whom with thee and the holy Ghost be praise for ever But leaving these more intricate speculations to more subtill heads The name of Father in this sense is ascribed to God by two severall titles First Iure Creationis by the right of Creation by which he is the Father of all mankinde And secondly Iure Adoptionis by the right and title of Adoption by which he hath anew begotten us in St. Peters language to an inheritance immortall undefiled and that fadeth not away reserved for us in the Heavens First GOD is said to be our Father in the right of Creation by which as all the World and all things in the same contained may be called the workmanship of his hands so may all mankinde be called his children not only those which trust and believe in him but also those which know him not nor ever read so much of him as the Book of nature those which yet live as out-lawes from the rule of reason and barbarous and savage people of both the Indies Thus Malachi the last Prophet of the Iewes Have we not all one Father hath not God created us Thus the Apostle of the Gentiles doth affirme of GOD that out of one bloud he hath made all kindreds of men And CHRIST himself who brake down the partition wall between Iew and Gentile Call no man Father on Earth for one is your Father which is in Heaven Not that the Lord would have us disobedient to our naturall Parents or ashamed to own them for this is plainly contrary both to Law and Gospeâ—t but that we should refer our being unto him alone which is the fountain of all beeing Solus vocandus est Pater qui creavit said Lactantius truly Now God is said to be our Father by the right of Creation for these following reasons as first because he was the Father of the first man Adam out of whose loyns we are descended or of whose likeness since the fall we are all begotten Therefore St. Luke when he had made the Genealogie of our Saviour CHRIST in the way of ascent doth conclude it thus which was the son of Seth which was the son of Adam which was the Son of God the son of God but not by generation for so our Saviour only was the Son of God and therefore it must be by Creation only Secondly GOD is called our Father because he hath implanted in our Parents the vertue Generative moulded and fashioned us in the secret closets of the Womb. Thy hands have made me and fashioned me Thine eyes did see my substance being yet imperfect and in thy book were all my members written saith the Royal Psalmist The bodies of us men are too brave a building for man and Nature to erect And therefore said Lactantius truly Hominem non patrem esse sed generandi ministrum Man only is the instrument which the Lord doth use for the effecting of his purpose to raise that godly edifice of flesh and bloud which he contemplates in his children Last of all for our souls which are the better part of us by which we live and move and have our beeing they are infused by GOD alone man hath no hand in it God breathes into our nosthrils the breath of life and by his mighty power doth animate and inform that matter which of it self is meerly passive in so great a wonder In each of these respects and in all together we may conclude with that of Aratus an old Greek Poet as he is cited by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for we are all his off-spring all of us his children The second Interest which GOD hath in us as a Father in the way of adoption by which we are regenerate or anew begotten to a lively hope of being heirs unto the promises and in the end partakers of eternal glories by which we are transplanted from our Fathers house and out of the Wilderness and unprofitable Thickets of this present world and graffed or inoculated on the Tree of life Adoptare enim est juxta delectum sibi quos quisque velit in filios eligere Adoption is the taking of a childe from another family to plant and cherish in our own say the Civil Lawyers and he that so adopteth may be called our Father by approbation of the laws though not by nature Examples of this case have been very ordinary from Moses who was adopted for her son by the daughter of Pharaoh though he refused to be called the son of Pharaohs daughter as St. Paul said of him down through all the stories both of Greece and Rome And if it may be lawful to make such resemblances the motives which induced GOD to proceed this way and other the particulars of most moment in it do seem to carry a fair proportion or correspondency with such inducements and particulars as hath been used by men on the same occasions For in the Laws adoption was to be allowed but in these four cases First Quod quidam Matrimonii onera detrectarent because some men could not away with the cares of Wedlock Secondly Quod conjugium esset sterile because God had not blessed the marriage with a fruitful issue Thirdly Quod liberi ipsorum morerentur because their own children by untimely death or the unluckie chance of War had been taken from them in which last case adoption by especial dispensation was allowed to women Fourthy Quod liberi ipsorum improbi essent degeneres because their own children were debauched and shameless likely to ruine that estate and disgrace that family into which they were born And upon such grounds as these is GOD in Scripture said to adopt the Gentiles to make them who by nature were the sons of wrath and seemed to be excluded from the Covenant which he made with Abraham to be the heirs of God and Coheirs with Christ. God looked upon the Iews as his natural children And at the first one might have known them easily for the sons of God by the exemplarie piety of their lives and actions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as men know commonly their neighbour children by a resemblance to their Fathers St. Paul hath made a muster of some chiefs amongst them in the 11. chap. to the Heb. But they being took away by the hand of death there next succeeded in their room a gâ—neration little like them in the course of their lives and therefore little to the comfort of their heavenly Father For his part he was never wanting unto his Vineyard nor could there any thing be done to it which he did not do yet when he looked for grapes in their proper season it brought forth nothing but wilde grapes sit only for the wine-press of his indignation So that the Lord was either childless or else the Father of a stubborn and perverse generation of whose reclaim there was no hopes or but small if any
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the word used of Christ in the present Article in the 11. Chap. to the Hebrewes vers 17. And yet we know that Abraham had another son a son whom he had circumcised by Gods own command of whom twelve Princes were to come and whom God promised to make a puissant Nation And therefore Isaac must be called his only son because preferred before the other in the love of his Father Filius tuus unigenitus i e. filius quem diligis Isaac thine only son that is to say the son whom thou only lovest as there the text without the help of commentator doth expound it self And if the name of unigenitus or Gods only Son may warrantably be applyed to Christ in his humane nature there is not much question to be made but that in the very same capacity he may be called filius proprius or Gods own Son He spared not his own Son by which name he occurreth in St. Paul to the Romans Lesse question is there to be made or indeed no question but that according to the same humane nature and in relation to his being begotten in the fulness of time he is entituled in the Scriptures the first born of every Creature the first born from the dead and the heir of all things though there be something in those titles which doth require a further consideration For first his being called the first born of every Creature gives no incouragement at all to the Arian factions to make the Son of God a created essence no more then Kings may be called creatures of the peoples making because called an ordinance of man humana creatura in the Vulgar latine in the holy Scripture The reason why our Saviour is there called by the Apostle Primogenitus omnis Creaturae or the first born of every Creature is neither to give him the precedency of all Creatures else or to rank his whole Person in the list of created substances but either to entitle him to the rights of Primogeniture which were great amongst the sons of men or to denote that he supplyed the place of the first begotten and was the general ransome or redemption for them Concerning which we may take notice that by the Law of Moses the first that opened the matrix of all living Creatures were holy and cousecrated to the Lord if of clean beasts then to be offered up in kind to the Lord their God but if of men or unclean Creatures then either to be redeemed for a piece of money or some clean beast was to be brought unto the Lord in exchange for it as in the case of the first male child a pair of Turtle doves or two small Pigeons The reason was because the Lord having slain the first born of Egypt both of man and beast had spared all the first born of the house of Israel and therefore he required the first male of every Creature to be offered to him in sacrifice that so the whole off-spring might be sanctifyed and made useful to them But being the offering of a dumb Creature was really and of it self no sufficient price for the redemption of the first male child which opened the Matrix nor able to sanctifie both male and female in every family to the Lord their God for he that sanctifyeth and they that are sanctifyed must be all of one as the Apostle doth infer therefore did CHRIST take upon himself the place of stead of the first born that being offered unto God the clean for the unclean he might sanctifie all things unto God and make them acceptable in the sight of their Lord and maker which were of a nature capable of such sanctification and acceptance as the Lord requireth in his creature Now as the ransome of the first born was discharged by him so was it just that all the rites of Primogeniture should belong unto him which were the Principality the Priest-hood and the double portion Those Reuben having forfeited by his great offence were so distributed amongst his Brethren that the Priesthood was bestowed on Levi the Principality on Iudah the double portion upon Ioseph who thereupon was branched into the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasses But they were all again united in the person of CHRIST that being thus made the first born of every Creature he might in all things have the preheminence The Principality he had for the Lord gave unto him the throne of his Father David the Priesthood for he was a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech the double portion for all power was given unto him both in heaven and earth In all respects the first borne of every Creature but how the first born from the dead which is another of the titles given by the Apostle considering we finde many examples of men that had been raised from the dead before his resurrection both in the old Testament and in the new The answer to this doubt is easie For though those mentioned in both Testaments were for a time raised from death to life yet were they raised to die again as in fine they did But to be primogenitus ex mortuis the first born or first begotten from the powers of death includes an everlasting freedome from the jaws thereof in which regard the Scripture saith of Christ and of Christ alone that being risen from the dead he now dyeth not death hath no more power or dominion over him But of this Priviledge we shall speak more at large hereafter in its proper place That which remaines is that he was heir of all things Heb. 1.2 to the intent that he might prove himself for the Son of Abraham the promised seed in whom all the nations of the world are blessed The promise which was made to Abraham that he should be heir of the world was never verifyed in his person nor in any of his posterity neither till the coming of CHRIST Who being begotten by the power of Almighty God on a daughter of the seed of Abraham and having the nations given him for his inheritance as had been prophecied before by his Father David might properly be entituled the heire of all things according to the rights of his humane nature which nature he derived from David the son of Abraham Thus have we shewn how CHRIST is properly and truly the Son of God his natural and only begotten Son according to his generation in the fulnesse of time without relating to his generation before all time was But yet we must not give off here For by this generation in the fulnesse of time he was not only the Son of God but so the Son of God after such a manner as that he was also the son of man But by his generation before all times he was not only the Son of God but so the Son of God after such a manner that he was also God himself God for ever blessed
resurrection is that he pleased to work that miracle upon himself in a terrible and fearfull earthquake an earthquake so extreme and so truely terrible that the graves did vomit up their dead whose ghastly apparitions wandered up and down Hierusalem and were seen by many of their friends and old acquaintance Which as it was an extraordinary dispensation and far above the Common law and course of nature so was it done by him for a speciall end and did not only verifie the resurrection of our Lord and Saviour ut Dominum ostenderent resurgentem as St. Hierome hath it but also served to assure Gods faithfull servants of the resurrection of their bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we read in Chrysostome So that the Earthquake of it self being great and terrible and made more terrible by the rising of so many dead men from the bonds of death no marvell if the Souldiers of the guard were amazed and terrifyed and in that fright betook themselves unto their heels and forsook their charge At first indeed the affright and astonishment was so great upon them that they seemed even as dead men as the text informes us But the first terrors being over we finde them presently in the City with the chief Priests and Elders declaring the sad news of their ill successe and publishing the glorious wonder of the resurrection So wonderfull was the providence of Almighty God that those means which were projected for an hinderance of the resurrection should add unto the fame and glory of so great a miracle and that those very Souldiers which were hired to guard the Sepulchre should be the first Evangelists if I may so call them by whom that miracle was signifyed to that stubborn nation And yet God had a further end then this in the great hast made by the affrighted Souldiers to the Priests and Elders which was by their departure from the holy Sepulchre to give the safer opportunity to his Disciples who were to be the witnesses of his resurrection both to Iew and Gentile to satisfie themselves in the truth thereof For though the women might presume on the Souldiers gentlenesse who commonly are faire conditioned to that sex yet for the Apostles to adventure thither till the Souldiers of the guard were removed from thence had been to run themselves in the mouth of danger and make themselves obnoxious to the accusation of the Priests and Pharisees And this was a remote cause of the honour which befell that sex in being first acquainted with the news of the resurrection and is another of the circumstances which attends the action God certainly had so disposed it in his heavenly wisdome that as a woman was first made the Devils instrument to perswade man to sin and consequently unto death so the same sex also should become the instruments of publishing this glad news that the Lord was risen and the assurance thereby given of a resurrection to all mankinde from the hands of death Withall observe the power of Almighty God never so clearly manifested in the sight of men as in the weaknesse of his iustruments and that although it was a work sufficient for the ablest Prophet to foretell the resurrection of the Messiah yet was it so easie when accomplished that ignorant and silly women and more then so that women laden with sins should be the first that did proclaime it And there was somewhat in that too that Christ first shewed himself unto Mary Magdalen a woman so infamous for her former life that she is branded in Scripture by the name of Peccatrix as one who had deserved to be so intituled and first of all men unto Simon Peter as great a sinner in his kinde as Mary Magdalen For this he did no doubt to let mankind know that there is no sinner so great whosoever he be to whom if he repent him of his former sinnes the fruit and benefit of Christs resurrection ought not to be extended and applyed though some restraine the same to some certain Quidams men more of their election then Almighty Gods Whereas the Scriptures plainly tell us that as in Adam all dyed so by Christ all men shall be restored to life who being risen from the dead is become the first fruits of all them that slept But here perhaps it will be said How can our Saviour Christ be called the first fruits of them that sleep considering how many severall persons had been raised from the dead before both in the old Testament and in the new The answer unto this is easie and the difference great between them and Christ their being raised from the dead and his resurrection For first our Saviour rose again from the dead virtute propria by his ownproper power and virtue but they were raised again to life virtute aliena by the power and ministry of some other In which regard we read notin the story of his resurrection that he was raised from the dead as if he had been wholly passive in the businesse and did contribute no more to it then did the Shunamites child or the daughter of Iairus but resurrexit he was risen or had raised himself which sheweth him to have been the principall Agent Nor let it stumble any one that in some places of the holy Scripture the Father is said to raise him as in Act. 11. Both will stand well enough together For by the same power that the Father is said to have done it by the same was it done also by the Son I and my Father are one but one power of both and therefore whether it were done by both or by either of them it comes all to one Secondly Christ our Saviour did so rise from the dead as to die no more to have an everlasting freedome from the power of death whereas others have been raised from death to life but to die again Christ being raised from the dead saith the great Apostle dyeth no more death hath no more dominion over him He is not only free from death or the act of dying but from the pains perils and the fears of death and all those sicknesses and sorrows which make way unto it But so it was not with the son of the widow of Sarepta or of the widow of Naim no nor with Lazarus his most dear friend neither who though they were restored again to this mortal life yet it was still a mortal life when it was at best and that mortality was to them as the Prisoners chain by which he is pulled back again though he chance to scape He only did so rise again as by his rising to destroy death and to cloath himself with immortality Thirdly though some were raised before under both Testaments yet that was but a private benefit to themselves alone or perhaps unto their Parents or some few of their friends yet the fruit and benefit thereof did extend no further But by the
eyes of his people did he establish him in the office of the high Priest saying Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech That so it was in his advancement to the throne of his father David shall be made evident in the course of these present Commentaries when we shall look upon him as invested with the regal power And that it was so in his establishment in the Sacerdotal shall be made evident by the testimony of the great Apostle whose words here presently ensue Christ saith he glorifyed not himself to be made the high Priest but he that said unto him Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee did confer it on him As he saith also in another place Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech that is to say that from the day and moment of the resurrection at what time the fiâ—st of the two Prophecies were fulfilled which God delivered by the mouth of the Psalmist saying Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee was our Redeemer to begin the execution of the high Priests office after the order of Meschisedech And this appeares to be the meaning of the Apostle in the present place by the words ensuing For presently on the recitall of the words before recited viz. Thou art a Priest after the order of Melchisedech he addes of Christ that in the dayes of his flesh he offered up prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him from death if he had so pleased But finding his Fathers resolution to the contrary he learned obedience though a Son by that which he suffered and finally that being perfect or rather consecrated for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth import most properly he was made the Authour of eternall salvation unto all those that obey him and was called or publickly declared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God an high Priest after the order of Melchisedech And to say truth had not the Scriptures been so clear in the proof hereof yet necessary consequence grounded upon comparing of one text with another and that applied according to the principles of natural reason would evince it for us The Priesthood of Melchiseâ—ech as the Scripture telleth us was an everlasting or eternall Priesthood Thou art a Priest for ever for no shorter term and therefore of necessity to be exercised and enjoyed by one who must be as eternal as the office is and yet a man and taken from amongst the Sons of men to offer gilts and sacrifices for the sins of the people But such our Saviour was not take him as a man though otherwise more qualifyed and prepared then any for so high an office untill he had so crushed and broken all the powers of death that death had now no longer title to him or dominion over him which doubtlesse was performed at the resurrection And therefore then and not before when all the ceremonies of his consecration were fulfilled in order did he begin to exercise the function of an endlesse everlasting Priesthood after the order of Melchisedech The order of Melchisedech that comes after next And touching that we will examine these three things 1. Who Melchisedech was 2. Wherein his high Priesthood did consist 3. In what the Parallel doth stand between Christ and him Concerning the first point who and what he was hath been a great dispute amongst learned men some thinking that he could not be a mortal man and therefore must needs be either the holy Ghost or else the Son of God then appearing to Abraham in the likenesse and similitude of an earthly Prince The last is most eagerly defended by P. Cunaeus a very learned man and a great Philosopher in his book de Republ. Hebraeorum The reason of this difficulty and his errour are those words of St. Paul where he describeth Melchisedech to be without father without mother without descent having neither beginning of dayes nor end of life And this thought he can be no other then the Son of God Others with greater probability both of proof and reason declare him to be Sem the third son of Noah out of whose loins our father Abraham was descended and this opinion hath found most acceptance generally amongst the learned though some of very eminent parts do opine the contrary But whether he were Sem or not or rather some petty King of the Land of Canaan who went forth to congratulate Abraham upon his returne they are much troubled to apply the negative character which St. Paul hath given us to any upon whom they desire to fasten The best and clearest resolution of the doubt which I yet have met with is that Meschisedech whosoever he was is said to be without father and mother in the same sense as he is after said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Translators render without descent of which his being without father or mother is one branch or member And he is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. without genealogy and not without descent as our English reads because he hath no predecessour either father or mother amongst the rest of the Patriarks whose Genealogies are recorded in the book of God And in this sense as he is said to have no beginning of dayes because the time of his birth is no were remembred so is he also said to have no end of his life because neither the time of his death nor the succession of any after him in his two great offices is specifyed upon the Registers of sacred writ And yet if the Catena Arabica be of any credit we have heard more news of late touching this great man then hath been till of late made known in these Western parts For in their Marginal notes on the 10. of Genesis they say of Phaleg of whom we finde mention vers 25. And this Phaleg was the Father of Heraclim the Father of Melchisedech But in the Chapter going before his Generation is set down in this formal pedegree viz. Melchisedech was the son of Heraclim the son of Phaleg the son of Eber And his Mothers name was Salathiel the daughter of Gomer the son of Japhet the son of Noah And Heraclim the son of Eber maried his wife Salathiel and she was with child and brought forth a son and called his name Melchisedech that is the King of righteousnesse called also the King of Peace By this account Melchisedech was the sixth from Sem and Cousen german unto Serug who was Abrahams Grandfather and being of the linage and house of Sem might well confer that blessing on his Cousen Abraham which had been given to Sem by their father Noah And then one of the greatest arguments to prove Melâ—hisedech to be Sem that namely which is borrowed from the forme and manner of the blessing which he gave to Abraham will be answered easily And were this true as I can hardly reckon it
least some secret influence in the work if not a publick and Oracular admonition And that it was not done but upon serious consultation had amongst themselves and a devout invocation of the name of God the greatness of the business the piety of the first Professors and other good authorities do most strongly assure For if upon the naming of Iohn the Baptist there was not only a consultation held by the friends and mother but the dumb father called to advise about it and if we use not to admit the poorest childe of the parish into the Congregation of Christs Church by the dore of Baptism but by joint invocation of the Name of God for his blessings in it with how much more regard of ceremony and solemnity may we conceive that the whole body of Christs people were baptized into the name of Christians But besides this we have an evidence or record sufficient to confirm the truth of our affirmation For Suidas and before him Iohannes Antiochenus an old Cosmographer first tels us that in the reign of Claudius Caesar ten years after the Ascension of our Lord into Heaven Euodius received Episcopal consecration and was made Patriarch of Antioch the great in Syria succeeding immediately to St. Peter the Apostle And then he addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. And at this time the Disciples were first called Christians Euodius calling them to a solemn conference and putting this new name upon them For before they were called Nazarites and Galileans Some of the Heathens not knowing the Etymon of the name called them Chrestiant and our most blessed Saviour by the name of Chrestos For thus Tertullian of the Christians perperam a vobis Christianus appellatur and thus Lactantius for our Saviour qui eum immutata litera 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 solent dicere But this was only on mistake not on studyed malice Et propter ignorantium errorem as Lactantius hath it the very name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Chrestianus intimating nothing else but meekness and sweetness as Tertullian very well observeth And though Suetonius following the errours of the times calleth our Saviour CHRIST by the name of Chrestos yet Tacitus who lived in the same age with him hits right as well on Christus as on Christianus Quos vulgo Chrestianos appellabat And then he addeth Auctor nominis ejus Christus qui Tiberio imperitante per Procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat Having thus rectified the name and asserted it to its true Original we may do well to have a care that we disgrace not the dignity of so high a calling by the unworthiness and uncleanness of our lives and actions In nobis patitur Christus opprobrium in nobis patitur lex Christiana maledictum that Christ and Christianity were ill spoken of by reason of the wicked lives of Christian people was the complaint of Salvians time God grant it be not so in ours And God grant too that as we take our name from CHRIST so the like minde may be in us as was also in him that is to say that we be as willing to lay down our lives for the brethren especially in giving testimony to his Faith and Gospel as he was willing to lay down his life for us and that as his Fathers love to him brought forth in him the like affections towards us and to his Commandements so his affection unto us may work in us the like love towards our brethren and to all his precepts For hereby shall men know we are his Disciples if we abide in his love and keep his Commandements as he hath kept his Fathers Commandements and abide in his love But see how I am carried to these practical matters if not against my will yet besides my purpose I proceed now to that which followeth ARTICVLI 3. Pars 2da 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Filium ejus unicum Dominum nostrum i. e. His only Son our Lord. CHAP. II. That JESUS CHRIST is the Son of God why called his only or his only begotten Son Proofs for the God-head of our Saviour Of the title of Lord. THat which next followeth is the first of those two Relations in which we do behold our Saviour in this present Article his only Son i. e. the only Son of God the Father Almighty whom we found spoken of before That God had other sons in another sense there is no question to be made All mankinde in some sense may be called his sons The workmanship of his creation Have we not all one Father hath not one God created us saith the Prophet Malachi in the Old Testament Our Father which art in Heaven saith Christ our Saviour for the New The Saints and holy men of God are called his sons also in the more peculiar title of adoption For who else were the sons of God in the 6. of Genesis who are said to take them wives of the daughters of men but the posterity of Seth the righteous seed by and amongst whom hitherto the true worship of the Lord had been preserved More clearly the Evangelist in the holy Gospel To as many as received him gave he power to become the sons of God even to them which believed in his Name Most plainly the Apostle saying As many as are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God having received the Spirit of Adoption whereby they cry to him Abba Father And in this sense must we understand those passages of holy Scripture where such as are regenerate and made the children of God by adoption of grace are said to be born of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Iohns phrase is both in his Gospel and Epistle Not that they have the Lord God for their natural Father for so he is the Father only of our Lord Iesus Christ but because being begotten by immortal seed the seed of his most holy Word they are regenerate and born again unto life eternal This is the seed of God spoken of by St. Iohn which remaineth in us by which we are begotten to an inheritance immortal undefiled and that fadeth not away reserved for us in the Heavens as St. Peter tels us In neither of these two respects can we consider Christ as the Son of God For if he were the Son of God in no other respect then either in regard of Creation or Adoption only he could not possibly be called Gods only Son or his only begotten Son but at the best multis e millibus unus one of the many thousands of the sons of God There is a more particular title by which some more selected vessels both of grace and glory have gained the honourable appellation of the sons of God that is to say by being admitted to a clearer participation and fruition of eternal blisse or made more intimately acquainted with his secret will In the
and did apply it to the birth of Christ born of a most immaculate Virgin as a more punctual fulfilling of that sacred Prophesie then what before had hapned in the days of Ahaz But MARY as she was a Virgin a Virgin and the heir of the promise which was made to Eve and made to Eve when she was yet a Virgin though espoused to Adam so was she also a daughter if not an heir to all those blessings which God had promised unto David the heir as some suppose of the Royal Famiâ—y and thereby gave our Saviour an unquestioned title to the Realm of Iewry But this I take to be a supposition so ill grounded though I see great pains taken in defence thereof that I dare not lay any part of my building on it 'T is true the Iews who knew of his descent from David and greedily laid hold upon all occasions for the recovery of their lost liberties sought after him to make him King But this they did not on an opinion that he was the next heir unto the Crown but because they thought him best able to make good the Title For having seen him feed so many thousands of men with no more provision then only a few Barly loaves and two small fishes they presently conceived that he was able to raise victuals for a greater Army then could be possibly withstood by the powers of Rome The text and context make this plain to a Vulgar Reader For no sooner had the people beheld the miracle but presently they said of a truth this was the Prophet whom they did expect and if a Prophet and that Prophet whom they did expect then who more fit then he to be made their King Nor to say truth was our Redeemer a Descendent of the Royal line but the collateral line of David none of which ever claimed the Kingdome or the title of King or exercised any special power save Zorobabel only and that but temporary for the better setling of the people after the Captivity The Crown being entailed on Solomon and his posterity ended in Ieconiah the last King of that race on whom this curse was laid by the Lord himself that no man of his seed should prosper CHRIST therefore could not be of the seed of that wretched Prince because we know his work did prosper in his hands and that he is the Author of all prosperity both to Iew and Gentile And more then so the self same Prophet telleth us in the following chapter that the Lord would raise unto David a righteous branch a King which should both reign and prosper which is directly contradictory to that before whose name should be the Lord our righteousness and must be meant of Christ and of none but him Though Ioseph might naturally spring from this Ieconiah though it remain a question undecided to this very day whether Salathiel were his natural or adopted son yet this derives no title unto CHRIST our Saviour who was not of the seed of Ioseph though supposed his son Our Saviours own direct line by his Virgin-Mother was not from Solomon but Nathan the son of David of whom the holy Ghost saith nothing as concerning the Kingdome for Mary was the daughter of Heli the son of Matthat the son of Levi and so forth ascendendo till we come to Adam according as it is laid down in the third of Luke And this I call the line of Christ by his Virgin Mother on the authority of St. Augustine in some tracts of his the Author of the Book called De ortu Virginis extant amongst the works of Hierome and many late Writers of good credit besides the testimony of Rabbi Haccanas the son of Nehemiah a Doctor of great esteem amongst the Iews who telleth us that there was a Virgin in Bethlehem Iudah whose name was Mary the daughter of Heli of the kindred of Zerubbabel the son of Salathiel of the Tribe of Iudah who was betrothed to one Ioseph of the same kindred and Tribe Nor can I see to what end St. Luke writing after St. Matthew and having doubtless seen his Gospel should make another pedegree for Ioseph then was made already and that so different from it in the whole composure from Christ to David I take it therefore for a certain and undoubted truth that St. Luke reckoneth the descent of our Lord and Saviour by the line of his Mother the daughter of Heli Ioachim he is called in our Vulgar stories who is said to be the Father of Ioseph because he married his said daughter as Ioseph is there said to be the Father of Christ because he was husband to his Mother Some other difference there is in these two Genealogies as that St. Matthew goes no higher then Abraham and St. Luke followeth his as high as Adam the reason of the which is both plain and plausible For Matthew being himself a Iew and writing his Gospel originally in the Hebrew language for the instruction of that people could not bethink himself of a better way to gain upon them then to make proof that Christ our blessed Saviour was the Son of Abraham in whose seed the whole Nation did expect their blessedness And on the other side St. Luke being by birth a Gentile of the City of Antioch and so by consequence not within the Covenant which was made to Abraham carryeth on the descent of Christ as high as Adam who was the common Father both of Iews and Gentiles to shew that even the Gentiles were within the Covenant which was made in Paradise touching the restauration of lost man by the Promised seed For Maries birth and parentage I think this sufficient A little more may here be added of the title of Virgin because called in this Article the Virgin as by way of eminency The Virgin Mary saith the Article and not a Virgin known or called by the name of Mary Somewhat there is in this there is no doubt of that whether so much as many do from hence infer may be made a question That she continued still a Virgin after Christs nativity I am well resolved of notwithstanding all the cavils made against it by the Ebionites Helvidius Iovinian and the Eunomian Hereticks For who can think that Ioseph after such a revelation from the God of Heaven that she had conceived with childe of the holy Ghost should offer to converse with her in a conjugal manner or that the blessed Virgin if he had attempted it would have permitted that pure womb which had been made a Temple of the holy Ghost to be polluted and profaned with the lust of man The piety of both parties is a forcible argument to free them from an act so different from all sense of piety And yet Helvidius and his fellows had some Scripture for it for even the Devil could come in with his Scriptum est namely that passage in St. Matthew where it is said of Ioseph that he knew her not
till she had brought forth her first born son A first born son say they doth imply a second and his not knowing her till then doth tacitly import that he knew her afterwards And this they fortifie with that in the 6. of Mark where not only Iames and Iuda and Ioses and Simon are called his Brethren but his sisters also are affirmed to be then alive But the answer unto these Objections was made long ago St. Hierome in his tractate against Helvidius having fully canvassed them For first the first begotten or first born doth imply no second that being first not which hath other things coming after it but which hath nothing going before it Et primus ante quem nullus as the Father hath it And this appears most evidently by the law of Moses by which the first born of every creature was to be offered unto God The first born not in reference unto those that are to come after for then the owner of a flock or herd of cattel might have put off the sacrifice or oblation of the first born of his sheep or kine til he were sure to have a new increase in the place thereof which the Law by no means would permit And thus we say in common speech that Queen Iane Seymour dyed of her first childe and that King Edward the fift was murdered in the first year of his reign where past all doubt neither Iane Seymour had more children nor King Edward reigned more years then the first alone And for the argument from the word until or donec peperit in the Latine it implyes no such matter as is thence collected the word not having always such an influence as to imply a thing done after because not before When Christ promised his Disciples to be with them alwayes till the end of the world think we his meaning was to forsake them then that they should neither be with him nor he with them I trow no man of wit will say it And when the Lord said unto his CHRIST Sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy foot-stool may we conclude that when death the last enemy shall be overcome that he shall sit no longer at the Lords right hand I hope none dare think it More instances of this kind might be easily had to shew the weaknesse of this inference were not these sufficient And for the Brothers and Sisters mentioned by St. Marke either they were Iosephs children by a former wife as Irenaeus and likewise all the Greek Fathers downwards St. Hilarie and St. Ambrose amongst the Latines are of opinion or else his nearest kinsmen as St. Hierome thinks which in the Idiom of the Iews were accounted Brethren But on the other side our great Masters in the Church of Rome will not only have her to continue a Virgin post partum after the birth as to the purity of her minde but also in partu in the birth as to the integrity of her body Durand one of their chief Schoolmen will needs have it so not thinking it a sufficient honour to her to be still a Virgin non solum carentia experientiae delectationis Venereae not only by an inexperience of all fleshly pleasure sed etiam membri corporalis integritate but in the clausure of her womb the dotres whereof as they conceive were not opened by it And unto this most of the great Rabbins of that Church do full wel agree Assuredly these men with a little help might in time come to be of the Turkes opinion who out of a Reverent esteem which they have of Christ will not conceive him to be born or begotten according to the course of nature but that the Virgin did conceive him by the smell of a Rose and after bare him at her brests But herein they run crosse to the antient Writers who though they constantly maintained the perpetual Virginity of the Mother of Christ yet such a corporal integrity in the act of Child-birth as these men idly dream of did they never hold Tertullian very aptly noteth that she was Virgo a viro non virgo a partu a Virgin in respect that she knew not man and yet no Virgin in regard of her bearing a child which though it were conceived in a wonderful manner yet ipse patefacti corporis lege he came into the world by the open way Pamelius in his notes accounts this and some other passages to this purpose amongst the Paradoxes of Tertullian So doth Rhenanus too a more modern censurer and yet confesseth that St. Ambrose was of this opinion so was St. Hierome too in his second Book against the Pelagians who holds that Christ first opened those secret passages though he after shut them up again According to the judgment of which antient writers for those which followed them in time varyed somewhat from them it is the common resolution of the Protestant Schooles that though Christ when he was born of his Virgin Mother opened the passages of her womb as all children do yet she continued still a Virgin because her mind was free from the thoughts of lust and that she had conceived of the holy Ghost nay that he may more properly be said to have opened the womb of Mary his mother then any other first born do because he found it shut at the time of his birth which the first born of the sons of men do not And being it is confessed by the greatest Schoolmen that there may be an opening of the womb without the losse of Virginity as in the cure of some diseases or on such an accident of which St. Augustine speakes in his first book De Civit. dei c. 18. I should much wonder at the stiffenesse of the Papists in it but that I know they lay it for a ground work of their doctrine of transubstantiation and the local being of his body in more places at a time then one by taking from it all the properties of a naturall body But to say truth they well may free Christs body from the bands of nature when they have freed his mother from the bands of sin not from the sins only of an higher nature but even from slight and veniall sins as they use to call them nor yet from actual sins only but original also To what this great exemption tends we shall see anon In the mean time we may take notice that this exemption from the guilt of original sin is but a new opinion taken up of late and not yet generally agreed on amongst them there having been great conflicts about this priviledge between Scotus and the Franciscans on the one side Aquinas and the Dominicans on the other But in the end the devotions of the common people being strongly bent unto the service of our Lady the Franciscans carryed it Sixtus the 4. who had been formerly of that Order not only ratifying by his Buls their doctrine of her