quence; the course pursued, with the results it eventually led to;-(dropping every intermediate fact, and all irrelevant circumstances;)—the Inspired Writers forcibly remind us how He must regard our Lives and Actions and Characters, who seeth, as well as "declareth, the end from the beginning."(m)

Concerning the incident here alluded to, rather than described, see the notes on St. Mark vi. 17-20. It shall suffice, in this place, to mention that the Herod spoken of, was Herod Antipas,-son of that Herod who murdered the Holy Innocents. His lawful wife was a daughter of Aretas, king of Petra in Arabia: Herodias, (a grand-daughter of Herod the Great, and therefore niece to Herod Antipas,) had married Philip,-another of her uncles; whom she forsook in order to live in adultery with the person here mentioned. The history of the Herods is one long history of adultery, incest, and murder.

21, 22 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 bodily shape like a dove upon Him; and a Voice came from Heaven, which said, Thou art My beloved SON; in Thee I am well pleased.

St. Luke notices the Baptism of our LORD with brevity; but he mentions two circumstances of exceeding interest and preciousness. He is the only Evangelist who relates that our LORD was "praying," after His Baptism, when the visible descent of the SPIRIT took place, and the Voice was heard from Heaven, proclaiming His Divine Sonship: and it is worthy of observation that our SAVIOUR is stated to have been in the act of prayer on all the three occasions when the same Heavenly Voice was heard. Besides the present, see the account of the Transfiguration,-when, "as He prayed, the fashion of His countenance was altered;"(n) and that third occasion recorded by St. John, (xii. 28,) when the request of the Son was audibly answered from Heaven.

Further,-St. Luke alone it also is, who marks with precision that the "HOLY GHOST descended in the bodily shape like a dove upon Him." But for these express words, it might have been pretended, with some show of reason, that no bodily form was seen; whereby a most instructive circumstance would have been lost. See the note on St. Matth. iii. 16, 17.

So many remarks on this wondrous incident have been already offered in the notes on St. Matthew's Gospel, (iii. 13 to 17,) and St. Mark, (i. 9 to 11,) that the Reader is referred to those places for further information.

23 And JESUS Himself began to be about thirty years of age,

Our LORD, at this time, may have completed twenty-nine years of His earthly life. He therefore "began to be about thirty years of age;"-which was the age of Joseph, when he stood before Pharaoh;(0) and of David, "when he began to reign."(p) These were eminent types of CHRIST.

being (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph,

Men supposed Him to be naturally sprung from Joseph of Nazareth, who was indeed legally His Father, being the Blessed Virgin's wedded Husband. See the note on St. Matth. i. 16.

The genealogy which follows, is manifestly that of Joseph; and may have been actually obtained by the Evangelist from the archives of the census itself.

which was the son of Heli,

But in St. Matthew's Gospel, (i. 16,) it is said,-"Jacob begat Joseph." These two statements are reconciled by a venerable tradition derived from the descendants of the holy family. It declares Heli to have been legally the Father of the Blessed Virgin's husband;—while his natural parent was Jacob. The two lines of descent, given respectively by St. Matthew and St. Luke, converge in the persons of Matthan, (who is mentioned in St. Matth. i. 15;) and Matthat, (whose name will be found in the next ensuing verse of the present chapter of St. Luke's Gospel.) These

(m) Isaiah xlvi. 10.
(0) Gen. xli. 46.

(n) St. Luke ix. 29.

(p) 2 Sam. v. 4.

men became successively the husbands of the same heiress (Estha,)—by whom each had issue: whereby the first became naturally, the second, legally, the grandfather of Joseph.

24, 25, 26, 27 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 Simei, 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,

All the eighteen names from Heli (in ver. 23) to Rhesa, inclusive, are recorded nowhere but in this place. How, or in what sense, Rhesa "was the son of Zorobabel," does not appear. His name is not found in 1 Chron. iii. 19, 20,—where the children of Zorobabel are enumerated.

which was the son of Salathiel,

The same statement occurs in Ezra, (iii. 2; v. 2,) and in Haggai, (i. 1, 12; ii. 2.) Moreover, it is found repeated in St. Matthew's Gospel,-i. 12, where see the second note. But, from 1 Chron. iii. 17 to 24, it would appear that, in strictness, Zorobabel was the son of Pedaia,-Salathiel's brother. Naturally, therefore, Salathiel will have been his uncle; and only legally, his parent.

The two genealogies according to St. Matthew and St. Luke, having met at this place, and having both exhibited the glorious names of Salathiel and Zorobabel among the ancestors of our Blessed LORD, again diverge,—to meet again in the person of David the King.

which was the son of Neri,

Neri was his actual Father. Compare the statement in St. Matth. i. 12, and see the note there.

28, 29, 30, 31 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,

Here the two genealogies again converge,-see the last note but one. The "Nathan" here mentioned is, obviously, a person wholly distinct from the prophet mentioned in 2 Sam. xii. He was the elder brother of Solomon,-whose descendants St. Matthew has recorded. See 2 Sam. v. 14, and 1 Chron. iii. 5.

32, 33, 34 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 Naason, 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 son of Juda, which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham,

These well-known names are common to both the genealogies. With that of "Abraham," St. Matthew's genealogy begins.

Twenty worthies remain, of which only one is found to occasion the least difficulty.

35, 36 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,

This insertion of the name of a second Cainan, (besides the Cainan in verse 37,) is one of the hardest things to explain and account for, in the Holy Gospels; for for the name does not occur in Genesis xi. 12, between the names of Arphaxad and Salah, where we should, of course, expect to find it; nor indeed elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. It is found, however, in a Greek Translation of the Pentateuch, which was made before the time of our LORD; and which (because it was commonly read in the Synagogues, and therefore familiarly known to the people) the Evangelists and Apostles are found to have freely used and quoted.

The humble student of the Gospels will do well to believe, on the testimony of St. Luke, that there actually was such a person as Cainan, the son of Arphaxad and father of Sala; while, at the same time, he may cheerfully admit that, as yet, he sees not how the fact is to be reconciled in a satisfactory manner with the particulars (of age and of descent) which Moses was divinely moved to record. It does not, of course, prove, that when he has occasion to reason concerning the early generations of mankind, he need in the least degree distrust the statements which the Hebrew text supplies. The "Spirit of Truth," (q) by whom Moses and St. Luke were alike inspired, may well be deemed his sufficient guarantee on this head.

The case, after all, admits of easy illustration. Two things are indeed stated which seem to be inconsistent; but the same might be said, with at least equal truth, of the assertion in St. Matthew i. 8, that "Joram begat Ozias,"—and the circumstantial statement in 2 Kings xiv. 21, that Azariah (that is, Ozias or Uzziah) was the son of Amaziah. These two statements seem wholly incompatible, and inconsistent; but they are proved not to be so. Thus again, as we have already seen, Ezra the priest and Haggai the prophet concur with St. Luke, (see above ver. 27,) in describing Zorobabel, their contemporary, as the son of Salathiel; and, St. Matthew even says, "Salathiel begat Zorobabel," (i. 12:) but the same Ezra explains that Zorobabel was the son of Padaiah. (r) These statements appear to be contradictory, but they are not really so. They only seem contradictory, at first, because we do not at first understand them. Let us remember, when difficulties of this kind try us to the uttermost, (and they were doubtless intended to be a trial,) that they are not nearly so serious as those which must have assailed the faithful in Israel when they reasoned on the prophecies which had gone before concerning the Advent of CHRIST. See also the note on another difficult text,—namely, chap. ii. 2.

It will appear, therefore, that either Evangelist, in his respective genealogy, has displayed in one particular his acquaintance with the else-unrevealed details of Old Testament History:-St. Matthew, by recording Talmon marriage with Rahab;— St. Luke, by vindicating for the second Cainan a place among the ancestors of the Messiah.

37, 38 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.

While St. Matthew, therefore, contents himself with deriving the descent of MESSIAH from Abraham,-the Father of the Jewish people,(s) and the patriarch to whom the promises were originally given; St. Luke traces back MESSIAH's line to Adam, the Father of the whole human race. The former Evangelist wrote his Gospel especially for the use of his own nation: it was sufficient, therefore, that he should show that the SAVIOUR was "Abraham's seed." (t) But the latter Evangelist, like the great Apostle whom he accompanied, addressed himself to Jew and (q) St. John xvi. 13. (s) St. John viii. 33, 39, &c.

(r) 1 Chron. iii. 19.
(t) St. Matth. i. 1, 2.

Gentile, alike. Accordingly, he exhibits the SAVIOUR as the promised "Seed of the Woman," who should hereafter bruise the Serpent's head; (u) and in whom all the great human family has an equal interest,-as children (by adoption) of the same Almighty FATHER, and heirs (by promise) of the same eternal Kingdom.

Seth was the son of Adam;-for Adam "begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth."(x) But Adam was the son of GOD;-for "in the day that GoD created man,-in the likeness of GOD made He him." (y) It cannot be by accident that the number of the names in this genealogy,-first and last, should be exactly seventy-seven.

THE PRAYER.

ALMIGHTY GOD, who hast given us Thy only-begotten Son to take our nature upon Him, and as at this time to be born of a pure Virgin; grant that we being regenerate, and made Thy children by Adoption and Grace, may daily be renewed by Thy HOLY SPIRIT; through the same our LORD JESUS CHRIST, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the same SPIRIT, ever one GOD, world without end. Amen.

CHAPTER IV.

1 The Temptation and Fasting of CHRIST. 13 He overcometh the Devil. 14 Beginneth to preach. 16 The people of Nazareth admire His gracious words. 33 He cureth one possessed of a devil, 38 Peter's mother-in-law, 40 and divers other sick persons. 41 The devils acknowledge CHRIST, and are reproved for it. 43 He preacheth through the Cities.

CONCERNING the Temptation of CHRIST,—the great event with which the present chapter commences, the Reader is referred to a long note at the beginning of St. Matthew iv.-What has been there said, shall not be repeated in this place.

'Behold," says one of the ancients, "He is among the wrestlers, who, as GOD, awards the prizes. He is among the crowned, who crowns the heads of the Saints."

1 And JESUS being full of the HOLY GHOST returned from Jordan. It is necessary to bear in mind that the last event which obtained notice, was the Baptism of our LORD in the river Jordan: with obvious reference to which, He is now described as "being full of the HOLY GHOST." (a) His Temptation follows. “And thus," says Leighton, “shalt thou be sure to be assaulted, when thou hast received the greatest enlargements from Heaven: either at the Sacrament,— or in Prayer, or in any other way. Then look for an onset. This arch-pirate lets the empty ships pass, but lays wait for them when they return richest laden." See the notes on the last half of St. Mark i. 12: also the notes on St. Matthew iv. 1.

and was led by the SPIRIT into the Wilderness,

Concerning our LORD'S conflict with the Powers of Darkness, much has been

(u) Gen. iii. 15.

(y) Gen. v. 1. Compare i. 26, 27.

(x) Gen. v. 3.
(a) See St. Luke iii. 22.

already remarked in the notes on St. Matthew, chap. iv: and something more will be found in the note on St. Mark i. 13. This great event lies on the very threshoid of the sacred History in the three first Gospels; and in each our LORD's approach to it is described in terms of the same import. "Sweet is it," says Leighton, "in all things, to be carried: not to go of ourselves any way; but that, of each step, it may be said,-He was led by the SPIRIT! led to be tempted, on purpose that he might return with the glory of the victory."

"The Apostle doth fitly style our LORD JESUS 'the Captain' or Leader of our Salvation. (b) It was meet He should be made perfect by sufferings.'(c) He therefore leads the way; putting on us nothing that He hath not first encountered." 2 Being forty days tempted of the Devil.

For the space of forty days was our Blessed LORD tempted; but the three marvellous scenes which St. Matthew and St. Luke describe, belong to the last day: and these, because they are the only part of the Temptation which concerns us, are the only part recorded. Over all the rest, a veil of mysterious silence has been drawn. See the first note on St. Mark i. 13.

And in those days He did eat nothing: and when they were ended, He afterward hungered.

It has been already pointed out, (in the note on St. Matthew iv. 2,) that Moses and Elijah had observed a similar miraculous fast, before Him. Those two mighty personages, who appeared together in Glory on the Mount of Transfiguration, (d) -symbolize respectively the Law and the Prophets: between which, and the Gospel, this forty days' fast of their great Antitype, served to show that there was an harmonious correspondence and agreement.

And it must be obvious to remark, that in imitation of this mighty transaction, the Church of CHRIST observes her Lent-fast of forty days: not straining her weak powers therein, as if in rivalry of her LORD; but maintaining an humble distance, and seeking only to tread faithfully in His footsteps,—although planting a weak and most uncertain foot.

3 And the Devil said unto Him, If Thou be the SON of GOD, command this stone that it be made bread.

Upon this Temptation, see the notes on St. Matthew iv. 3.

It was all his object to discover whether, in the disguise of the frail and fainting form before him, there might be concealed the MESSIAH, the Desire of all nations, his own foretold Vanquisher. Hence, his repeated address,-" If thou be the SON of God."

Take notice how the Devil treats those whom he is permitted to tempt. He sees that they want Bread: he offers them a Stone!

4 And JESUS answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

It was out of mere condescension and love towards us, that our SAVIOUR thus answered the Tempter: for He met his suggestion in language which any one of ourselves might equally make use of under the like circumstances. And marvellous it is to contemplate the wisdom which thus knew how to select out of the heavenly Armory a weapon which should suffice at once for the mysterious requirements of the Incarnate GOD, and for those of creatures weak and sinful as ourselves. The quotation is from Deut. viii. 3.

This place of Scripture, upon our SAVIOUR's lips, informs us that for all our needs, for those alike of our higher, and those of our lower nature,—“ we are to hold ourselves dependent entirely on the promised protection and providence of GOD; a protection," to use the words of a great writer, "which is ever to be sought agreeably to His revealed Word and Will. It is a reply therefore to every infernal suggestion that we should either despair of God's goodness, or distrust His power, -that we should seek the satisfaction of our lower wants by unlawful or unhallowed means, or impatiently refuse to abide the issue of our honest endeavours,-thus, (b) Hebrews ii. 10.

(c) Hebrews ii. 10.

(d) St. Matth. xvii 3.