Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews

Secondly, Although there was no indispensable necessity among the Jews, binding them to marry within their Tribes, unless the Women were inheritrixes, in which case provision was made, that inheritances might not be transferred from one Tribe unto another, yet it is more than probable, that the blessed Virgin Mary was of the same Family with Joseph, and this so notoriously known, that seeing Genealogies were not reckoned by Women, nor the Genealogies of Women directly recorded, there was no better, or more certain way of declaring his pedigree, who was born of Mary, then by his, unto whom she was so nearly related. So that on several accounts, the Genealogy recorded by Matthew, proves Jesus Christ to have been of the Family of David.

Secondly, Although there was no indispensible necessity among the Jews, binding them to marry within their Tribes, unless the Women were inhaeritrixes, in which case provision was made, that inheritances might not be transferred from one Tribe unto another, yet it is more than probable, that the blessed Virgin Mary was of the same Family with Joseph, and this so notoriously known, that seeing Genealogies were not reckoned by Women, nor the Genealogies of Women directly recorded, there was no better, or more certain way of declaring his pedigree, who was born of Mary, then by his, unto whom she was so nearly related. So that on several accounts, the Genealogy recorded by Matthew, proves Jesus Christ to have been of the Family of David.

Secondly, For Luke, he doth directly, and of set purpose, give us the Genealogy of § 15 the blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus; for the line of his progenitors, ⟨p. 214⟩which he derives from Nathan, is not at all the same with that of Joseph from Solomon, insisted on by Matthew. It is true, there are a Zerubbabel and Salathiel in both Genealogies, but this proves not both the lines to be the same: For the lines of Solomon and Nathan, might by marriage meet in these persons, and so leave it indifferent, which line was followed up to David; and the lines of Joseph and Mary might be separated again in the posterity of Zerubbabel, Matthew following one of them, and Luke the other. This, I say, is possible, but the Truth is, (as is eviden from the course of generations insisted on) that the Zerubbabel and Salathiel mentioned in Matthew, were not the same persons with those of the same names in Luke, those being of the house of Solomon, these of the house of Nathan. So that from David it is not the line of Joseph, but of the blessed Virgin that is recited by Luke. And the words wherewith Luke prefaceth his Genealogy, do no way impeach this assertion, [Greek or Hebrew]; for whereas these words [Greek or Hebrew], as was supposed, are usually placed and read in Parenthesis, the Parenthesis may be better extended unto [Greek or Hebrew], including Joseph; being (as was supposed, the Son of Joseph) the Son Heli: Or Joseph may be said to be the Son of Heli, because his Daughter was espoused unto him, otherwise the true natural Father of Joseph, was Jacob, as Matthew declares, Heli being the Father of the blessed Virgin: So that both legally and naturally our Lord Jesus Christ was a descendant of the house and lineage of David, according unto the promise. And as this was unquestionable among the Jews in the days of his conversation in the flesh; so the present Jews have nothing of moment to oppose unto these unquestionable Records.