SECT. 14-16.] THE ONLY TRUE AND PROMISED MESSIAH. 379
was the son of David, the son of Abraham. Secondly, Although there was no indispensable necessity among the Jews binding them to marry within their tribes, unless the women were inheritrixes, in which case provision was made that inheritances might not be trans- ferred from one tribe unto another, Num. xxxv1.6, 7, yet it is more than probable that the blessed Virgin Mary was of the same family with Joseph, and this so notoriously known, that, seeing genealogies were not reckoned by women, nor the genealogies of women directly re- corded, there was no better or more certain way of declaring his pedi- gree who was born of Mary than by his unto whom she was so nearly related. So that, on several accounts, the genealogy recorded by Matthew proves Jesus Christ to have been of the family of David.
15. Secondly, As for Luke, he doth directly and of set purpose give us the genealogy of the blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of our Lord Jesus; for the line of his progenitors, which he derives from Nathan, is not at all the same with that of Joseph, from Solomon, insisted on by Matthew. It is true, there are a Zorobabel and Salathiel in both genealogies, but this proves not both the lines to be the same; for the lines of Solomon and Nathan might by marriage meet in these persons, and so leave it indifferent which line was followed up from David; and the lines of Joseph and Mary might be separated again in the posterity of Zorobabel, Matthew following one of them, and Luke the other. This, I say, is possible ; but the truth is (as is evident from the course of generations insisted on), that the Zoro- babel and Salathie] mentioned in Matthew were not the same per- sons with those of the same names in Luke, those being of the house of Solomon, these ofthe house of Nathan: so that from David it is not the line of Joseph, but of the blessed Virgin, that is recited by Luke. And the words wherewith Luke prefaceth his genealogy do no way impeach this assertion, Qy a¢ évomilero vids "Iwoip rod HAs; for whereas these words, as évou/Cero, “as was supposed,” are usually placed and read in parenthesis, the parenthesis may be better extended unto rod HAs, including Joseph, “Being (as was supposed, the son of Joseph) the son of Heli.” Or Joseph may be said to be the son of Heli, be- cause his daughter was espoused unto him; otherwise the true natural father of Joseph was Jacob, as Matthew declares, Heli being the father of the blessed Virgin. So that. both legally and naturally our Lord Jesus Christ was a descendant of the house and lineage of David, according unto the promise. And as this was unquestionable among the Jews in the days of his conversation in the flesh, so the present Jews have nothing of moment to oppose unto these unques- tionable records.
16. This is the first characteristical note given of the Messiah whereby he might be known, and it hath strength added unto it by the providence of God, in that all genealogies among the Jews are
380 JESUS OF NAZARETH [ EXERC. XVII.
now so confounded, and have been so for so many generations, that it is utterly impossible that any one should rise amongst them and manifest himself to be of this or that particular family. The burn- ing of their genealogies by Herod, the extirpation of the family of David by Vespasian, and their one thousand and six hundred years’ dispersion, have put an utter end unto all probability about the genealogies amongst them. The Jews, indeed, pretend that the family of the Messiah shall be revealed by the miracles that he shall do; that is, by knowing him to be the Messiah, they shall know of what family he is. But this note of his family is given out to know him by; nor are we anywhere directed to learn his family from our knowledge of him,
17. Another note or sign pointing out the Messiah in prophecy, was the place where he should be born; which, added unto the time wherein and the family whereof he should be brought forth, evi- dently designed his person, The place of his nativity is foretold, Mich. v. 1, Ni? 8yy ‘9 Tp AIM sw Nive YY ANAS OHTA TAN)
pdiy ‘oy Dp Nniyins Ow abxa Swi; And thou, Beth-lehem Eph- ratah, is it” (or, “it is”) “little for thee to be amongst the thousands of Judah? Out of thee shall come forth unto me he that shall be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from the days of eternity.” That of old this prophecy was understood by the church ot the Jews to denote the place of the birth of the Messiah we have an illustrious testimony in the records of the Christian church, Matt. ii. 5, 6. Upon the demand of Herod where the Messiah should be born, the chief priests and scribes affirmed with one consent that he was to be born at Bethlehem, confirming their judgment by this ‘place of the prophet. And afterwards, when they supposed that our Lord Jesus had been born in Galilee, because he lived there, they made this an argument against him, because he was not born, accord- ing to the Scripture, in Bethlehem, the town where David was, John vi. 41, 42. And we have the concurrence of their own testi- mony in this matter, So the Chaldee paraphrase renders these words, win ne nyt? 512 ;—“ Out of thee shall come forth to me the ruler:” johw pay xv nnd pr ‘Ip 29;—“ Out of thee shall come forth to me the Messiah, who shall have the dominion;” taking it for granted that he it is who is spoken of in this place. So also R. Solomon expounds the place: nymd nen yn tim pdsa mynd yy mewn xvod qpp jaw maxon nn mbps yap mn’ opby minpwns apy OND JAN "MIN NIN YD) TT J2, etc.;—“‘ Little to be in the thousands of Judah;’ that is, thou deservest to be so, because of the profanation of Ruth the Moabitess, who was in thee. ‘Out of thee shall come forth to me the Messiah, the son of David.’ And so he saith, ‘The stone which the builders refused.’” And though Kimchi seems to deny that the Messiah shall be born in Bethlehem, yet he grants that