It might be objected that, according to the strict wording of the two pedigrees,-that in Matthew's gospel being that Jacob begat Joseph,' and that in Luke's being that Joseph was the (legal heir or presumptive) son of Heli,'-the conclusion ought rather to be that the former gives the natural, and the latter the regal descent of Jesus. Still nothing really depends on this, if the fact only be that Jesus was, or even in general estimation was deemed to be, of the royal house of David.

These pedigrees may therefore be laid aside, in order to controvert the assertion made on general grounds by many critics, and especially by M. Renan, that Jesus had no right whatever to be considered the son of David, and that the attributing of this designation to him was an 'innocent fraud,'-in which the French critic courteously concedes that Jesus himself may, ‘perhaps,' have had no hand *,-for that the family of David had long been extinct; otherwise the representatives of that family would not have failed to take part in the great disputes of that period, as did the Sadokians (Sadducees), the Boethusians, the Asmoneans, and others.

Now this is a purely gratuitous assumption. It may be quite true that at the time of the Messiah's advent the family of David had altogether lost its royal rank, and sunk into political and even social insignificance. Yet it does not follow that the family had become extinct. And as long as any scions of it continued in existence, there is really no good reason for supposing them to have lost the knowledge of their illustrious descent.

It is an historical fact that, at the time of the return of the Jews from Babylon, under the leadership of Zerubbabel, prince of the tribe of Judah, and Jeshua, high priest of the tribe of Levi, the genealogies of numerous families of those two tribes, and also of that of Benjamin, had been carefully preserved. From that time till the birth of Jesus was a period of only five hundred years, within which comparatively short interval it is hardly conceivable that the genealogy of the first family of the nation, that of David, should have become lost, especially as we know other * 'Vie de Jesus' (9th edit.), Paris, 1863, p. 139.

families of much lower degree to have preserved their pedigrees. Saul of Tarsus, for example, asserted, as if it were an indisputable fact, that he was of the tribe of Benjamin; and the historian Josephus claimed to be not only a priest of the lineage of Aaron, but to be descended on the female side from the Asmonean Maccabees. Further, it was never disputed that the Levites and priests, who served in the temple till the time of its destruction by Titus, were truly what they represented themselves to be, members of the tribe of Levi and descendants of Aaron: indeed, even at the present day, the families of Levi and Cohen lay claim to the same descent.

As regards the descendants of David in particular, the national belief in the restoration of the kingdom of Israel under a prince of his house, would in itself have been a sufficient inducement to the several members of the royal family, however much reduced in circumstances, to preserve the evidences of their descent with scrupulous and even religious care,- —a task, moreover, of no difficulty among a people like the Jews, with whom the family pedigree has always been a matter of special importance. And, in fact, the famous Rabbi Hillel and his grandson Rabbi Gamaliel, who formed schools but not political parties, were both recognized as being of the house of David; and if their claim be admitted, certainly that of their contemporary Jesus must be equally so.

Besides this, subsequent history declares that the family of David continued in existence long after the time of our Lord Jesus. Eusebius relates*, on the authority of the historian Hegesippus or Joseph, a Jewish Christian, who lived towards the end of the second century, that there were still living members of the family of Jesus, being the grandchildren of Judah (Jude), the brother of Jesus after the flesh, that is to say a son of Joseph and Mary. He states that, after the fall of Jerusalem, Vespasian commanded that all the family of David should be sought, in order that no one of the royal stock might be left among the Jews; and, further, that in the reign of that Emperor's son, * Eccl. Hist.'

Domitian, two of the grandsons of Judah, the brother of Jesus, having been denounced as such, were brought before that Sovereign and questioned, when they confessed that they were truly descendants of King David. But on further examination, it appeared that they were of very humble condition, living on the produce of a small piece of land, which they cultivated with their own hands. And when asked respecting the Messiah and his kingdom, its nature, and when and where it was to be, they replied that it was not a temporal or earthly, but a heavenly and spiritual one, and that it would happen at the end of the world, when, coming in glory, he would judge the quick and the dead, and would render to every man according to his deeds. Upon this, Domitian, regarding them as silly visionaries beneath his notice, dismissed them and ordered the persecution to cease.

If the authenticity of this anecdote be doubted on account of the very questionable authority of the Christian historian by whom it is related, the fact is nevertheless indisputable that during the reign of the Emperor Hadrian, the descent from King David of the pseudo-Messiah, Bar Cocaba, was attested by the famous Rabbi Akiba, the Moses of his age, and believed by hundreds of thousands of his countrymen; which fact is incompatible with the idea that in the time of Jesus the family of David had already become extinct, and was known to be so. And even as late as the twelfth century, Benjamin of Tudela met with Jews living in and about Baghdad, under a chief styled the Prince of the Captivity, who was acknowledged to be the lineal descendant of David, King of Israel, and whom even the Mohammedans recognized in that character, calling him 'Our Lord the son of David.'

Looking in other directions, we see among the Mohammedans themselves at the present day numerous persons who claim to be the lineal descendants of their prophet, through his only child Fatima, the wife of Ali, though twelve centuries have elapsed since his death. Not one of these persons could pretend to establish his descent in a strictly legal form; not many of them would think of showing every link of the chain connecting them with their illustrious progenitor; and even in those few cases

where documentary evidence may be said to exist, such evidence would in reality prove nothing more than tradition and general repute. And yet no one among their co-religionists so much as dreams of questioning the pretensions of these numerous descendants of the prophet. They possess unquestioned the exclusive right to wear a green turban; and as they form the only hereditary nobility among the Moslems, they are addressed by the honorary title of 'Seid,' meaning 'Master,' or 'Lord,'—in like manner as 'Don' is applied in Spain, and 'Herr von' in Germany, to those of gentle birth,-even when in the lowest social condition, and performing menial duties in the houses of persons who may not be of like noble extraction.

And lastly, how many persons are there not in England and other countries who trace their descent from the Norman Conquest and the first Crusade, now eight centuries ago, or even from a more remote date?

6

In addition to these general considerations, we have in the particular case of our Lord the express declaration of the Apostle Paul, an educated and well-informed Jew, that Jesus, the Messiah, our Lord, was made of the seed of David after the flesh' *. This testimony, it must be borne in mind, is not open to the objection that has been raised against similar statements contained in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, on account of the respective dates of those documents being alleged to be later than the occurrences recorded in them; for it is the explicit declaration of one who was a contemporary of our Lord, and who, having been a violent opponent of the new faith, could hardly have failed to sift the evidence for and against the claim to the Messiahship of one whom he had in the first instance regarded as an impostor; so that it is not to be imagined that he could have fallen into error on this material point. And as the Apostle's testimony is not to overturn a received opinion, or to support what might be looked on as unreasonable, but is simply corroborative of a fact which in itself is perfectly credible and in accordance with the received history, such testi* Rom. i. 3.

mony appears to be absolutely unimpeachable. It is not necessary that Paul should have been personally acquainted with Jesus. The question for decision is, was Jesus in his own and Paul's lifetime commonly reputed to be a descendant of David? And the evidence of a contemporary occupying the position of Paul is conclusive, it being borne in mind that the question is not one of actual descent but simply of repute. If it were tested in our courts of justice at the present day, Paul would be put into the witness-box, not to establish Jesus's pedigree step by step, but to testify to the fact that he was generally reputed to be made of the seed of David after the flesh,' and that he, Paul, verily believed such to be the fact; and no cross-questioning could shake such evidence as this.

The conclusion may therefore be safely drawn that Jesus of Nazareth was truly of the stock and lineage of the royal house, and that in this respect he fully answered the expectation of the Jews that the Messiah should be the son of David.

The question of the birth-place of our Lord Jesus is not so easy of solution. Were it not for what is related in the opening chapters of the first and third Gospels, the reasonable inference would be that Jesus of Nazareth, in Galilee of the Gentiles, though of the lineage of David, the son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, of the tribe of Judah, was born at the place after which he was named. If dependence could at all be placed on the historical portions of the fourth Gospel, there are passages in it which might certainly be adduced in support of such an inference. In the first chapter, Philip is made to say to Nathanael, "We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph'*; to which Nathanael replied, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?' And in the seventh chapter the same sentiment is more strongly expressed by some of the people of Jerusalem : 'Shall the Messiah come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said that the Messiah cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?' But no certain

* John i. 45.

† John vii. 41, 42.