Luke 3

NOw in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cesar, Pontius Pilate being governour of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea, and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene.

Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. The Evangelist having given us an account, both of the Birth of Iohn the Baptist, and of our Saviour, and of all the Prophesies preceeding and attending them both, leaving the History of our Saviour a little, cometh to give us an account of the History of Iohn Baptist, his entrance upon his publick Ministry, and fulfilling of it. Iohn the Baptist had Six Months Seniority of our Saviour, and probably did appear so long before him to the World, as a publick Minister, the time of his beginning was in the fifteenth Year of the Reign of Tiberius Cesar. Tiberius Cesar was he who next succeeded Augustus (for all the Roman Emperors after Iulius Cesar, were called Cesars, as all the Kings of Egypt were called Pharaohs) he was as wicked a Prince as most who ruled the Roman Empire. Herod the Great (in whose time Christ was Born) was some time since dead, Archelaus began to Rule in his stead as a King, but the Romans changing the Government from a Monarchy to a Tetrarchy (that is, a Government of four) Archelaus, had only the Government of Iudea, Herod Antipas (another Son of Herod the Great) had the Government of Galilee under the Title of Tetrarch, and Philip another Son of his, had the Government of I urea, and Trachonitis, under the same Title of Tetrarch. And one Lysanids had the Government of Abilene (all four Strangers) So as at this time the Jews were all under the Government of Forreiners, the Scepter or Government was wholly departed from Iuda. Archelaus was soon after sent into France, and Pontius Pilate made Procurator or Governour of Iudea and Samaria. Annas and Caiaphas were the High Priests. By the Law of God, the eldest Son of the Family of Aaron was to be the High Priest. How there c me to be at this time two High Priests, is not agreed amongst Interpreters. Those who are curious in this Inquiry, may see what Mr. Pool has Collected for their satisfaction, in his Synopsis; we must know, that at this time the Jews were under the Power of the Romans, and all things amongst them were out of order. Some say the Iews had liberty to choose their High Priest, but then their Conquerors would turn him out, and sell the place to another. Others say that the High Priest had his Deputy, who also obtained the same Title. Others think, that as they had made the High Priesthood an Office, to which they chose one Annually, (which was by Gods Law an Office for Life) so the High Priest of the former year, still retained his Title for another year. We are at no certainty in these things. It is certain that at this time there were two that bare the Title of the High Priest, upon what account we cannot tell. It appeareth from Iohn 18.13. that the same Men three or four years after bare this Title of High Priest, whether chosen again or no we know not. But this was the time, when The Word of God came unto John the Son of Zacharias in the Wilderness. The same Iohn, of which we heard before, The Word of the Lord came to him, commanding him out to Preach the Gospel. It is a Phrase which is often used in the Old Testament, to signify the Influence of the Spirit of God upon the Prophets quickning them to their Work. And signifyeth to us, That no Man ought to take this Honour unto himself, until he be called of God, nor to speak in the Name of the Lord until first the Word of God cometh to him.

And he came into all the country about Jordan preaching the baptisme of repentance for the remission of sins. How long the time of Iohn's Ministry was before that he was shut up by Herod in Prison, the holy Scriptures do not certainly tell us; but it must be very short, for our Saviours time was little more then three years, and we hear of his imprisonment in the beginning of our Saviour's Publick Ministry. All that we have of Iohn's Ministry is to be found either in this Chapter, or in Matth. 3. or in Mark 1. or in the first, and third Chapters of Iohn. From them all it appeareth, That the Sum of his Doctrine, was the necessity of Repentance, and Faith in Christ, in order to the Remission of Sins. His pressing Faith in Christ is most clearly declared by the Evangelist Iohn; Matthew, Mark and Luke insist more upon his Preaching the Doctrine of Repentance, for the Remission of Sins, and Baptisme as an Evidence of it. Which Doctrine of repentance he pressed, both from Evangelical Motives, the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand, and from Legal Motives, or Arguments of Terror, The Axe is now laid to the Root of the Tree. In this setting an Example to all Ministers of the Gospel, showing them what should be the main Subjects of their Discourses, for we shall find that our Saviour Preached the same Doctrine, and in the same Method. What is here said, we before opened in our Notes, on Matth. 3.2. and Mar. 1.4. Iohn did not Preach that Baptisme was Repentance, or that Remission of Sins was infallibly annexed to it, but that the way to obtain Remission of Sins was by Repentance, and that Baptisme was an External Sign and Symbol of it.

As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth.

And all flesh shall see the salvation of God. All four of the Evangelists apply that Prophecy, Isaiah 40.3, 4, 5. to Iohn the Baptist. Luke only repeats what is v. 5. and 6. and in Isaiah, Chap. 40.4.5. and he does but shortly repeat what is in the Prophet, v. 5. the Prophet says, And the Glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all Flesh shall see it together, for the Mouth of the Lord has spok it. But there is nothing more usual, than for the Writers in th New Testament, in their Quotations out of the Old Testament, to repeat the sum of the Sense, not the Words strictly. For the understanding of that Prophecy, we must know, that there the Prophet Isaiah was sent to Comfort those amongst the Jews, who feared God partly with the assurance of them that they should return from Babylon, their warefare should have an end, Cyrus should deliver them, partly with the assurance of them, of a far greater deliverance, in and by the coming of the Messiah (of whom Cyrus was but a Type) to this purpose the Prophet sets out both Cyrus, and in that Type Christ's coming, as if both were present, and at Hand. Kings and great Princes coming (especially with Armies) have usually some co ing before them, as Pioneers, to prepare their way, by Levelling Rough places, and removing whatsoever is in the way of their Motions, and filling up Holes and Ditches, &c. nor are they far off when once their Harbingers, and Pioneers are arrived, or are seen coming, Iohn is here set out as an Harbinger to Christ, to prepare his way, or a Pioneer to fill up Ditches, throw down Hills, to make Rough-ways smooth, and every way to prepare the way for him. That all Flesh might see the Salvation of God. And as Princes that have Wildernesses to pass through, have more need of their Pioneers to prepare, and smooth their ways: So the State of the Jews being now confused, as a Wilderness, and Corrupt above Measure Iohn the Baptist was sent before to cry in the Wilderness, &c. This I take to be the true Sense of the Prophecy, and that it is mighty Vain to s rain these Metaphorical Phrases, and inquire what is meant by Valleys; Mountains, and Crooked-ways, they all most certainly signify the same thing, viz. whatsoever might be an hindrance to Peoples receiving of Christ, and to Philosophise further about them, is but to show the Luxuriancy of our Wit, rather than any Solidity of Judgment. The whole Scope of these three Verses, is but to show, That as Kings, and Princes and Governours of Armies, have used to have Harbingers, and Pioneers or other Officers to go before them, to remove things out of the way of them and their Retinue, and to prepare their way: So had Christ, and Iohn the Baptist was the Man whom the Lord pitched upon for that purpose, by his Preaching to bring Men to a Sense of their Sins, and off from their wicked Courses, and to show them their need of a Saviour, that so when Christ came himself forth to Preach, People might not be wholly ignorant, but in some measure prepared to receive the joyful Tidings of the Gospel, which he brought unto them.

Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within your selves, We have Abraham to our father, For I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the tree, every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire. See the Notes on Matth. 3.7, 8, 9 10. where we met with all this with no Alteration, save that Matthew says that he spoke this to the Pharisees and Sadducees, seeing them come to his Baptisme, tho he did especially intend them, yet he spake in the hearing of the Multitude, amongst whom they were.

And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?

He answereth and says unto them, He that has two coats, let him impart to him that has none, and he that has meat let him do likewise. Altho the Preaching of the Law, does not immediately Conduce to work in us Faith in Christ, yet mediately it does, as it brings Men to cry out as those, Acts 2.37. Men and Brethren what sha l we do? Or as the Jaylor, Acts 16: Sirs what shall we do o be saved? Iohn Preaching Gods Terrors, has this effect upon the People, they ask him, what shall we do then? t Baptists Answer may seem a little strange to those who do not consider, that it amounts to the same with Daniels Counsel to Nebuchadnezar, Dan. 4.27. Wherefore O King let my Counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy Sins by Righteousness, and thine Iniquities by showing mercy to the Poor, and what Iohn had said, v. 8. Bring therefore Fruits worthy of Repentance. Our Saviour said much the same, Ch. 11.41. Give Alms of such things as you have, and Peter commandeth, 1 Pet. 4.8. Above all things have fervent Charity amongst your selves, for Charity shall cover a Multitude of Sins. Solomon says it covereth all Sins, Prov. 10.12. The Peoples question was, What shall we do? What are the Fruits meet for Repentance, that is, truly indicative of Repentance? To this now Iohn answereth. He that has two Coats, let him impart to him that has none. Which must not be interpretted, as obliging every one that had two Coats, to give away one, but as Instructive of us, that Ceremonies, and Ritual performances, in which that Age aboundeth, would not serve their turn, but true, and real good Works, relieving the Poor to their Ability, out of their Superfluities, out of Obedience and Love to God, not merely pitying them, and saying to them Go ye and be ye Cloathed, or be ye warmed, not saying Corban, and thinking that would excuse them from relieving their Parents, or other poor People, but according to their Ability relieving them. Iohn does not here Countenance Anabaptistical Levelling, he only Cautions them against Pharisaical Hypocrisy, trusting to External Priviledges, such as having Abraham to their Father, or some Ritual, and Ceremonial Performances, whiles in the mean time they neglected the weighty things of the Law, of which Christ has taught us that Mercy is one.

Then came also publicanes to be baptised, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?

And he said unto them, Exact no more then that which is appointed you. We have showed often before that the Publicanes were Men, that Collected the Publick Revenue; in all times, that sort of Men have been charged with Exactions of what was more than their due. The Baptist, as a Fruit or Indication of the Truth of their Repentance, cautioneth them against Exaction, thereby declaring, That Acts of Justice as well as Mercy are true Fruits of Repentance, and that Repentance is vainly pretended, while Men go on in the same Sinful Courses, wherein they have formerly walked. Our Lord here does not disapprove of the Office of Publicanes, nor certainly was that to be Condemned, if Magistrates may impose Taxes, and Payments, which without question they may for the support of the Government for our Protection, there is no question, but they may appoint Officers under what Titles they please to Collect it. But both those that impose, and those that Collect such Payments, are obliged to the Rule of Justice. The former to impose no more then is necessary for the end, and in a just Proportion; The others to exact no more than what is appointed them.

And the souldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsly, and be content with your wages. A good, and faithful Minister of Christ, should be one able to bring out of his Store-house, things New and Old, to give every one their Portion in their Season, and so Courageous, and Faithful, as not to be afraid to do it, nor for any reason decline the doing of it. Such was Iohn the Baptist. These were the Roman Souldiers, kept by them to maintain their Conquest of Iudea. Some of these also come to hear Iohn the Baptist preach, hearing him press Repentance, and bringing forth Fruits that might testify the truth of it. They ask what they should do to them. Iohn says, Do Violence to no Man, &c. experience has taught all People, that Souldiers, (especially imployed to keep Garrisons amongst a Conquered People) are often very insolent, and for their own gain prone to accuse Innocent Persons, and the jealousy of Conquerours often allows them too easie an Ear, as also how apt they are by Oppression to mend their short Commons, or to exact upon others, that they may spend Luxuriously. All these are Acts, or Species of Injustice, which the Baptist lets them know must be left, if they would bring forth Fruits fit for Repentance. He does not blame the Employment of a Souldier, but only regulates their behaviour in that imployment. Wars in just causes, are undoubtedly lawful under the Gospel, and Consequently so is the imployment of a Souldier, we read of several good Centurions or Captains of hundreds. But the Souldier stands highly concerned to look, that the cause be good, in which he draweth his Sword. 2. That he behaveth himself in it lawfully, not using any needless Violence, not accusing any wrongfully, not indeavouring to mend his Pay by any Rapine, or injustly taking away what is anothers, either to spend in Luxury, or to uphold himself in his Station. From this Instruction of Iohn the Baptist, we may learn several things concerning the Nature of Repentance. 1. That where there is a true Root of Repentance, it will bring forth Fruits worthy of it. 2. That Acts of Mercy and Iustice, are true and proper Fruits of a true Repentance, without which there can be nothing of it in Truth. 3. That true Repentance is best discovered by our abhorrence of, and declining such Sinful Courses as we have formerly been addicted to, and have daily Temptations to from the Circumstances of our Lives, and those callings, and places, and Courses of Life, wherein the Providences of God has fixe us. 4. That these things Repentance and Faith, are such proper effects of both as discover the truth of those Gracious Habits in the Soul, and without which there can be no true Evidence of them.

And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ or not? It being known to many what the Angel had told Zacharias concerning Iohn, thirty years since, and what had Miraculously happened at his Circumcision, as also what Zacharias his Father had Prophesied concerning him, and there having been many who had observed, the Holiness, and Severity of his Life all along, until he came to Mans E tate, and knowing that the time was fulfilled for the coming of the Messias, the Scepter being now departed from Iudah, and Daniels Weeks being accomplished, and hearing him Preach with that Life and Power, which attended his Ministry, as also considering his Doctrine, (not new in it self, being Consonant to the Divine Law, and the Doctrine of the Prophets but) new to them, who had used to hear of Rites and Ceremonies, and the Traditions of the Elders, but little or nothing of Repentance, or bringing forth Fruits worthy of it, they began to Reason and Debate with themselves, whether Iohn the Baptist were not the Messiah promised, and in great suspence they were about it. But Iohn quickly satisfyed them as to that, not desirous to Arrogate to himself his Honour, whose Menssenger only he was.

John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water, but one mightier then I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose, he shall baptize you with the holy Ghost, and with fire.

Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner, but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.

And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people. See the Notes upon Matth. 3.11, 12. and on Mar. 1.7, 8. Iohn the Baptist in these Verses does not only assure them, that he was not the Christ, but also lets them know, that Christ was coming amongst them, and that he was more excellent than he, and should Baptize them with the Holy Ghost, and with Fire. with Fire as the Symbol of the holy Ghost; so some understand it, expounding it as a Prophecy of the descent of the holy Ghost, Acts 2.3. others possibly better expound it of the holy Ghost, working in the Souls of Believers as Fire, Purging them, and Burning up their Lusts, and Corruptions. And many other things in his Exhortation he Preached unto the People. By which Words the Evangelist lets us know, that what he and the other Evangelists have Reported concerning Iohns Preaching, was but the Sum of it.

But Herod the tetrarch being reproved by him, for erodias his brother Philips wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done.

Added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison. These two Verses sufficiently Confirm to us, that we are not to expect to find the several passages in the Gospel concerning Iohn the Baptist, set down according to the order of time, in which they happened, for the Evangelist sets down the imprisonment of Iohn, before the Baptisme of Christ mentioned in the two next Verses, which we know could not be as to the order of time, our Saviour being Baptized by Iohn. Iohn was in so great Repute, that Herod himself heard him, did many things, and heard him gladly, Mar. 6.20. But Iohn was a faithful Preacher, and could not but reprove him for his wicked Courses, particularly for his Incestuous taking of his Brother Philips Wife; for he was alive when he took her, if it be true which Historians tells us that Iohn was imprisoned in the sixteenth Year of Tiberius Caesar, and Philip died not till the twentieth, however, his Brother leaving issue (for we read Herodias had a Daughter, Matth. 14.) it was unlawful for him to have Married her, especially to turn away his own Wife to take her. Matthew reporteth this History more fully, Chap. 14.3, 4. &c. see the Notes there. It is said, that Herod, addeth yet this above all, that is, above all his former or other Wickedness, that he shut up John in Prison. This spake him incorrigible in his wicked Courses, resisting the Remedy, or means to reduce him. An Hypocrite may hear the Word, and do many things, but he has always some particular Lust, as to which he must be spared, being neither willing to part with it, nor able to bear any reproof for it.

Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying the heaven was opened.

And the holy Ghost descended in a odily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice cam from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased, This History of our Saviours Baptisme, is reported both by Matthew and Mark, much, most largely by Matthew, see the Notes on Matth. 3.13. &c. Luke only addeth those Words, And Praying, which teacheth us that Prayers ought to be joyned with Baptisme. What was the matter of his Prayer, we are not told, tho the following Words incline, some not improbably to judge that he Prayed for some Testimony from Heaven concerning him.

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Here is amongst Criticks a little dispute, whether our blessed Lord at his Baptisme (after which he soon began his Publick Ministry) was full thirty years of Age and in the Greek, give occasion to the doubt. Those who judge that he was thirty complete, conceive that the Age before which the Priests and Levites, did no Service in the Tabernacle of God, Num. 4.3. commanded the number of them to be taken from thirty years old to fifty, and it was done accordingly, v. 34, 35. &c. David in the latter end of his Life so numbred them, 1 Chron. 23.3. when their number (of that Age) was thirty eight thousand, yet in that Chapter, v. 24. and 27. we find them numbred from twenty years Old and upward (but possibly, that was for some more inferiour Service, in Conformity to this, most think that both Iohn the Baptist, and Christ entred not upon their Publick Ministry, till they were of that Age, but whether they were thirty years of Age, Complete, or Current, is a question, but so little a one, as deserves no great Study to resolve, the two qualifying Words and, would incline one to think Christ was but thirty years of Age Current, which is advantaged, by what others tell us, that the Iews ordinarily called a Child two, or three years Old, as soon as it did but enter upon its second or third year. Some think our Saviour was Ten Months above twenty nine years of Age, when he was Baptized, after which he was tempted of the Devil forty Days, before he entred the Publick Ministry, but these are little things. [Being (as was supposed) the Son of Ioseph.] Ioseph was not his Natural Father, tho so supposed by the Jews, Ioseph being indeed his Legal Father, being Married to the Virgin, when our Saviour was Born, Matth. 1.20.

Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph.

Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge.

Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda.

Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri.

Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er.

Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi.

Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim.

Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David.

Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson.

Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the fon of Juda.

Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor.

Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala.

Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech.

Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God, There have been great Disputes, about the Genealogy of our Saviour, as recorded both by Matthew and Luke. The Adversaries of Christian Religion have taken no small advantage, from the seeming difference betwixt them, which even many Sober Writers have thought it no easie matter to Reconcile. The Apostle has cautioned us against giving too much heed to endless Genealogies, which minister Questions rather then Godly Edif ing, ich is in Faith, 1 Tim. 1.4. yet certainly it is our Duty, as well for the stopping the Mouths of such as would Clamour against the truth of the whole Scripture (if not of the whole Christian Religion) s so far as we can to Vindicate holy Writ from their little Cavils, and thereby also to confirm those who are Weak in Faith. To make these things as clear as we can: It is plain that both the Evangelists agree in their Design by setting down the Genealogy of our Saviour, to prove him Leneally descended both from Abraham, and David, the two Persons to whom was made the promise of the Messiah, and the Stability of his Kingdom, and also in the Names of the first fourteen Generations, mentioned by Matthew and here by Luke, v. 32, 33. and to Abraham, v. 34. Their disagreement lyeth in four things 1. In the form of the Pedegree. Matthew, beginning with those who were first, Luke with those that were last in order of time. But this is no valuable Exception, one Evangelist counts forward, another backward. 2. Matthew counts by three Periods, each consisting of fourteen Generations, Luke does not, but neither is this of any Moment. 3. Matthew sets down our Saviours Genealogy, before he tells us any thing of his Concept on or Birth. Luke after his Relation of his Conception, Birth, and Baptisme. 4. Matthew deriveth our Saviours Genealogy but from Abraham, Luke from Adam. All these differences, lay no Foundation for any Exception. Several accounts are given, why Luke carrieth up the Genealogy to Adam, the best seemeth to be this: That Matthew intending his History Primarily for the Jews, judged it enough to prove Christ, the Son of Abraham, and the Son of David; but Luke designing the in ormation of the whole World, deriveth him from the common Father of Mankind By which means he also shows, the Antiquity of the Gospel, and lets us know that Christ was he who was promised to Adam, before Abrahams time, and that the Grace of the Gospel is not limited to the Seed of Abraham. Thus also Luke supplyeth what was wanting in Matthew, and truly deriveth both the first, and second Act from God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of us all. But besides these differences (hardly worth the taking notice of under that notion) there are some seeming contradictions in the Genealogies, yet not such, but I think a fair account may be given of, to any who will but first consider, 1. That they all lye, in what Luke has from v. 23. to v. 32 and from the latter end of v. 34. to the end. So that in v. 32.33. and part of 34. we have nothing to reconcile. 2. That these Words [the Son] is in the Greek only v. 23. where Christ is said to be the Son of Ioseph, but ever after it is supplyed by the Translators. So as the Greek runs thus. The Son of Joseph, which was of Heli, which was of Matthat, which was of Levi, which was of Melchi, &c. Which consideration cuts off the first cavil how Ioseph could be the Son of Iacob (as Matthew says) and the Son of Heli, as Luke says; for indeed Luke says no more than, v. 23. And Iesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed the Son of Joseph,) which was the Son of Heli. That is, Christ was of Heli, the supposed Son of Ioseph, but truly of Heli, the Father of Mary, his Mother. I know that some think that Iacob was also called Heli, (as it was ordinary with the Jews to have two Names,) others think that Ioseph is called the Son, because he was the Son-in-Law of Heli, by the Marriage of the Virgin Mary his Daughter, (Naomi calleth those her Daughters, which were but her legal Daughters Ruth 1.11.) in this the most agree, but I must confess I think it is Christ, who is here said to be of Heli, (tho he was reputed, and generally taken to be the Son of Ioseph.) 3. That Luke is here deriving our Saviour, not from his supposed Father Ioseph, but from Mary his true Mother. It is not to be conceived that Luke after such a narration of the predictions of his conception as he had given us in the first Chap. should go to derive Christ from Ioseph, and this gives us a fair account why the Names are so different from Davids time to the Birth of Christ. Ioseph (whose pedigree Matthew relates) deriving from Solomon who was the Son of David succeeding him in the Kingdom. Mary (whose pedigree Luke relates) descending from Nathan v. 31. 1 Chron. 3.5. tells us he was another Son of David. So as after Davids time, the Persons named which before were the same in our Saviours Pedigree became diverse, some the Progenitors of Ioseph, whom Matthew reckons, others the Progenitors of Mary, whom Luke nameth. This answereth the objection, from the differing number of the Persons from Ioseph to Zorobabel, (excluding them both) Matthew reckoneth but nine, Luke here reckoneth 18 in v. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. From Zorobabel to David Luke reckons 22 Progenitors, Matthew but 14. (leaving out three Kings o the hal Blood of A, of which we gave an account in our Notes o Matthew 1.) so as the Scripture nameth 17. tho Matthew leaves out 3. in two different Lines; it is not impossible that one person in so many years might have so many more Progenitors than another, supposing Matthew designed to reckon all, which it is plain from his leaving out three Kings named in Scripture that he did not. 4. That ordinarily the Jews had two Names, sometimes three, all Iosiahs Sons had each of them two at least. Matthew had also the Name of Levi, &c. This solves the difference from v. 27. where Rhesa is said to be the Son of Zorobabel, when as Matthew says ch. 1.13. Zorobabel begat Abiud. That Abraham was the Son of Terah or Thara, and Terah the Son of Nachor, appeareth from Gen. 11.24. 26. That Saruch or Sarug, was the Son of Reu or Ragau, appeareth from Gen. 11.20. 1 Chron. 1.25. that Reu was the Son of Peleg, (here called Phalec) and Peleg the Son of Eber, and Eber the Son of Sala appears from Gen. 11.18. 1 Chron. 1.25. But in Genesis 11. we read, that Sala was the Son of Arphaxad v. 12. whereas he is here said to be the Son of Cainan, and Cainan is made the Son of Arphaxed. So as Luke maketh Sala Grandchild to Arphaxad, Moses makes no mention of Cainan at all, but mentions Salah, as begotten by Arphaxad. Those who are curious to know what is said for the resolution of this difficulty, may read it largely both in Spanheims dubia Evangelica, and Mr. Pools Synopsis Criticorum. It is a difficulty which has exercised many very learned Men, and I doubt whether ever any yet satisfied himself in the resolution of it. It is not probable that Luke should correct what Moses said, the best account I can give of it is, the Septuagint in Gen. 11, 12. have it just as Luke here has it, and it is certain, that Luke in his quotations out of the old Testament, does generally follow the Septuagint, (being the translation most in use among them) Beza tells us of an ancient Copy of the Gospel he had, which mentioneth no Cainan. The best of it is, that it is a matter of no great moment, for the Question is not, whether Sala was the Son of Arphaxad, (for so he was, tho Arphaxad was his Grandfather, in the same sense that Christ is called the Son of Abraham, and the Son of David, and Elizabeth the Daughter of Aaron ch. 1.1.) but whether he was the immediate Son of Arphaxad, or Cainan, whether Moses omitted Cainan, or some transcriber of Luke added Cainan out of the Septuagint (being then the current Translation among them) the last is most probable. For the other part of the Genealogy v. 36, 37, 38. it plainly agreeth with Gen. 5, 6, &c. & 6.10. So that I must profess I see no great difficulty to reconcile the Genealogies, admitting the one to give the Genealogy of Ioseph, and the other, to give the Genealogy of Mary; that indeed Mary was the Daughter of Heli, is not to be proved by Scripture, nor yet contradicted, but it is very probably judged so. And tho we cannot prove that Cainan, mentioned v. 36. was added out of some latter Copies of the Septuagint, yet it is more than probable it was so; which two things if we admit, I see no great difficulty remaining, but a fair agreement betwixt both the Evangelists. For I presume none will stumble at the alteration of some letter, or omission of some letter in a Name, or addition to it in the end; there is nothing more ordinary than that, when Names are mentioned in several Languages.