THIS judicious writer fets forth the merits of either fcheme, the objections to each, with the answers, and affirms the propriety of both. In an Analyfis, a more minute difcuffion is needlefs.

THE generations in Matthew from David to Abiud, excluding both, as likewife Ahaziah, are 19, as before flated, and the mean proportion of time cannot be afcertained, because the interval from the birth of Jeconiah to Abiud is not known. If Zorobabel with his father Salathiel be omitted, the defcents are 17, ending with the year of Jehoiachin's captivity, A. M. 3410. Let the year of Solomon's birth, in 2971, be the fource of computation: then the lefs number, deducted from the greater, leaves 428; and this fum, divided by 17, quotes 25 years two months for the common interval.

IN Luke's catalogue, from David to Neri, in the line of Nathan, are 20 generations. But it merits enquiry whether a deduction be not admiffible. Irenæus, Africanus, Eufebius, Gregory Nazianzen, Jerom, Auguftin, and, on their authority, Grotius, with feveral other modern critics, reject Levi and Matthat *. Some of thofe fathers it feems furmifed, that 72 new languages were framed at the confufion of tongues, and that this number was equal to the generations from Adam to Chrift. This is a fanciful affociation. It is however faid, that they, on this notion, expunged from the regifter Levi and Matthat, together with Cainan. A

Luke, iii. 24.

much

much better reason occurs. Fully were they perfuaded, that none of all the three names had a place in the Evangelift's autograph, or in its earliest transcripts. In the days of Irenæus all three began to appear. He and others rejected them as fpurious. But as it was, in that age, a vulgar prejudice, that the new tongues, which originated from Babel, and the progenitors of Jefus Chrift, were equal in number, those who did not affent to this notion, might by that mode of reafoning, called argumentum ad hominem, declare their diffent from the reception of Cainan, Levi, and Matthat, into the lift. Cainan belongs to a former clafs, and is already reprobated. But Neri, as the last of this feries, may, by a former rule, be left out: and thus the generations in private life, are, for the fame period, equal to those in the royal calendar from David, that is, 17 descents in 428 years.

4. Variations from Zorobabel to Jofeph and Mary. IN this, as in the foregoing fection, the names are entirely different; but the subject of difcuffion is the yariation of generations, with respect to number, in the fame period of time.

MATTHEW's register exhibits 12 generations from Jeconiah to Jacob, the father of Jofeph. From the hiftorical year of the incarnation, A. M. 4004 *, deduct the year of Jeconiah's birth, 3392, the difference is 612. This fum divided by 12, the common quantity

The number is properly expreffed, for Ufher gives 4000, the vulgar reckoning 4008. The historical year is 4004.

of a generation is precifely 51. This mediate space exceeds the descents from kings; though, in the former feries by kings and private families, the proportion was equality.

IN the roll by Luke, from Jeconiah to Heli, the mother of Mary, are 21 generations; by which fum divide 612, the mean proportion is 29. Sometimes one life is the double of two in co-existence and fucceffion; fometimes two generations are equal to three in a feries. The difference here is very confiderable.

"IT is no wonder, or any reasonable objection, that variation, or feeming inconfiftence, fhould be in the account of our Lord's genealogy, by the two Evangelifts. Thofe, who are acquainted with the cuftoms of the Jews know, that many genealogies seem repugnant, and are not fo. That may happen various ways, as may easily be proved from several books, which the Jews and we jointly acknowledge. Befides, feveral are the methods of reconciling these difficulties, though it is fometimes hard to fay which is the beft, at the diflance of fo many ages; all memory, and even records of these things, being utterly loft.*** Were the particular difficulties more and greater than they are, one general anfwer would be fufficient. Had this genealogy, as drawn by the two Evangelifts, been falfe or inconfiftent, in any one inftance, the Jews, who were

then

then living, when the gospels were published, could not but know it; and, being mortal enemies to Christianity, could not but expofe it to all the world: and this mult. have utterly ruined the credit of both these gospels; which we know is not the cafe *.”

BETWEEN Mofes and the Evangelifts is a striking fimilarity of manner in their common character, as historiographers. He wrote such strange accounts of ftrange things, as were not likely to obtain credit, the produc tion of a univerfe from nothing, the deftruction of the whole earth by a deluge, with the exception of a small flock, for the refloration of mankind, and animals of every fpecies. They reported the birth of a fon by a virgin mother, and the redemption of mankind by his death on a croís, which doctrine fome accounted foulishness, and was to others a stumbling block. Neither he nor they betrayed the leaft fufpicion that they might incur the cenfure of collecting and tranfmitting a mass of abfurd paradoxes, impoffibilities, contraditions. No apology they offered for the feemingly incredible things they recommended to the belief of the world; no anxiety did they difcover about confequences, with respect to themfelves; yet with an ardour of charity and zeal, with all the powers of perfuafion, did they beseech, implore, and intreat, thofe to whom they were fent, to confult their own moft important interefts. Here is every criterion of knowledge and veracity, of

Trapp's Notes on Matt, i. 1-13.

a fuber

a fober mind, and of fuperiority to popular opinion. Thefe Evangelifts did not mean to contradict one another; each had a distinct part of the fame fubje&t; and both, [Matthew and Luke], it must be prefumed, executed their defign with all the precifion, required in faithful hiftorians *.

*The Jews, in common with the Chriftians, hold, that the Meffiah was to proceed from David; and what objection was more pertinent than THIS, that though the apoftles did preach the natural defcent of Jefus from David, yet as he had no earthly father, they did not give a true and regular genealogy from David to Mary. This objection would have been much more forcible, than thofe many trifling cavils, which the mo dern Jews have brought, or their forefathers had alleged against the truth of the gospel. To obviate this objection, after Matthew had given the natural descent of Joseph from Abraham; the Holy Spirit directed the pen of Luke to record the genealogy of Heli, the father of Mary, the mother of Jefus, from David, the king, from Abraham, the father of the Hebrews, and from Adam, the father of all mankind. See Yardley on the Genealogies, page 353, &c.

APPENDIX.