Christ once for all Hebr. 10. 10. Every Priest standeth dayly ministring and offering oftimes the same sacrifices which can never take away sinnes but this man or rather this Priest after he had once offered one sacrifice for sinnes for ever sate downe on the right hand of God and henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool For by one offering he hath consecrated for ever them that are sanctified ver 11. 12. 13. 5 As many as have reaped or hereafter shall reape any benefit either from Gods's Oath to Abraham concerning his seede in whom all the Nations of the earth were to be blessed or from the Renewing of this Oath to David concerning his son which was to be the Dispenser of this blessing and to be made a Priest after the order of Melchisedech who blessed Abraham all and every one of them are consecrated to the patticipation of this blessing by the Consecration of this our high Priest the Sonne of God The Law saith the Apostle makes men high Priests which have infirmity but the word of the Oath which was since the Law maketh the Sonne high Priest who is consecrated for evermore and by this his Consecration wee even all the Israel of God are consecrated by an everlasting Consecration So saith the Apostle Revel 1. 5. Iesus Christ the first begotten of the dead and Prince of the Kings of the earth hath washed us from our sins in his owne Blood and hath made us Kings and Priests that is Priests after the order of Melchisedech unto God and his Father By this his Consecration likewise to his everlasting Priesthood we are hallowed and consecrated as Temples to our God so saith S. Peter 1. Pet. 2. v. 4. 5. To whom comming as to a living stone disallowed indeed of men but chosen of God and precious yee also as lively stones are built up a spirituall house an holy Priesthood to offer up a spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God by Iesus Christ 5 But to take the severall bloody sacrifices which were offered at the Consecration of Aaron and his sonnes into more particular consideration Albeit these sacrifices were all imperfect not only absolutely or in respect of our high Priest's everlasting sacrifice but even in respect of these spirituall sacrifices mentioned by S. Peter which wee are to offer unto God yet were they all in their kind most perfect The best and chiefest in the whole ranke of legall or Aaronicall sacrifices they are as so many lineaments pourtraying in part or fore-shadowing that body or accomplishment not of them only but of all other sacrifices All meet in it as so many lines in their Center The first bloody sacrifice that was offered at the Consecration of Aaron was a Bullock The Priests might offer no other sacrifice then this for their owne sinne-offering because this was of all other the best and yet in comparison of this saith the Psalmist in the Person of this our high Priest in his affliction I will praise the name of God with a song and will magnifie him with thanksgiving this alâ—o shall please the Lord better then a bullock which hath hornes and hoofes that is beginning to spread the horne and hoofe for at that time they were most fit for sacrifice Psal 69. ver 30. 31. His meaning was that this sacrifice of thanksgiving should be more acceptable unto God then the very best sacrifice of the Law and so it was especially whilst offered by our high Priest even when he offered his bloody sacrifice upon the Crosse and after his enemies had given him vineger in his thirst to drink For after he had uttered that pittifull Song of the Psalmist Psal 22. whether only out of his griefe or anguish or upon other respects and intentions My God my God why hast Thou for saken Me he finally commends his soule his spirit unto his Father in the words of the Psalmists Song Ps 35. Father into thy hands I coÌ„mend my spirit The uttering of both these Songs in this anguish of soule argues hee lov'd his God and our God his Father and our Father with all his soule with all his heart with all his strength and his performance of this great Commandement as the Scribe which approved his answer to the Pharisees to the Herodians and the Sadduces had a litle before confest upon his answer to his Question was more then all whole burnt offrings and sacrifices Mat. 12. from v. 12. to 34. CHAP. 26. In what respects the Bullock offered at the Consecration of Aaron c. and the rites of offering â—â— did prefigure the bloody sacrifice of the Sonne of God especially the circumstances of the place wherein it was offered BVt you will aske wherein did the Sacrifice of the Bullock which was offered for a sinne-offering or Attonement at Aaron's Consecration or the circumstances in offering it punctually fore-shadow the bloody Sacrifice which our high Priest offered at his Consecration or the manner or circumstance of his offering it It did in circumstance at least prefigure the Sacrifice of our high Priest after the same manner or in respect of the same circumstance that the annuall sacrifices of Attonement did prefiure it of which hereafter Inasmuch as the head and flesh c. of the Bullock for sinne-offering or Attonement for Aaron at his Consecation was to be offered or burnt without the campe not to be burnt upon the Altar It fell under the same Law and undergoes the same considerations which the annuall-Sacrifices in the feast of Attonement did For so it is expressely commanded Exod. 29. 14. That the flesh of the Bullock and his skinne should be burnt without the Camp because it was a sin-offering Now it was an universall and peremptory Law that no flesh of any Sacrifice whose Blood was brought into the Sanctuary to make Attonement should be eaten by the Priests in the Sanctuary 2 It was againe a Law as peremptory that the Priests especially the high Priests might that is had power to eat the flesh of any Sacrifice whose Blood was not brought into the Sanctuary For to this purpose Moses Levit. 10. 17. expostulateth with Aaron's sonnes which were left after the death of Nadab and Abihu Wherefore have yee not eaten the sinne-offering in the holy place for it is the holy of holies and it vz. the flesh of the sin-offring he hath given to you to beare the iniquity of the Congregation to make Attonement for them before the Lord Behold the Blood of it was not brought in behold indeed you should have eaten it in the holy place as I commanded you Aaron in his Apologie for his sonnes against this accusation of Moses in no case questions the truth or extent of this commandement but rather excuseth himselfe and his sonnes for not observing the purport of the Law as the case stood with them his two sonnes Nadab and Abihu being lately consumed with fire issuing out from before the Lord for offering strange fire which
compâ—â—aâ— high Priest after the O 〈…〉 of Melâ—â—iâ—â— dâ—câ— Pag. 18. 5. That the Soâ—ne of God by his Consecration being â—ncâ— accomplished become the Authorâ— and Fountain of everlasting â—aâ—vâ—tion to all such and only such as obey him In what sâ—nce he is said to have dyed for 〈…〉 â—â—â—â— be 〈…〉 of all mankind Pag. 23. SECTION 2. OF the calling of designement of the Sonne of God to be an high Priest after the order of Melchisedech of the differences and agreements in some particulars betweene the Priesthood of Aâ—on and the Priesthood of Melchisedech CHAP. 6. Of the signification or importance of the word calling used by our Apostle Heb. 5. with the generall Heads or Points to be handled and discust in this 2. 3. 4. Sections Pag. 29. 7. In what sense Melchisedech is said to be without Father and Mother Heb. 7. 3. Whether he were a mortall man aâ— Abraham was though more auncient wherein the similitude betweene Melchisedech's person and the person of the Sonne of God doth specially consist Pag. 32. 8. That the omission of Melchisedech's â—â—â—â—â—logy did import a speciall mystery and what that mystery was pag. 40. 9 What manner of blessing it was which Melchisedech â—â—stowed on Abraham That the manner of the blessing argues Melchisedech to have beene Sem the great as the Iewish Rabbins enstile him the eldest sonne of Noah not by birth yet by prerogative of the first borne pag. 44. 10. Wherein the priesthood of Melchisedech did differ from the priesthood of Aaron That Melchisedech did not offer any sacrifice of bread and wine unto God when he blessed Abraham pag. 50. 11. In respect of what points especially the priesthood of Melchisedech did fore-picture the priesthood of the Sonne of God pag. 56. SECTION 3. OF the calling or destination of the Seede of Abraham and Sonne of David by solemne oath to the everlasting Priesthood CHAP. 12. The chiefe or main principle whereon our Apostle grounds his Treatise or discourse to the Hebrewes Containing a Paraphrase upon the most part of the sixt Chapter to the Hebrewes pag. 67. 13 The use of oaths and their observance is from the Law of Nature Of the manner of taking solemne oathes amongst the Ancients of severall Nations pag. 74. 14. Of Oaths promissory specially for Confirmation of leagues and of the fearefull judgements that usually fall upon them who wittingly and willingly violate them pag. 80. 15. In what cases solemne oaths were or are to be taken and administred pag. 90. 16. Gods oath to Abraham was an oath for Confirmation of the league betwixt them Of the severall manner of leagues pag. 96. 17. The League betweene God and Abraham did eminently containe the most accurate solemnities that were used betwixt Prince and Prince or Nation and Nation pag. 104. 18. What the Interposition of God's oath for more a bundant Confirmation of his promise to Abraham did import over and above all that which was included in the literall or assertive sense of the League betwixt God and Abraham pag. 113. 19. Of the two things wherein our Apostle saith it was impossible for God to lye pag. 122. 20. The former Importance of Gods Oath to Abraham and the contents of it specified in the two immediately precedent Chapters morefully confirmed by the â—enour of Gods oath to David and to his seed described at large by the Author of the 98 Psalm most concludently by the Apostle Heb. 7. pag. 127. SECTION 4. BY what Persons and in what manner the Consecration of Iesus Christ the Sonne of God to his Priesthood was prefigured CHAP. 21. That Iesus or Iehoshua the son of Nun Zerubbabel the sonne of Shealtiel and Iesus the sonne of Iehosadeck were speciall Tipes of Iesus Christ the Sonne of God respectively as he was to be made and now is both King and Priest pag. 145. 22. Of the harmony betweene the Prophet Ieremy and the Prophet Zachary concerning the man whose name is the Branch How his growth or springing up was prefigured by Zerubbabel the sonne of David His name and title as our high Priest fore-pictured by the name and title of Iesus the sonne of Iosedech That he was as truly the Sonne of God before all time as the sonne of David in time pag. 154. 23. The objection of the Iewes against the interpretation of the former Prophecy Ierem. 23. answered In what sense Iudah is truly said to be saved and Israel to dwell in safety by Iesus the Sonne of God and sonne of David pag. 163. 24. That our high Priest the Sonne of God did not only accomplish that which was fore-shadowed by the name and title and office of Iesus the Sonne of Iosedeck but withall the legall rites or solemnities none of which he did destroy or dissolve as he did the works of the Divell but change or advance them into better solemnities to be observed by us Christians That his solemne accomplishment of the feast of Attonement at the feast of the Passover was prefigured in the Law and fore-signified by Gods speciall command pag. 167. 25. In what respects the Consecration of Aaron and of his sonnes did especially prefigure the Consecration of the Sonne of God and in what respect's they specially differ That the Consecration of Aaron did in diverse respects serve as a foile to set forth the excellency of the Consecration of the Sonne of God pag. 182. 26. In what respects the Bullock offered at the Consecration of Aaron c. and the rites of offering it did prefigure the bloody sacrifice of the Sonne of God especially the circumstances of the place wherein it was offered pag. 190. 27. In what respects the Ramme of the Consecration and the Ramme which God did provide for a burnt offering instead of Isaack did prefigure the sacrifice of the Sonne of God Of other speciall rites wherein Aaron at his Consecration and in the function of his Priest-hood did prefigure the Consecration and Priesthood of the Sonne of God pag. 196. 28. A briefe recapitulation of what hath beene said in this parallel betweene the Consecration of Aaron and the Consecration of the Sonne of God the conclusion of the whole Treatise concerning it pag. 208. SECTION 5. OF the Resurrection of the Sonne of God By what Prophets it was fore-told By what persons or legall Rites it was fore-pictured or foreshadowed CHAP. 29. In what high esteeme S. Paul did hold the Article of of our Saviours Resurrection and Ascension c. That the want of explicite beliefe to this grand Article of the Resurrection did argue rather a dulnesse or slownesse to believe the Scrip tures then any infidelity or incredulity even in such as had seene his miracles and had heard him fore-tell his death and rising againe untill the event did manifest unto them the truth of his former Doctrine and predictions pag. 214. 30. That the Death and Resurrection of the Sonne of God was enigmatically fore-told in the first promise made to our Father Adam and
our Mother Eve That his Resurrection was exquisitely prefigured by Isaack's escape front death and the Propagation of his Kingdome after his Resurrection by the strange increase or multiplication of Isaack's seede A parallel betwixt our Saviour and Ioseph in their affliction and exaltation pag. 225. 31. Shewing the concludency of the allegations used by the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul to prove the truth of Christs Resurrection and in particular of the Testimony Psal 2. Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee pag. 237. 32. The concludency of S. Paul's second Argument Act. 13. drawne from the 55. of Isaiah pag. 255. 33. That our Saviour's departure and passing out of this world to his Father or his entring into his glory through afflictions was exquisitely fore-shadowed by divers solemnities in the legall Passover and by the Israelites passing through the red Sea pag. 261. 34. The Resurrection of the Sonne of God and the effects or issues of his birth from the grave were concludently fore-pictured by the Redemption of the firstlings of the flockes and of the first borne males and by the offrings of the first fruits of their corne pag. 269. SECTION 6. HE ascended into Heaven CHAP. 35. How the Ascension of the Sonne of God was prefigured by the translation of Enoch and by the taking up of Elias And foretold by the Psalmist Psal 15. and Psal 24. pag. 277. 36. At what time and upon what occasions the 68. Psalme was composed What reference it hath in the generall unto our Saviours Ascension pag. 286. 37. Of the concludency of the Apostles Allegation Ephes 4. 7. 8. Out of the 18. vers of the 68. Psal pag. 292. 38. That the manner of our Saviours Ascension was more clearely fore seen by Daniel then by David and most exactly fore-shadowed by matters of fact in Mosaicall and other sacred histories A paralleâ— between Salomons Consecration of the Temple and our Saviours Consecration or sanctifying of himselfe and his heavenly Sanctuary pag. 301. 39. Into what place or part of heaven our Saviour did ascend or in what manner hee sitteth at the right hand of God are points not so fit to be particularly inquired after nor so apt to be proved or determined by Scripture as the other Articles of our Creed pag. 307. 40. How the time of our Saviours Ascension into heaven upon the fortieth day after his Resurrection from the grave was prefigured by the signe of the Prophet Ionas with the exposition of that signe given by our Saviour Mat. 12. 39. 40. pag. 313. 41. A Parallel betweene the day wherein Adam is thought to have been cast out of Paradise with the day wherein our Saviour was Crucified And betweene the first day of the worlds Creation and our Saviours Resurrection pag. 325. 42. That the sentence proclaimed against Nineveh by the Prophet Ionas was in a full measure executed upon the adulterous Generation of the Iewes not believing or repenting at our Saviours preaching pag. 332. 43. That place of Zachary Chap. 14. v. 3. expounded shewing that God did fight with the Gentiles against the Iewes as formerly he had done with the Iewes against the Gentiles How the forty daies of Christs abode upon earth after his Resurrection was sore-told pag. 341. Errata PAg. 14. Lin. 7 proposition Cor. preposition p. 19. l. 13. earth c. upon earth p. 38. l. 15. fants c. Infants p. 39. l. 24. as c. is p. 73. l. 27. judaicall c. judiciall p. 75. l. 15. ovve c. ovvne p. 76. l. 15. tagendo c. tangendo p. 76. l. 2. deleatur P. p. 79. l. 12. Pâ—idias c. Cydias p. 115. l. 26. sororom c. sororum p. 34â— l. 9. vvath c. vvrath A TREATISE OF THE CONSECRATION of the Sonne of God to his everlasting PRIESTHOOD And THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF it by his Glorious Resurrection and Ascension 1. WANT sometimes of skill sometimes of industry oftentimes of both to sound the mysteries or discusse the generall maximes contained in sacred Scriptures aright hath been one speciall occasion as of breeding so of nursing and continuing endlesse quarrels amongst the chiefe professors of peace Students I meane or Graduates in Theologie Now for composing the most or greatest Controversies which for these late years have disturbed the peace of Christs Church militant here on earth no maxime in the whole Book of God which is the only Fundamentall and compleat rule of faith and manners is or can be of greater or better use than that of our Apostle Heb. 5. 9. And being made perfect he became the Author of everlasting salvation to all that obey him being called a Priest c. The discussion whereof in a fuller measure and as I hope in a more distinct manner then I have found it discussed by others is the maine end or scope of these present undertakings The maxime it selfe though briefe is the true scale or diametrall line or rule without whose knowledge or distinct survey first taken neither the full distance or disproportion nor the parallel approaches or symmetrall vicinities which many different opinions yet still in debate respectively hold or beare unto the infallible doctrine of salvation and life will ever be fully discovered much lesse clearly determined Besides this great and generall use if we could hit the punctuall meaning of this place or take a true value of the very first word in this text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wee might with more facilitie cleare that obscure and difficult place Heb. 11. 40. and informe our selves First what better thing it was which God had provided for the faithfull in later ages in respect of former and secondly what the Apostle there means by being made perfect For in this being made perfect consisteth the betterhood of the faithfulls estate in that time in respect of Abrahams the Patriarchs and the Prophets SECT 1. Of Consecration and of the Qualifications of those that were to be consecrated high Priests CHAP. 1. Of the true value or signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of being made perfect WHatsoever good thing or perfection it was which the Apostles or Disciples of our Lord did obtaine in this life over and above all that which the Patriarchs in their Pilgrimages here on earth did attaine unto this was wholly from the perfection here mentioned in my Text. Neither the Patriarchs nor Apostles were made perfect untill the Sonne of God was made perfect Their best perfection is but an effct or branch of his perfection or of his being made perfect That the Patriarchs and Apostles should be made perfect is not a thing strange because they were but men and therefore subject to many imperfections but that the Sonne of God who is perfection it selfe should be made perfect this may seeme more then strange a thing impossible and wee were bound to admit a solecisme in the Apostles expressioÌ„ if wee were to weigh it only according to the grammaticall signification of the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
esse or accomplishment of it It was not terminated till the day of his Resurrection from the dead But of this argument more at large Sect. 5. in the Article of the Resurrection of the Son of God That this eternall Son of God was not actually consecrated or made an high Priest untill his Resurrection from the dead our Apostle in the fift verse of this Chapter before cited to another purpose fully instructs us Christ tooke not to himselfe this honour to be made the high Priest but hee that said unto him Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee put it upon him And this day or this Ego hodiè genuite as this our Apostle elswhere instructs us referres unto the day of his Resurrection or begetting from the dead After which day death hath no more dominion over him but Hee such an absolute power over death and the powers of darknesse that neither can annoy or assault him And from this day and not before doth his endlesse everlasting Priesthood commence And being thus actually consecrated by his Resurrection from the dead that is made both Lord and Christ hee is become the Author of everlasting salvation which was the second Point CHAP. 5. That the Sonne of God by his Consecration being once accomplished became the Author and Fountaine of everlasting salvation to all such and only such as obey him In what sence he is said to have dyed for all men or to be the redeemer of all mankind Hee became Author of Salvation to all that obey him THe signification of the single termes in this proposition is so plaine that it needs no paraphrase or explication and the connexion of them so firme as requires no distinction All the difficultie is about the limitation of the entire proposition it selfe as whether he be the Author or cause of everlasting salvation only to them which obey him or unto all to the end that they may obey him or whether this proposition be equivalent and but equivalent unto this proposition whosoever beleeveth in him shall be saved or a restraint of it Surely if in all these places of the old and new Testament wherein salvation is ascribed to faith or unto faith alone the Apostles or Prophets had substituted obedience instead of faith there could have beene no dangerous misnomure for as the faith is such is the obedience and è contra Both terms equally imply two the same things necessary to salvation First a submission of our wills to Gods will or a readinesse to doe his will revealed Secondly when wee have done as well as wee can to deny our selves and renounce all confidence in our best workes whether of faith or obedience But however the termes be fully equivalent yet the word obedience better befits this place then if he had said He became the Author of everlasting salvation to all that beleeve in him because obedience is the very formall effect of true faith or beliefe as they are set upō this particular truth or mystery here taught by our Apostle the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or impression or the ingrossment of the patterne here commended to our imitation For if we syncerely and stedfastly believe that the Son of God became obedient to his Father even unto the death of the Crosse that for our sakes he was consecrated through grievous afflictions through unknowne paines and terrors to the end he might be our faithful and compassionate high Priest This Doctrine it selfe being laid to our hearts will bring forth the like affection or obedience towards him specially if our faith be seconded by hope of being consecrated through obedience to be Kings and Priests with him unto our God which is the full paraphrase of our everlasting salvation here meant the true expression of that perfection mentioned by our Apostle Heb. 11. v. the last But if the Apostles punctuall meaning be that the Sonne of God is the Author of everlasting salvation only to such as obey him shall we not hence be concluded to grant that hee died only for such as finally shall be saved or that he redeemed none but the Elect because the Author of salvation to none but these Thus many in our dayes and which is more to be lamented some of this Church of England have from the former premisses collected and peremptorily taught that Christ dyed for none but the Elect without vouchsafing any mannerly answer to the Church their Mother who expressely maintaines the contradictony as that he dyed for all men that he redeemed not only every one of us in particular but all mankind Others have been so courteous as to vouchsafe their Mother and Bretheren some distinctions or limitations of that universall assertion as thus That he died for all sufficientèr not efficientèr sufficiently not efficiently for all that he redeemed all mankind with this limitation that is singula generum some o◠all mankind some rich some poore some Iewes some Gentiles The later distinction is very dangerous the former impertinently unnecessary for if by all mankind we once come to understand some of all sorts of men we shall commit no new error but only extend the same if by the whole world which God the Father is said to have created wee understand only some portion of every principall part of this universe as some portion of the heavens some of the starres some part of the earth some of the water some part of theayre some of every sort of vegetable or living things but not absolutely all The other distiction of sufficientèr and efficientèr falls under the common error of most moderne Catechists or Divines which is to take upon them to divide things which in their nature are indivisible as the Will of God the Death of Christ or the Value of his sufferings to leave other termes which import matter divisible undistinguished Such is the terme or word Redemption passively taken not as it is an act of God or as it in his prescience For however the will of God or the value of Christs sufferings be altogether indivisible because absolutely infinite yet of Redemption purchased for us by Christs bloody death and passion there are as you please to call them severall parts or degrees Now that may be absolutely true of some one or more parts of degrees which is not true of all The first degree of our Redemption purchased by Christ was the payment of the ransome for our sinnes unto his Father and our freedome from slavery by his conquest over Satan This part or these degrees of Redemption are alike common to all mankind Christ whether in his death upon the Crosse or in his conflict with the powers of darknesse in the Garden did suffer asmuch for any one as for all God was in him reconciling all men unto himselfe All were set free de iure from Satans servitude The second part or degree of Redemption is our actuall admission into the Catholique Church or which is all one our
mother are but branches of that generall negative without genealogie Now whether we consider him as God or as man he cannot without wrong to the sacred character or sense of the holy spirit be thought or said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without genealogy as Melchisedech is for one generation or descent makes a genealogie Otherwise Cain and Abel should have beene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without genealogie which titles notwithstanding cannot in the Evangelists meaning be applyed unto Adam for he derives all others genealogies from Adam's and Adam's from God Luk. 3. Now looke in what sense Abel Cain or Adam may be said to have a genealogie Christ may in the same sense have two One as he is the Sonne of God another as he is the Sonne of Abraham David and of Marie But so it is that even the wisest and most judicious Writers of times swallow such fallacies in historicall narrations or discourses of matters spirituall especially without any sensible disgust or dislike as would be rejected no lesse then poison unallayed were they exhibited to them in the simplicitie of language or logistick forme To instance in an notorious one much like unto this late mentioned 7 The most ancient Editions of Macrobius mention a jest of Augustus broken upon Herod for killing his Sonne at the same time that he butchered the Hebrew Infants Mallem Herodis esse percum quam filium Some ancient Christians to salve the truth of this narratioÌ„ being somewhat suspicious because Herod at that time had no knowne Sonne that was a child have made the old Tyrant father of a young sonne supposed to be borne unto him by a second wife of Iewish if not of Davids progenie which the age wherein hee lived never laid unto his charge Some later criticks better able to disprove this supposititious broode then apt to reforme that error in themselves which unreform'd in others did beget it have not spared to charge their Bretheren in time their fathers with falsification of Macrobius his Text as if the forecited passage had been inserted by some ancient Christians as many verses in Sibylla's oracles have beene unlesse these and the like Aristarchusses faile in their criticismes But for Macrobius his text it is without question uncorrupt and the Christian Fathers free from that falsification of it whereof late Criticks have accused them The zeale of the ancient Fathers and the censorious sawcinesse of later Criticks did alike overreach their judgments But this as I said is a fault common to us and to those that are farre our betters We maintaine our owne posittions as if wee were waking Wee peruse good Authors as if wee had never lookt upon them but in a slumber yet what punie Logician but would scorne to swallow this fallacy in a dreame Chaerilus fuit vir bonus Chaerilus fuit poeta ergo Chaerilus fuit bonus poeta Chaerilus was a good man and a Poet therefore a good Poet. The forementioned criticall collection is in regard of its forme a like false and disjointed only the matter of it is not so vulgar or palpable The roote of the Criticks erronious censure was this Herod killed the Syrian or Hebrew Infants amongst these Infants hee killed his owne son ergo this sonne of Herod when hee killed him was an Infant That Herod about the same time wherein the fants of Iudah and Bethleem were by his appointment slaine did out of his jealous feare command Antipater his turbulent sonne to be put to death no modern Critick shall be ever able to disprove That the killing of his owne sonne being come to maturity of age with these Infants doth better sort with the analogy of Gods Iustice usually manifested in the infatuation of Politicians and with the literall sense and character of Augustus iest taking it as Macrobius hath expressed it then if hee had slaine the same party in his Infancy shall elswhere by Gods assistance be declared 8 The fallacy for whose discovery these two former have beene produced is in my opinion of all three the most grosse the best forme that can be put upon it is this Melchisedech was without father or mother Melchisedech is like unto the Sonne of God ergo Melchisedech is herein like unto the Sonne of God in that he is without father or mother The premisses are most true but the conclusion if I may so speake more then most false for of all the persons that are or have beene in heaven or earth none are so unlike as the Sonne of God and Melchisedech if wee state the comparison betwixt them according to the naturall tenor or importance of these termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What shall we say then that these titles expressely given to Melchisedech by our Apostle are altogether superfluous needlesse or impertinent to the conclusion intended by him Rather most necessary and most apposite As how Briefly thus This descripâ—tion of him by these titles is a condition or Qualification necessarily supposed or pre-required to the similitude intended betwixt Christ and him It is no proper part or formall terme of the similitude it self That formally consists only in being without beginning or end of dayes and herein they are as like one another as any body and its proper shadow can be 9 Every man that hath a father even AdaÌ„ himself who was without father or mother had a beginning of dayes Every man that hath a Son to succeed him as like wise supposed to have an end of daies Whence it is that no King of Iudah or Israel not Solomon himselfe in all his glory could be any true modell of the Son of God in respect of his eternitie No Priest or Son of Levi not Eleazar Phinehas or Aaron himself though pictured in their pontificall ornaments could beare any colour or resemblance of his everlasting Priesthood For all these are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Parents their Sonnes and Successors are exactly registred in the sacred Volume the same Page or Table which expresseth their genealogie doth represent withall their mortalitie that they had a beginning or end of dayes And whosoever hath a beginning or end of dayes can be no true shadow of eternitie or of the Sonne of God as he is eternall CHAP. 8. That the omission of Melchisedech's Genealogie did import a speciall mystery and what that mystery was MAy we hence averre that every man mentioned in Scripture whose birth whose death or genealogie is not expressed may be a true shadow or picture of the Sonne God as he is eternall Wee doe not wee need not say so The day is oftimes mentioned in the Scripture without any mention of the night Yet to seeke after a mysticall sense in all such places were to set our wits a wandring in a waking dream But seeing in the Story of the worlds creation wee find such accurate and constant mention of the evening and morning making one day untill all the works of the sixe daies were
the Sonne of Iehozadeck's head was the modell of the Crowne of David which was to flourish upon Iesus the Sonne of David's head as it is Psalme 132. v. 18. But upon himselfe shall his Crowne flourish 6 Briefly the protestation which the Angell in the verses following makes to Iesus the Son of Iosedech is but a renewing or repetition of the promise which God had made unto Abraham and David concerning their seede The tenour of God's promise here renewed or repeated unto Iesus the high Priest is the same And the Angell of the Lord protested unto Ieshua saying thus saith the Lord of boasts if thou wilt walke in my wayes and if thou wilt keepe my charge then thou shalt also judge my house and shalt also keepe my Courts and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by These words containe as ample a patent for the temporall or legall Priesthood unto Iesus the Sonne of Iosedech and his posteritie as David had for continuation of the temporall Kingdome in his race or progeny both the promises and patents were conditionall But that there should arise an everlasting Priest as well as an everlasting King one in whom God's promises should not be conditionall but yea and amen that is absolute and irrefragable the Prophet Zachary addes Heare now O Ieshua the high Priest thou and thy fellowes that sit before thee for they are what are they monstrous persons saith our former English or men wondred at saith the later Viri portendentes saith the vulgar The Prophets meaning is that they are men set for types or signes of great matters to come The word in the originall is the same Ezech. 12. 11. Say I am your signe like as I have done so shall it be done unto them that is to the Princes of Ierusalem and house of Israel they shall remove and goe into captivity As Ezechiel his digging through the wall in the peoples sight and carrying forth his stuffe upon his shoulders in twilight with his face covered that hee should not see the ground was a signe or prognostication of Zedechiah's stealth or flight from the Chaldeans army which besieged him So Ieshua the high Priest and all his fellowes in all this action or solemnity specially in laying the foundation of the Altar and Temple were prognosticke signes or prefigurations of Iesus the everlasting high Priest and of the spirituall Temple the holy Catholique Church which he was to build by the ministry of the Apostles So it followeth for behold I will bring forth my servant the branch For behold the stone that I have laid before Ieshua upon one stone shall be seven eyes behold I will engrave the graving thereof saith the Lord of hoasts and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day CHAP. 22. Of the harmony betweene the Prophet Ieremy and the Prophet Zachary concerning the man whose name is the branch How his growth or springing up was prefigured by Zerubbabel the sonne of David His name and title as our high Priest fore-pictured by the name and title of Iesus the Sonne of Iosedech That he was as truly the Son of God before all time as the sonne of David in time THat this man whose name was the Branch was to build the Temple of the Lord that he was to take his investiture unto his priestly dignity by Iesus the Sonne of Iehosadech as by his proxie is apparent from the sixt Chapter of the Prophet Zachary 11. Take silver and gold and make Crownes and set them upon the head of Ieshua the Sonne of Iosedech the high Priest and speake unto him saying thus speaketh the Lord of hasts saying Behold the man whose name is the Branch and hee shall grow up out of his place hee shall build the Temple of the Lord even hee shall build the Temple of the Lord and he shall beare the glory and shall sit and rule upon his throne and he shall be a Priest upon his Throne and the counsell of peace shall be betweene them both 2 This place and the former are pregnant that the Servant of the Lord whose name was Zemah the Branch whose office was to build up the Temple of God should be a Priest and should sit upon his Throne as Priest But it cannot from either place be gathered it is not so much as intimated that hee should either be a Priest after the order of Aaron or of Melchisedech or of the seede of Aaron as Iesus or Ioshua the Sonne of Iehosedech was But as the Prophet affirmeth not that hee was to be Priest after the order of Aaron or Melchisedech so neither in plaine termes doth hee deny it true but as every Prophet of God speakes nothing but the truth so neither doth one of them speake all the truth or all that is requisite for us to believe concerning Iesus our Saviour That the man whose name was the Branch the same party of whom Zachary here speakes should not be of the seed of Aaron or a Priest after the order of Aaron is evident from the prophecy of Ieremiah Ier. 23. 5. uttered more then seventy yeares before Zachary began to prophecy Behold the dayes come saith the Lord that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch and a King shall raigne and prosper and shall execute judgment and justice upon the earth In his dayes Iudah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely and this is his name whereby he shall be called the Lord our righteousnesse It is plaine then out of the fore cited prophecy of Zachary that God's servant the righteous Branch was to be a Priest It is evident againe out of Ieremiah that he was to spring out of the seede of David and to raigne as King over Iudah and Israel as David had done And these two put together will directly conclude that this Branch of David was to be that sonne of David concerning whom the Lord had sworne and would not repent that hee should be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech who was both King and Priest and by interpretation the King of righteousnesse and King of peace both which titles are expressely given to this Servant of God and Branch of David the one by the Prophet Zachary the other by the Prophet Ieremiah 3 But is it intimated or fore-told by either of them that he should be as truly David's Lord as David's Sonne Yes Ieremy implies this in fuller termes then David himselfe doth Psalm 110. for David saith the Lord said unto my Lord Adonai not Iehovah whereas the Prophet Ieremy tells us that the supreame style or title of this Branch of David should be not Adonai Tzadkenu but Iehova Tzadkenu Iehovah our righteousnesse So that hee whom David in spirit calleth his Lord was to be as essentially Lord and God as he that said unto him sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy foot stoole But was he according unto this name or title
did solemnely confesse and acknowledg Christ Iesus to be as truly God as man The matter or object directly signified by these words is the only true and reall Foundation of faith as Christian of the Catholique Church it selfe Of this ranke or sort of names is the name Iehosadech as it was given unto the Father of Iesus the high Priest but this doth no way import that he was either Iehovah or a man more righteous thē other high Priests had beene and yet so called not by chance or out of vain ostentation of his parents but by divine instinct or appointment of God Or whatsoever intent his parēts might have in giving him this name God did so direct their intentiōs as he did Caiphas his speech to be a kind of prophecy of what was to come We may say of Iehosadech as the Angell said of Iesus and his fellow-Priests that hee was vir portendens his very name and office did portend or bode that Iehovah himselfe the righseous Lord should become our high Priest And in as much as the Sonne of Iehosadech was the first high Priest the first of all the sonnes of Aaron that was called Iesus that is a Saviour this likewise did portend or fore-shadow that the Saviour of God's people the high Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech should be the son not of David only but of Iebovah the righteous Lord or Lord of righteousnesse And if he were to be as truly the Sonne of Iehovah the righteous Lord as he was to be the sonne of David then questionlesse hee was to be as truely Iehovah that is as truly and essentially God as hee is truly and essentially man For the relation betwixt the Father and the Sonne is much more strict in the Divine nature then it can be amongst men 9 Amongst men it will follow that if the Father be a man the Sonne must be a man if the Father be mortall the Sonne must be mortall but it will not follow that if the Father be a righteous or potent man the Sonne likewise must be a righteous or potent man The reason is because they are divided in substance But in as much as the Sonne of God is of the same substance or essence with his Father it will directly follow not only that if the Father be God the Sonne is God but also that if the Father be Lord of righteousnesse the Sonne also must be Lord of righteousnesse Yet in as much as not Iehosadech the Father but Iesus the Sonne became legall righteousnesse or a temporall Saviour to God's people in captivity this truly fore-shadoweth this truth unto us that although God the Father be as truly the Lord of righteousnesse as God the Sonne both being of one substance yet is Iehovah become our righteousnesse and our salvation not in the person of the Father but in the person of the Son CHAP. 23. The obiection of the Iewes against the interpretation of the former Prophecy Ierem. 23. answered In what sense Iudah is truly said to be saved and Israel to dwell in safety by Iesus the Sonne of God and Sonne of David YEt here the Iew will object that this prophecy is not yet fulfilled because Iudah is not fully saved nor Israel planted in their owne land But the Apostle hath fully answered this objection if wee could as rightly apply his solution All saith he are not Israel that are called Israel Rom. 9. 6. Yet many are true Israelites indeed which are not so in name Nor is he a Iew that is one outwardly but that is one inwardly The Apostle in the same place gives us to understand that many are Iewes or of Iudah inwardly which are not of Iudah outwardly or so called by name Whosoever is inwardly or in heart that which the name of Iudah importeth he is truly of Iudah though not the seede of Iudah or of Abraham concerning the flesh Now the name of Iudah or Iew importeth as much as a confessor or true professor of Abraham's faith and every one is a true Israelite that is so qualified as Nathaniel was one in whose spirit there is no guile unto all such and only unto such the Lord imputeth no sinne and all they unto whom the Lord imputeth no sinne all such as truly confesse Christ to be the Sonne of God and promised Branch of David are saved by him whether they be the somes of Iacob or of Abraham or Gentiles according to the flesh So that in conclusion all ludah and all Israel according to the full extent of this prophecy are saved by this Iesus for all of them dwell in safety they are not become afraid of themselves but possesse their soules with patience To become Iewes or Israelites in this sense is the first degree of salvation and this degree they likewise have from Iesus through whom and in whom they are to expect the accomplishment of their salvation Christ then first saves us from our sins that are inherent in us or as the Apostle speaks hee first sets us free from the Law of sinne by the spirit of life which is in him and finally exempts us from the wages of sinne which is everlasting death And thus much is contained in that fore-cited promise Ierem. 16. and in the close and conclusion of that prophecie Ierem. 23. concerning the saving of Iudah and Israel by the branch of David whose name or title is The Lord our righteousnesse Behold the dayes come saith the Lord that they shall no more say the Lord liveth which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt but the Lord liveth which brought up and which led the seede of the house of Israel out of the North country The Hebrew phrase Meeretz zaponah according to the usuall and ordinary rate of that language signifies indeed from the North-land yet the originall of this signification or importance of these words was from a conceit which the Iews or such as had their habitation neere unto the Aequinoctiall line had That those parts of the world which were more remote from the Aequinoctiall or Southerne climes were hidden from the sun and were at least in respect of their Country lands of obscurity and darknesse The very prime and native signification of the originall words in the Prophet rendred by our English from the North land or Country is verbatim from the land of obscurity or darknesse And whatsoever the land of Chaldea whereof Babylon was the chiefe City or Metropolis was unto others it was unto the captive Iewes a country of darknesse a land of obscurity the very shadow of death And their deliverance from it was a true type or shadow of our deliverance from the region or land of darknesse it selfe The full importance of the Evangellicall mystery included in the fore-cited passage of the Prophet Ieremy according to the most proper and most exquisite literall sense is expounded unto us by our Apostle S. Paul Coloss 1. 12. 13. God the
he had not commanded them upon his Altar And seeing that although they had put off all the respect of the obedience of his sonnes yet could he not put off the affection of a loving Father towards them or suddenly cease to mourne for their untimely death whereas to have eaten the Sacrifices in the holy place with a sad countenance or heavy heare had been to pollute it So that this sad and ivofull accident made the eating of the sinne-offring in the holy place unlawfull or unexpedient to him and his sonnes which ordinarily or in case no such accident had befallen them had not only been lawfull but necessary But seeing the blood of the Bullock offered for Aaron's sinne-offering at his CoÌ„secration had not been brought into the Sanctuary and seeing no such wofull accident or legall impediment had at this time befallen Aaron and his sonnes it may justly be questioned what was the reason they did not eate the flesh of this their sinne-offring or Attonement It was a sufficient warrant unto them not to eat it because the Lord had forbidden it Exod. 29. 14. But if it be demanded what was the reason or intent of this Law or rather of this particular exception from the generall Law by which they were commanded to eate it Some make answer that Aaron and his sonnes were not as yet compleat Priests or Priests already consecrated but in their Consecration only and therefore were not comprehended under the generall Law which commanded the Priest forbidding all others to eate the flesh of the sinne-offering whose blood was not brought into the Sanctuary But this reason concludes only in probability against Aaron and his sonnes who did now attend their Consecration it no waies concludes against Moses who did consecrate them who was not only permitted but commanded by God to eate of all the Sacrifices or offrings which Aaron's sonnes or Successors might lawfully eate yet did not Moses eate any part of the Bullock offered at Aaron's Consecration for a sinne-offring or Attonement for God had expressely commanded it to be burnt without the Campe. Their answer therefore to that former demand is more pertinent who say that no high Priest whether ordinarily called or extraordinarily as Moses was for the Consecration of Aaron and his sonnes might eate of any sacrifice which was offered for a sinne-offring or Attonement for the Priests themselves although the Blood of it were not brought into the Sanctuary Of the Sinne-offrings for the people whose Blood was not brought into the Sanctuary the Priests might eate they were to eate 2. This commandement for them to eate of the peoples sinne-offring argues the sinnes of the people were to be borne or taken away by the Priest The prohibition for the Priests to eat the Sinne-offrings made for themselves argues the sinnes of the Priest could not be borne or taken away by the Priests of the Law or their sacrifices but were to expect a better sacrifice of a better high Priest The legall sacrifices in the meane time were to be offered in a place prefiguring the place wherein this better Sacrifice was to be offered a place without the gates of Ierusalem Whiles the people wandred in the wildernesse without any setled habitation or City to dwell in the Sacrifice or substance of the Sinne-offring was to be consumed with fire without the trenches or bounds wheresoever they did encampe as Souldiers doe in the open field neere unto the Arke of the Testament But after the Arke had found a setled habitation or resting place in the Temple which Salomon built the City of Ierusalem in which the Temple stood became the Campe of Israel And this and other like sodeiâ—â—ties and services which were commanded to be performed without the Campe whiles the people wandred in the wildernesse were to be performed without the gates of Ierusalem albeit the Sacrifice was to be offered in the Temple whence seeing our Saviour's Body was the offring for sinne or the Sacrifice of Attonement by which the mysteries imported by all other Sacrifices were fulfilled it was to be consumed or brought into the dust of death in Mount Calvary or Golgotha or some place without the City So that the Apostle's argument Heb. 13. drawne from the annuall Sacrifices of Attonement concludes as punctually for this Sacrifice of Aâ—â—onement or Sinne-offring at Aaron's Consecration We have an Altar whereof they have no right to eate which serve at the Tabernacle for the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary by the high Priest for sinne as also of those beasts which were offered for the Priests Sin-offring at the Consecration albeit their Blood were not brought into the Sanctuary are burnt without the Campe. Wherefore Iesus also that he might sanctifie the people with his owne Blood suffered without the gate Now this sanctification of God's people by Christ's Blood was their Consecration with him to be Kings and Priests as he was now made King and Priest that is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech and as he himselfe saith Iohn 17. 29. For their sakes I sanctifie my selfe that is I undergoe the rites of Consecration prefigured by the Law that they also may be sanctified through the truth or truly sanctified that is after a better manner then they could be sanctified or consecrated by the legall Sacrifices ceremonies or services of the Law 3 The second sort of bloody Sacrifices offered by Moses at the Consecration of Aaron and his sons were two Rammes the one for a burnt offring to the Lord for a sweet Savour and offring made by fire unto the Lord. Exod. 29. 18. The mystery hereby fore-signified at our Saviour's Confecration is expressed by the Apostle Ephes 5. 1. 2. Be yee therefore followers of God as deare Children and walke in love as Christ also hath loved us and hath given himselfe for us an offring and a Sacrifice to God for a sweete smelling savour The other Ramme was to be offered as a peace offring and is called by Moses Exod. 29. the Ramme of Aaron's Consecration ver 26. because Aaron and his sonnes were to be annointed with the Blood of it CHAP. 27. In what respects the Ramme of the Consecration and the Ramme which God did provide for a burnt offring instead of Isanck did prefigure the sacrifice of the Son of God Of other speciall rites wherein Aaron at his Consecration and in the function of his Priesthood did prefigure the Consecration and Priest hood of the Son of God NOw if we consider the speciall references of the Aaronicall Priesthood there could no fitter Sacrifice be offered for Aaron and his sonnes at their Consecration then the Sacrifice of Rammes no other Sacrifices used in the Law could be so fit an embleme or representation of our high Priest's Sacrifice at his Consecration The points whereto the Aaronicall Priesthood whether during the time of their Consecration or after Aaron and his sonnes were consecrated Priests had peculiar reference
him a name which is above every name that at the name of Iesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth and that every tongue should confesse that Iesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father Philip. 2. verses 9. 10. 11. Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Iesus whom yee have crucified both Lord and Christ Act. 2. 36. CHAP. 31. Shewing the concludency of the allegations used by the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul to prove the truth of Christ's Resurrection and in particular of the Testimony Psal 2. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee NOt to repeat other Types or propheticall testimonies of Christ's entrance into immortall glory by the sufferings of death of which the Reader may find plenty as well in Postillers as Commentators nor to dilate upon such generall testimonies whether meerly typical or propheticall or typically propheticall as have been heretofore handled in the seventh and eighth Booke of these Comments upon the Creed as that of Psal 82. c. I make no question but those testimonies out of the Psalmes or Prophets which are avouch'd to this purpose by the Apostles themselves specially by S. Peter and S. Paul were expounded by our Saviour himselfe unto the two fore-mentioned Disciples which did accompany him unto Emmaus 2 Now the testimonies most insisted upon by the Apostles as well for convincing the Gentiles as the Iewes are specially three that of Psal the 2. Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee and Psal the 6. Thou wilt not leave my soule in hell nor suffer thine holy one to see corruption the third The Lord hath sworne and will not repent thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech or which is much what the same The Lord said unto my Lord sit thou at my right hand untill I make thine enemies thy footstoole The extraordinary successe of all these allegations abundantly testifies that they were most concludent for many thousand soules at two severall times besides others were converted by them The testimony out of Psal 2. is prest home by S. Peter Act. 2. v. 6. to the 37. to the Iewes specially and by S. Paul both upon Iews and Gentiles Act. 13. Though with better successe upon the Gentiles The force and strength of this testimonie and likewise how farre it was meant of David and fulfilled in Christ hath been at large discust before The point at which these present endeavours aime is to declare how these two testimonies 1. Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee and 2. Thou art a Priest after the order of Melchisedech doe concludently and irrefragably inferre the Resurrection of Christ that Iesus whom the Iewes had crucified being both the Sonne of God and sonne of David and his Consecration to his everlasting Priesthood for unto this later point both testimonies are drawne by our Apostle Heb. 5. v. 5. and 6. But how close they reach this point whether jointly or severally is not so cleerly set forth by most interpreters as that the Reader unlesse his understanding farre surpasse mine will easily collect The generall meaning of our Apostle hath been declared in the first Section and in the close of the fourth of this Booke it is punctually thus Seeing Aaron's calling to the dignity of Priesthood was publiquely manifested to be from God no man after might take upon him to erect a new Priesthood no not to the temporall prejudice of Aaron and his successors much lesse to abolish this Priesthood which God had erected unlesse he could manifest to man and Angels that his Commission for thus doing was immediately from God and authentique being sealed by oath and solemnely executed And seeing no man might therefore Christ though God and man did not glorifie himselfe as the Apostle addes to be made an high Priest but he that said unto him Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee did put this dignity upon him Many Interpreters have stretcht their wits to make the literall sense of this Psalmist's words reach home to our Apostle's purpose Others so slight it as if they would give us to understand or cause to suspect our Apostle himselfe did not much stand upon it but only passe by it unto the second testimony Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech Albeit in my opinion the later testimony proves his fiat or Commission the former his ordination or execution of his Commission I will not wrong the judicious Reader 's patience with profering variety of such expositors unto his choise as his wisdome cannot approve Cajetan hath Ribera's approbation and of all the expositors which went before him drawes the Psalmist's Oracle Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee neerest to the point in question So farre I am from carping at any thing which those two expositors have said to the point now in question that I will endeavour to explicate and extend their meaning in the best sort I can The Priesthood saith Cajetan as Ribera expounds him before the Law given was annexed as a prerogative to the first borne and descended from Abraham to Isaac and by speciall dispensation to Iacob Now the whole dignity of the first borne being lost by Ruben was divided amongst three of his Brethren The Soveraignty or Principallity fell to Iudah the Priesthood to Levi and the double Portion to Ephraim And in Aaron the sonne of Levi was the Priesthood established long before the Kingdome was established in David the sonne of Iudah and to the Priesthood so established David's sons had as litle right as Aaron's sonnes had to the Crowne or Diadem God's peremptory decree for thus dividing these two prerogatives Azariah is not afraid to plead unto King Vzziah's face Chron. 2. 26. And his speech did take impression for hee had no sooner made an end of speaking but the leprosie begunne to appeare in King Vzziah's face and for his usurpation of the Priest's office and intrusion into the house of God he is utterly excluded from his pallace and enforced to resigne the government unto his Sonne But inasmuch as he of whom the Psalmist speakes is solemnely registred and by him declared to be the first borne and Sonne of God it is not lawfull only but expedient but very necessary that all the branches of the first borne's prerogative which Ruben had scattered should be reunited in his Person Againe in that he is the promised seed hee is the compleat heire of all the blessings bequeathed to Abraham and out of whatsoever tribe this promised seed was to spring the honour of Priesthood was as due unto him as the Kingdome Levi and Aaron were but as foefes in trust for conveying the Priesthood as Iudah and David were for making over the Kingdome unto him 3 All those suppositions and others perhaps more then Cajetan or Ribera though
of being granted prove only thus much that the only begotten Son of God or first born to Abraham and to David had a just title to the eternall Priesthood They doe not directly prove that Iesus whom the Iewes have crucified to be that Sonne of God and seed of David meant by the Psalmist in the Psalme fore-cited Or this being granted all put together doe not manifest his Consecration or actuall admission to the high Priesthood by whose erection the Priesthood of Aaron was changed which is the conclusion punctually intended by our Apostle 4 For a more satisfactory declaration of the strength of this argument we are to take the words of the Psalmist into a further and more punctuall consideration then hitherto wee had occasion to take them As first of what GENERATION these words ego hodie genuite are principally meant whether meant at all of David or how of him and how of Christ the Sonne of God and Sonne of David 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many of the Ancients being seconded by more of the Schoolmen and middle ag'd allegorizing Commentators understand this Psalmist's Oracle of that GENERATION of the Sonne of God which is mentioned in the NICEN Creed or that Creed which is to be publiquely read in the second service of our Church Begotten of his Father before all worlds and in these mens construction by the word HODIE is meant HODIE AETERNITATIS the day of eternity or eternal day wherein there is no succession of parts of houres or minutes But this interpretation is dislik'd by Calvin who is alwaies zealous for the literall though sometimes with prejudice to the mysticall or principally intended sense Yet that sense in this place cannot be exprest by HODIE AETERNITATIS or by the eternall Generation of the Sonne of God That it cannot be the literall sense of this Psalmist is apparent because neither the Resurrection of the Son of God nor his Consecration to the everlasting Priesthood can with any colour of probability be inferred or pretended from it much lesse can it be the mysticall or true allegoricall sense of this Oracle for these alwaies must be grounded upon the literall and no Scripture can be said to be fulfil'd according to the mysticall or true allegoricall sense untill it hath been first verified according to the literall sense Now the eternall GENERATION of the Sonne of God cannot follow either his Resurrection from the dead or his Consecration to his everlasting Priesthood nor could ever any Periphrasis or notation of it be either fulfil'd or verified in time seeing it is before all times 5 May we say then with good Commentators as with Calvin for one that these words this day have I begotten thee have no manner of reference to the Son of God's Generation before all worlds Certaine it is that this Generation is no part of the object no part of the immediate subject whether according to the literall or mysticall sense of the Psalmist's words whether we consider them written or intended by him or as avouched by S. Paul and other Apostles for the further confirmation of Christ's Resurrection from the dead All that can be said on their parts whom Calvin censures is this that the eternall GENERATION of the Son of God might be taken as a common notion or presuppos'd truth both by the Psalmist when he writ and by the Apostle when hee avouched these words ego hodie genuite That the Word or Sonne of God was from Eternity this was a common prenotion to all the Ancient learned or faithfull Hebrewes And that he who was the only begotten Sonne of God before all worlds should be begotten by him from the dead that is prov'd at large by S. Paul Act. 13. And that the raising of that Iesus the Sonne of David whom the Iewes had crucified from the dead unto immortall endlesse life was an authentique declaration that this Sonne of David was likewise the Sonne of God their expected Lord and Messias is most sweetly deduced by our Apostle Rom. â— v. 1. 2. 3. 4. Paul a Servant of Iesus Christ called to be an Apostle separated unto the Gospel of God Which hee had promised before by the Prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning his Son Iesus Christ our Lord which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh And declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holinesse by the Resurrection from the dead This passage rightly infers that Christ was the Son of God the uncreated Word by whomall things were created before hee was made the Son of David â—â—â— he was made so only according to the flesh or humane nature but this eternity of his uncreated Person or essence was no part of our Apostles divine discourse or most concludent argument Act â—3 Men and Brethren children of the stock of Abraham and whosoeuer among you feareth God to you is the word of this salvation sent For they that dwell at Jerusalem and their Rulers because they know â—â—â— not nor yet the voiceâ— of the Prophets which are â—â—â—â— every Sabbath day they have fulfilled them in condemning him And though they found no cause of death in him yet desired they Pilat that he should be â—â—â—ine And when they had fulfilled all that is written of him they tooke him downe from the tree and laid him in a Sepulchre But God raised him from the dead and he was seene many daies of them which came up with him from Galileo â—â— Ierusalem who are his witnesses â—â—to the people And we declare unto you glad tidings how that the promise which was made unto the Fathers God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children in that he hath raised up Iesus againe as it is also written in the second Psalme Thou are my Sonne this day have I begotten theâ— And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead now no more to returne to corruption he said on this wise I will give you the sure mercies of David from v. 26. to 34. For the clearer fuller explication of this passage we are to enquire what manner of testimonies or predictions in which the Apostle instances were as whether propheticall only or typically propheticall 6 To begin with the former Ego hodie genui te this day have I begotten thee that with submission of my opinion to better judgments is a prediction typically propheticall which kind of prediction as hath been observed before is the most concludent and this one of the highest ranke in that kind that is an Oracle truly meant of David according to the literall sense and yet fulfil'd of Christ the Son of God by his Resurrection from the dead both according to the most exquisite literall and the mysticall or principally intended sense David without all question was the composer of the second Psalme and the joyfull occasions or extraordinary matter of exultation which raised his spirit to that high and majesticke straine of divine