66

"three hundred years after Christ to expound this doctrine; and I "will tell you on what occasion," &c. ....." God commands us to "believe that there is a union and that there is a distinction; but "what that union or what that distinction is, all mankind are equally "ignorant; and must continue so, at least till the day of judgment, "without some new revelation. Therefore, I shall again repeat the "doctrine of the Trinity, as it is positively affirmed in Scripture,— "that God is there expressed in three different names, as Father, as Son, and as Holy Ghost; that each of these is God, and that "there is but one God. But this union and distinction are a mys"tery utterly unknown to mankind. This is enough for any good "Christian to believe on this great article, without ever enquiring "further; and this can be contrary to no man's reason, although the "knowledge of it is hid from him."......" From what has been "said, it is manifest that God did never command us to believe, nor "his servants to preach, any doctrine which is contrary to the reason he hath been pleased to endue us with; but for his own "wise ends hath thought fit to conceal from us the nature of the "thing he commands, thereby to try our faith and obedience, and "increase our dependence on him. It is highly probable, that if "God should please to reveal unto us this great mystery of the Trinity, or some other mysteries of our holy religion, we should "not be able to understand them, unless he should at the same time "think fit to bestow on us some new powers or faculties of the "mind, which we want at present, and which are reserved till the "resurrection to life eternal; for now,' as the Apostle says, 'we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face.' Reason itself "is true and just; but the reason of every particular man is weak "and wavering, perpetually swayed or turned by his interests, his "passions, or his vices."-(Swift's Sermon on the Trinity; Works, Vol. 11, old edition.)

66

66

66

6

St. Patrick simplified it (the Trinity) in making use of a Shamrock and certainly the Shamrock is an excellent sensible emblem of the Trinity; for it has but one nature, the one source or stem, and three distinct leaves, whereof one is not and cannot be the other. Water, in like manner, serves as an example; for it is the same in the source, the same in the river, and the same in the sea; the source produces the river, and the source and the river produce the sea; and yet they are perfectly distinct, for the source is not the river, nor the source or river the sea. The like argument may be taken from the circulation of the blood, &c.

X

APPENDIX IV.

THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR SAVIOUR.

REV. SIR,

TO THE REV. CHARLES LE BLANC.

I shall in this letter offer first a few observations on the Genealogy of our Blessed Lord according to St. Matthew. He had principally in view in this genealogy, to show the accomplishment of the prophecies in the person of Jesus Christ, and he accordingly commences by calling him "the Son of David, the Son of Abraham,” because to these two Patriarchs the special promise was made, that the Messiah should be born of their blood; and consequently that great Evangelist proceeds through the different generations: “Abraham,” says he, "begat Isaac, &c. &c." I refer you to this genealogy, and also to the Notes, on the 8th verse of the 1st chapter of St. Matthew, "And Joram begat Ozias; "* note on verse 11 (Ibid.), "Josias begat Jechonias; "† note on verse 16 (Ibid.), “ And Jacob

* "Joram begat Ozias;" three are omitted, Ochosias, Joas, and Amasias, the mixture of the blood of Achab with that of David is the cause of it, God having declared to Achab that in punishment of his impieties and of his crimes he would exterminate his race; he promised to David that his race should always subsist, and that it would reign for many centuries. We see here the accomplishment of the Promise and of the Threat. The blood of David perpetuates itself and continues to reign in Juda; but three Kings of Juda, descendants of Achab by Athalia his daughter, the wife of Joram, are suppressed in the list of kings, and by this suppression a doubt is raised of the way which they might be placed in by the proscription of the impious Achab. In fine, this omission of three generations is not material, the design of St. Matthew being only to shew the Jews that Jesus their Messiah was of the Family of David, though the said three generations be left out, for Ozias may be called the son of Joram, though Joram was his great grandfather.

† Verse 11: "Josias begat Jechonias, &c." The genealogy of Christ, as it appears by the 17th verse, is divided by the Evangelist into thrice fourteen generations, and so it is to contain forty-two persons. The first class of

begat Joseph the Husband of Mary;"* note on verse 25 (Ibid.), "Till-first born."†

fourteen begins with Abraham, and ends with David. The second class begins with Solomon, and ends with Jechonias. The third class is supposed to begin with Salathiel, and to end, says St. Jerome, with our Saviour Christ. But thus we shall only find in the third class thirteen generations, and in all forty-one, instead of forty-two; not to mention in these short remarks other interpretations, the conjecture of St. Epiphanius seems the most probable, that we are to understand the two Jechonias', the Father and the Son, who had the same name. So that the true reading should be, Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren; and Jechonias begat Jechonias; and Jechonias begat Salathiel. Thus Jechonias named in the 12th verse, is not the same, but the Son of him who was named in the 11th verse; and from Jechonias the Son, begins the third class, and so Christ himself will be the last or fourteenth person in that last Series, or Class.

Verse 16: "Jacob begat Joseph." Although Jesus Christ was the Son of Mary and not of Joseph, we are always inclined to ask why St. Matthew has given the genealogy of Joseph instead of Mary? The reason is, because this Evangelist conformed to the custom of the Hebrews, who in their genealogies took no notice of women; but as they were near akin, the pedigree of the one sheweth that of the other; however, if there be any difficulty in regard to it, it is more than probable that this Evangelist had a perfect knowledge of this point when he wrote. The Jews must have known that Christ was the Son of David, that is, that he descended from him; and, permit me to say, that the knowledge of this fact was then absolutely necessary, when the knowledge of it ceased to be necessary, it died away. We must not be surprised at this, for nothing is unprofitable in Holy Scripture: "I am the Lord thy God who teaches thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldst go."—(Isaiah xlviii. 17.) But what is useful at one time, may not be so at another. It is quite sufficient that God gives us a knowledge of each text when its utility is required; thus those who have preceded, have had these great lights given them to explain those points, which (lights) have not come down to those who followed them; and on the other hand, those who have followed, have had illuminations on other points, which those who have preceded them have not had. Such are many prophecies contained in the Apocalypse, which regard the last days. Faith believes every thing, but the reason of a faithful Christian contents itself with knowing that God has set a limit to our knowledge.

Verse 25: "Till-first born." These are ways of speech common among the Hebrews, and only assure us that our blessed lady was a Virgin when she brought forth her son, which is the great point the Evangelist has here in

I shall now say a few words regarding the Genealogy which St. Luke gives us of our Lord, and which differs in many points from that of St. Matthew, at the same time without any sort of contradiction, they having proceeded in a different manner to accomplish the same purpose. St. Matthew makes the genealogy of our Lord to descend from Abraham to Joseph and to Jesus Christ, whereas that of St. Luke ascends from Jesus Christ and Joseph not only to Abraham, but to Adam; the second difference is, that he makes Joseph to descend from David, not by Solomon, but by Nathan, another Son of David; the third difference is the most embarassing, although he (Joseph) was truly the son of Jacob, he was also the son of Héli (see St. Luke iii. 23)⚫ for one of the following reasons: 1st. By the title of adoption; 2nd. As the son of the widow of Héli, who took for her second husband Jacob, according to the enactment of the law which obliged the brother or nearest relation to marry the widow of the deceased brother or relation if he died without children, and the children born of the second marriage were put down to belong to the deceased; 3rd. Perhaps Joseph was called the son of Héli, because he was his son-in-law. For in that supposition, Héli was in no respect different from Joachim, the

view, without meddling with the question what was done afterwards? But by Apostolical tradition we are assured, that she always remained a Virgin.

*St. Luke iii. 23: "Who was of Héli." St. Joseph who by nature was the son of Jacob (St. Matthew i. 16), in the account of the law was son of Héli. For Héli and Jacob were brothers by the same mother; and Héli, who was the elder, dying without issue, Jacob, as the law directed, married his widow, in consequence of which marriage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law the son of Héli.

See the New Testament translated from the Latin Vulgate by the English College of Rheims, anno 1582.

St. Matthew says, that Jechonias was the father of Salathiel. But perhaps St. Luke could call him the son of Neri (v. 27), because he was his son-inlaw, or because he was his grandson by his mother, the daughter of Neri, who was married to Jechonias; this is sufficient to prevent a contradiction.

Verse 38: "Who was of Henos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God." An eminent French theologian remarks on this verse, "That is to say, who had God for the immediate author of his existence. We may remark very appropriately that St. Luke here making use of the name Son in a different sense from that of natural generation, authorises the different interpretations which we have given to this term in the preceding notes."

father of the Blessed Virgin. In regard to these three ways of explaining this point, the first is the less followed, the second is the most ancient and the most authorised. St. Augustine, who at one time embraced the first opinion, and to whom the third was not displeasing, returns in fine to this one. "Il revint enfin á celle ci, comme on peut le voir au Liv. 8, des Retract, c. 7; " so says an eminent French Catholic Divine. The third, is that followed by most moderns, because it happily gives the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin, and by these means we have the true genealogy of our Lord, and his descent from David; but all this is conjecture, and each person is allowed to enjoy the opinion he thinks most probable on this subject; but what we are obliged to believe is, that the Evangelists have in no respect contradicted each other, for as the suppositions which are made in order to reconcile the two genealogies are all possible, it is clear that the Evangelists cannot be proved to contradict each other, which is sufficient as regards faith.

The genealogy of St. Luke was written principally for the Jews, who could not acknowledge for their Messiah any one unless he was sprung from the blood of David,* and whatever difficulties we meet with here, it is certain, that the descent from David was never denied to Jesus Christ, as in fact it is most certain; for those who believed him merely as the son of Joseph could not dispute it, and those who believed him born of a Virgin could not doubt it either—a fact which all the Prophets announced would be the case, which all the Evangelists assure us of, and which he himself declared.

And I am,

Rev. Sir,

Your obedient Servant,
VERAX,

A CATHOLIC LAYMAN.

* "Close your ears," says St. Ignatius, "against those men who believe not that Jesus Christ was really of the race of David, and was truly born of Mary, and that he suffered and died to the surprise of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and was raised up by his Father from the grave, who will likewise raise us, through Jesus Christ, our only true life. If Christ did but seem to die, how vain would be my sufferings, believing as I do in the reality of his death."-(Epistle to the Tralleans.)