Page images
PDF
EPUB

and seemed the last efforts of a desperate cause, ráther than a satisfactory solution.

Is it a solution of this difficulty? is it a proof that Jesus descended from the family of David, as had been predicted, to say that the evangelists insert the genealogy of Joseph, and omit that of Mary, Jesus Christ being reputed the son of a carpenter, and having been probably adopted by him, was invested with all his rights, the genealogy of the reputed father, and the adopted son, being accounted the same, though of different extraction? Would not this have been the way to flatter a lie, not to establish a truth? Did the prophets merely say, that the Messiah was the reputed son of a man descended from David's line? Did they not say in a manner the most clear and explicit in the world, that he was lineally descended from that family?-Is it a solution of the difficulty, to say that Mary was heiress of her house, that the heiresses were obliged by the law, to marry in their own tribe; and that giving the genealogy of Joseph, was giving the genealogy of Mary, to whom he was betrothed? Is it not rather a supposition of the point in dispute? And what record have we left of Mary's family sufficiently authentic to prove it?

Is it a solution of the difficulty to say, that St. Matthew gives the genealogy of Christ, considered as a King, and St. Luke the genealogy of Christ, considered as a priest; that the one gives the genealogy of Mary, whom they pretend was of the tribe of Levi, which establishes the right of Christ to the High-priesthood; the other gives the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David's family, which es

tablishes his right to the kingdom? Is not this opposing the words of St. Paul with a bold front? If perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not to be called after the order of Aaron. For he of whom these things are spoken, pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar; for it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood after the similitude

of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, who is made, not after the law of carnal commandments, but after the power of an endless life, Heb. vii. 11—16. These are the words of our apostle.

Without augmenting the catalogue of mistaken solutions of this difficulty, we shall attend to that which seems the only true one. It is this: St. Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus Christ, and he is so called in the second chapter, and forty-eighth verse, of St. Luke. And it is very important, that posterity should know the family of the illustrious personage; to whose superintendance Providence had committed the Messiah in early life.

St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, to identify that Jesus Christ had the essential characteristic of the Messiah, by his descent from David's family. It was also very important for posterity to know that he descended from David; that he had a right to the throne, not only as being the reputed son of one of his offspring, who could confer it by adoption; but also that being conceived by the Holy Ghost,

and having for his mother a woman descended from David, according to the flesh, he himself descended from him, as much as it is possible for a being to descend, introduced so supernaturally into the world. be

According to what has been advanced, it may objected, that there is no mention made of Mary in the latter genealogy, more than in the former, that both concern Joseph alone; that St. Luke, whomwe presume to have given the genealogy of Mary, closes his catalogue with the name of Joseph, as well as St. Matthew, whom we allow to have given the genealogy of Mary's husband.

But this objection can strike those only, who are unacquainted with the method uniformly adopted by the Jews in giving the genealogy of married women. They substituted the name of the husband for that of the wife, considering a man's son-in-law as his own offspring. According to this usage, which I could support by numerous authorities; these words of St. Luke, Jesus began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, which was the Son of Heli: amount to this, Jesus began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, which was the son-inlaw of Heli, having betrothed his daughter Mary. This is sufficient on the genealogy of Mary.

But who are those called by the evangelist, brethren of Christ? One said unto him, and these are the words of my text, Behold thy mother, and thy brethren, stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

The opinion which has had the fewest partizans, and fewer still it merits, (nor should we notice it

here, were it not to introduce a general remark, that there never was an opinion, how extravagant soever, but it found supporters among the learned,) the opinion, I say, is that of some of the ancients : they have ventured to affirm, that the persons called in my text, the brethren of Christ, were sons of the holy virgin, by a former husband. To name this opinion is sufficient for its refutation.

The conjecture of some critics, though less extravagant, is equally far from truth: they presume, that the brethren of Christ were sons of Joseph: a single remark will supersede this notion. Four persons are called the brethren of Christ, as appears from Matt. xiii. 54.; it is there said, that his acquaintance, the people of Nazareth, talked of him in this way: Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works! Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? This James is unquestionably the same who is called the less. Now it is indisputable that he was the son of Mary, who was living at our Saviour's death: she was sister to the holy virgin, and stood with her at the foot of the cross during the crucifixion. Hence, if James were the son of Joseph, he must have been betrothed to the holy virgin, while married to her sister, who was living when he contracted his second marriage, which is insupportable.

Let us, therefore, follow here the general course of interpreters. The name of brethren, is not always used in the strictest sense by the sacred authors. It is not peculiarly applied to those who

[blocks in formation]

have the same father and the same mother: it frequently refers to the relatives less connected. In this sense we use it here. Mary, the wife of Cleophas, was sister to the holy virgin; and the term sister the evangelists apply in the closest sense. She bad four sons, above named, and they are called the brethren of Christ, because they were his cousins german. She had two daughters, who, for the same reasons, are called his sisters. If this hypothesis be attended with some difficulties, this is not the place for their removal.

It was a most glorious consideration to the holy virgin, to James, to Judas, to Joses, to Simon, and to their sister, to be so nearly related to Jesus Christ in the flesh. How honourable to say, this man, whose sermons are so sublime,-this man, whose voice inverts the laws of nature, this man, whom winds, seas, and elements obey,-is my brother, is my son! So the woman exclaimed, after hearing him so conclusively refute the artful interrogations of his enemies, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But how superior are the ties, which unite the family of Jesus Christ according to the Spirit, to those which unite them according to the flesh! So he said to the woman above named, Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it, Luke xi. 27, 28. In my text, when apprised that his most intimate relations, in the flesh, desired an audience, he acknowledged none to be of his family but the spiritually noble. Behold thy mother, and thy brethren, said one, stand without, desiring to speak with thee. Who is my mo

« PreviousContinue »