A harmony upon the the three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke with the commentary…A harmonie vpon the the three Euangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke with the commentarie…

Because that both these genealogies, which are written of Matthew and Luke do not agree in all things: it must first be seen whether that both of them do fetch the genealogy of Christ from Joseph, or whether Matthew doth so only, and Luke doth fetch it from Mary. They that are of the latter judgement have a good colour for the difference, that is in divers names. And truly at the first sight, seeing that Luke doth so much differ from Matthew, it seemeth nothing less, then that they should declare one and the same genealogy: For from David unto Salathiell, and again from Zorobabell to Joseph, they name altogether diverse names. Furthermore, they pretend that it is absurd to bestow so much labour in a matter not needful, as to account the pedigree of Joseph twice, who yet was not the father of Christ. To what purpose (say they) is this repetition, whereby there is nothing proved, that doth much appertain to the edifying of faith? For if this thing be only known, that Joseph was one of the posterity and house of David, yet the line of Christ remaineth doubtful: therefore, by their judgments it was superfluous that both the Evangelists should employ themselves upon this matter. But that Matthew repeateth the progeny of Joseph they excuse thus, that he did it, because that many did yet think him to be the father of Christ. But it were to be scorned at, that with this cockering he should nourish this most pestilent error, and the text doth openly confute the same. For Matthew as soon as he cometh to the end of the genealogy, teacheth that Christ came not of the seed of Joseph, but that by the secrete power of the holy Ghost he was conceived in the womb of the Virgin: wherefore if their judgements should stand, Matthew might be reproved of foolishness, and for want of consideration, as one, who in vain would recite the genealogy of Joseph. But their objection is not yet answered, that the genealogy of Joseph doth nothing appertain to Christ. The answer is old and commonly known, that in the person of Joseph the pedigree of Mary is also comprehended: because that the law commanded that every man should take him a wife in his own tribe.

Because that both these genealogies, which are written of Matthewe and Luke doe not agree in all thinges: it must first be seene whether that both of them doe fetch the genealogie of Christ from Ioseph, or whether Matthew doth so onely, and Luke dooth fetch it from Mary. They that are of the latter iudgement haue a good colour for the difference, that is in diuers names. And truely at the first sight, seeing that Luke doth so much differ from Matthew, it seemeth nothing lesse, then that they should declare one and the same genealogie: For from Dauid vnto Salathiell, and againe from Zorobabell to Ioseph, they name altogether diuerse names. Furthermore, they pretende that it is absurde to bestow so much labour in a matter not needefull, as to accompt the petegree of Ioseph twise, who yet was not the father of Christ. To what purpose (say they) is this repetition, whereby there is nothing prooued, that doth much appertaine to the edifying of faith? For if this thing be onely known, that Ioseph was one of the posteritie and house of Dauid, yet the line of Christ romaineth doubtfull: therfore, by their iudgments it was superfluous that both the Euangelistes should imploy themselues vppon this matter. But that Matthew repeateth the progenie of Ioseph they excuse thus, that hee did it, because that manye did yet thinke him to be the father of Christ. But it were to be scorned at, that with this cockering hee should nourish this most pestilent error, and the text doth openly confute the same. For Matthewe assoone as hee commoth to the ende of the genealogie, teacheth that Christ came not of the seede of Ioseph, but that by the secrete power of the holy Ghost he was conceiued in the wombe of the Virgin: wherfore if their iudgements should stand, Matthew might be reprooued of foolishnes, and for want of consideration, as one, who in vaine would recite the genealogie of Ioseph. But their obiection is not yet aunswered, that the genealogie of Ioseph doth nothing appertaine to Christ. The answere is old and commonly known, that in the person of Ioseph the petegree of Mary is also comprehended: because that the law commaunded that euery man shoulde take him a wife in his owne tribe.