what is conceived in grace will no doubt be brought forth in glory.

It is here further observed, 1. That Joseph, though he solemnized the marriage with Mary, his espoused wife, kept at a distance from her while she was with child of this Holy thing; he knew her not till she had brought him forth. Much has been said concerning the perpetual virginity of our Lord: Jerome was very angry with Helvidius for denying it. It is certain that it cannot be proved from scripture. Dr. Whitby inclines to think that when it is said, Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born, it is intimated that, afterwards, the reason ceasing, he lived with her, according to the law, Exod. xxi. 10. 2. That Christ was the first-born; and so he might be called though his mother had not any other children after him, according to the language of scripture. Nor is it without a mystery that Christ is called her first-born, for he is the first-born of every creature, that is, the Heir of all things; and he is the first-born among many brethren, that in all things he may have the pre-eminence. 3. That Joseph called his name Jesus, according to the direction given him. God having appointed him to be the Saviour, which was intimated in his giving him the name Jesus, we must accept of him to be our Saviour, and, in concurrence with that appointment, we must call him Jesus, our Saviour.

CHAPTER 1.

VERSE 1. The Book] THat is, a roll or register, a catalogue or calendarGen. 5. 1. (Heb. [non-Latin text not transcribed]) a cyphering and summing up.This is Sepher toledoth, [non-Latin text not transcribed], say the Septuagint. Of the generations] That is, of the Genealogies, as touching his Humanity (St Matthews main drift:) for as touching his Divinity (St Johns chief scope and subject,) who can declare his generation? Isa. 53. 8. What is his name? and what is his sonnes name, if thou canst tell? Prov. 30. 4. He is without descent or pedegree, as Melchisedech, Heb. 7. 2. Of Jesus Christ] Jesus shews he was God (for besides me there is no Saviour, [illegible: 1 word]. 45. 21.) Christ, that he was man, the Anointed, for in respect of his manhood, chiefly, is this anointing with gifts and graces attributed to Christ. The name of Jesuits therefore favoureth of blasphemous arrogancy. One of their ownRem [illegible: 2 words] e Christi [illegible: 2 words], non [illegible: 5 words]. gives the reason; because he hath communicated unto us the thing signified by the name Christ, but not by the name Jesus. And yet, it is notoriously known (saith Dr Fulke, out of another of their own Writers) that the most honourable name of Christian, is in Italy and at Rome a name of reproach; and usually abused, to signifie a Fool or a Dolt. [illegible: 1 word]. on Act. 11. [illegible: 1 word]. [illegible: 1 word]. 4. cut [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word]. [illegible: 2 words]. Col le [illegible: 1 word]. in [illegible: 1 word]. The sonne of David] Gods darling,David amasius vel amabilis. [illegible: 3 words], [illegible: 1 word] Solomon dictus est [illegible: 1 word]. one that observed all his willes, Acts 13 22. and faithfully served out his time, ver. 36. The sonne of Abraham] The friend of God, and father of the faithfull, reckon'd here (for honours sake) as the next immediate father of Christ; whose day indeed he saw and rejoyced, he laughed, yea leapt sor joy of this man-childe to be born into the world. Whose children we are, so long as we walk in the steps of his faith; that Christ, being formed in us, may see of the travell of his soul, and be satisfied: he may see his seed, and prolong his daies upon earth. Such honour have all his Saints, Psal. 149. 9.Joh. 8. [illegible: 1 word].

Verse 2. Abraham begat Isaac] The fruit, not more of his [non-Latin text not transcribed]. flesh, then of his faith: Whence he is said to be born after the Spirit, [illegible: 2 words]. 10. 11. Gal. 4. [illegible: 1 letter]9.Verè fuit Isaac beatae senectu[illegible: 2 letters] & [illegible: 2 words] dei filius. Isaac begat Iacob] After twenty years expectance, and many an hearty prayer put up therewhile. So, Adam lived an hundred and twenty years ere he begat Seth; whom God set as another [illegible: 1 word]. seed instead of Abel, Gen. 5. 3. with Gen. 4. 25. when Cains familyGen. 2[illegible: 1 letter]. [illegible: 1 letter]1. The Hebrew word is, to frequent and multiply prayer. flourished, and grew great in the earth. God usually stayes so long, that he hardly findes faith, Luk. 18. 8. till men have done expecting, and then he doeth things that they lookt not for, Isa. 64. 3. Wait therefore upon him who waits to be gracious; and know this, that he is a God of judgement, Isa. 30. 18. that is, a wise God, one that chuseth his times, and knows best when to deal forth his favours. See Isa. 49 8. with Psal. 69. 13. Every thing isEccles [illegible: 1 letter]. 11. beautiful in its season, saith Solomon. Iacob begat Iudah and his brethren] Brethren in iniquity (the most of them) a part of their fathers punishment, for thatGen. 17 [illegible: 2 letters], &c. three-fold lye in a breath. Reuben was the beginning of his strength, excelling in dignity and power, Gen. 45. 3. that is (saith the Chaldee Paraphrast) in the Principality and the Priesthood. Both which he forfeited by his foul offence; the [illegible: 1 word] to Iudah, the later to Levi. Howbeit, upon his return to God (though disinherited of the birth-right, yet) he had this honour of an elder-brother, that he was first provided for. But Iudah was he, whom his brethren Gen. [illegible: 1 word]. 8. should praise (saith Iacob) in allusion to his name, and in reference to his priviledge; for it is evident, that our Lord sprang [non-Latin text not transcribed]. out of Iudah, Heb. 7 14. that branch from on high, Luk. 1. 78. [non-Latin text not transcribed]. that Shiloh, which some interpret, His sonne: Others, Tranquillator, R David. Salvator, the Prosperer, Pacificatour, Safe-maker, &c.Tranquillator, [illegible: 1 word], a themate Shalah, [illegible: 4 words]. Others, the son of her secundines, which is the Tunicle that wrappeth the childe in the wombe.

Verse 3. And Iudah begat Phares and Zarah] Hierome is deceived, that deriveth the pedegree of the Pharisees from thisUnde etiam lat. Salvere, Salvus, Salvare, [illegible: 1 word]. Phares. They took their name either of Pharash, to expound, as Interpreters of the Law, Rom. 2. 18. Or of Pharas to separate, with a stand further off, for I am holier then thou. Iosephus saith, That the Pharisees seemed to outstrip all others, both in height of [non-Latin text not transcribed] de bel. [illegible: 1 word]. cap. 4. holinesse, and depth of learning. As for Phares, he was a breachmaker (whence also he had his name, Gen. 38. 29.) He violently took the first-birth-right; and became both a father of the Messias, and a Type. For Christ by his strength broke the power of death, and hell: he broke down also the [illegible: 1 word] wall that was betwixt the Jews and Gentiles: who when they shall be [illegible: 1 word] born, then shall the Jews (typified by Zarah, who thrust forth the hand first, as those that willing to be justified by their works, and thinking to regenerate themselves, had the [illegible: 1 word] threed of the Laws condemnation bound upon their hands, which therefore they drew back and fell from God,) then shall they, I say, come forth again, Rom. 11. 11, 12, 25. 26. Of [illegible: 1 word]] A [illegible: 1 word], but probably, a proselyte. The Jews, say, she was Melchisedechs daughter the High-Priest, and was [illegible: 1 word] to be burned, Lev. 21. 8. But this may well passe for a Jewish fable: Howbeit, that Melchisedech was a Canaanite, but a most righteous King and Priest of the most high God, and was therefore not molested or medled with by Kidar-laomer and his complices, I judge, not unlikely. This [illegible: 1 word], out of desire, partly of revenge, and partly of issue, fell into the sin of [illegible: 1 word]. Rahab was an harlot, Bathsheba an [illegible: 1 word]; yet all these, grandmothers to our Saviour: Who as he needed not to be ennobled by his stock, so neither was disparaged by his Progenitours; but took flesh of these greatest sinners, to shew that we cannot commit more then he can [illegible: 1 word]: and that by his purity he washeth off all our spots; like as the Sun wasteth and wipeth away all the ill vapours of the earth and aire. And Phares begat Esrom,] When he was but 14 years of age,Pareus in [illegible: 1 word]. the year before they went down to Egypt, say some: Others assoil [illegible: 1 word] in [illegible: 1 word]. Com. Anno [illegible: 1 word]. it otherwise. Let him that readeth understand as he can. Christ (the Arch-Prophet) when he comes again, shall teach us all things. Esrom begat Aram] While they sojourned in the Land of Egypt; a miserable home, where was nothing but bondage and tyranny. And yet, in reference to it, Moses (who was likewise born there) calls his son, Gershom, or a stranger there, because born in Midian. The sons of Ephraim, about the birth of Moses, sought to break prison before Gods goal-delivery: but this [illegible: 1 word] a great mischief to themselves, and no small heart-break to their aged father, 1 Chron. 7. 21, 22. Psal. 78. 9. Besides that, it gave occasion, likely, to that cruell edict of Pharaoh; Let us deal wisely (St Stephen saith, sophistically, subtilly) lest they multiply [non-Latin text not transcribed]. and join also to [illegible: 1 word] enemies, and fight against us (as now theyActs 7. 19. have fought against the Gittites, their own enemies, who detained from them the promised Land, till their sins were full) and so get them up out of the Land, as lately they had assayed to do. Therefore they d d set over them taskmasters, to [illegible: 1 word] them with their burdens, and to keep them from spawning so fast, after theExod. [illegible: 1 word]. manner of fishes (as the word imports) which multiply beyond measure. But God turned their wisedom into folly; they took a wrong course. For who knows not that your labouring men have the most and the strongest children? And notwithstanding this [illegible: 1 word] Pharaohs craft and cruelty.

Verse 4. Aram begat Aminadab, and Aminadab begat Naasson] Who was hang'd up in the wildernesse, among [illegible: 1 word] rest of the Rulers, for folly committed with their mistresses of Moab. Neither scaped the common sort scot-free, for they fell in one [illegible: 1 word] three and twenty thousand, saith St Paul. Four and [illegible: 1 word] 1 Cor. [illegible: 1 word]. 8. thousand, saith Moses; whereof a thousand were the chief Princes, the other were inferiours, provoked to sin by their example. But why doth the Apostle insist in the speciall punishment of the people? to shew, saith learned Iunius, how frigid and slender their [illegible: 1 word]. lib 2. [illegible: 1 word]. 37. defence is, how short their covering, who plead and pretend for their sins the example of their superiours. And Naasson begat Salmon] Called 1 Chron. 2. Salmah. There was also a Mount of this name (as touching the sound, though with difference of one letter in the Originall) whither Abimelech and his host resorted, Iudg. 9. 48. And [illegible: 1 word] the Psalmist speaketh; When the Almighty scattered Kings, they shall be white as snow in Salmon. Now it is storied of Andronicus, the old Emperour of Constantinople, that, all things going crosse with him, he took a Psalter into his hand, to resolve his doubtfull minde: And opening the same, as if it were of that heavenly oracle to askeTurk. Histo. fol. 164. counsell, he lighted upon this verse, and was thereby comforted and directed what to do for his greatest safety. To be white as snow Psal. 68. 14. explained. in Salmon, is to have joy in affliction, light in darknesse. Salmon signifieth shady and darke: so this mount was with dens and glimnes; but made lightsome by snow. Hoe [illegible: 1 word] obitèr.

Verse 5. And Salmon begat Boos of Rahab.] This the Evangelist might have by tradition. Salmons genealogy is set down, 1 Chron. 2. Ruth. 4. but whom he married, nothing is reported. And Boos begat Obed of Ruth] Whiles Orphah wants bread in her own Countrey, Ruth is grown a great Lady in Bethlehem; and advanced to be great grandmother to the King of kings. [non-Latin text not transcribed]. There's nothing lost by Gods service. And Obed begat Iesse] A good old man, but not very famous. Retired it seems he was, and drawn much up into himself; neither thinking great things of himself, nor seeking great things for himself; [non-Latin text not transcribed], Vive tibi, quantum que , potes, [illegible: 1 word] vita but living among his own people; much of his son Davids disposition, who loves his hook the better since he saw the Court, and sings, Beatus ille qui procul [illegible: 1 word], &c. Non vixit [illegible: 1 word], qui natus [illegible: 2 words] fellit. Hee's not the least happy that is least observed. [illegible: 1 word].

Verse 6. And Iesse begat David the King.] But that was not his chief title: He gloried more in stlling [illegible: 1 word] the servant of the Lord, Psal. 36. 1: &c. So Theodosius esteemed it a greater honour, that he was membrum Christi, then Caput Imperij. Numa etiam [non-Latin text not transcribed], existimabat. Numa held thePlut. in [illegible: 1 word]. service of God the highest honour. David the King begat Salomon] Whom Bellarmine reckoneth for a reprobate: but (besides that he was Gods Corculum, and by him called Iedidiah,) he calleth himself in his sacred Retractations, Coheleth: which being interpreted, The Preacher, is a word of the foeminine termination, and by some rendered Aggregata, where understanding the substantive Anima, they conclude here-hence, that he was renewed by repentance, and reunited to the Church. Of her that had been the wife of Uriah.] His best children he [illegible: 5 words], [illegible: 1 word] in [illegible: 1 word]. Aug. had by this wife: [illegible: 1 word] fruit of his humiliation doubtlesse. The barren womens children are observed to have been the best, as Isaac, Samuel, Iohn Baptist, &c. for like reason.

Verse 7. And Solomon begat Roboam.] A childe of fourty years old, a soft-spirited man, the Scripture notes him, a [non-Latin text not transcribed], easily drawn away by evil counsell. Green wood will be warping. Of him it might be said, as once it was of a certain Prince in Germany, Esset alius, si esset apud alios. But a man would wonder, that [illegible: 1 word]. by so many wives Solomon should have but one sonne, and him none of the wisest neither. Herôum filij [illegible: 1 word]. He might (likely) bewail his own unhappines in Rehoboam, Eccles. 2. 18, 19. as he is thought to do in Jeroboam, Pro. 20. 21. His mother was an Ammonitesse: the birth followes the belly: the conclusion followes the weaker proposition. And Roboam begat Abiah] A man not right, yet better then his father: and for this to be commended, that he held and pleaded the true worship and service of God as the beauty and bulwark of his Kingdom: relying also upon God, he discomfited Jeroboam; Deo confisi, nunquam confusi. And Abia begat Asa.] A better son, sprung of the seed of bad Abia, of the soil of [illegible: 1 word] Maachah, whom St. Jerome makes to be a worshipper of that abominable idol Priapus, otherwise called Baal-peor. For thus he translates that, 1 King. 15. Insuper & Numb. 25. 5. Maachan matrem [illegible: 1 word] amovit, ne esset princeps in sacris Priapi, In 4 [illegible: 1 word]. & in luco [illegible: 1 word]. Nos, pudore pulso, stamus sub Iove, coleis apertis, said the worshippers of Priapus. The people that [illegible: 1 word] D. [illegible: 1 word] Apolog. thereto (the sacrifice being ended) all stepped into a thicket, which was alwaies planted neer the altar of this God; and there, like brute beasts, [illegible: 2 words] satisfied their lusts: thereby, as they conceived, best pleasing their God. This villany Maachah may seem to have been guilty of, and was therefore worthily removed by her son Asa, from [illegible: 1 word] Queen. Sedes prima, & [illegible: 1 word] ima, suit not well together. Dignitas in indigno est ornamentum in luto, saith Salvian. Honour in a [illegible: 1 word] man, is as a jewell [illegible: 1 word] Gold in a swines snout. [non-Latin text not transcribed]

Verse 8. And Asa begat Josaphat.] A godly King, but late [illegible: 1 word]. witted: and therefore paid for his learning, twice, at least, in holy2 Chron. 17. history. One thing in the narration of his acts is very remarkable. He placed forces in all the fenced cities: yet is it not said thereupon, that the fear of the Lord fell on the neighbour Nations. But when he had established a preaching ministry in all the Cities, then his enemies feared, and made no warre: Solidissima regiae politiae In [illegible: 1 word]. basis, (saith Paradinus) est verum Dei cultum ubivis stabilire: Alias, quî potest aut Deus Reges beare, a quibus negligitur, aut populus fideliter colere, qui de obsequio suo non recte instituitur. The ordinances of God are the beauty and bulwark of a place and people. And Jehosaphat begat Joram] That lived undesired, and died unlamented. While he lived, there was no use of him, and when he died, no misse of him: no more then of the paring of the nails, or [non-Latin text not transcribed] sweeping of the house. He lived wickedly, and died wishedly, as Dan [illegible: 1 word]. of Eng. 14. it is said of King Edwin. And Joram begat Ozias] Here Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah Gen. 17. are written in the earth, not once set down in the roll: perhaps it was, because they were imped in the wicked family of Ahab. This Uzzias, though a King, yet he loved husbandry, 2 Chron. 26. Thrift is the fuell of magnificence. He was at length a leper, yet still remained a King. Infirmities may deform us, they cannot dethrone us. The English laws (saith Camden) pronounce, that Camdens Elizabeth, fol. 8. the crown once worne, quite taketh away all defects whatsoever: Sure it is, that when God once crowns a man with his grace and favour, that man is out of harms-way for ever.

Verse 9. And Ozias begat Joatham.] A pious Prince, but not very prosperous. Grace is not given to any, as a target against outward affliction. And Joatham begat Ahaz] A sturdy stigmatick, a branded rebell. The more he was distressed, the more he trespassed. This Humiliantar, & humiles non sunt, [illegible: 1 word]. in [illegible: 1 word] 34. is that Ahaz, 2 Chron. 28. 22. How many (now adaies) are humbled, yet not humble? Low, but not lowly? Qui nec fractis cervicibus inclinantur, as Hieron complaineth: quos multo facilius In Epist. fregeris, quam flexeris, as another hath it. These are like [illegible: 2 words], capi non [illegible: 1 word]. Plin. the [illegible: 1 word] called Monoceros, who may be kild, but not caught. Plectimur a Deo, saith Salvian, nec flectimur tamen: corripimur, sed non corrigimur. But if men harden their hearts against correction: God will harden his hand, and hasten their destruction. Ahaz begat Hezekiah] Who stands betwixt his father Ahaz, and his sonne Manasseh, as a lily between two thornes, or as a Fuller between two [illegible: 1 word]: or, as that wretched Cardinall of Toledo in his preface before the Bible, printed at Complutum in Spain, said; that he set the Vulgar Latine betwixt the Hebrew and Greek, as Christ was set betwixt two theeves. Here observe (by the way) that Judah had some enterchange of good Princes; Israel, none: and that, under religious Princes the people were ever religious: as under wicked Princes, wicked. Most people will [illegible: 1 word]. be of the Kings religion, be it what it will be, as the Melchites were of old, and the Papists still, if M. Rogers (our Protomartyr in Q. Maries daies) may be beleeved. The Papists, saith he, apply themselves to the present state: yea, if the state should change ten times in the year, they would ever be ready at hand to change with it, and so follow the cry, and rather utterly forsake God, and be of no Religion, then that they would forgoe lust or living, [illegible: 1 word]. and Mon. for God or Religion.

Verse 10. And Ezechias begat Manasses] Who degenerates into his grandfather Ahaz, as the kernell of a well-fruited plant doth, sometimes, into that crab or willow, which gave the originall to his stock. This man was (till converted) as very a Nonsuch in Judah, as Ahab was in Israel; Yet no King of either Iudah or Israel reigned so long as he. It was well for him that he lived so long, to grow better: As it had been better for Asa to have died sooner, when he was in his prime. But they are met in heaven, I doubt not: whither, whether we come sooner or later, happy are we. And Manasses begat Amon] Who followed his father in sin, but not in repentance. And thou his son, ô Belshazzar, hast not Ban. 5. 22. humbled thine heart, though thou [illegible: 1 word] all this: But hast lifted up thy self against the Lord, &c. It is a just presage and desert of ruine, not to be warned. This was a bloody Prince, therefore lived not out half his daies. Q. Maries raign was the shortest of any since the Conquest, Richard the third onely excepted: Yet she was non natur â, sed [illegible: 1 word] arte ferox, say some. And Amon begat Iosias] Of whom that is true, that S. [illegible: 1 word] writes of another, In brevi vitae [illegible: 1 word] virtutum multa replevit: Or as M. Hooker speaketh of K. Edward 6. He departed soon, but lived long: for life consists in action: In all these is the life of my spirit, saith Hezekiah, Isa. 38. 15, 16. but the wanton widow is dead while she liveth, 1 Tim. 5 6. That good King [illegible: 2 words] se unius [illegible: 1 word] rei paenitere dixit. lived apace, and died betime, being [illegible: 1 word] Orbis, as Titus was called: and Mirabilia mundi, as Otho: having at his death (as it is said of Titus) one thing onely to repent of, and that was his rash [illegible: 1 word] autem quid [illegible: 1 word] non [illegible: 1 word], nec [illegible: 1 word] certó novit. Dio in Tito. engaging himself in a needlesse quarrell, to the losse of his life, and the ruine of that state. [illegible: 1 word] Epaminondas was once slain, his countreymen were no longer famous for their valour and victories, but for their cowardise and calamities. When Augustine departed this world, we feared, saith one, the worlds ruine, and were readyNec [illegible: 2 words] sed cladibus infignes Nea [illegible: 1 word]. to wish that either he had never been borne, or never died. When God took away Theodosius, he took away with him almost all the peace of that Church and State: So he did of this, with Josiah, Orbis [illegible: 2 words] timueramus. that heavenly spark, that plant of renown, that precious Prince, Qui Regum decus, & invenum flos, spes que bonorum,Paterculus. Deliciae saecli, & gloria gentis [illegible: 1 word]. Par. [illegible: 1 word]. [illegible: 1 word]. as Cardanus sang of our English Iofiah, K. Edward the sixth.

Verse 11. And Iosias begat Iechonias.] Rob. Stephanus restoreth Ludovico. 12. [illegible: 1 word], [illegible: 3 words] est mutatio, [illegible: 1 word] qui prius digito coelum [illegible: 1 word] vi [illegible: 1 word], nunc [illegible: 1 word] serpere, [illegible: 1 word] esse [illegible: 1 word] eres. Budaeus. and rectifieth the text thus; Iosias begat Iakin and his brethren, and Iakin begat Iechanias. For otherwise, the middle fourteenth, (whereby S. Matthow reckoneth) would want a man. Iehoahaz, younger brother to Iakin had, after his fathers death, stept into the Throne, but was soon ejected. [illegible: 1 word] prospers not. Abimelechs head had stollen the crown, and by a blow on his head he is [illegible: 1 word] at Shechem. What got most of the Caesars by their hasty advancement, nisi ut citius inter ficerentur? Some think [illegible: 1 word] Pedaiah (whose naturall son Zorobabel was, [illegible: 1 word] Chro. 3. 19) should be [illegible: 1 word] reckoned, though he be [illegible: 2 words], [illegible: 1 word] he was [illegible: 1 word] and died: obscurely in [illegible: 1 word]. As one hath it. Notandum, saith the Chronologer, quod nullus Pontificum, egregij aliquid a tempore Bonifacij tertij pro sedis Romanae tyrannide constituens, diu supervixerit. Quod & huic Bonifacio accidit. It is remarkable that no Pope, of any note for activity in his office, was long of life.

Verse 12. And after they were brought to Babyton] This the Evangelist [illegible: 1 word], and rings often in the ears of his impious Countreymen, as a notorious publike judgement on a Nation so incorrigibly flagitious, so unthankfull for mercies, so impatient of remedies, so uncapable of repentance, so obliged, so warned, so shamelesly, so lawlesly wicked, quorum maxima beneficia, [illegible: 1 word], supplicia, as the Centurists [illegible: 1 word] it forth. Abused mercy [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word]. into fury. [illegible: 1 word]. Iechonias begat Salathiel] Neri begat him, naturally, Iechonias, [illegible: 1 word]. legally; adopting him for his childe, that was his nephew, 1 Chro. 3. Prefat. [illegible: 1 word] Centur. 5. 17. And Salathiel begat Zorobabel] Who brought forth the head [illegible: 1 word]. [illegible: 1 word]. 8. 9. stone of the second Temple with shoutings, crying Grace, Grace, unto it. He was a Chieftain in the first year of Cyrus, Ezra 2. 2. and he lived to see the building of the Temple, about the sixth year of Darius Nothus, which is a [illegible: 1 word] of a hundred years between. [illegible: 1 word] of the [illegible: 1 word] Monarchy. So he had a longer life then ordinary, which God granteth to some, because he hath something to be done by them. A short life in some cases is a blessing, 1 King. 13, 14. as grapes gathered afore they be ripe, are freed from the violence of the winepresse: as lambs slain before they be grown, escape many storms and sharp showres that others live to taste of. Some wicked live long, that they may aggravate their judgement; others die sooner, that they may hasten it. But they are blessed, that whether they live they live unto the Lord, or whether they die they die untoRom. 14. 8. the Lord, and in the Lord, their works following them. [illegible: 1 word]. [illegible: 1 word]. 13.

Verse 13. And Zorobabel begat Abind] S. Luke saith, [illegible: 1 word]: Hence the diversity of number and names. Matthew descends by the posterity of Abiud: Luke, of Rhesa, down to Ioseph. And Abiud begat Eliakim, and Eliakim begat Azor, &c.] These lived in [illegible: 1 word] calamitous times of the people of God after the captivity: and were not Kings and Captains, as being held under by other Nations: but Law-givers they were, as Iacob prophesied, and principall men among that people, till Shiloh came, Gen. 49. 10.

[illegible: 1 word] 14. And Azor begat Sadoc, and Sadoc begat Achim] Of these and the rest, as the Scripture sets down nothing more then their bare names, so neither is there any Jewish record, at this day extant, of their acts. So many [illegible: 1 word] they had, one in the neck of another, that little liberty was left them to write: though I doubt not, but the posterity of David were then carefully observed, by as many as lookt for the consolation of Israel. But among the [illegible: 1 word], since our Saviours time, after the sealing up of the Babylonish Talmud, that is, after the year of Christ 500. to the year 1000. there was [illegible: 1 word] or nothing written, by reason of the grievous calamities that seized upon them.

Verse 15. And Eliud begat Eleazar, &c.] These might be private [illegible: 1 word], some of them, as Ioseph and Mary were: it being the care and endeavour of [illegible: 1 word] Herods, and those afore, that [illegible: 1 word] the Iews in subjection, to suppresse, as much as might be, the posterity of David: at least to keep them in a low condition; for as much as it was a certain and received truth among that people, that [illegible: 1 word] the Prince, Dan. 9. 26. should shortly come of that family. And this was that that held up the fainting hearts of the good people of those sad times, (when prophecie failed them, and prosperity too,) they looked for the Desire of all Nations, for the Consolation of Israel, having little else to releive them, for the externall means: Unlesse it were that [non-Latin text not transcribed], that eccho heard in the Temple, they tell us of, which served them for an oracle: And the miracle of the pool of Bethesda granted by God to strengthen them in the true worship of God, under the persecution of Antiochus and other tyrants, till the daies of John Baptist, and the Lord Christ.

Verse 16. And Iacob begat Ioseph,] Whose genealogie is here recorded, and not Maries: it being not the custom of that people [illegible: 1 word], to set forth the genealogies of women. As at this day, the Blunts voyage into the Levant. p. 121. Jews have an over-base conceit of that sex; saying that they have not so divine a soul as men, but are of a lower creation, &c. and therefore they suffer them not to enter the Synagogue, but appoint them a gallery without. The husband of Mary, of whom was born Iesus] This is the summe of all the good news in the world, such as surpasseth the joy of conquest, or of harvest, Isa. 9 3, 5, 6. and should therefore swallow up all discontents whatsoever. Who is called Christ] The name of Jesus is mel in ore, melos in Bern. aure, jubilum in cord: as it was to St Paul, who therefore names it nine severall times in the ten first verses of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, as loth to come off it. Yet is not the name Jesus alone half so sweet, as when Christ is added to it, as here. For Iesus Christ betokeneth such a Saviour as is anointed and appointed thereunto by God, consecrated to the office, according to his Godhead, and [illegible: 1 word] for it, according to his manhood: In both [illegible: 1 word] a Saviour, and that ex professo (as you would say) and by [illegible: 1 word] of all three persons: The Son being anointed by the Father, [illegible: 1 word] the Holy Ghost: And as Sampson when clothed with the spirit, saved the people: so Christ much more.

Verse 17. So all the generations, &c. are fourteen generations] [illegible: 1 word] cades. For memory sake, Matthew summeth up the genealogy of our Saviour into three fourteens: like as some of the [illegible: 1 word] are, [illegible: 1 word] the same reason, set down in order of the Alphabet. Discere voluit [illegible: 1 word]. [illegible: 2 words]. Socrates, [illegible: 1 word] aliud esse quàm [illegible: 1 word], saith Tully. Magis autem. Christi meminisse debemus, quam respirare. The soul should be as the Ark of God, the memory like the pot of Manna, preserving holy truths touching him that is the Way, the Truth, and the life.

Verse 18. Now the birth of Iesus Christ] [non-Latin text not transcribed] ad [non-Latin text not transcribed] transit. And being to relate a strange thing, and till then never heard of, he elegantly stirs up the hearers minde with this preface. Whenas his mother Mary was espoused] An ancient and commendable custom. Adam took his wife the first day of their creation, (she was espoused to him) but knew her not, till after the fall: Lots daughters were espoused, yet had not known man, Gen. 19, 8, 14. See Deut. 22. 22. Yea, the very Heathens had their [illegible: 1 word], Iudg. 14. 1, &c. Placuit, despondi: [illegible: 1 word] hic dictus est dies, saith [illegible: 1 word] in Terence. We agreed, were contracted, and the wedding-day appointed. To Ioseph, before they came together,] Espoused they were by a speciall providence. 1. That Mary might not be held an harlot. 2. That being big, and needing [illegible: 1 word] help, she might be provided for. 3. That the mystery of Christ might be made known by degrees. She was found with childe of the holy Ghost.] This wonderfullMirari [illegible: 1 word], [illegible: 1 word] non licet. conception of our Saviour is a mystery, not much to be pryed into, and is therefore called an overshadowing, Luk. 1. 35. Where also, [illegible: 1 word] any should mistake this (Of) in the text, for the materiall cause: as if the holy Ghost had begotten him of his own substance (as fathers do their children,) the whole order and manner of this conception, so far as concerneth us to know, is declared by the Angel.

Verse 19. Then Joseph her husband [illegible: 1 word] a just man] And yet withall a mercifull tender man of the Virgins credit. Hence that conflict and fear within himself, lest he should not doe right. And not willing to make her a publike example] That is, to [non-Latin text not transcribed]. wrong her, as the same word is used and expounded by the Authour to the Hebrews of the Son of God, as here of the mother of [illegible: 1 word] ipse eam [illegible: 1 word] paenis, nec [illegible: 1 word], [illegible: 2 words] risui exponere. Aret. in loc. God. Heb. 6. 6. with Heb. 10. 29. Was minded to put her away privily] Which yet he could hardly have done, without blame to [illegible: 1 word], and blemish to her. So farre out we are (the best of us) when destitute of divine direction. How shamefully was that good Josiah miscarried by his passions to his cost, when he went up against Pharaoh Necho, without once advising with Ieremiah, Zephany, Huldah, or any other prophet of God then living by him?

Verse 20. But while he thought on these things] And was not so well advised upon his course, God, who reserveth his holy hand for a dead lift, expedites him. The Athenians had a conceit, that Minerva (their goddesse) drove all their ill counsels toJun Emblem. a happy issue. The superstitious Romanes thought that an Idol,Ab erroribus viarum Dea Vibilia liberat. which they called Vibilia, kept them from erring out of their way. The divine providence is our Vibilia, that will not suffer us to misearry, so long as we have an eye to the paterne that wasArnob. adver. Gentes. shewed us in the [illegible: 1 word], Exod. 25. 40. In the Mount will theGen. 22. 14. Lord be seen.Prov. [illegible: 1 word]. 26. Behold, the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him] As of old [illegible: 1 word] in [illegible: 2 words] (ait Rab. Solomon ex Talmud. he had done to Daniel, being caused to flee swiftly or with [illegible: 1 word] of flight (as the Hebrew hath it) with so good a will he did it, as thinking he could never come soon enough. Hierosol.) i e. in rebus in quibus es slultus, aderit tamen tibi Dominus. Joseph, thou sonne of David] Albeit a poore Carpenter. A man may be as high in Gods favour, and as happy in russet, as in Tissue. I know thy poverty (saith Christ to that Church,) but, [illegible: 1 word] nothing, thou art rich. [illegible: 1 word]. 9. 21. Feare not to take unto thee) viz. From the hands of her parents,Rev. 2. 9. who have, by all right, the dispose of their children, as a cheif part of their goods: Therefore when Satan obtained leave to vex Job, and to touch him in his possessions, he dealt with hisJob. 1. children also. For that which is conceived in her] That holy thing, Luk. 1. 35. that Holy of Holies wherein the Godhead dwelleth bodily, that is, personally; and is called the Sonne of God, saith the Angel there. Yet not in respect of his humane nature, for then there should be in the person of Christ two sonnes, viz. one of the Father, and another of the holy Ghost. Besides, Heb. 7. 3. he is without father, as Man, and without mother, as God. All that can be gathered out of that place in Luke, is, that he, that was so conceived of the holy Ghost, [illegible: 1 word] the naturall Son of God. The union of three Persons into one nature, and of two natures into one Person, [non-Latin text not transcribed]. these are the great mysteries of Godlines. The well is deep,Joh. 4. [illegible: 1 word]. as she said, and we want wherewith to draw. Is of the Holy Ghost.] As the Efficient, not as the Materiall cause. The virtus formatrix, the formative faculty which the Virgin had not, is ascribed to the power of the Holy Ghost, framing and fashioning Christ of the substance of the Virgin sanctified miraculously, and without mans help. But if no mother knows the manner of her naturall Conception; what presumption shall it be for flesh and bloud, to search how the Sonne of God took flesh of his creature? It is enough for us to know, that he was conceived of the holy Ghost, not spermatically, but [illegible: 1 word], yet secretly and mystically, the Virgin her selfe knew not how. Fearfully and wonderfully he was made, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Psal. 139. 14, 15. with Ephes. 4. 9.

Verse 21. And she shall bring forth a Sonne] Shiloh the Son of her secundines: that Son, that Eve made account she had got, when she had got Cain: For, said she, I have gotten a man from the Lord. Or as others read it (and the Original rather favours it) I have gotten the man, the Lord. But how farre she was deceived, the issue proved. [illegible: 2 words] spes bona [illegible: 1 word] suo. Hope comes halting home many times. And thou shalt call his name Iesus] Not of [non-Latin text not transcribed] to heale, as some Hellenists would have it: Although it be true that he is Iehovah Rophe, the Lord the Physician, by whose [illegible: 1 word] we are healed: Exod. 15. 26. But of Iashang, whence [illegible: 1 word], Iesus. Two in the old Testament had this name. The first when he was sent as a spy into Canaan, [illegible: 1 word]. 13. 16. had his name changed from Oshea, Let God save, to [illegible: 1 word], God shall save. Under the Law (which brings us as it were into the wildernes of SIN) we may wish there were a Saviour: but under the Gospel we are sure of salvation, [illegible: 1 word] our Iehoshuah hath bound himself to fulfill all righteoufnes, and had therefore this name imposed upon him at his circumcision. For he assumed it not to himself (though knowing the end of his coming, and the fullnesse of his sufficiency, he might have done it) nor received it from men, but from God; and that with great [illegible: 1 word], by the ministery of an Angel, who talked with a woman about our salvation, as Satan sometime bad done about our destruction. For he shall save his people from their sinnes] This is the notation and Etymon, or reason of his name, Jesus, A name above all names, Phil 2. 9. [non-Latin text not transcribed], saith the Heathen Oratour, is a word so [illegible: 1 word]. [illegible: 1 word]. [illegible: 2 words] [illegible: 1 word]. emphaticall, that other tongues can hardly finde a word fit to expresse it. Salvation properly notes the negative part of a Christians happinesse: viz. preservation from evil; chiefly from the evil of sin, (which is the mother of all our misery:) from the damning and [illegible: 1 word] power thereof, by his merit and Spirit, by his value and vertue. Jesus therefore is a short Gospel, and should worke in us strongest affections, and egressions of soul after him, who hath saved us from the wrath to come. The [illegible: 1 word] being1 Thes. 1 10. [non-Latin text not transcribed]. set free but from bodily servitude, called their deliverer a Saviour [illegible: 1 word] in vita Flamin. to them: and rang it out, Saviour, Saviour, so that the fowls in the aire fell down dead with the cry. Yea they so pressed to come neer him, and touch his hand, that, if he had not timely withdrawn himself, he might have beseemed to have lost his life. The Egyptians preserved by Joseph, called him Abrech, or Tender-Father. [illegible: 1 word] in his Annotat. The daughters of Ierusalem met David returning from the slaughter of the Philistims with singing and dancing. When the Lord turned again the captivity of his people, they were like them that dream, Psal. 126 1. And Peter enlarged, could scarce beleeve his own eyes; with such an extasie of admiration was he rapt, upon that deliverance. Oh then how should our hearts rejoice, and our tongues be glad, Act. 2. 26? and how should we be vext at the vile dullnesse and deadnesse of our naughty natures, that can be no more affected with these indelible ravishments? Iacob wept for joy at the good news, that Ioseph was yet alive. Ioannes Mollius, whensoeverFox [illegible: 1 word] f. 855. he [illegible: 1 word] of the Name of Jesus, his eyes dropt. And another Reverend Divine amongst us, being in a deep muse, after some discourseM. Welse. that passed of Jesus, and tears trickling abundantly from his eyes, before he was aware, being urged for the cause thereof, confessed [illegible: 1 word], it was because he could not draw his dull heart to prize Christ aright. Mr Fox never denied begger that asked in Wards Serm. that Name: And good Bucer never disregarded any (though different in opinion from him) in whom he could discern aliquid Christi: None but Christ, said that blessed Martyr at the stake. [illegible: 1 word] Lambert. And another in the flames, when judg'd already dead, suddenly, as [illegible: 1 word] Palmer. waked out of sleep, moved his tongue and jaws, and was heard toAct. and Mon. [illegible: 1 word]. [illegible: 1 word]. pronounce this word, Jesus. Here also we have an excellent argument of our Saviours divinity [non-Latin text not transcribed]. and omnipotency; forasmuch as the Angel ascribeth unto C hristus autem non Pater, [illegible: 1 word] est [non-Latin text not transcribed]. him, that which the Psalmist affirmeth of Jehovah, that he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities, Psal. 130. 8. with Hos. 13. 4.

Verse 22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled] An Angels testimony is not to be taken, if it be beside or against the written word. I am of them that keep the sayings of this book, saith the Angel to the Apostle. For ever, O Lord, thy word is setledRev. [illegible: 1 word]. [illegible: 1 word]. in Heaven, Psal. 119. [illegible: 1 word].

Verse 23. Behold, a Virgin, &c.] [non-Latin text not transcribed], that Virgin, [non-Latin text not transcribed], that famous Virgin fore-told, Isa. 7. 14. That he should be the seed of the woman, was made known, to Adam, but not of what Nation, till Abraham, nor of what Tribe till Iacob, nor of what sex, till David, nor whether born of a virgin, till Esay. Thus by degrees was that great mystery of godlinesse revealed to mankinde. If any Jew object, saith Chrysostom, How could a Virgin bring forth? Dic [illegible: 1 word], [illegible: 1 word] peperit [illegible: 1 word] & vetula? Ask him, How could Sarah, when old and barren, bear a childe? The Bees have young, yet know not marriage. The Phaenix, they say, hath no parents. This head-stone of the corner was cut out of the mountaine [illegible: 1 word]. [illegible: 1 word]. without hands: this flower of the [illegible: 1 word], this rose of Sharon, hath Heaven for his father, and earth for his mother. Was it not as easie to frame this second Adam in the wombe, as that first Adam out of the mire? Herein see a miracle of mercy, that the incomprehensible [illegible: 1 word]. God, that circle (whose center is every where, whose circumference no where) should be circled and coop'd up for 9 moneths together, in the narrow womb of a pure Virgin. And shall bring forth a Son] Who in the birth opened the womb, Luk. 2. and so put her to pain, likely, as other women. He hid the glory of his eternall nativity under a mean and temporary birth, to purchase for us an heavenly and eternall birth. Whether the blessed Virgin were Deipara, the Mother of God, raised great storms in the [illegible: 1 word] of Ephesus, and came to commotions in the secular part, and excommunications among the Bishops; insomuch as the Emperour declared both sides Hereticks. But forasmuch as she brought forth a Son that was God, we doubt not to stile her the Mother of God; not Mall Gods maid, as one hath latelyThe female Glory. slandered some of us in print. At Rome (it is said) was seen, at the same time, about the Sun, the likenesse of a woman carrying a childe in her armes: And a voice heard, Pan the great God is now [illegible: 1 word] on the Creed. about to be born, &c. And they shall call his name Immanuel, &c.] By a wonderfull and unsearchable Union; the manner [illegible: 1 word] is to be beleeved, not [illegible: 1 word]; admired, not pried into: personall it is, yet not of persons: of natures, and yet not naturall. As soul and body are one man; so God and man are one person, saith Athanasius, And as every beleever that is born of God, [illegible: 1 word] another, remains the same intire person that he was before, receiving neverthelesse into him a divine nature, which before he had not: So Emmanuel, continuing the same perfect person, which he had been from eternity, assumeth neverthelesse a humane nature, which before he had not, to be born within his person for ever. This is so much the more wonderfull, because the very Angels (which are far greater in glory then man) are not able to abide the presence of God, Isa. 6. 2. But this is our ladder of ascension to God, Ioh. 3. 12. Faith first layes hold upon Christ as a man; and thereby, [illegible: 1 word] by a mean, makes way to God, and embraceth the Godhead, which is of it self a consuming fire. And whereas sin is a partition wall of our own making, denying us [illegible: 1 word], God is now with us: and in Christ, we have boldnesse and accesse Ephes. 2. 12. with confidence by the faith of him. Christs humanity serves as a skreen to save us, from those everlasting burnings; and as a conduit, to derive upon us from the Godhead, all spirituall blessings inEphes. 1. 3. heavenly places. If any [illegible: 1 word] invade us, we may cry as theyIsa. 8. 8. of old, The stretching out of his wings doth fill thy Land, O Immanuel; and we shall have help.

Verse 24. Then Joseph being raised from sleep, did as the Angel, &c.] As well assured that it was of God, whom he was ready prest to obey without sciscitation. Jussa sequi, tam velle mihi, quàm posse, necesse est. Laelius Caesari apud Lucan. If some Princes will not endure that subjects should scan their laws, but require absolute obedience: If Generals excuse not in a souldierIn [illegible: 1 word] mortis [illegible: 1 word] obire, non impetratà a superiore, [illegible: 1 word]. the neglect of their commands, but severely punish even prosperous disorders: If Jesuits exact blinde obedience of their wretched novices (our Throgmorton durst not give up the ghost till he had obtained leave of his Superiour) should not we much more [illegible: 1 word] God in his commands, counsels, promises, prohibitions, comminations, De Prid. [illegible: 1 word] Eudaem. all?

Verse 25. And knew her not till she had brought forth.] We thinke hardly of him that taketh to wife the widow and relict of another, that is left great with childe, before she hath laid down her burden; how much more in this case? Besides this might be part of the Angels charge to him: that after she had brought forth her Son Jesus: she continued still a virgin, [illegible: 2 words]: but it is neither Article of our Creed, nor principle of our Religion. But that she vowed virginity, is both false and absurd. For how [illegible: 1 word] she promise virginity to God, and marriage to Joseph: sure it is, the blemish will never be wiped off from some of the Ancients, who, to establish their own Idol, of I know not what virginity, have written most wickedly, and most basely of marriage, which both Christ honoured with his first miracle, and the holy Ghost, by over shadowing the [illegible: 1 word] virgin. As for the Papists that disgrace it, they appear herein more like devils then Divines. If the1 Tim 4. 1. same God had not been the authour of virginity and marriage, he had never countenanced virginity by marriage, as he did in the Virgin Mary.

These verses contain the genealogy of Jesus. Luke also (Lk 3:1) gives a genealogy of the Messiah. No two passages of Scripture have caused more difficulty than these, and various attempts have been made to explain them. There are two sources of difficulty in these catalogues: first, many names that are found in the Old Testament are here omitted; and second, the tables of Matthew and Luke appear in many points to be different. From Adam to Abraham, Luke only has given the record. From Abraham to David the two tables are alike. Of course there is no difficulty in reconciling these two parts of the tables. The difficulty lies in that part of the genealogy from David to Christ. There they are entirely different. They are manifestly different lives. Not only are the names different, but Luke has mentioned, in this part of the genealogy, no less than forty-two names, while Matthew has recorded but twenty-seven.

Various ways have been proposed to explain this difficulty; and it must be admitted that none of them are perfectly satisfactory. It does not comport with the design of these Notes to enter minutely into an explanation of the perplexities of these passages. All that can be done is to suggest the various ways in which attempts have been made to explain them.

(1.) It is remarked that in nothing are mistakes more likely to occur than in such tables. From the similarity of names, and the various names by which the same person is often called, and from many other causes, errors would be more likely to creep into the text in genealogical tables than in other writings. Some of the difficulties may have possibly occurred front this cause.

(2.) Most interpreters have supposed that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. They were both descended from David, but in different lines. This solution derives some plausibility from the fact that the promise was made to David; and as Jesus was not the son of Joseph, it was important to show that Mary was also descended from him. Though this solution is plausible, and may be true, yet it wants evidence. It cannot, however, be proved that this was not the design of Luke.

(3.) It has been said, also, that Joseph was the legal son and heir of Heli, though the real son of Jacob, and thus the two lines terminated in him. This was the ancient explanation of most of the fathers, and on the whole is the most satisfactory. It was a law of the Jews, that if a man died without children, his brother should marry his widow. Thus the two lines might have been intermingled. According to this solution, which was first proposed by Africanus, Matthan, descended from Solomon, married Estha, of whom was born Jacob. After Matthan's death, Matthat being of the same tribe, but of another family, remarried his widow, and of this marriage Heli was born. Jacob and Heli were therefore children of the same mother. Hell dying without children, his brother Jacob married his widow, and begat Joseph, who was thus the legal son of Heli. This is agreeable to the account in the two evangelists. Matthew says that Jacob begat Joseph; Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli; that is, was his legal heir, or reckoned in law to be his son. This can be seen by the plan on the next page, showing the nature of the connexion.

Though these solutions may not seem to be entirely satisfactory, yet there are two additional considerations which should set the matter at rest, and lead to the conclusion that the narratives are not really inconsistent.

(1.) No difficulty was ever found, or alleged, in regard to them, by any of the early enemies of Christianity. There is no evidence that they ever adduced them as containing a contradiction. Many of those enemies were acute, learned, and able; and they show by their writings that they were not indisposed to detect all the errors that could possibly be found in the sacred narrative. Now, it is to be remembered that the Jews were fully competent to show that these tables were incorrect, if they were really so; and it is clear that they were fully disposed, if possible, to do it. The fact, therefore, that it is not done, is clear evidence that they thought it to be correct. The same may be said of the acute pagans who wrote against Christianity. None of them have called in question the correctness of these tables. This is full proof that, in a time when it was easy to understand these tables, they were believed to be correct.

(2.) The evangelists are not responsible for the correctness of these tables. They are responsible only for what was their real and professed object to do. What was that object ? It was to prove, to the satisfaction of the Jews, that Jesus was descended from David, and therefore that there was no argument from his ancestry that he was not the promised Messiah. Now, to make this out it was not necessary, nor would it have conduced to their argument, to have formed a new table of genealogy. All that could be done was, to go to the family records--to the Public tables--and copy them as they were actually kept, and show that, according to the records of the nation, Jesus was descended from David. This, among the Jews, was full and decided testimony in the case. And this was doubtless done. In the same way, the records of a family among us, as they are kept by the family, are proof in courts of justice now, of the birth, names, etc., of individuals. Nor is it necessary or proper for a court to call them in question, or to attempt to correct them. So the tables here are good evidence to the only point that the writers wished to establish; that is, to show to the Jews that Jesus of Nazareth was descended from David. All that can be asked now is, whether they copied the tables of those families correctly. It is clear that no man can prove that they did not so copy them, and, therefore, that no one can adduce them as an argument against the correctness of the New Testament. ------ DAVID------------ | | | | | | | | ---------- ----------------- |SOLOMON | | NATHAN | ---------- ----------------- | | ----------- ------- ----------- |MATTHAN |------------|ESTHA| -----------|MATTHATT | ----------- | ------- | ----------- | -------------- | JACOB--|----|Wife of Each|-----|----HELI--- ------ | ------------- | | | | | ---------- | |JOSEPH |--- Heir and Legal Son of - ----------- Footnotes for Verse 3.

(g) "Judas begat Phares" Gen 38:29,30 (h) "Phares begat Ersom" Gen 46:12

All the generations, etc. This division of the names in their genealogy was doubtless adopted for the purpose of aiding the memory. It was common among the Jews; and other similar instances are preserved. They were destitute of other books beside the Old Testament, and had but few copies of that among them, and those chiefly in their synagogues. They would, therefore, naturally devise plans to keep up the remembrance of the principal facts in their history. One method of doing this was to divide the tables of genealogy into portions of equal length, to be committed to memory. This greatly facilitated the remembrance of the names. A man who wished to commit to memory the names of a regiment of soldiers, would naturally divide it into companies and platoons, and this would greatly facilitate his work. This was doubtless the reason in the case before us. And though it is not strictly accurate, yet it was the Jewish way of keeping their records, and answered their purpose. There were three leading persons and events that nearly, or quite, divided their history into equal portions--Abraham, David, and the Babylonish captivity. From one to the other was about fourteen generations, and, by omitting a few names, it was sufficiently accurate to be made a general guide or directory in remembering their history.

In counting these divisions, however, it will be seen that there is some difficulty in making out the number fourteen in each division. This may be explained in the following manner. In the first division, Abraham is the first, and David the last, making together fourteen In the second series, David would naturally be placed first, and the fourteen was completed in Josiah, about the time of the captivity, as sufficiently near for the purpose of convenient computation, 2 Chron xxxv. In the third division, Josiah would naturally be placed first, and the number was completed in Joseph. So that David and Josiah would be reckoned twice. This may be shown by the following table of the names:

1st division. 2nd division. 3rd divis.

Abraham, David, Josias, Isaac, Solomon, Jechonias Jacob, Roboam, Salathiel, Judas, Abia, Zorobabel, Phares, Asa, Abiud, Esrom, Josaphat, Eliakim, Aram, Joram, Azor, Aminadab, Ozias, Sadoc, Naasson, Joatham, Achim, Salmon, Achaz Eliud, Booz, Ezekias, Eleazar, Obed, Manasses, Matthan, Jesse, Amon, Jacob, David. Josias. Joseph. --14 --14 --14.

Carrying away into Babylon. This refers to the captivity of Jerusalem, and the removal of the Jews to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, 588 years before Christ. See 2 Chron. xxxvi. Josiah was king when these calamities began to come upon the Jews; but the exact time of the seventy years of captivity did not commence until the eleventh year of Zedekiah's reign, or 32 years after the death of Josiah. Babylon was situated on the, Euphrates, and was encompassed with walls which were about 60 miles in circuit, 87 feet broad, and 350 feet high; and the city was entered by a hundred brazen gates, 25 on each side. It was the capital of a vast empire, and the Jews remained there for seventy years. Is 13:1 and following.

On this wise. Thus. In this manner.

Espoused. Betrothed, or engaged to be married. There was commonly an interval of ten or twelve months, among the Jews, between the contract of marriage and the celebration of the nuptials, see Gen 24:55; Jud 14:8, yet such was the nature of this engagement, that unfaithfulness to each other was deemed adultery. See De 22:25,28.

With child of the Holy Ghost. Lk 1:35.

(u) "birth of Jesus" Lk 1:27 (*) "espoused to Joseph" "Fifth year before the account called A.D."

Her husband. The word in the original does not imply that they were married. It means here the man to whom she was espoused.

A just man. Justice consists in rendering to every man his own. Yet this is evidently not the character intended to be given here of Joseph. It means that he was kind, tender, merciful; so attached to Mary, that he was not willing that she should be exposed to public shame. He sought, therefore, secretly to dissolve the connexion, and to restore her to her friends without the punishment commonly inflicted on adultery. The word just has not unfrequently this meaning of mildness, or mercy. See 1Jn 1:9.

A public example. To expose her to public shame or infamy. Adultery has always been considered a crime of a very heinous nature. In Egypt it was punished by cutting off the nose of the adulteress; in Persia the nose and ears were cut off; in Judea the punishment was death by stoning, Lev 20:10, Eze 16:38, 40, Jn 8:5. This punishment was also inflicted where the person was not married, but betrothed, De 22:23, 24. In this case, therefore, the regular punishment would have been death in this painful and ignominious manner. Yet Joseph was a religious man, mild and tender; and he was not willing to complain of her to the magistrate, and expose her to death, but sought to avoid the shame, and to put her away privately.

Put her away privily. The law of Moses gave the husband the power of divorce, De 24:1. It was customary, in a bill of divorce, to specify the causes for which the divorce was made, and witnesses were also present to testify to the divorce. But in this case, it seems, Joseph resolved to put her away without specifying the cause: for he was not willing to make her a public example. This is the meaning here of privately. Both to Joseph and Mary this must have been a great trial. Joseph was ardently attached to her, but her character was likely to be ruined, and he deemed it proper to separate her from him. Mary was innocent, but Joseph was not yet satisfied of her innocence. Yet we may learn how to put our trust in God. He will defend the innocent. Mary was in danger of being exposed to shame. Had she been connected with a cruel, passionate, and violent man, she would have died in disgrace. But God had so ordered it, that she was connected with a man mild, amiable, and tender; and, in due time, Joseph was apprized of the truth in the case, and took his faithful and beloved wife to his bosom. Thus our only aim should be to preserve a conscience void of offence, and God will guard our reputation. We may be assailed, or circumstances may be against us; but in due time God will take care to vindicate our character, and save us from ruin.

(v) "to put her away privily" De 24:1

He thought on these things. He did not act hastily. He did not take the course which the law would have permitted him to do, if he had been hasty, violent, or unjust. It was a case deeply affecting his happiness, his character, and the reputation and character of his chosen companion. God will guide the thoughtful and the anxious. And when we have looked patiently at a perplexed subject, and know not what to do, then God, as in the case of Joseph, will interpose to lead us, and direct our way, Ps 25:9.

The angel of the Lord. The word angel literally means a messenger. It is applied chiefly in the Scriptures to those invisible holy beings who have not fallen into sin; who live in heaven, (1Timm 5:21, comp. Jude 1:6) and who are sent forth to minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation, Heb 1:13, 14, Dan 9:21. The word is sometimes applied to men, as messengers, (Lk 7:24, 9:52, Jas 2:25) to the winds, (Ps 104:4); to the pestilence, (Ps 78:49); or to whatever is appointed to make known, or to execute the will of God. It is commonly applied, however, to the unfallen, happy spirits that are in heaven, whose only dignity and pleasure it is to do the will of God. Various ways were employed by them in making known the will of God, by dreams, visions, assuming a human appearance, etc.

In a dream. This was a common way of making known the will of God to the ancient prophets and people of God, Gen 20:3, 31:10,11,24, 37:5; Gen 41:1, 1Kgs 3:5, Dan 7:1, Job 4:13-16. In what way it was ascertained that these dreams were from God, cannot now be told. It is sufficient for us to know that in this way many of the prophecies were communicated; and to remark, that now there is no evidence that we are to put reliance on our dreams. Dreams are wild, irregular movements of the mind, when it is unshackled by reason, and it is mere superstition to suppose that God now makes known his will in this way. Is 37:1.

Son of David. Descendant of David. See Mt 1:1. The angel put him in mind of his relation to David, perhaps, to prepare him for the intelligence that Mary was to be the mother of the Messiah--the promised heir of David.

Fear not. Do not hesitate, or have fears about her virtue and purity. Do not fear that she will be unworthy of you, or will disgrace you.

(w) "in a dream" Mt 1:16 (1) "conceived" or, "begotten"

His name JESUS. The name Jesus is the same as Saviour. It is derived from the verb signifying to save. In Hebrew it is the same as Joshua. In two places in the New Testament it is used where it means Joshua, the leader of the News into Canaan, and in our translation the name Joshua should have been retained, Acts 7:45, Heb 4:8. It was a very common name among the Jews.

He shall save. This expresses the same as the name, and on this account the name was given to him. He saves men by having died to redeem them; by giving the Spirit to renew them, (Jn 16:7, 8) by his power in enabling them to overcome their spiritual enemies, in de- fending them from danger, in guiding them in the path of duty, in sustaining them in trials and in death; and he will raise them up at the last day, and exalt them to a world of purity and love.

His people. Those whom the Father has given to him. The Jews were called the people of God, because he had chosen them to himself, and regarded them as his peculiar and beloved people, separate from all the nations of the earth. Christians are called the people of Christ, because it was the purpose of the Father to give them to him, (Is 53:11, Jn 6:37) and because in due time he came to redeem them to himself, Tit 2:14, 1Pet 1:2.

From their sins. This is the great business of Jesus in coming and dying. It is not to save men IN their sins, but FROM their sins. Sinners could not be happy in heaven. It would be a place of wretchedness to the guilty. The design of Jesus was, therefore, to save from sin;

1. by dying to make an atonement, (Tit 2:14); and,

2. by renewing the heart, and purifying the soul, and preparing his people for a pure and holy heaven. And from this we may learn, (1.) that Jesus had a design in coming into the world--he came to save his people--and that design will surely be accomplished. It is impossible that in any part of it he should fail.

(2.) We have no evidence that we are his people, unless we are saved from the power and dominion of sin. A mere profession of being his people will not answer. Unless we give up our sins; unless we renounce the pride, pomp, and pleasure of the world, and all our lusts and crimes, we have no evidence that we are the children of God. It is impossible that we should be Christians if we indulge in sin, and live in the practice of any known iniquity.

(3.) That all professing Christians should feel that there is no salvation unless it is from sin, and that they can never be admitted to a holy heaven hereafter, unless they are made pure, by the blood of Jesus, here.

(1) "JESUS" or, "saviour"

The prophecy here quoted is recorded in Isa 7:14. It was delivered about 740 years before Christ, in the reign of Ahaz, king of Judah. The land of Judea was threatened with an invasion by the united armies of Syria and Israel, under the command of Rezin and Pekah. Ahaz was alarmed, and seems to have contemplated calling in aid from Assyria to defend him. Isaiah was directed in his consternation to go to Ahaz, and tell him to ask a sign from God, (Is 7:10, 11); that is, to look to God rather than to Assyria for aid. This he refused to do. He had not confidence in God; but feared that the land would be overrun by the armies of Syria, (Isa 7:12) and relied only on the aid which he hoped to receive from Assyria. Isaiah answered that, in these circumstances, the Lord would himself give a sign, or a pledge, that the land should be delivered. The sign was, that a virgin should have a son, and before that son would arrive to years of discretion, the land would be forsaken by these hostile kings. The prophecy was, therefore, designed originally to denote to Ahaz that the land would certainly be delivered from its calamities and dangers, and that the deliverance would not be long delayed. The united land of Syria and Israel, united now in confederation, would be deprived of both their kings, and thus the land of Judah be freed from the threatening dangers. This appears to be the literal fulfillment of the passage in Isaiah.

Might be fulfilled. It is more difficult to know in what sense this could be said to be fulfilled in the birth of Christ. To understand this, it may be remarked that the word fulfilled is used in the Scriptures, and in other writings, in many senses, of which the following are some:

1st. When a thing is clearly predicted, and comes to pass: as the destruction of Babylon, foretold in Isa 13:19-22; and of Jerusalem, in Matthew 24.

2nd. When one thing is testified or shadowed forth by another, the type is said to be fulfilled. This was the case in regard to the types and sacrifices in the Old Testament, which were fulfilled by the coming of Christ. See Hebrews 9.

3rd. When prophecies of future events are expressed in language more elevated and full than the particular thing, at first denoted, demands. Or, when the language, though it may express one event, is also so full and rich as appropriately to express other events in similar circumstances, and of similar import. Thus, e.g., the last chapters of Isaiah, from the fortieth chapter, foretell the return of the Jews from Babylon; and every circumstance mentioned occurred in their return. But the language is more expanded and sublime than was necessary to express their return. It will also express appropriately a much more important and magnificent deliverance--that of the redeemed under the Messiah, and the return of the people of God to him, and the universal spread of the gospel; and therefore it may be said to be fulfilled in the coming of Jesus, and the spread of the gospel. So, if there were any other magnificent and glorious events, still, in similar circumstances, and of like character, it might be said also that these prophecies were fulfilled in all of them. The language is so full and rich, and the promises so grand, that they appropriately express all these deliverances. This may be the sense in which the prophecy now under consideration may be said to have been fulfilled.

4th. Language is said to be fulfilled when though it was used to express one event, yet it may be used also to express another. Thus a fable may be said to be fulfilled when an event occurs similar to the one concerning which it was first spoken. A parable has its fulfillment in all the cases to which it is applicable; and so of a proverb, or a declaration respecting human nature. The declaration "there is none that doeth good," (Ps 14:3,) was at first spoken of a particular race of wicked men. Yet it is applicable to others, and in this sense may be said to have been fulfilled. See Rom 3:10. In this use of the word fulfilled, it means not that the passage was at first intended to apply to this particular thing, but that the words aptly or appropriately express the thing spoken of, and may be applied to it. We may say of this as was said of another thing, and thus the words express both, or are fulfilled. The writers of the New Testament seem occasionally to have used the word in this sense.

A virgin shall be with child. Matthew clearly understands this as applying literally to a virgin. Comp. Lk 1:34. It thus implies that the conception of Christ was entirely miraculous, or that the body of the Messiah was created directly by the power of God, agreeably to the declaration in Heb 10: 5, "Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."

Immanuel. This is a Hebrew word, and means, literally, God with us. Matthew doubtless understands this word as denoting that the Messiah was really "God with us," or that the Divine nature was united to the human. He does not affirm that this was its meaning when used in reference to the child to whom it was first applied; but this was its meaning as applicable to the Messiah. It was fitly expressive of his character; and in this sense it was fulfilled. When first used by Isaiah, it denoted simply that the birth--of the child was a sign that God was with the Jews, to deliver them. The Hebrews often used the name of Jehovah, or God, in their proper names. Thus, Isaiah means "the salvation of Jehovah "Eleazer, "help of God;" Eli, "my God," etc. But Matthew evidently intends more than was denoted by the simple use of such names. He had just given an account of his miraculous conception; of his being begotten by the Holy Ghost. God was therefore his Father. He was Divine as well as human. His appropriate name was "God with us." And though the mere use of such a name would not prove that he had a Divine nature, yet, as Matthew uses it, and meant evidently to apply it, it does prove that Jesus was more than a man; that he was God as well as man. And it is this which gives glory to the plan of redemption. It is this which is the wonder of angels. It is this which makes the plan so vast, so grand, so full of instruction and comfort to Christians. See Php 2:6-8. It is this which sheds such peace and joy into the sinner's heart; which gives him such security of salvation; and renders the condescension of God in redemption so great, and his character so lovely. "Till God in human flesh I see, My thoughts no comfort find; The holy, just, and sacred Three, Are terror to my mind.

"But if IMMANUEL'S face appears, My hope, my joy, begins; His grace removes my slavish fears, His blood removes my sins."

For a full examination of the passage, see Barnes "Is 7:14".

(y) "saying" Is 7:14

Knew her not. The doctrine of the virginity of Mary before the birth of Jesus is a doctrine of the Scriptures, and very important to be believed. But the Scriptures do not affirm that she had no children afterwards. Indeed, all the accounts in the New Testament lead us to suppose that she had. Mt 13:55,56. The language here evidently implies that she lived as the wife of Joseph after the birth of Jesus.

Her firstborn son. Her eldest son, or he that by the law had the privilege of birthright. This does not of necessity imply that she had other children; though it seems probable. It was the name given to the son which was first born, whether there were others or not.

His name JESUS. This was given by Divine appointment, Mt 1:21. It was conferred on him on the eighth day, at the time of his circumcision, Lk 2:21.

(a) "firstborn" Ex 13:2 (b) "JESUS" Lk 2:21

[The book of the generation of Jesus Christ.] Ten stocks came out of Babylon: 1. Priests. 2. Levites. 3. Israelites. 4. Common persons, as to the priesthood: such whose fathers, indeed, were sprung from priests, but their mothers unfit to be admitted to the priests' marriage-bed. 5. Proselytes. 6. Liberti, or servants set free. 7. Nothi: such as were born in wedlock; but that which was unlawful. 8. Nethinims. 9. Bastards: such as came of a certain mother, but of an uncertain father. 10. Such as were gathered up out of the streets, whose fathers and mothers were uncertain.

A defiled generation indeed! and, therefore, brought up out of Babylon in this common sink, according to the opinion of the Hebrews, that the whole Jewish seed still remaining there might not be polluted by it. For Ezra went not up out of Babylon, until he had rendered it pure as flour. They are the words of the Babylonian Gemara, which the Gloss explains thus; "He left not any there that were illegitimate in any respect, but the priests and Levites only, and Israelites of a pure and undefiled stock. Therefore, he brought up with him these ten kinds of pedigrees, that these might not be mingled with those, when there remained now no more a Sanhedrim there, which might take care of that matter. Therefore he brought them to Jerusalem, where care might be taken by the Sanhedrim fixed there, that the legitimate might not marry with the illegitimate."

Let us think of these things a little while we are upon our entrance into the Gospel-history:

I. How great a cloud of obscurity could not but arise to the people concerning the original of Christ, even from the very return out of Babylon, when they either certainly saw, or certainly believed that they saw, a purer spring of Jewish blood there than in the land of Israel itself!

II. How great a care ought there to be in the families of pure blood, to preserve themselves untouched and clean from this impure sink; and to lay up among themselves genealogical scrolls from generation to generation as faithful witnesses and lasting monuments of their legitimate stock and free blood!

Hear a complaint and a story in this case: "R. Jochanan said, By the Temple, it is in our hand to discover who are not of pure blood in the land of Israel: but what shall I do, when the chief men of this generation lie hid?" (that is, when they are not of pure blood, and yet we must not declare so much openly concerning them). "He was of the same opinion with R. Isaac, who said, A family (of the polluted blood) that lies hid, let it lie hid. Abai also saith, We have learned this also by tradition, That there was a certain family called the family of Beth-zeripha, beyond Jordan, and a son of Zion removed it away." (The Gloss is, Some eminent man, by a public proclamation, declared it impure.) "But he caused another which was such" [that is, impure] "to come near. and there was another which the wise men would not manifest."

III. When it especially lay upon the Sanhedrim, settled at Jerusalem to preserve pure families, as much as in them lay, pure still; and when they prescribed canons of preserving the legitimation of the people (which you may see in those things that follow at the place alleged), there was some necessity to lay up public records of pedigrees with them: whence it might be known what family was pure, and what defiled. Hence that of Simon Ben Azzai deserves our notice: "I saw (saith he) a genealogical scroll in Jerusalem, in which it was thus written; 'N., a bastard of a strange wife.'" Observe, that even a bastard was written in their public books of genealogy, that he might be known to be a bastard, and that the purer families might take heed of the defilement of his seed. Let that also be noted: "They found a book of genealogy at Jerusalem, in which it was thus written; 'Hillel was sprung from David. Ben Jatsaph from Asaph. Ben Tsitsith Hacceseth from Abner. Ben Cobisin from Achab,'" &c. And the records of the genealogies smell of those things which are mentioned in the text of the Misna concerning 'wood-carrying': "The priests' and people's times of wood-carrying were nine: on the first day of the month Nisan, for the sons of Erach, the sons of Judah: the twentieth day of Tammuz, for the sons of David, the son of Judah: the fifth day of Ab, for the sons of Parosh, the son of Judah: the seventh of the same month for the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab: the tenth of the same for the sons of Senaah, the son of Benjamin," &c.

It is, therefore, easy to guess whence Matthew took the last fourteen generations of this genealogy, and Luke the first forty names of his; namely, from the genealogical scrolls at that time well enough known, and laid up in the public repositories, and in the private also. And it was necessary, indeed, in so noble and sublime a subject, and a thing that would be so much inquired into by the Jewish people as the lineage of the Messiah would be, that the evangelists should deliver a truth, not only that could not be gainsaid, but also that might be proved and established from certain and undoubted rolls of ancestors.

[Of Jesus Christ.] That the name of Jesus is so often added to the name of Christ in the New Testament, is not only that thereby Christ might be pointed out for the Saviour, which the name Jesus signifies; but also, that Jesus might be pointed out for true Christ: against the unbelief of the Jews, who though they acknowledged a certain Messiah, or Christ, yet they stiffly denied that Jesus of Nazareth was he. This observation takes place in numberless places of the New Testament; Acts 2:36, 8:35; 1 Corinthians 16:22; 1 John 2:22, 4:15, &c.

[The Son of David.] That is, "the true Messias." For by no more ordinary and more proper name did the Jewish nation point out the Messiah than by The Son of David. See Matthew 12:23, 21:9, 22:42; Luke 18:38; and everywhere in the Talmudic writings, but especially in Bab. Sanhedrim: where it is also discussed, What kind of times those should be when the Son of David should come.

The things which are devised by the Jews concerning Messiah Ben Joseph (which the Targum upon Canticles 4:5 calls 'Messiah Ben Ephraim') are therefore devised, to comply with their giddiness and loss of judgment in their opinion of the Messiah. For, since they despised the true Messiah, who came in the time fore-allotted by the prophets, and crucified him; they still expect I know not what chimerical one, concerning whom they have no certain opinion: whether he shall be one, or two; whether he shall arise from among the living, or from the dead; whether he shall come in the clouds of heaven, or sitting upon an ass, &c.: they expect a Son of David; but they know not whom, they know not when.

[Judas.] In Hebrew, Jehudah. Which word not only the Greeks, for want of the letter "h" in the middle of a word, but the Jews themselves, do contract into Judah: which occurs infinite times in the Jerusalem Talmud. The same person who is called R. Jose Bi R. Jehudah, in the next line is called R. Jose Bi R. Judah...

[Booz of Rachab.] So far the Jewish writers agree with Matthew, that they confess Rachab was married to some prince of Israel, but mistaking concerning the person: whether they do this out of ignorance, or wilfully, let themselves look to that. Concerning this matter, the Babylonian Gemara hath these words: "Eight prophets and those priests sprung from Rachab, and they are these, Neriah, Baruch, Seraiah, Maaseiah, Jeremiah, Hilkiah, Hanameel, and Shallum. R. Judah saith, Huldah also was of the posterity of Rachab." And a little after, "There is a tradition, that she, being made a proselytess, was married to Joshua": which Kimchi also produceth in Joshua 6. Here the Gloss casts in a scruple: "It sounds somewhat harshly (saith it), that Joshua married one that was made a proselyte, when it was not lawful to contract marriage with the Canaanites, though they became proselytes. Therefore we must say that she was not of the seven nations of the Canaanites, but of some other nation, and sojourned there. But others say that that prohibition took not place before the entrance into the promised land," &c.

[And Joram begat Ozias.] The names of Ahazias, Joash, and Amazias, are struck out. See the history in the books of the Kings, and 1 Chronicles 3:11, 12.

I. The promise that "the throne of David should not be empty," passed over, after a manner, for some time into the family of Jehu, the overthrower of Joram's family. For when he had razed the house of Ahab, and had slain Ahaziah, sprung, on the mother's side, of the family of Ahab, the Lord promiseth him that his sons should reign unto the fourth generation, 2 Kings 10:30. Therefore however the mean time the throne of David was not empty, and that Joash and Amazias sat during the space between, yet their names are not unfitly omitted by our evangelist, both because they were sometimes not very unlike Joram in their manners; and because their kingdom was very much eclipsed by the kingdom of Israel, when Ahazias was slain by Jehu, and his cousin Amazias taken and basely subdued by his cousin Joash, 2 Chronicles 25:23.

II. "The seed of the wicked shall be cut off," Psalm 37:28. Let the studious reader observe that, in the original, in this very place, the letter Ain, which is the last letter of wicked, and of seed, is cut off, and is not expressed; when, by the rule of acrostic verse (according to which this Psalm is composed), that letter ought to begin the next following verse.

III. "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, &c. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation," (Exodus 20:5.

Joram walked in the idolatrous ways of the kings of Israel, according to the manner of the family of Ahab, 2 Kings 8:18. Which horrid violation of the second command God visits upon his posterity, according to the threatening of that command; and therefore the names of his sons are dashed out unto the fourth generation.

IV. The Old Testament also stigmatizeth that idolatry of Joram in a way not unlike this of the New; and shows that family unworthy to be numbered among David's progeny, 2 Chronicles 22:2: Ahazias, the son of two and forty years: that is, not of his age (for he was not above two-and-twenty, 2 Kings 8:26), but of the duration of the family of Omri, of which stock Ahazias was, on the mother's side; as will sufficiently appear to him that computes the years. A fatal thing surely! that the years of a king of Judah should be reckoned by the account of the house of Omri.

V. Let a genealogical style not much different be observed, 1 Chronicles 4:1; where Shobal, born in the fifth or sixth generation from Judah, is reckoned as if he were an immediate son of Judah. Compare chapter 2:50.

In the like manner, Ezra 7, in the genealogy of Ezra, five or six generations are erased.

[Please see Genealogies of the Bible: A Neglected Subject (111k) etc. at the Arthur Custance, Doorway Papers Library site regarding these lists and the "missing" names.]

[And Josias begat Jechonias.] The sons of Josias were these: the first-born, Jochanan; the second, Joachim; the third, Zedekiah; the fourth, Shallum, 1 Chronicles 3:15. Who this Shallum was, the Jerusalem Talmudists do dispute: "R. Jochanan saith, Jochanan and Jehoachaz were the same. And when it is written, Jochanan the first-born, it means this; that he was the first-born to the kingdom: that is, he first reigned. And R. Jochanan saith, Shallum and Zedekias are the same. And when it is written, Zedekias the third Shallum the fourth; he was the third in birth, but he reigned fourth." The same things are produced in the tract Sotah. But R. Kimchi much more correctly: "Shallum (saith he) is Jechonias, who had two names, and was reckoned for the son of Josias, when he was his grandchild" (or the son of his son); "For the sons of sons are reputed for sons." Compare Jeremiah 22:11 with 24; and the thing itself speaks it. And that which the Gemarists now quoted say, Zedekiah was also called Shallum, because in his days 'Shalmah,' 'an end was put to' the kingdom of the family of David: this also agrees very fitly to Jechonias, Jeremiah 22:28-30.

[Jechonias begat Salathiel.] That is, "a son of the kingdom," or successor in that dignity of the house of David, whatsoever it was, which was altogether withered in the rest of the sons of Josiah, but did somewhat flourish again in him, 2 Kings 25:27. And hence it is, that of all the posterity of Josiah, Jechonias only is named by St. Matthew.

Jechonias, in truth, was without children, Jeremiah 22:30; and Salathiel, properly speaking, was the son of Neri, Luke 3:27: but yet Jechonias is said to beget him; not that he was truly his father, but that the other was his successor; not, indeed, in his kingly dignity, for that was now perished, but in that which now was the chief dignity among the Jews. So 1 Chronicles 3:16, Zedekias is called the son, either of Jehoiakim, whose brother indeed he was, or of Jechonias, whose uncle he was; because he succeeded him in the kingly dignity.

The Lord had declared, and that not without an oath, that Jechonias should be without children. The Talmudists do so interpret "R. Judah saith, All they of whom it is said, These shall be without children; they shall have no children. And those of whom it is said, They shall die without children; they bury their children." [Lev 20:2021.]

So Kimchi also upon the place; "The word (saith he) means this; That his sons shall die in his life, if he shall now have sons: but if he shall not now have sons, he never shall. But our Rabbins of blessed memory say, That he repented in prison. And they say moreover, Oh! how much doth repentance avail, which evacuates a penal edict! for it is said, 'Write ye this man childless': but, he repenting, this edict turned to his good," &c. "R. Jochanan saith, His carrying away expiated. For when it is said, 'Write this man childless,' after the carrying away it is said, 'The sons of Coniah, Assir his son, Shealtiel his son.'" These things are in Babyl. Sanhedrim, where these words are added, "Assir his son, because his mother conceived him in prison."

But the words in the original (1 Chron 3:17) are these...Now the sons of Jechonias bound [or imprisoned] were Shealtiel his son. Which version both the accents and the order of the words confirm...

[And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary.] The mother's family is not to be called a family. Hence the reason may very easily be given, why Matthew brings down the generation to Joseph, Mary's husband; but Luke to Eli, Mary's father. These two frame the genealogy two ways, according to the double notion of the promise of Christ. For he is promised, as the 'seed of the woman,' and as the 'Son of David'; that, as a man, this, as a king. It was therefore needful, in setting down his genealogy, that satisfaction should be given concerning both. Therefore Luke declareth him the promised seed of the woman, deducing his mother's stock, from whence man was born, from Adam; Matthew exhibits his royal original, deriving his pedigree along through the royal family of David to Joseph, his (reputed) father.

[Fourteen generations.] Although all things do not square exactly in this threefold number of fourteen generations, yet there is no reason why this should be charged as a fault upon Matthew, when in the Jewish schools themselves it obtained for a custom, yea, almost for an axiom, to reduce things and numbers to the very same, when they were near alike. The thing will be plain by an example or two, when a hundred almost might be produced.

Five calamitous things are ascribed to the same day, that is, to the ninth day of the month Ab. "For that day (say they) it was decreed, That the people should not go into the promised land: the same day, the first Temple was laid waste, and the second also: the city Bitter was destroyed, and the city Jerusalem ploughed up." Not that they believed all these things fell out precisely the same day of the month; but, as the Babylonian Gemara notes upon it, That they might reduce a fortunate thing to a holy day, and an unfortunate to an unlucky day.

The Jerusalem Gemara, in the same tract, examines the reason why the daily prayers consist of the number of eighteen, and among other things hath these words; "The daily prayers are eighteen, according to the number of the eighteen Psalms, from the beginning of the Book of Psalms to that Psalm whose beginning is, 'The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble,'" [which Psalm, indeed, is the twentieth Psalm]. "But if any object, that nineteen Psalms reach thither, you may answer, The Psalm which begins, 'Why did the heathen rage,' is not of them," a distinct Psalm. Behold, with what liberty they fit numbers to their own case.

Inquiry is made, whence the number of the thirty-nine more principal servile works, to be avoided on the sabbath-day, may be proved. Among other, we meet with these words; "R. Chaninah of Zippor saith, in the name of R. Abhu, Aleph denotes one, Lamed thirty, He five, Dabar one, Debarim two. Hence are the forty works, save one, concerning which it is written in the law. The Rabbins of Caesarea say, Not any thing is wanting out of his place: Aleph one, Lamed thirty, Cheth eight: our profound doctors do not distinguish between He and Cheth": that they may fit number to their case...

"R. Joshua Ben Levi saith, In all my whole life I have not looked into the [mystical] book of Agada but once; and then I looked into it, and found it thus written, A hundred and seventy-five sections of the law; where it is written, He spake, he said, he commanded, they are for the number of the years of our father Abraham." And a little after; "A hundred and forty and seven Psalms, which are written in the Book of the Psalms [note this number], are for the number of the years of our father Jacob. Whence this is hinted, that all the praises wherewith the Israelites praise God are according to the years of Jacob. Those hundred and twenty and three times, wherein the Israelites answer Hallelujah, are according to the number of the years of Aaron," &c.

They do so very much delight in such kind of concents, that they oftentimes screw up the strings beyond the due measure, and stretch them till they crack. So that if a Jew carps at thee, O divine Matthew, for the unevenness of thy fourteens, out of their own schools and writings thou hast that, not only whereby thou mayest defend thyself, but retort upon them.

[When as his mother was espoused] No woman of Israel was married, unless she had been first espoused. "Before the giving of the law (saith Maimonides), if the man and the woman had agreed about marriage, he brought her into his house, and privately married her. But after the giving of the law, the Israelites were commanded, that, if any were minded to take a woman for his wife, he should receive her, first, before witnesses; and thenceforth let her be to him a wife, as it is written, If any one take a wife. This taking is one of the affirmative precepts of the law, and is called espousing." Of the manner and form of espousing, you may read till you are weary, in that tractate, and in the Talmudic tract, Kiddushin.

[Before they came together.] "In many places the man espouseth the woman; but doth not bring her home to him, but after some space of time." So the Gloss upon Maimonides.

Distinction is made by the Jewish canons, and that justly and openly, between private society or discourse between the espouser and the espoused, and the bringing of the espoused into the husband's house. Of either of the two may those words be understood, before they came together, or, rather, of them both. He had not only not brought her home to him, but he had no manner of society with her alone, beyond the canonical limits of discourse, that were allowed to unmarried persons; and yet she was found with child.

[She was found with child.] Namely, after the space of three months from her conception, when she was now returned home from her cousin Elizabeth. See Luke 1:56, and compare Genesis 38:24.

The masters of the traditions assign this space to discover a thing of that nature. "A woman (say they) who is either put away from her husband, or become a widow, neither marrieth, nor is espoused, but after ninety days: namely, that it may be known, whether she be big with child or no; and that distinction may be made between the offspring of the first husband and of the second. In like manner, a husband and wife, being made proselytes, are parted from one another for ninety days, that judgment may be made between children begotten in holiness," (that is, within the true religion; see 1 Cor 7:14) "And children begotten out of holiness."

[But Joseph, being a just man, &c.] There is no need to rack the word just, to fetch out thence the sense of gentleness or mercy, which many do; for, construing the clauses of the verse separately, the sense will appear clear and soft enough, Joseph, being a just man, could not, would not, endure an adulteress: but yet not willing to make her a public example, being a merciful man, and loving his wife, was minded to put her away privily.

[To make her a public example.] This doth not imply death, but rather public disgrace, to make her public. For it may, not without reason, be inquired, whether she would have been brought to capital punishment, if it had been true that she had conceived by adultery. For although there was a law promulged of punishing adultery with death, Leviticus 10:10, Deuteronomy 22:22, and, in this case, she that was espoused, would be dealt withal after the same manner as it was with her who was become a wife; yet so far was that law modified, that I say not weakened, by the law of giving a bill of divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1, &c., that the husband might not only pardon his adulterous wife, and not compel her to appear before the Sanhedrim, but scarcely could, if he would, put her to death. For why otherwise was the bill of divorce indulged?

Joseph, therefore, endeavours to do nothing here, but what he might, with the full consent both of the law and nation. The adulteress might be put away; she that was espoused could not be put away without a bill of divorce; concerning which thus the Jewish laws: "A woman is espoused three ways; by money, or by a writing, or by being lain with. And being thus espoused, though she were not yet married, nor conducted into the man's house, yet she is his wife. And if any shall lie with her beside him, he is to be punished with death by the Sanhedrim. And if he himself will put her away, he must have a bill of divorce."

[Put her away privily.] Let the Talmudic tract 'Gittin' be looked upon, where they are treating of the manner of delivering a bill of divorce to a wife to be put away: among other things, it might be given privately, if the husband so pleased, either into the woman's hand or bosom, two witnesses only present.

[Behold, a virgin shall be with child.] That the word virgin, in the prophet, denotes an untouched virgin, sufficiently appears from the sense of the place, Isaiah 7:14. King Ahaz there was afraid, lest the enemies that were now upon him might destroy Jerusalem, and utterly consume the house of David. The Lord meets this fear by a signal and most remarkable promise, namely, 'that sooner should a pure virgin bring forth a child, than the family of David perish.' And the promise yields a double comfort: namely, of Christ hereafter to be born of a virgin; and of their security from the imminent danger of the city and house of David. So that, although that prophecy, of a virgin's bringing forth a son, should not be fulfilled till many hundreds of years after, yet, at that present time, when the prophecy was made, Ahaz had a certain and notable sign, that the house of David should be safe and secure from the danger that hung over it. As much as if the prophet had said, "Be no so troubled, O Ahaz; does it not seem an impossible thing to thee, and that never will happen, that a pure virgin should become a mother? But I tell thee, a pure virgin shall bring forth a son, before the house of David perish."

Hear this, O unbelieving Jew! and shew us now some remainders of the house of David: or confess this prophecy fulfilled in the Virgin's bringing forth: or deny that a sign was given, when a sign is given.

In what language Matthew wrote his Gospel.

[Which is, being interpreted.] I. All confess that the Syriac language was the mother-tongue to the Jewish nation dwelling in Judea; and that the Hebrew was not at all understood by the common people may especially appear from two things:

1. That, in the synagogues, when the law and the prophets were read in the original Hebrew, an interpreter was always present to the reader, who rendered into the mother-tongue that which was read, that it might be understood by the common people. Hence those rules of the office of an interpreter, and of some places which were not to be rendered into the mother-tongue.

2. That Jonathan the son of Uzziel, a scholar of Hillel, about the time of Christ's birth, rendered all the prophets (that is, as the Jews number them, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the Books of the Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve lesser prophets) into the Chaldee language; that is, into a language much more known to the people than the Hebrew, and more acceptable than the mother-tongue. For if it be asked why he translated them at all, and why he translated not rather into the mother-tongue, which was known to all? and if it be objected concerning St. Matthew and St. Paul, that, writing to the Jews, one his Gospel, the other his Epistle (to the Hebrews), they must have written in the Syriac tongue (if so be they wrote not in Hebrew), that they might be understood by all:--we answer,

First, It was not without reason that the paraphrast Jonathan translated out of the Hebrew original into the Chaldee tongue, because this tongue was much more known and familiar to all the people than the Hebrew. The holy text had need of an interpreter into a more known tongue, because it was now in a tongue not known at all to the vulgar. For none knew the Hebrew but such as learned it by study. However, therefore, all the Jews inhabiting the land of Canaan, did not so readily understand the Chaldee language as the Syriac, which was their mother-language, yet they much more readily understood that than the Hebrew, which, to the unlearned, was not known at all. Hence it was not without necessity that the prophets were turned into the Chaldee language by Jonathan, and the law, not much after, by Onkelos, that they might a little be understood by the common people, by whom the Hebrew original was not understood at all. We read also that the Book of Job had its Targum in the time of Gamaliel the Elder; that is, Paul's master.

Secondly, it is no impertinent question, Why Jonathan and Onkelos did not rather translate into the Syriac language, which was the mother-language to all the people, when both they themselves were in Judea, while they were employed about this work, and laboured in it for the use of the Jews that dwelt there? To which we give this double answer; 1. That, by turning it into the Chaldee language, they did a thing that might be of use to both them that dwelt in Judea, and in Babylon also. 2. The Syriac language was not so grateful unto the Jews, who used it for their mother-tongue, as the Chaldee was; as being a language more neat and polite, and the mother-tongue to the brethren in Babylon, and which they that came up out of Babylon, carried thence with them into Judea. You may wonder, reader, when you hear that canon which permits a single man "to say his prayers in any language, when he asks those things that are needful for him, except only the Syriac: While he asketh necessaries for himself, let him use any language but the Syriac." But you will laugh when you hear the reason: "Therefore, by all means, because the angels do not understand the Syriac language."

Whether they distinguish the Syriac language here from the pure Chaldee, is not of great moment solicitously to inquire: we shall only produce these things of the Glosser upon Beracoth, which make to our purpose:--"There are some (saith he) who say, that that prayer which begins 'sermon,' is therefore to be made in the Syriac language, because it is a noble prayer, and that deserves the highest praise; and therefore it is framed in the Targumistical language, that the angels may not understand it, and envy it to us," &c. And a little after; "It was the custom to recite that prayer after sermon: and the common people were there present, who understood not the Hebrew language at all; and therefore they appointed it to be framed in the Targumistical language, that it might be understood by all; for this is their tongue."

Mark, the Hebrew was altogether unknown to the common people: no wonder, therefore, if the evangelists and apostles wrote not in Hebrew when there were none who understood things so written, but learned men only.

That also must not be passed over, which, at first sight, seems to hint that the Syriac language was not understood even by learned men. "Samuel the Little, at the point of death, said, Simeon and Ismael to the sword; and all the other people to the spoil: and there shall be very great calamities." And because he spoke these things in the Syriac language, they understood not what he had said. This story you have repeated in the Babylonian Gemara, where the words of the dying man are thus related; Let the Glosser upon the place be the interpreter: "Simeon and Ismael to the sword [that is, Rabban Simeon the prince, and R. Ismael Ben Elisha the high-priest, were slain with the sword], and his fellows to slaughter [that is, R. Akibah and R. Chananiah Ben Teradion were slain by other deaths; namely R. Akibah by iron teeth, and R. Chananiah by burning alive before idols]; and the other people for a prey: and very many calamities shall fall upon the world."

Now where it is said that, "They understood not what he said, because he spake in the Syrian tongue," we also do not easily understand. What! for the Jerusalem doctors not to understand the Chaldee language! For Samuel the Little died before the destruction of the city; and he spake of the death of Rabban Simeon, who perished in the siege of the city; and he spake these things when some of the learnedest Rabbins were by: and yet that they understood not these words, which even a smatterer in the oriental tongues would very easily understand!

Therefore, perhaps, you may beat out the sense of the matter from the words of the author of Juchasin, who saith, He prophesied in the Syriac language, But now, when prophecies were spoken only in the Hebrew language, however they understood the sense of the words, yet they reputed it not for a prophecy, because it was not uttered in the language that was proper for prophetical predictions. But we tarry not here. That which we would have is this, that Matthew wrote not in Hebrew (which is proved sufficiently by what is spoken before), if so be we suppose him to have written in a language vulgarly known and understood; which, certainly, we ought to suppose: not that he, or the other writers of the New Testament, wrote in the Syriac language, unless we suppose them to have written in the ungrateful language of an ungrateful nation, which, certainly, we ought not to suppose. For when the Jewish people were now to be cast off, and to be doomed to eternal cursing, it was very improper, certainly, to extol their language, whether it were the Syriac mother-tongue, or the Chaldee, its cousin language, unto that degree of honour; that it should be the original language of the New Testament. Improper, certainly, it was, to write the Gospel in their tongue, who, above all the inhabitants of the world, most despised and opposed it.

II. Since, therefore, the Gentiles were to be called to the faith, and to embrace the Gospel by the preaching of it, the New Testament was written very congruously in the Gentile language, and in that which, among the Gentile languages, was the most noble; viz. the Greek. Let us see what the Jews say of this language, envious enough against all languages besides their own.

"Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel saith, Even concerning the holy books, the wise men permitted not that they should be written in any other language than Greek. R. Abhu saith that R. Jochanan said, The tradition is according to Rabban Simeon; that R. Jochanan said, moreover, Whence is that of Rabban Simeon proved? From thence, that the Scripture saith, 'The Lord shall persuade Japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Sem': the words of Japhet shall be in the tents of Sem": and a little after, God shall persuade Japhet; i.e. The grace of Japhet shall be in the tents of Sem." Where the Gloss speaks thus; "'The grace of Japhet' is the Greek language; the fairest of those tongues which belonged to the sons of Japhet."

"Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel saith, Even concerning the sacred books, they permitted not that they should be written in any other language than Greek. They searched seriously, and found, that the law could not be translated according to what was needful for it, but in Greek." You have this latter clause cut off in Massecheth Sopherim, where this story also is added: "The five elders wrote the law in Greek for Ptolemy the king: and that day was bitter to Israel, as the day wherein the golden calf was made, because the law could not be translated according to what was needful for it." This story of the 'five interpreters' of the law is worthy of consideration, which you find seldom mentioned, or scarce anywhere else. The tradition next following after this, in the place cited, recites the story of the Seventy. Look at it.

When, therefore, the common use of the Hebrew language had perished, and when the mother Syriac or Chaldee tongue of a cursed nation could not be blessed, our very enemies being judges, no other language could be found, which might be fit to write the (new) divine law, besides the Greek tongue. That this language was scattered, and in use among all the eastern nations almost, and was in a manner the mother tongue, and that it was planted every where by the conquests of Alexander, and the empire of the Greeks, we need not many words to prove; since it is every where to be seen in the historians. The Jews do well near acknowledge it for their mother-tongue even in Judea.

"R. Jochanan of Beth Gubrin said, There are four noble languages which the world useth; the mother-tongue, for singing; the Roman, for war; the Syriac, for mourning; and the Hebrew, for elocution: and there are some who say, the Assyrian for writing." What is that which he calls the mother-tongue? It is very easily answered, the Greek, from those encomiums added to it, mentioned before: and that may more confidently be affirmed from the words of Midras Tillin, respecting this saying of R. Jochanan, and mentioning the Greek language by name. "R. Jochanan said, There are three languages; the Roman, for war; the Greek, for speech; the Assyrian, for prayer." To this also belongs that, that occurs once and again in Bab. Megillah, In the Greek mother tongue. You have an instance of the thing; "R. Levi, coming to Caesarea, heard some reciting the phylacteries in the Hellenistical language." This is worthy to be marked. At Caesarea flourished the famous schools of the Rabbins. The Rabbins of Caesarea are mentioned in both Talmuds most frequently, and with great praise, but especially in that of Jerusalem. But yet among these, the Greek is used as the mother-tongue, and that in reciting the phylacteries, which, you may well think, above all other things, in Judea were to be said in Hebrew.

In that very Caesarea, Jerome mentions the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, to be laid up in the library of Pamphilus, in these words: "Matthew, who was also called Levi, from a publican made an apostle, first of all in Judea composed the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words, for their sakes, who were of the circumcision and believed. Which Gospel, who he was that afterward translated it into Greek, it is not sufficiently know. Moreover, that very Hebrew Gospel is reserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which Pamphilus the martyr, with much care, collected. I also had leave given me by the Nazarenes, who use this book in Berea, a city of Syria, to write it out."

It is not at all to be doubted, that this Gospel was found in Hebrew; but that which deceived the good man was not the very handwriting of Matthew, nor, indeed, did Matthew write the Gospel in that language: but it was turned by somebody out of the original Greek into Hebrew, that so, if possible, the learned Jews might read it. For since they had little kindness for foreign books, that is, heathen books, or such as were written in a language different from their own, which might be illustrated from various canons, concerning this matter; some person converted to the gospel, excited with a good zeal, seems to have translated this Gospel of St. Matthew out of the Greek original into the Hebrew language, that learned men among the Jews, who as yet believed not, might perhaps read it, being now published in their language: which was rejected by them while it remained in a foreign speech. Thus, I suppose, this gospel was written in Greek by St. Matthew, for the sake of those that believed in Judea, and turned into Hebrew by somebody else, for the sake of those that did not believe.

The same is to be resolved concerning the original language of the Epistle to the Hebrews. That Epistle was written to the Jews inhabiting Judea, to whom the Syriac was the mother-tongue; but yet it was writ in Greek, for the reasons above named. For the same reasons, also, the same apostle writ in Greek to the Romans, although in that church there were Romans, to whom it might seem more agreeable to have written in Latin; and there were Jews, to whom it might seem more proepr to have written in Syriac.

That is, the descent of Jesus Christ, who was, according to the flesh, the Son of David and the Son of Abraham, is on this wise. And his genealogy from Abraham down to his reputed father, was thus:

Here note, That our Evangelist designing to write a narrative of our Savior's life, begins with his pedigree and genealogy, and shews whom he descended from, namely, from David and Abraham.

Where Observe, 1. That David is named before Abraham, because he being a king, an illustrious type of the Messiah, the Jews expected, and do to this day expect, that the son of David shall reign over them; and that they should enjoy a temporal kingdom by him.

Observe 2. The names given to our blessed Savior, Jesus and Christ; Jesus is his Hebrew name, and signifies a Savior; Christ is his Greek name, and signifies anointed: from whence some do infer an intimation and encouragement, that both Hebrews and Greeks, both Jews and Gentiles, may alike come unto Christ for life and Salvation, he being the common Savior of both; according to that of He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1John 2:2

Both the Evangelists, St. Matthew and St. Luke, make mention of our Savior's pedigree; the former by his reputed father's side, the latter by his mother's side: the design of both was to present us with a general draught of our Lord's pedigree and descent, and not to be strict and accurate in enumerating every individual person. This should teach us, not to be over curious in scanning the parts of this genealogy, much less capaciously to object against it. For if the evangelists were not critical and exact in composing this genealogy, why should we show ourselves so in examining of it?

Rather let us attend to the design of the Holy Ghost in writing of it, which was twofold; first, For the honor of our Savior, as man, showing who were his noble and royal progenitors according to the flesh.

Secondly, For the confirmation of our faith, touching the reality of our Redeemer's incarnation. The scripture making mention of all his progenitors, from the first man Adam to his reputed father Joseph, will not suffer us to doubt either of the truth of his human nature, or of the certainty of his being the promised Messiah.

Learn hence, That he wisdom of God hath taken all necessary care, and used all needful means for satisfying the minds of all unprejudiced persons, touching the reality of Christ's human nature, and the certainty of his being the promised Messiah; for both these ends is our Savior's genealogy and descent recorded in the holy scriptures.

Observe, Here are several women mentioned in our Savior's genealogy, and all, or most of them, have a brand of infamy upon them. Thamar was one, with whom her father-in-law, Judah, committed incest; Rahab is called an harlot; Ruth came of Moab, whom Lot begat of his own daughter; and Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, was one with whom David had committed adultery.

Now the wisdom of God has thought fit to leave all this upon record for several ends and purposes.

1. To denote the freeness of God's grace, which extends itself in the saving effects and benefits of it to them that are most unworthy and ill-derserving.

2. To encourage the greatest sinners to unto Christ by faith, and seek to be ingrafted into him: for as Christ, by the power of his godhead, did purify our nature from all the pollution of our ancestors, so he can, by the power of his grace and spirit, sanctify our persons and natures, how foul and impure soever they either are or have been.

3. Hereby our Lord gives us to understand, That he came to save the most notorious sinners, as well as those lives have been less scandalous.

4. This is recorded for the support of such as are illegitimate and base-born, how vile soever their parents' sin has rendered them in the eyes of men, it is their own sin only which exposes them to contempt in the sight of God. It is not illegitimacy, but unregeneracy, that makes us objects of God's wrath.

This is, the birth of Christ was not in the ordinary and natural way, but his mother Mary was found to be with child by the extraordinary and miraculous operation of the Holy Ghost.

Here note, That the espousal of Mary to Joseph was for the safety of Christ, and for the credit and reputation of the virgin. It was for our Savior's safety, because being to fly into Egypt, he has Joseph his reputed father to take care of him; and it was for the virgin's reputation, lest she should have been accounted unclean.

Learn hence, What a special regard Almighty God has to the fame and reputation of his children; he would have them free from the least suspicion of evil and dishonesty. Mary being espoused to an husband, frees herself from the suspicion of naughtiness, and her son from the imputation of an illegitimate birth.

Observe further, The miraculous conception of the holy Jesus; the Holy Ghost overshadowed the virgin, and did miraculously cause her conception without the help of an human father. Thus Christ was the Son of God as well in his human as in his divine nature; he must needs be a perfect, holy person, who was conceived purely by the Holy Spirit's operation.

That is, being an holy person, and a strict observer of the rites of his nation, he was unwilling to accompany with a defiled woman, and therefore minded to put her away, by giving a bill of divorce into her hand before two witnesses; but being kind and gentle, he intended to put her away privily, lest she should have be exposed and stoned to death.

Observe here, How early our dear Lord's sufferings began; he and his mother are designed to be put away, even when he was but an embryo in the womb.

Observe further, from the great clemency of Joseph towards the suspected virgin, that kind and merciful men always presume the best, and prosecute with gentleness, especially where life is concerned. Meek Joseph doth resolve upon the milder course, and chooses rather to put her away privily, than publicly to expose her. Lev 19:20; Gen 6:9; 38:24; Deut 24:1-4

Two things here are observable; namely, the care that Almighty God takes; 1. For Joseph's satisfaction.

2. For vindicating the virgin's reputation. For Joseph's satisfaction, an angel is dispatched to give him assurance that the virgin was not defiled by a man, but overshadowed by the Holy Ghost.

Whence note, that Almighty God will certainly find out ways and means for his peoples' satisfaction, when they are willing and desirous above all things to come to the knowledge and right understanding of their duty.

Observe, 2. How the angel clears the virgin's innocency, as well as satisfies Joseph's doubtings, by assuring, that what was conceived in her, was by the Holy Ghost.

Learn hence, that God will, in his own time, clear the innocency of such as suffer in their name and reputation for the sake of Christ, through for the present they may lie under the burden of disgrace and shame.

Observe here, 1. A prediction of our Savior's birth; the virgin shall bring forth a son.

2. A precept for the imposition of his name; Thou shalt call his name Jesus, that is, a Savior.

3. The reason why that name was given him; because he should save his people, not temporarily, as Joshua did the Israelites from their enemies, but spiritually and externally from their sins; not in their sins but from them; that is, from the guilt and punishment, from the power and dominion, of them.

Observe, 4. The peculiar subjects of this privilege; his people: He shall save his people from their sins.

Learn, 1. That sin is the evil of evils; or that sin considered in itself, is comparatively the greatest and worst of evils.

2. That the great end of Christ's coming into the world, was to be a Savior from this evil.

3. That Christ's own people do want and stand in need of a Savior as well as others; if he does not save them from their sins, they must die in and for their sins, as well as others.

Therefore he saves them from sin in three ways;

1. By obtaining pardon for sin, and in reconciling us to God. 2. By weakening the reigning power of sin, and implanting a new principle of holiness in the heart. 3. By perfecting and accomplishing all these happy beginnings at the end of this life in heaven.

Dr. Hammond's Pract. Catech.

Of all the prophets of the Old Testament, the Prophet Isaiah has the honor to be the first recited in the New. Here the Evangelist quotes his prophecy of Christ's incarnation, Behold, a virgin shall be with child.

Learn thence, That the great mystery of our Savior's wonderful incarnation was, (though darkly) revealed to the Church of God under the Old Testament.

Observe further, the name given to our Savior under the Old Testament, Emmanual, that is, God with us; God manifest in our flesh, God appearing in nature; God reconciling man to himself.

O happy and blessed union of two natures in one person! Christ is God and man united, that God and man may be reconciled.

Joseph is no sooner assured that Mary is with child by the overshadowing power of the Holy Ghost, but he instantly obeys the Lord's command, and takes Mary to him, without further disputing or delaying.

Learn thence, That a gracious person,when once satisfied in God's word of command, disputes no further, but instantly complies with the will of God, even in the most hazardous and difficult duties.

It is piously believed, though not positively in scripture asserted,that the Virgin had no other child but our Savior: it is a very probable opinion, though not an infallible article of faith, as the Church of Rome would make it: for the word until signifies in scripture as much as never.

So Gen 28:15. I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have promised; that is, I will never leave thee.

So the words following, Her first-born son, do not imply that she had any child after, but that she had none before. That child which first opened the womb, is usually in scripture called the first-born, though there was no other born after.

Thus Jos 18:1-28 Machir is called the first-born of Manasseh, though he had no more children. So that Christ, not only as God, but as also he was man, was the first-born and only son. St. Austin expounds and applies Ezek 44:2 to the virgin Mary; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it; because the Lord God of Israel hath entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut. And others of the ancients say, that as Christ lay in a tomb, in which none lay before or after himself. But he said, Quid post partum secutum erat curiose none est quarendum. What the Virgin was afterwards, is of small concern to the mystery, therefore not to be inquired after. And yet it is now passed by some into a matter of faith, that the Virgin Mary was ever a virgin, and it has been styled a heresy to hold the contrary; but how is it consistent with good divinity, to make that an article of divine faith, which is founded on no divine revelation. Or to make that necessary to be believed, which confessedly is not contained in the Holy scripture, let the Church of Rome answer.

THESE verses begin the New Testament. Let us always read them with serious and solemn feelings. The book before us contains not “the word of men, but of God.” Every verse in it was written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

Let us thank God daily for giving us the Scriptures. The poorest Englishman who understands his Bible knows more about religion than the wisest philosophers of Greece and Rome.

Let us never forget the deep responsibility which possession of the Bible entails on us. We shall be judged at the last day according to our light. To whomsoever much is given, of them much will be required.

Let us read the Bible reverently and diligently, with an honest determination to believe and practice all we find in it. It is no light matter how we use this book. Above all, let us never read the Bible without praying for the teaching of the Holy Spirit. He alone can apply truth to our hearts, and make us profit by what we read.

The New Testament begins with the history of the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. No part of the Bible is so important as this, and no part is so full and complete. Four distinct Gospels tell us the story of Christ’s doings and dying. Four times we read the precious account of His works and words. How thankful we ought to be for this! To know Christ is life eternal. To believe in Christ is to have peace with God. To follow Christ is to be a true Christian. To be with Christ will be heaven itself. We can never hear too much about the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Gospel of St. Matthew begins with a long list of names. Sixteen verses are taken up with tracing a pedigree from Abraham to David, and from David to the family in which Jesus was born. Let no one think that these verses are useless. Nothing is useless in creation. The least mosses, and the smallest insects, serve some good end. Nothing is useless in the Bible. Every word of it is inspired. The chapters and verses which seem at first sight unprofitable are all given for some good purpose. He that looks carefully at these sixteen verses will not fail to see in them useful and instructive lessons.

We learn, for one thing, from this list of names, that God always keeps His word. He had promised that “in Abraham’s seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed.” He had promised to raise up a Saviour of the family of David. (Genesis 12:3; Isaiah 11:1) These sixteen verses prove that Jesus was the Son of David and the Son of Abraham, and that God’s promise was fulfilled. Thoughtless and ungodly people should remember this lesson, and be afraid. Whatever they may think, God will keep His word. If they repent not they will surely perish. True Christians should remember this lesson, and take comfort. Their Father in Heaven will be true to all His engagements. He has said that He will save all believers in Christ. If He has said it, He will certainly do it. “He is not a man, that He should lie.” “He abideth faithful: He cannot deny Himself.” (Num 13:19; 2 Timothy 2:13)

We learn for another thing from this list of names, the sinfulness and corruption of human nature. It is instructive to observe how many godly parents in this catalogue had wicked and ungodly sons. The names of Roboam, Joram, Amon and Jechonias should teach us humbling lessons. They had all pious fathers. But they were all wicked men. Grace does not run in families. It needs something more than good examples and good advice to make us children of God. They that are born again are not born of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God. (John 1:13) Praying parents should pray night and day that their children may be born of the Spirit.

We learn lastly from this list of names, how great is the mercy and compassion of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us think how defiled and unclean human nature is, and then think what a condescension it was in Him to be born of a woman, and made in “the likeness of men.” (Philippians 2:7) Some of the names we read in this catalogue remind us of shameful and sad Histories. Some of the names are those of persons never mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. But at the end of all comes the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Though He is the eternal God, He humbled Himself to become man, in order to provide salvation for sinners. “Though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor.” (2 Corinthians 8:9)

We should always read this catalogue with thankful feelings. We see here that no one who partakes of human nature can be beyond the reach of Christ’s sympathy and compassion. Our sins may have been as black and great as those of any whom St. Matthew names. But they cannot shut us out of heaven, if we repent and believe the Gospel. If the Lord Jesus was not ashamed to be born of a woman whose pedigree contained such names as those we have read today, we need not think that He will be ashamed to call us brethren, and to give us eternal life.

THESE verses begin by telling us two great truths. They tell us how the Lord Jesus Christ took our nature upon him, and became man. They tell us also that his birth was miraculous. His mother Mary was a virgin.

These are very mysterious subjects. They are depths, which we have no line to fathom. They are truths, which we have not mind enough to comprehend. Let us not attempt to explain things which are above our feeble reason. Let us be content to believe with reverence, and let us not speculate about matters which we cannot understand. Enough for us to know that with him who made the world nothing is impossible. We may safely rest in the words of the Apostles’ Creed: “Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary.”

Let us observe the conduct of Joseph described in these verses. It is a beautiful example of godly wisdom, and tender consideration for others. He saw the “appearance of evil” in her who was his espoused wife. But he did nothing rashly. He waited patiently to have the line of duty made clear. In all probability he laid the matter before God in prayer. “He that believeth shall not make haste.” (Isaiah 28:16)

The patience of Joseph was graciously rewarded. He received a direct message from God upon the subject of his anxiety, and was at once relieved from all his fears. How good it is to wait upon God! Who ever casts his cares upon God in hearty prayer, and found him fail? “In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.” (Proverbs 3:6)

Let us observe in these verses, the two names given to our Lord. One is “Jesus:” the other “Emmanuel.” One describes his office, the other his nature. Both are deeply interesting.

The name Jesus means “Saviour.” It is the same name as “Joshua” in the Old Testament. It is given to our Lord because “he saves his people from their sins.” This is his special office. He saves them from the guilt of sin, by washing them in His own atoning blood. He saves them from the dominion of sin, by putting in their hearts the sanctifying Spirit. He saves them from the presence of sin, when he takes them out of this world to rest with him. He will save them from all the consequences of sin, when he shall give them a glorious body at the last day. Blessed and holy are Christ’s people! From sorrow, cross, and conflict they are not saved; but they are “saved from sin” for evermore. They are cleansed from guilt by Christ’s blood. They are made meet for heaven by Christ’s Spirit. This is salvation! He who cleaves to sin is not yet saved.

“Jesus” is a very encouraging name to heavy-laden sinners. He who is King of kings and Lord of lords might lawfully have taken some more high-sounding title. But he did not do so. The rulers of this world have often called themselves Great, Conqueror, Bold, Magnificent, and the like. The Son of God was content to call himself “Saviour.” The souls which desire salvation may draw nigh to the Father with boldness, and have access with confidence through Christ. It is his office and his delight to show mercy. “God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but the world through him might be saved.” (John 3:17)

Jesus is a name which is peculiarly sweet and precious to believers. It has often done them good, when the favour of kings and princes would have been heard of with unconcern. It has given them what money cannot buy, even inward peace. It has eased their weary consciences, and given rest to their heavy hearts. The Song of Solomon speaks the experience of many, when it says, “Thy name is as ointment poured forth” (Cant. 1:3). Happy is that person who trusts not merely in vague notions of God’s mercy and goodness, but in “Jesus.”

The name “Emmanuel” is seldom found in the Bible, but it is scarcely less interesting than the name “Jesus.” It is the name which is given to our Lord from his nature as God-man, as “God manifest in the flesh.” It signifies “God with us.”

Let us take care that we clearly understand that there was a union of two natures, the divine and human, in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a point of the deepest importance. We should settle it firmly in our minds that our Saviour is perfect man as well as perfect God, and perfect God as well as perfect man. If we once lose sight of this great foundation truth, we may run into fearful heresies. The name Emmanuel takes in the whole mystery. Jesus is “God with us.” He had a nature like our own in all things, sin only excepted. But though Jesus was “with us” in human flesh and blood, he was at the same time very God.

We shall often find, as we read the Gospels that our Saviour could be weary and hungry and thirsty, could weep and groan and feel pain like one of ourselves. In all this we see “the man” Christ Jesus. We see the nature he took on him, when he was born of the Virgin Mary. But we shall also find in the same Gospels that our Saviour knew men’s hearts and thoughts, that He had power over devils, that He could work the mightiest miracles with a word, that He was ministered to by angels, that He allowed a disciple to call him “my God,” and that He said, “Before Abraham was, I am!” and “I and my Father are one.” In all this we see “the eternal God.” We see him “who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” (Romans 9:5)

If we would have a strong foundation for our faith and hope, we must keep constantly in view our Saviour’s divinity. He in whose blood we are invited to trust is the Almighty God. All power is in heaven and earth. None can pluck us out of His hand. If we are true believers in Jesus, our heart need not be troubled or afraid.

If we would have sweet comfort in suffering and trial, we must keep constantly in view our Saviour’s humanity. He is the man Christ Jesus, who lay on the bosom of the Virgin Mary as a little infant, and knows the heart of a man. He can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. He has Himself experienced Satan’s temptations. He has endured hunger. He has shed tears. He has felt pain. We must trust him unreservedly with our sorrows. He will not despise us. We may pour out our hearts before him in prayer boldly, and keep nothing back. He can sympathize with his people.

Let these thoughts sink down into our minds. Let us bless God for the encouraging truths which the first chapter of the New Testament contains. It tells us of one who “saves his people from their sins.” But this is not all. It tells us that this Saviour is “Emmanuel,” God himself, and yet God with us, God manifest in human flesh like our own. This is glad tidings. This is indeed good news. Let us feed on these truths in our hearts by faith with thanksgiving.