natural son of one, and the adopted son of the other. This explanation is that which satisfied the early fathers, and is com- monly known as that of Julius Africanus. It is, however, in spite of its antiquity, open to several serious objections. It is difficult to see why Joseph's genealogy should be repeated by Luke, in a Gospel written specially for Gentile converts, and why the genealogy of our Lord's own mother should be entirely passed over by both evangelists.
The third, and most probable explanation of the difficulty, is to regard Liike's genealogy as the genealogy of Mary, and not of Joseph. Heli was the father of Mary, and the father-in-law, by his marriage, of Joseph. It is not said that Heli "begat" Joseph ; and that the Greek does not necessarily mean Joseph was " his son," is clear from the expressions used about Mary and ^ Jude, in two other places of the New Testament. (Mark xvi. 1. and Acts i. 15.) It is Mary's family, therefore, and not Joseph's, that St. Luke describes, and Joseph's family, and not Mary's, that is described by St. Matthew.
There are doubtless some difficulties in the way of this ex- planation. But there seem to be far greater difficulties in the way of any other. In leaving the question, I may be allowed to remark, that the view I venture to maintain is that of Brentius, Gomarus, Chemnitius. Spanheim, Surenhusius, Poole, Bengel, ParsBus, Lightfoot, Calovius, Gill, Burkitt, Henry, Scott, and Clarke, among Protestants, — and of Jansenius, Barrradius, Stella, and others, among Roman Catholics. It is also a remarkable fact, that Habbinical writers, quoted by Lightfoot, speaking of Mary in very reproachful terms, distinc&y call her, "the daughter of Heli."
86. — [Tlie son of Cainan.] There is a serious difficulty connected with this name. It is not to be found in the genealogy from Noah to Abraham, as recorded in the Hebrew version of Gen. xi. 12., although it is found in the Septuagint Greek version. The
Suestion at once arises, — ^Why did St. Luke put the name here? [ow are we to reconcile Moses and St. Luke ?
The solutions of this difficulty are various, and a complete settlement of the question will probably never be attained. One thing only is certain, and that is, that neither Moses nor St. Luke could have made a real mistake, because both were inspired. Sonie think that St. Luke does not pretend to do more than copy out the genealogy which was commonly received, and guards himself against the charge of endorsing its errors and mistakes, by the use of the expression at the outset, *' as was supposed." They consider this expression to apply to the whole genealogy. — Some think that the name has been omitted in the Hebrew text of Genesis, by mistake of a transcriber. — Some think that St. Luke purposely put the name in the genealogy, in order to consult the feelings of those who only knew the Sept-