ONE thing that has caused an apparent difficulty touching the genealogy of Christ, is, that inquirers are not aware of the fact, that Matthew traces the genealogy of Joseph, from Abraham down, and that Luke traces the genealogy of Mary up to Adam. Matt. i.; Luke iii. This will account, in some degree, for the disagreement in names. They are evidently two distinct lines of genealogy, and the best authorities we can appeal to at present, give Matthew’s to Joseph and the other to Mary, and it is clear to any one, that one descends and that the other ascends.
The best evidence we can command, sustains the idea that Matthew wrote at an earlier date than Luke, and that he took his genealogy from the Jewish records, from Abraham to Joseph, as the Jews would be willing to believe their own records; and, that when Luke wrote, Joseph had been adopted into the family of Heli, (Eli, the same) Joseph’s father-in-law, some years, and, consequently, Luke copied the genealogy of Joseph through Heli, which was properly Mary’s genealogy, up to Adam.
There are, however, difficulties in these genealogies, which, we presume, no one can reconcile; but Matthew and Luke are not accountable for them, as they simply give these as the commonly received genealogies, which those in the day when they had the records to appeal to, never disputed. Had the Jews been able to involve the Apostle and Luke in a contradiction, they, no doubt, would willingly have done it, but this they could not do, without disputing their own records.
[ADHERING TO THE BIBLE.]
NO man should go to the Bible, or the God of the Bible, to teach him what man is, or what he should be; but he should go to the Bible to learn what he is, what he ought to be, and what he ultimately shall be. He should not go to the Bible to show what it should teach, but to learn what it does teach, for to this we shall all come in the end, whether it is congenial with our desires or not. We intend, therefore, to maintain it as it is, whether the number in favor of it is small or great. We intend to maintain the old distinction between saint and sinner, vice and virtue, good and bad, with the same meaning attached to them, regardless of all consequences. We shall speak of men being saved and lost, happy and miserable, justified and condemned, with the same ideas attached to the terms as heretofore, and sustained by all sound rules of interpretation, whether it shall be considered sense or foolishness. We shall continue to use the Bible terms, rewards and punishments, life and death, heaven and hell, in the same sense as we have been wont to do, knowing, as we do, that we are supported by the whole canon of sound criticism, and we most solemnly admonish all who fear God, against the glosses of that sickening and supercilious affectation, that induces any man, for one moment, to hesitate to declare to his fellow man, in the most faithful manner, the terrible threatenings of the Almighty against the impenitent.
Let no preacher shrink, in this age of sinfulness and pride; let no man of God be deterred by the ridicule of Universalists, by low wit of sceptics, or the vulgar mocking of atheists, from declaring the terrors of the Lord, for he says, “The Lord shall judge his people.” “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” “With lies you have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad, and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life.” “It is better to enter into life having one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched.” “The rich man died, and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torment.” Such is but a tithe of what abounds of this description throughout the New Testament. Is he a friend to his God or his fellow man, who knows such language to abound in the word of God, and shuns to declare it to those who hear him?