Chapter I.—A Statement of the Reason Why the Enumeration of the Ancestors of Christ is Carried Down to Joseph, While Christ Was Not Born of that Man’s Seed, But of the Virgin Mary.

2. The evangelist Matthew has commenced his narrative in these terms: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”163    Matt. i. 1.    The text gives: et in unam narrationem faciemque digeramus. For faciem the reading seriem, series, also occurs. By this exordium he shows with sufficient clearness that his undertaking is to give an account of the generation of Christ according to the flesh. For, according to this, Christ is the Son of man,—a title which He also gives very frequently to Himself,164    Matt. viii. 20, ix. 6.    The text gives: ut aggrediamur narrationem omnia commemorantes, cum eorum evangelistarum attestatione qui ex his omnibus, etc. Some editions have cum eorundem evangelistarum attestatione quid ex his, etc. = the attestation of the same evangelists as to what, etc. thereby commending to our notice what in His compassion He has condescended to be on our behalf. For that heavenly and eternal generation, in virtue of which He is the only-begotten Son of God, before every creature, because all things were made by Him, is so ineffable, that it is of it that the word of the prophet must be understood when he says, “Who shall declare His generation?”165    Isa. liii. 8. Matthew therefore traces out the human generation of Christ, mentioning His ancestors from Abraham downwards, and carrying them on to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born. For it was not held allowable to consider him dissociated from the married estate which was entered into with Mary, on the ground that she gave birth to Christ, not as the wedded wife of Joseph, but as a virgin. For by this example an illustrious recommendation is made to faithful married persons of the principle, that even when by common consent they maintain their continence, the relation can still remain, and can still be called one of wedlock, inasmuch as, although there is no connection between the sexes of the body, there is the keeping of the affections of the mind; particularly so for this reason, that in their case we see how the birth of a son was a possibility apart from anything of that carnal intercourse which is to be practised with the purpose of the procreation of children only. Moreover, the mere fact that he had not begotten Him by act of his own, was no sufficient reason why Joseph should not be called the father of Christ; for indeed he could be in all propriety the father of one whom he had not begotten by his own wife, but had adopted from some other person.

3. Christ, it is true, was also supposed to be the son of Joseph in another way, as if He had been born simply of that man’s seed. But this supposition was entertained by persons whose notice the virginity of Mary escaped. For Luke says: “And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.”166    Luke iii. 23. [Revised Version, “And Jesus Himself, when He began to teach, was about,” etc. The Latin, erat incipiens, conveys the same sense.—R.] This Luke, however, instead of naming Mary His only parent, had not the slightest hesitation in also speaking of both parties as His parents, when he says: “And the boy grew and waxed strong, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was in Him: and His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.”167    Luke ii. 40, 41. But lest any one may fancy that by the “parents” here are rather to be understood the blood relations of Mary along with the mother herself, what shall be said to that preceding word of the same Luke, namely, “And His father168    Et erat pater ejus, etc., instead of Joseph, etc. [The correct text in Luke ii. 33 is undoubtedly that given by Augustin. Compare critical editions of the Greek text. So Revised Version, “And His father and His mother,” etc.—R.] and mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of Him”?169    Luke ii. 33. Since, then, he also makes the statement that Christ was born, not in consequence of Joseph’s connection with the mother, but simply of Mary the virgin, how can he call him His father, unless it be that we are to understand him to have been truly the husband of Mary, without the intercourse of the flesh indeed, but in virtue of the real union of marriage; and thus also to have been in a much closer relation the father of Christ, in so far as He was born of his wife, than would have been the case had He been only adopted from some other party? And this makes it clear that the clause,“as was supposed,”170    [Compare Revised Version, where the parenthesis is correctly given.—R.] is inserted with a view to those who are of opinion that He was begotten by Joseph in the same way as other men are begotten.

CAPUT PRIMUM. Quare usque ad Joseph generatores Christi commemorentur, cum de illius semine Christus non sit natus, sed de Virgine Maria.

2. Matthaeus evangelista sic orsus est: Liber generationis Jesu Christi, filii David, filii Abraham (Matth. I, 1). Quo exordio suo satis ostendit, generationem Christi secundum carnem se suscepisse narrandam. Secundum hanc enim Christus filius hominis est, quod etiam se ipse saepissime appellat (Id. VIII, 20, et IX, 6), commendans nobis quid misericorditer dignatus sit esse pro nobis. Nam illa superna et aeterna generatio, secundum quam Filius Dei unigenitus est ante omnem creaturam, quia omnia per ipsum facta sunt, ita ineffabilis est, ut de illa dictum a propheta intelligatur, Generationem ejus quis enarrabit (Isai. LIII, 8)? Exsequitur ergo humanam generationem Christi Matthaeus, ab Abraham generatores commemorans, quos perducit ad Joseph virum Mariae de qua natus est Jesus. Neque enim fas erat ut ob hoc eum a conjugio Mariae separandum putaret, quod non ex ejus concubitu, sed virgo peperit Christum. Hoc enim exemplo magnifice insinuatur fidelibus conjugatis, etiam servata pari consensu continentia, posse permanere vocarique conjugium, non permixto corporis sexu, sed custodito mentis affectu: praesertim quia nasci eis etiam filius potuit sine ullo complexu carnali, qui propter solos gignendos filios adhibendus est. Neque enim propterea non erat appellandus Joseph pater Christi, quia non eum concumbendo genuerat, quandoquidem recte pater esset etiam ejus quem non ex sua conjuge procreatum, aliunde adoptasset.

3. Putabatur quidem Christus etiam aliter filius Joseph, tanquam ex ejus omnino carne progenitus; 1072 sed ab eis hoc putabatur, quos Mariae latebat virginitas. Nam Lucas ait: Et ipse Jesus erat incipiens quasi annorum triginta, ut putabatur, filius Joseph (Luc. III, 23). Qui tamen Lucas non ejus parentem solam Mariam, sed ambos parentes ejus appellare minime dubitavit, ubi ait: Puer autem crescebat et confortabatur plenus sapientia, et gratia Dei erat in illo. Et ibant parentes ejus per omnes annos in Jerusalem in die solemni Paschae. Sed ne quisquam hic parentes consanguineos potius Mariae cum ipsa matre ejus intelligendos putet, quid ad illud respondebit, quod ipse item Lucas superius dixit. Et erat pater ejus et mater mirantes super iis quae dicebantur de illo (Id. II, 40, 41, 33)? Cum igitur ipse narret, non ex concubitu Joseph, sed ex Maria virgine natum Christum; unde eum patrem ejus appellat, nisi quia et virum Mariae recte intelligimus sine commixtione carnis, ipsa copulatione conjugii; et ob hoc etiam Christi patrem multo conjunctius, qui ex ejus conjuge natus sit, quam si esset aliunde adoptatus? Unde manifestum est illud, quod ait, Ut putabatur, filius Joseph, propter illos dixisse, qui eum ex Joseph, sicut alii homines nascuntur, natum arbitrabantur