2'«> S. VII. May 7. *69.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



377 



queen's reign, — a conclusion which was fully con- 

 firmed when another occurred thus headed : — 



« ASo 1583. Auo Eegni 24." 



Subsequently I met with this still more fanciful 

 date : — 



" Claptcote thys 



19 



3 



83, 



1590,'' 



(with a flourish through the figures.) 



This must have been intended for the 19th day 

 of the 3rd month, in the year of our Lord 1590, 

 and in the 33rd year of the reign of Queen Eliz- 

 abeth ; but which month would then be called 

 the third? As the year of our Lord was generally 

 considered to begin on the 25th of March, and as 

 the 33rd year of the queen's reign did not begin 

 until the 17th of November, 1590, it seems dif- 

 ficult to determine. John Gough Nichols. 



Pedigree of our Saviour. — Can you explain how 

 it is that it is commonly said that the third chap- 

 ter of Luke gives our Blessed Lord's pedigree 

 through the Virgin Mary ? The commencement 

 of that pedigree is in the 23rd verse, which runs : 



" And Jesus himself began to be about thirteen years 

 of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which 

 was the son of Heli," &c. 



The Virgin Mary's name is not mentioned. I 

 have used the term " commonly said," but at this 

 moment I can refer to but two places with sufii- 

 cient accuracy for your columns : the first, ancient ^ 

 the last, modern. The first is in 



" The Genealogies recorded in the Sacred Scriptures, 

 &c., with the Line of our Saviour Jesus Christ observed 

 from Adam to the Blessed Virgin Mary. By J. S. 1635." 



Against this pedigree is said, in a scroll, " ac- 

 cording to S. Luke," which makes it appear that 

 Mary was daughter of Eli, though the text is as 

 above. The other instance is from Nicholls's Help 

 to Redding the Bible (p. 128.) : — 



" St. Luke, composing his gospel for the use of tha 

 Gentiles, would naturally trace the genealogy of our Lord 

 by the line of his only human parent, the Virgin Mary, 

 whose father, by some writers called Joachim, is by others 

 called Eli .... St. Matthew, on the contrary, wrote his 

 gospel for the use of the Jews, and therefore traced the 

 genealogy of our Lord through Joseph, his reputed 

 father." 



Tee Bee. 



[No two passages of Scripture have caused more diffi- 

 culty than the genealogies of the Messiah as given by the 

 Evangelists Matthew and Luke; and various attempts 

 have been made to reconcile them. The late Dr. 

 Kitto, in his valuable Dailr/ Bible Illustrations (first 

 volume of the Evening Series) has offered an excellent 

 explanation, of which we avail ourselves. "The two 



genealogies are materially different. They coincide 

 until David, when Matthew takes the reigning line; 

 whereas Luke takes the younger and inferior line by 

 David's son Nathan. They concur, indeed, in ^'alathiel 

 and Zorobabel, at the time of the captivity ; but then di- 

 verge again, and even at the close the difference is main- 

 tained, for Matthew makes Joseph the son of Jacob ; 

 whereas Luke represents him as the son of Heli or Eli. 

 He could not have been naturally the son of both these 

 persons ; and the essential differences in the two lines of 

 descent allow no satisfactory solution in the idea that 

 Jacob and Heli are different names for the same person. 

 They are obviously two different genealogies from the 

 common ancestor David. This being the case, there can 

 be little doubt that the genealogy of Matthew is that of 

 Joseph, and the one of Luke that of Mary ; the former 

 being the legal, and the latter the real genealogy of 

 Jesus. Indeed, Luke seems to have indicated his mean- 

 ing as clearly as could be, consistently with the absence 

 of a woman's name in a pedigree, by distinguishing the 

 real from the legal genealogy, in a parenthetical remark, 

 — ' Jesus being (as was reputed) the son of Joseph Qjut 

 in reality) the son of Heli,' or his grandson by the mo- 

 ther's side ; for so the ellipsis should be supplied. The 

 conclusion then is, that one of these genealogies is that of 

 Joseph, and the other that of his wife Mary, — both lines 

 being preserved to show deiinitely that Jesus was, in the 

 most fiiU and perfect sense, a descendant of David ; not 

 only bj' law in the royal line of kings through his re- 

 puted father, but by direct personal descent through his 

 mother."] 



Bev. H. jDe Luzancy. — Can you inform me 

 where I may find somewhat of the personal history 

 of the Kev.' H. De Luzancy, B.D., Christ Church, 

 Oxford, Vicar of Dovercourt and Harwich ; also 

 a list of his works? The three I have show him 

 to have been a sound divine, a learned man, and 

 a student of the Fathers, and make one wish 

 to know more of him. They are A Treatise on 

 the Sacraments, London, 1701 ; Remarks on the 

 Writings of Socinians, London, 1696; History of 

 the Council of Trent, Oxford, 1677. When at 

 Dovercourt in Essex I could find no monument 

 or record of him as vicar. W. G. S. 



[A long biographical account of Hippolytus du Chast- 

 let de Luzancy is given in Wood's Fasti (Bliss), ii. 350. 

 The character here given of this divine is not very flat- 

 tering, and must be received with caution, as Wood 

 obtained his information from a pamphlet secretly dis- 

 persed by the Romanists, entitled A Letter from a Gen- 

 tleman at London to his Friend in the Count?-!/, 4tO. 1676. 

 De Luzancy was instituted to the vicarage of Dover 

 Court, Dec. 18, 1678; and to the vicarage of South 

 Weald in Essex, Dec. 15, 1702. In addition to the works 

 noticed by our correspondent, he published A Sermon 

 preached in the Savoy, July 11, 1675, on the day of his Ab- 

 juration, 4to. 1675 ; A Treatise against Irreligio7i, 8vo. 

 1678; A Panegyrick to the My[iio?-y of Frederick Duke of 

 Schonberg, 4to. 1690 ; A Conference between an Orthodox 

 Christian and a Socinian, in four Dialogues ; wherein the 

 late distinction of a real and nominal Trinitarian is consi- 

 dered, 8vo. 1698; Sermon at the Bishop of London's Con- 

 ference with, his Clergy, 4to. 1697; A Sermon preached at 

 the Assizes for the County of Essex, held at Chelmsford, 

 March 8, 1710, 8vo. 1711.] 



