there any great »Difficulry, in allowing Jehojachim the Father, as 1aKIM, an 1KIM DEAT 21Z0T. | ; well as Feh9jachin the Son to be called Feconiah ( fo near are the 14 And Azor begat Sadoc, and Sadoc begat Achim, Names a-kin, and the fignification of both the ſame : ) Bur then the | and Achim begat Eltud.
Queſtion is, How Foſ7ah could be ſaid to beger Fehojachim, about 1s AndEliud begat Elegzar.and Eleazar begat Mart- the time of the carrying into the Captivity of Babylon ? For it ap- Y 4 Matthan b b
peareth by 2 Chron, 36. 5. that Jehojachim was twenty five years 01d than, an atthan begat Jaco =
when he began to Reign, and he Reigned eleven years ; and in his time Here are divers Obje&ions made to this laſt part of the Genea- was the firſt carrying into Babylon, ſo that there muſt be thirry ſe- | logy, and in a great meaſure cauſed from the difference berween ven years betwixr the begetting of Fehojakim and the firſt Tranſ- | Matthew and Luke; bur I ſhall nor artempr any Reconciliation of Prtation into. Babylon, The Margent of our Bibles tell us of another | thoſe Differences, till I come to Luke, c<.3. There is no Abiud Reading; 7oſeas begat Fakim Zakim and Fehyjakimare the fame) | reckoned amongſt the Sons of Zoobabel, 1 Chron. 3. 19, 20. And and Fakim begar Fechoniah ( that is, Fehojachim._) Beza thinks this | tor the others named, we have no certain Account of them, in any the trueſt reading taken our of an old Copy of R. Stephens, mag- | part of the Holy wrir. From the time of 7ehyjachim were above ned by Stapulenſis and Bucer, Bur he thinks ir ſhould be thus : | five hundred years, to the Birth of Chriſt ; of which ſeventy were Toſias begat Fakim, and his Brethren ( for we know that Fofiah had | ſpent in the Captivity of Babylon : Zorobabel was alive ar the end of four Sons) and Fakim begat Feconiah ( that is, Fehojakin atout the | the Captivity, Exra 5. 2. And, as it appears, the Ruley of the Fews, - time of the cgrrying into the Captivity of Babylon. For Fehojachin or | tho' not under the title and ſtyle of King: For Eliakim, Azor, Sadocy
ecomah was not nine years old when himſelf was carried away, | Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan and Facob, tho' we have no mention and his Father was carried away before. Law the carrying away | of them in any Canonical Boobs of Holy writ, but only this; yer nt) Babylon ] The Greek Prepofition 7} doth not ſignifie any de- | Matthew's Credit in the Church of God, oughr to. outweigh any terminare certain time, bur doth include ſomerimes many.and di- | other Writings, pretending any ching contrary to whar he faith : int rimes, as ic muſt do here; for Foſiah began to Reign ar eighr | We are therefore obliged to believe they all lineally deſcended froni years hay +; DR chirry one years, ſo that he died at thirty | David ; but living in a private Ky and Condition, and _ '0l, IL Y A wr
REED En —_—— + mm ty. —
= — — = V ———..._._-.- __—_ tn OD 0 _ : 4 p)
- = = LL
Cy"; Ix A. : : £.4 _ not. X.—- - == — = - —_— Y a —_—_—_ - . Cu _ »
- 5 £- © 4 OED ———_——_— - T ERIN SS — a= => - =Y X —— — —_— —_ — _ - $ —_ = ny 5 NS , PAIR corny X w
Chap. I St. MAT
wrir not extending irs Hiſtory beyond Zorobabel's time, (rhe time when the Jews came our of Babylon,) it is no wonder that we have no better means than we have from Holy-writ to know their 1i- neal Deſcent from the Royal Family. That Matthew, in what he wrote, vas guided by the unerring Spirit, and that he had Rolls of Pedezro:s, which we want, we have reaſon to believe. This 1s enough tor us Chriſtians, who own the Books of the New as well as the 01d Te/t:ment, to be wrote by Perfons divinely inſpired; fo char as ro them, we have nothing to do, bur to reconcile Matthew and Luke both, whom we own to have had the ſame infallible In- ſpiration and Diretion. It Fews or Pagans argue from any other Tpich than this, 1 is enough totell chem, Thar the Fews kept exaft Genealogics, and more eſpecially as ro the Defcents in the Tribes of Fudeh and Levi, thar they might never be ar lots as to rae Meſ- fſiah, whom they expedted, as the Sm of David ;, nor yet as to the true Hizh-Prieſt. Tho' theſe Records, and Rolls of Genealogy, be now loſt, yet we have no reaſon to believe they were ſo 1n Mat- thew's time ; of which Genealogies, (as to rhis part) doubtleſs what Matthew ſaith was but a Copy, diretted by thar Holy Spirit, by which he was inſpired.
16 And Jacob begat Joſeph, the Husband of Mary , of whom was born Jeſus, who is called Chriſt.
How Luke comerh to make Foſeph the Son of Hcli, we ſhall 1n- quire (if God pleaſe) when we come to his third Chapter : Bur from this Verſe ariſeth a very weighty Queſtion; viz. Hw, or where- fore, the Evangeliſt in deriving the Pedegree of Chriſt , bringeth the Line down to Joſeph, from whom our Saviour did mt deſcend, being no fleſh of bis flaſh; Chriſt being che promiſed Meſſ.15, the Prophecy, 1/a. 7. 14. muſt be, and was fulfillzd in him. A Virgin ſhall con- cerve and bear a Son, and th ſhalt ca!l his name Emanuel. Now it 79/-ph were nat the true, but only the /egal or ſupp;jed Father of Chriſt, What had the Evangeliſt ro do with his G-n2a/ozy? Many Anſwers are given to this ; tome think thar the Evangeliſt accom- modateth himſelf ro the Valgar Opinim; they rook him generally for cae rrue and natural Son of Zyep! : They faid, 1s nt this the Carpenter's Son? Bur then the Roly Spirix muſt have attempted to have proved a Concluſion true; trom a Mca7um that was falſe, which muſt by no nieans be allowed : Beſides, neither could this be Mrtthew's deſign, who afterwards relaterh the Myſtery of our Saviour's Inczrr.ation plain enough ; and rells us, v. 18. That Mary was fund with Child before Joſeph and ſhe came together. Orhers thereHre ſay, thar amongſt tne Jews the Genealogies of Women uſe n2t to be reckoned. How univerſally true that is, I cannor tel] : Generally it is very probable, as being uſual almoſt with all Na- nions to reckon Deſcents from the Males. In the preſent Caſe it is