Chapter V.—A Statement of the Manner in Which Luke’s Procedure is Proved to Be in Harmony with Matthew’s in Those Matters Concerning the Conception and the Infancy or Boyhood of Christ, Which are Omitted by the One and Recorded by the Other. 14. After the enumeration of the generations, Matthew proceeds thus: Now the birth of Christ710 was on this wise. Whereas His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.711 What Matthew has omitted to state here regarding the way in which that came to pass, has been set forth by Luke after his account of the conception of John. His narrative is to the following effect: And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art full of grace,712 the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw713 these things, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her: Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found favour with God. Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call His name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David: and He shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born714 shall be called the Son of God;715 and then follow matters not belonging to the question at present in hand. Now all this Matthew has recorded [summarily], when he tells us of Mary that “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” 108 Neither is there any contradiction between the two evangelists, in so far as Luke has set forth in detail what Matthew has omitted to notice; for both bear witness that Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost. And in the same way there is no want of concord between them, when Matthew, in his turn, connects with the narrative something which Luke leaves out. For Matthew proceeds to give us the following statement: Then Joseph, her husband, being a 710 [The omission of “Jesus” is an early variation of the Latin text of the Gospel.—R.] 711 Matt. i. 18. 712 Gratia plena. [Comp. Revised Version margin.—R.] 713 Quæ cum vidisset. Others read audisset, heard. [The better Greek mss. omit the clause. The variation in the Latin text here was probably due to the later gloss of the scribes.—R.] 714 Various editions insert ex te, of thee; but the words are omitted in three Vatican mss., and most of the Gallican. See Migne’s note. [Omitted in the Greek text, according to the best authorities.—R.] 715 Luke i. 26–34. [Ver. 34 is differently rendered in the text of the Revised Version. The Latin of Augustin would perhaps admit of the same sense, but is more naturally explained as above.—R.] A Statement of the Manner in Which Luke’s Procedure is Proved to Be in Harmony with Matthew’s in Those Matters Concerning the Conception and the Infancy or Boyhood of Christ, Which are Omitted by the One and Recorded by the Other. 235 A Statement of the Manner in Which Luke’s Procedure is Proved to Be in Harmony…