This is allowed to have occasioned the difference between St. Matthew's and St. Luke's genealogies;" both which considered, were evidence to the Jews, that, although they were obstinate and would reckon our Saviour's descent through Joseph; yet even here, count which way they would, the genealogy would come up to David. But, 3. Why was not the descent of Mary, of whom alone our Saviour's genealogy could truly come from David, as expressly said to be from that patriarch, as Joseph's? I answer, it was. St. Luke tells us, in recording the angel's salutation of Mary, that the son to be born of her should have the throne of his father David; so that he recognises David to be the progenitor of Jesus. He immediately after allows, that this child was to be born of Mary without her knowing man:* if, then, he had not before hinted of the child thus to be born, that by his mother he was a descendant of David, his narration would

Matth. i. Luke iii.

Luke i. 32, 35.

evidently be a contradiction to itself. But the Evangelist had sufficiently guarded against this, in plainly telling us, before he begins the salutation, that the angel Gabriel was sent to a virgin of the house of David. The words, espoused to a man, whose name was Joseph, inserted between virgin-and of the house of David," may be a parenthesis, indicating, that of the house of David should not be attributed to Joseph. For, as I have observed, the sense and argument of the whole context must lead us to think otherwise; as, indeed, does the manner of the expression likewise. For, as the genealogies of the Jews were deduced in the male line, it is most reasonable to think, that if the Evangelist had here intended what he said, to be understood of Joseph, his expression would have been, as he else

y Luke i. 27.

* The words of the text are, πρὸς πάρθενον, μεμνητευμένην ἀνδρὶ ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰωσήφ, ἐξ οίκε Δαβίδ. An obstinate critic may fight this battle, but I apprehend that in Aacid belonge to πάρθενον.

where says of him, of the house and lineage of David; but women, though not said to be of the lineage, being with propriety recorded to be of the house of their fathers, the expression concurs with the reason of the narration, that the Evangelist herein spake of Mary only. But, 4. Why was not this point more frequently, more clearly, more largely, insisted upon? I answer; because it was a point doubted by none, but allowed by all. It was, St. Paul tells us, podnλov, manifest, without controversy, that our Lord sprang of the tribe of Judah; how sprang of that tribe? by his father Joseph? This the apostles denied; it must then be thus undisputed by the descent of Mary only. For, 5. As to what is said of Elizabeth being cousin to Mary, and therefore, Elizabeth being of the tribe of Levi, that Mary was also of that tribe—; this way of arguing-for any one of letters to

Luke ii. 4.

Psal. xlv. 10. Gen. xxiv. 40, et in al. loc.

Heb. vii. 14.

d Luke i. 5.

1

make use of it, is most indefensible trifling. It can have weight only with a mere English reader, who possibly may be deceived by the common acceptation of our English word cousin. The word used by the Evangelist is uyyev's; St. Paul uses the same, where he tells us of his great heaviness and continual sorrow of heart for his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh, his σuyyevay narà σápna. Who they were, that stood in this relation to him, he informs us very. clearly. They were not only those of the tribe of Benjamin, his own tribe; but they were all the Israelites," all to whom pertained the adoption, the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law; the promises, unto which all their twelve tribes hoped to come. It is most evident, then, that the relation specified between Mary and Elizabeth, in the word cousin, or guyyev's, did not at all mean, that they were both of the same

• Luke i. 36. Ελισάβετ ή συγγενής σει.

f Rom. ix. 3.

* See Rom. xi. 1.

A See Rom. ix, 4.

Acts xxvi. 7.

tribe; but that they were children of the same people; both of them Israelites, of one and the same stock, namely, of the stock of Abraham.* The reader may easily perceive, that in this argument Dr. Middleton descended below every notion we can have of a man of learning, to invent an expedient to puzzle (to such readers as might not be able to consider the texts cited by him, in their original language) the most clear and allowed truths concerning our Saviour, of which he must have known no real argument could be formed to contradict them. And to this he descended (what induced him I will not take upon me to determine) at a season of life, when he stood upon the very threshold of immortality.

*Acts xiii. 26.