and sad beyond all expression is it, that such evidence that Jesus is the Christ of God and the Saviour of men, does not awaken universal faith, and enkindle ecstatic joy. Inconsiderate men! to whom the Lord Jesus is still as a root out of a dry ground, sleep no longer.

CHAPTER VI.

ON THE GENEALOGICAL TABLES OF MATTHEW AND LUKE.

LUKE carries the record of names back from Jesus to Adam. Matthew begins with Abraham. From Adam to Abraham, the list of Luke agrees with those given in the book of Genesis, with the exception of the name of Cainan, which occurs in Genesis once only, and as the designation of the grandson of Adam. In Luke's genealogy we meet with another Cainan, the great grandson of Noah. Whether the name is an interpolation in the latter case, or is omitted in Genesis, is questionable. Those who desire to see the reasons for the retention of the name strongly stated, may find them in Russell's Connection of Sacred and Profane History, I. p. 158. From Abraham to David the registers of the two Evangelists exactly agree.

The design of this chapter is not to discuss these tables in so far as they relate to times anterior to David, but to shew how the records of generations from David downwards attest the fulfilment of many prophecies.

"There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots." "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David." "Of this man's seed hath God, according to his promise, raised up unto Israel a saviour, Jesus." "I am the root and the offspring of David." Such are a few of the very many examples in which, throughout the latter half of the Old Testament and the whole of the New, stress is laid on the descent of the Lord Jesus from David.

A fact which occupies so conspicuous a place in the Bible, and to which the Lord himself, bending from his glorious high throne, has repeatedly summoned human attention, certainly claims from us careful consideration and intelligent faith.

If the question were put, Who was Jesus? all could reply that he was the Son of David, that he is so called in the New Testament, that those Jews who withheld their hosannas do not seem to have disputed his genealogy but very few probably would open the book and point to the registers, although they are inserted to supply the evidence; and although, unless we can make such use of them, they are to us a dead letter. A dead letter? Yes, and worse than a dead letter: for if these registers be not aids, they are hindrances to faith; rendering obscure what they profess to explain. And that is the opinion now held by many, as of the Mosaic account of creation, so of the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Infidels have for many centuries affirmed them to be contradictory; and Christian expositors scarcely recognize them as a part of the evidences of our holy religion or if they do, increase the perplexity by the elaborateness of their explanations. Dean Alford pronounces the attempt to reconcile the two lists "over curious, and uncritical": and it may be feared that Lord Arthur Hervey's lengthened dissertations have but bewildered his readers.

Preparatory to the examination of these registers by the student, should be the dismissal from his mind. of the notion that they are hard to be understood. Let him lay aside that common prejudice, and he will see that they are of child-like simplicity, and most completely fulfil their design of shewing that Jesus was son and heir of David.

Matthew reckons downward from David to "Jesus

who is called Christ": Luke backward from "Jesus, (as was supposed) the son of Joseph," to David. For convenience of reference, both lists are given below in the downward order :

Luke's list, giving forty-two generations in about a thousand years, is perhaps complete as well as correct: Matthew's list was not intended to be complete. For example, Ozias was the great-great-grandson of Joram. An example of a register much more abbreviated may be found in the seventh chapter of the book of Ezra.

These registers of the descendants of David's two sons, Solomon and Nathan, become quite intelligible, and, for the purpose of shewing that our Lord is the son of David, thoroughly effective, by the help of one rule of interpretation. Where the descent was through the daughter, the name of her husband is given, not her own. An English register, constructed on the

same plan, would read thus:

George III.

Edward, Duke of Kent,

Albert,

Albert Edward, Prince of Wales,

the name of Queen Victoria not being inserted. Lord Arthur Hervey has adduced the case of Jair, who in the time of Joshua, was an eminent man in Israel. He belonged to the tribe of Judah, as appears from 1 Chr. ii. 22; yet both in Numbers and Deuteronomy is he called a "son of Manasseh," and celebrated for his conquests in the territory of that tribe: all which is plain, on the supposition that he had married a daughter and heiress of Manasseh.

The lists given above explain themselves. All the names are of men: as of course, according to the theory expounded, they must be. And on what other theory can the entire absence of the names of women be accounted for?

It will be observed also, that the registers give two pairs of identical names, in two places.