THE KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST JESUS. OR THE SEVENTH BOOK OF COMMENTARIES UPON THE APOSTLES CREED: CONTAINING The first and general PRINCIPLES of CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY: With the more immediate Principles concerning the true Knowledge of CHRIST. Divided into four Sections. CONTINUED BY THOMAS JACKSON DR. in Divinity, Chaplain to his Majesty in ordinary, and Precedent of Corpus Christi College in OXFORD. LONDON, Printed by M. F. for JOHN CLERK under S. Peter's Church in Cornhill. MDCXXXIV. REcensui hunc tractum, cui titulus est [The knowledge of Christ Jesus, or, the seaventh book of Commentaries upon the Apostles Creed] in quo nihil reperio sanae doctrinae, aut bonis moribus contrarium: quò minús cum utilitate Publica imprimatur, modò intra tres menses proximè sequentes typis mandetur. Ex Aedibus Lambethanis Octob. 10. 1633. Guil. Bray. A TABLE OF THE PRINCIPAL Arguments of the several Sections and Chapters contained in this BOOK. SECTION I. OF the belief or knowledge of Christ in general: and whether Theologie be a true Science or no. Page 2 CHAP. 1. Of the principal points that Christians are bound to believe. 3 2. Of Historical belief in general, and how it doth variously affect Believers, according to the variety of matters related: the several esteem of the Historians. 5 3. Whether such knowledge of God, and of Christ, as the Scriptures teach, be a science properly so called. 11 4. Of the agreements and differences between Theology and other sciences in respect of their subjects: that the true historical belief of sacred Historians is equivalent to the certainty, or evidence of other sciences. 18 SECTION II. OF the several ways by which the mysteries contained in the knowledge of Christ were foretold, prefigured, or otherwise fore-signified. Of the diverse senses of holy Scriptures, & how they are said to be fulfilled, with some general rules for the right interpretation of them. Page 25 CHAP 5. Containing the general division of testimonies, or fore-significations of Christ. ib. 6. Of the first rank of testimonies concerning Christ, that is, of testimonies merely prophetical. Page 27 7. What manner of predictions they be, or of what matters the predictions must be, which necessarily infer the participation of a divine Spirit. 30 8. Of the Sibylline Oracles, whether they came originally from God or no: that the perspicuity of their predictions doth not argue them to be counterfeit or forged since the incarnation of the Son of God 38 9 Answering the Objections against the former resolutions; that God did deal better with Israel then with other nations, although it were granted that other nations had as perspicuous predictions of Christ and of his Kingdom, as the Israelites had. 46 10. Of Testimonies in the old Testament concerning Christ merely typical, and how they do conclude the truths delivered in the New Testament. Page 53 CHAP. 11. Of testimonies concerning Christ typically prophetical, or prophetically typical, and of their concludent proof. 58 12. Of the several senses of Scripture, especially of the literal and mystical. 67 13. Of the literal sense of Scripture not assertive, but merely charactericall. 77 14. That the Scripture is said to be fulfilled according to all the former senses: that one & the same Scripture may be oftener than once fulfilled according to each several sense. 87 15. Whether all Testimonies alleged by the Evangelists out of the old Testament, in which it is said or employed [this was done that the Scripture might be fulfilled] be concludent proofs of the evangelical truths for which they are alleged. 106 16. Whether the Prophets did always foresee, or explicitly believe, whatsoever they did foretell, or foresignify concerning Christ. 126 17. Whether divine prophecies or predictions concerning Christ may admit amphibologies, or ambiguous senses. 139 18. Containing the general heads or topics for finding out the several senses of Scripture, especially for the just valuation of the literal sense, whether in the old Testament or in the new. 160 19 Of the use of sacred, or miscellane Philology for finding out as well the literal, as the mystical, or other senses of Scripture. 179 SECTION III. That the incarnation of God, and of God in the person of the Son instiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Word, was foretold, prefigured, etc. in the writings of Moses. Of the hypostatical union between the Son of God and seed of Abraham, Pag. 201 CHAP. 20. That God according to the literal sense of Scriptures, was in later ages to be incarnate, and to converse with men, with the seed of Abraham especially here on earth, after such a peculiar manner, as we Christians believe, Christ, God and man did. 201 21. That this peculiar manner of God's presence with his people by signs and miracles was punctually foreprophecyed by the Psalmists. 211 22. That the God of Israel was to become a servant and a subject to humane infirmities, was foretold by the Prophets according to the strictest literal sense. 228 23. That God was to visit his Temple after such a visible and personal manner, as the Prophet Jeremy in his name had done. 232 24. That the God of Israel was to be made King, and to reign not ever Israel only, but over the Nations in a more peculiar manner than in former ages he had done. 241 25. That the former Testimonies do concludently infer a plurality of persons in the unity of the Godhead: and that God in the person of the Son was to be incarnate, and to be made Lord and King. 249 26. That by the Son of God and the Word, we are to understand one and the same party or person: that the Word by whom S. John saith the World was made, is coeternal to God the Father, who made all things by him. 262 27. Why S. John doth rather say, the word was made flesh, then, the son of God was made flesh, albeit the son of God, and the word, denote one and the same person. 281 28. That the incarnation of the Word, or of the son of God under this title was foreprophecyed by sundry Prophets, with the exposition of some peculiar Places to this purpose, not usually observed by Interpreters. 299 29. Of the true meaning of this speech, the word was made flesh: Whether it be all one for the Word to be made. flesh, & to be made man, or whether he were made flesh, and made man at the same instant▪ 320 30. Of the hypostatical and personal union betwixt the Word and the flesh, or betwixt the Son of God and the seed of Abraham. 330 SECTION FOUR Of the conception, and birth of our Lord and Saviour, the son of God: of the circumcision of the son of God, and the name JESUS given him at his circumcision, and of the fulfilling of the types and prophecies concerning these mysteries. Pag. 347 CHAP. 31. The enigmatical predictions concerning Christ's conception, unfolded by degrees. ibid. 32. S. Luke's narration of our Saviour's conception and birth, and its exact concordance with the Prophets. 354 33. S Matthews relation of the manner of our Saviour's conception and birth, and of the harmony betwixt it and the prophecies. 370 34. The manner of our Saviour's conception and birth, as it was foretold by the Prophet Isaiah, exactly fulfilled. The jews exceptions against S. Matthewes allegation of the prophet Isaiahs' testimony, with the full answer unto them. 383 35. Of the circumcision of our Saviour. 418 36. Of the name Jesus, 〈◊〉 the title Lord. 428 FINIS. THE KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST JESUS. OR The Seventh Book of Commentaries upon the APOSTLES CREED. HOW Evil should mingle itself with the works of God, seeing every thing made by him (and he made all) was good; How that evil which we call sin, should find entrance into, and hold possession of the heart of man, who was the accomplishment of all Gods visible works, and upon whose creation it is said, that God saw every thing that he had made, and it was very good; What kind of being this evil hath, whether merely privative, or only positive, or partly both; Wherein that servitude which Sin did bring upon us, doth consist; What freedom of will is compatible with our natural servitude unto Satan, (for without some freedom of will, we might be Satan's instruments, his slaves or servants unto sin we could not be.) These and the like Quares, with their several branches, in the first project of this long work, had their place allotted between the Article of Creation, and the Articles concerning Christ, or in the intended Seaventh book of Commentaries upon the Creed. But the method than intended I have now altered, not out of forgetfulness, but out of 〈◊〉, and upon these considerations especially. First, in that the doctrine concerning sin original or actual, is not expressly mentioned in the Creed. Secondly, because the most pleasant and most fruitful branches of divine providence (whose general stems have been in the Article of Creation handled) are no where so conspicuous or so admirable, as in the evangelical history of the conception, birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. And pity it were to sever them in place, which accord so well in nature. Lastly, I considered, it could no way be harmful to have the plaster ready before I adventured to launce the sore; specially, in that I am likely to search somewhat deeper, than I have found it searched by others. The only sore of the humane soul, whose scars cannot in this life be perfectly healed, is sin original, and the wounds thereof are sins actual and habitual; the only medicine or salve for both, is the knowledge of Christ and him crucified: for he is the only tree of life, whose leaves are appointed to heal the Nations. SECT. 1. Of the belief or knowledge of Christ in general: and whether Theologie be a true science or no. CHAP. 1. Of the principal points that Christians are bound to believe. THat all we which bear the name of Christians did take the name originally from Christ, the * Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos, et quaesitissimis poenis affecit, quos per flaegitia invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis ejus CHRISTUS, qui Tiberio imperitante, per Procurator 〈◊〉 Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus est. Tacit. Annal. Lib. 15. Pag. 255. heathen historian did acknowledge. He did believe that Christ (the author and finisher of our faith) did suffer under Pontius Pilate, yet this belief was far from making him a Christian. That which we Christians are in the first place to believe is, that the man Christ jesus, whom the jews by the help of Pontius Pilate did crucify, was truly the Son of God, his only Son; so truly and indissolubly the Son of God, as well as of man, that whilst this man was conceived by the holy Ghost, the Son of God was likewise conceived by the holy Ghost; whilst this man was borne of a pure Virgin, the true and only Son of God was borne of the same Virgin; whilst this man was put to death, crucified, dead and buried, the Son of God was likewise crucified, dead & buried; whilst this man Christ was raised again from the dead, the true and only Son of God was so raised; whilst this man ascended into Heaven, the Son of God ascended into Heaven; whilst this man sitteth at the right hand of God, and maketh intercession for us, the Son of God there sits and makes the same intercession; that when we expect the same jesus, Sect. 1. whom the jews did crucify, shall come in visible manner to judge the quick and the dead, we believe and expect that the Son of God shall come to judge the quick and the dead. Of the first points we ought to have, at the least, a true historical belief. Our belief of that article concerning Christ's coming to judgement, and of our resurrection from the dead, is more prophetical, than historical. 2. Is then an historical belief of Christ's conception, birth, death, and resurrection sufficient for us? Sure it is not, unless withal it be salvifical. No faith can save, unless it be a saving faith: but no faith can be salvifical, unless it be historical. For he that doth not believe the history of Christ's death and passion, can have no Christian faith at all. Now the utmost effect whereunto the endeavours of God's Seedsmen are immediately terminated, is to plant in the hearts of their hearers a firm persuasion of the divine truth of the sacred Histories or Prophecies concerning Christ. In respect of this persuasion they are said to plant and water, and to be Coworkers with God's Spirit. But to make this persuasion to be salvifical, this is the work of God alone. For unless he give this increase to what we plant and water, all our labours are lost, our best endeavours are to no purpose. Yet as we are to believe, that without God we can do nothing, so are we bound to hope that in him and by him, we may do all things, or have all things done in us and for us, which can be needful or conducent to our Salvation. No if such as are bound to teach, Cap. 2. and such as are bound to learn, would daily season their endeavours, (their prayers especially) with serious consideration of this twofold truth, we could have no just occasion either of doubt or fear, but that if our belief of the rehearsed Articles of Christ were once truly historical, it would certainly become rightly salvifical. For to be historical & to be salvifical are not membra opposita, no such opposite members as divide belief into two parts or kinds: they are as subordinate one to the other, as natural wit, and artificial improvement of it. CHAP. 2. Of Historians belief in general, and how it doth variously affect Believers according to the variety of matters related: the several esteem of the Historians. THat we call historical belief which hath no other ground besides the authority of the Historian or relater, or at the most, experiments suitable to things related. And such experiments may be known sometimes by sense, sometimes by reasons demonstrative. And yet all the credit which they can give to the historian, or all the additions they can make unto historical belief formerly planted, will be but probabilities or presumptions. Whether the Moon was eclipsed at the time when Nicias was General for the Athenians against the Syracusians; Or when Columbus made first discovery of America, are questions which may be scientifically resolved by astronomical calculations. But whether Nicias through ignorance of natural causes and gross superstition, committed that intolerable oversight which (as a But than it fell out unfortunately for Nicias, who had no expert nor skilful Soothsayer: for the party which he was went to use for that purpose, and which took away much of his superstition, called Stilbides, was dead not long before. For this sign of the eclipse of the Moon (as Philochorus saith) was not hurtful for men that would fly, but contrarily very good. for said he, things that men do in fear, would be hidden, and therefore light is an enemy unto them. But this notwithstanding, their custom was not to keep themselves close above three days in such eclipses of the Moon and Sun, as Autoclides prescribes in a book he made of such matters▪ where Nicias bore them in hand, that they should'then tarry the whole, and full revolution of the course of the Moon, as though he had not seen her strait clear again, after she had once passed the shadow, and darkness of the earth. But all other things laid aside and forgotten, Nicias disposed himself to sacrifice unto the Gods, until such times as the enemies came again as well to besiege their sorts, and all their camp by land, as also to occupy the whole haven by Sea. Plutarch in vita Niciae, infine. Plutarch relates) occasioned the overthrow of the Athenian forces by Sea & Land; or whether Columbus made that witty advantage of the like eclipse which b Almirans ob haec ingenti anin● aegritudineanxius, cum hinc Indoc nec gratia, nec prece, nec pretio ullo adduci posse videret, ut cibaria exercitus praeberent, nec armis ab se cogi propter infirmitatem suorum, alia via idem aggredi statuit. Atque id coelesti quodam instinctu ei venisse in mentem libens equidem crediderim, providente viz. Deo, ne tantus vir fa●e periret. Id porro ita factum est; for tè in propinquo tugurium Barbarorum erat, hos Columbus monet, ac praenunciat, ipsos, ni vitae subsidia sibi ac suis suppeditarent, peste à Deo coelitus missâ brevi omnes perituros; cujus rei id habituros signi, quòd duos intra dies Lunam sanguine faedatam visuri essent. Id cum eâdem die & horâ, qua Almirans praedixerat, conspicarentur Indi (Lunae autem defectus is erat) subitò victi formidine quaecunque ei ad victum necessaria fuerunt, benignè praebuere, insuper veniam culpae. orantes, neve ipsis irasci pergeret. Benzo Hist. novi orbis. l. 1. c. 14. Benzo in his history of America mentions, cannot be known by any computation Astronomical or Chronological. This wholly depends upon the authority of the Historians. Yet if by calculations astronomical compared with the Annals of those times, it should appear that there were no such Eclipses in the years pretended for these practices; this would convince these historians, and those whom they follow of error, if not of forgery. On the other side, if Astronomers should make it clear, that in the points of time assigned by these Historians, there did fall out such Eclipses of the Moon, this would free them from suspicion of fiction, so much the more, by how much they were less skilful, or less observant of the celestial motions or revolutions of times wherein Eclipses happen. 2. But sometimes the sensible events or experiments may square so well with historical relations, as to leave no place for curiosity itself, to suspect either fiction or falsehood in the Historian. As who could suspect the truth of the Roman Histories, which mention the subjection of this Island to their Empire, for diverse successions; if he had seen their coins, lately digged out of the earth, bearing the inscriptions of twenty several Emperors. Or who could suspect the historical truth of their progress into the Northern parts of this Kingdom, that have observed the ruins of that wall which they built, and other monuments as suitable to their Narrations, as the seal is to the signet. The best is, that the experiments which suit unto the histories of the old and new Testaments, are more plentiful and and more pregnant, than any external ratifications of any other historical narrations can be. For of sacred historical truth, besides the legible testimonies of the great book of the creatures, every little world may have a world of witnesses in himself. Now if our belief of the histories concerning Christ and him crucified, be but equal to our belief of other histories, yet their authority or esteem will be much greater, because we cannot believe this truth, but we must withal believe it to be divine; and every man by nature hath a more sacred esteem of matters which he conceives to be divine, than he can have of things merely mundane or humane. 3. But where the truth of historical belief is to our apprehension the very same, and the degrees of our assent unto it equal, yet the estimate of the same truth or its impression upon our affections, is not the same. These vary according to the several weight of matters related though by the same Author, and believed by equal degrees of the same kind of belief. Of Edward the seconds strange defeat by Robert de Bruce King of Scotland; and of Edward the third, and the black Prince his son, or Henry the fifth their success against the French, we have but one and the same historical belief, whether for degree or quality: yet are we not the same way, or in the same degree, affected with the one story as with the other. The reading of Edward the third, of Henry the fifts success, delighteth us English with the ancient honour of our Nation. The remembrance of Edward the seconds defeat, doth so disaffect us, that we could wish this story were not so true, as the other. But how unpleasant soever the annals of Edward the second be to some English, yet we never observed any of this age to weep at the reading of them, whereas in some provinces of this Kingdom, the battle of Pannierehugh, the rebellion in the North, and that less disaster, in the year following that rebellion upon the English borders, could not have been mentioned or seriously related, within our memory, without many tears of such Auditors, as had no other knowledge of the events save only from histories, or from traditions which can produce no better belief than historical. 4. Some cases then there be, in which although the authority of the Historian be the same, and albeit the matters related by them be for weight or substance the same, yet shall they not make the same impression upon our hearts or affections. Yea matters (in themselves considered) of small moment, will sometimes sway double as much as others of more than double weight unto them, although the historical belief of both be equal. The circumstances from which historical truths of lesser weight simply considered, receive these extraordinary degrees of gravitation, are specially three, Vicinity of place, Recencie of time, and Peculiar references to ourselves, to our Country, to our Friends or Allies. The true reason why the history of Christ's death (in some degree I suppose believed by all) doth work so little or so successelesly upon most men's affections, is because they consider his death, though in itself a matter of greatest consequence, yet as a matter past a thousand and some hundred years agone, or as a matter done by the Jews more than two thousand miles from our coast. And thus they consider it without any peculiar reference to themselves, as the cause of it; or no more concerning themselves, then as they are Pars quota humani generis, some little parcels or grains of mankind or of the humane nature which he redeemed, these being more innumerable than the sand on the Sea shore. 5. But how firmly soever we apprehend the truth of Christ's death and passion for the substance, yet this apprehension cannot produce a true complete historical belief of his death, unless our apprehension of the substance be seconded with the like apprehension of such circumstances, as are peculiar to this history above others. What circumstances are these? Although he suffered but once, and that far off and long ago; yet whatsoever he then suffered or did, doth as nearly & as immediately concern every man this day living in what place soever, as it did those that were living when he died, either such as were sorrowful spectators of his death, or Actors in it. For albeit he were offered but once, and that but in one place (without the gates of Jerusalem) yet this one offering was of value truly infinite, and for efficacy everlasting. Cap. 3. And being such, it must be equally appliable to all persons, times, and places. In his death, in his infinite and everlasting sacrifice every one hath a peculiar interest not Pro ratâ, but in solidum: by virtue of that atonement which he made, by that redemption which he purchased once for all, he hath an entire absolute right of dominion over every one of us, and every one of us hath as entire an interest in his death, as if what soever he did or suffered in the days of his humiliation, he had done and suffered all for us alone. But this last consideration perhaps is more pertinent to the knowledge of Christ and of him Crucified, then unto the historical belief of his death or Cross. CHAP. 3. Whether such knowledge of God, and of Christ as the Scriptures teach, be a science properly so called. ADmitting the objects of our belief might be as certainly and as evidently known (at least by some) as the subjects of sciences, properly so called, are: Whether this knowledge and our belief of the same objects may be coincident, that is, whether it be all one so to know them, and to believe them, I will not dispute: for this would occasion a controversy about the use of words, unfitting for a professed Divine to entertain, much more to invite. But that there is a knowledge of Christ even in this life, which if not for perspicuity or evidence of truth, yet for the excellency of the truths known, exceeds all other knowledge, we have our Apostles peremptory sentence for us: For, writing to his Converts of Corinth, which then abounded with all kind of knowledge secular, he saith, I esteemed or determined to know nothing amongst you, save jesus Christ and him crucified, 1 Cor. 2. 2. He therefore determined to know nothing besides, because he had no other knowledge in any esteem, in comparison to this. And what good Christian would desire any other, but as it is subservient to this knowledge? This comprehends all that we can desire either to know or to enjoy; all that we can esteem or love, even eternal happiness itself, as the author and fountain of all happiness instructs us, John 17. ver. 3. This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. But whether our Saviour in this speech or his Apostle in the former, do use the word knowledge in a strict or in a vulgar sense, may be questioned. And this question resolves itself into another more general; as, whether Theologie, that is, [knowledge of God] be a science properly so called; or whether many conclusions of faith may be clearly demonstrated? 2. Two sorts of men there be, who for the support or securing of their unreasonable conclusions, have some reason to deny this Queen of sciences, this Mistress of Arts, and supreme Governess of all good faculties, to be a science properly so called: The Agents for the Romish Church, and their extreme opposites, whether mere Enthusiasts, such as deny all use of scriptures; or mixed Enthusiasts, men that acknowledge the use of Scriptures, but abuse them more than such as reject them, by using them too much, or to no good purpose, or mingle them with the secret inspirations of their private spirits or wrest them to their own fancies. First, if the conclusions controverted betwixt us and the Roman Church, may be one way or other demonstrated, as either to be altogether true or altogether false, or so sublime that in this life they cannot be punctually or absolutely determined: then are we not absolutely bound to believe every proposition, which that Church shall commend unto us as a doctrine of faith, with the same confidence, as if it were expressly delivered in Scripture, or in the Articles of our Creed. Nor should every applauded book or Sermon albeit their bulk or substance consists for the most part of Scripture sentences, be acknowledged to be that word of God to which all owe obedience; if once it were acknowledged, that there is a faculty or science of Divinity, which hath the same authority to approve or disprove doctrinal conclusions or their uses, which other Arts or sciences have to examine the works of all pretenders to them. If Divinity be a science, than he which is a Divine, or a master of his profession, might censure the Professors of other Arts, faculties, or sciences, which take upon them to resolve Theological controversies, or to teach doctrines which the Church (wherein they live) never avouched, with the self same liberty, which the Professors of other Arts usually do Divines, if they take upon them to teach or practise within the precincts of their profession. Besides these two sects of men, and some other men which cannot be comprehended under any sect or faction, but have the same temptation to desire that there might be no true knowledge of God or of Christ, or no demonstration of the Spirit; that the Atheist or desperate sinner hath to wish there were no God, or no Judge of quick and dead: I cannot conceive, what reason any man or any sort of men have to deny Theology to be a true and proper science. Yet to give the ingenuous Reader, if not full satisfaction, yet some Hints (at least) whereby he may satisfy himself, it will be no digression from our present argument, (at least no long digression) briefly to show, wherein that knowledge of God and of Christ, which may in this life be obtained, doth differ from sciences properly so called, and wherein they do agree. Now all the differences or concordance that can be betwixt any sciences, Arts or faculties, do either concern the Maxims and Principles, or the conclusions and the subjects of such faculties. 3. The Maxims or Principles of all other sciences may be clearly apprehended, and firmly assented unto, by the industrious search and light of common reason, without illuminations supernatural: so cannot the principles or Maxims of Divinity; there must be a light or illumination more than natural, before we can have either a clear and undoubted apprehension of their truth or a just valuation of their worth. Yet this difference is not much material, neither part of it positive, or negative, is any way formal or essential to the constitution of a science properly so called. For by what means soever the Principles of any science become manifest and certain unto us, whether by our own industry, or by the teaching of others, or whether we be taught them immediately from God, (either by the admirable disposition of his extraordinary Providence, or by special infused grace) is merely accidental to the constitution or nature of a science properly so called. He that sees the deduction of Mathematical conclusions from the uncontroversed Maxims of the same Art, as clearly as another doth, is never a whit the less skilful Mathematitian, although perhaps he learned the Principles by the help of an Extraordinary teacher, which the other attained unto by the industrious exercise of his own wit. Now if it be merely accidental to the nature of a science, whether a man be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his own Master or another's Scholar (whether in learning the principles or conclusions:) it can be no prejudice either to his knowledge, or proficiency in such knowledge, that he hath been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, immediately taught by God, at least for the Maxims. And I make no question but that the principles of some other sciences besides Divinity (at least some principles of such sciences) have been immediately taught by God: Or, if any man list to move question or Controversy about this truth, I could entertain many Heathen Advocates for my opinion without any great costs or pains. 4. But as it is true that the principles of Divinity cannot be known without illuminations more than natural: so it is certain, that since the ceasing of extraordinary illuminations or gifts of the Spirit, the most of such principles, (or so many of them as are required to the science or faculty of Divinity) cannot be distinctly known without the knowledge of other Arts or Sciences. Most of the Attributes of God cannot be well unfolded without competent skill in Metaphysical learning. Many of his works can never be known nor admired aright without the science of Philosophy; nor can the offices or Attributes of Christ be taught aright, without more skill in the learned tongues, then common Grammarians or general Lexicons will afford. He that hopeth to attain to the true knowledge of these principles, must either use the help of some Lexicon peculiar to divinity, or make one of his own. Easier it were to learn the terms of Law or Physic, out of Thomasius or Rider's Dictionary, then to know the true Theological use or meaning of many principal terms in the Old or New Testament, out of 〈◊〉 or Pagninus his Thesauras, though both of them most excellent writers in their kind. And yet after a man hath attained by all the means aforementioned, and other like helps of Arts, unto a competent knowledge of the principles; there is no less use of good Logic in divinity, then in any other science whatsoever, for the right deduction of necessary conclusions from such principles, or for refuting heterodoxal doctrines, or quelling impertinent or frivolous questions. But the Principles of Divinity being once known, the dilatation or deduction of them into form of Art or science, and the establishment of Orthodoxal conclusions, may be made as certain and perspicuous by Logic, as the like can be in any other science. For the use not of usual or vulgar, but of exquisite Logic, is in no Art so necessary as in Divinity. The method for constituting any Art or science from principles known is twofold, the one direct and positive, by affirmative syllogisms or by demonstration à Priore; the other by reducing conclusions contradictory ad impossible, that is, by discovering their manifest contradiction or irreconcilable opposition unto some fundamental principles of the same science. Now what conclusions or opinions they be in particular, which contradict either those theological principles, that concern the nature and attributes of God; or the personal union of two natures in Christ, his Prophetical, Sacerdotal, or Royal function; shall (by the assistance of his grace) be discussed in the second 〈◊〉 of the Catholic Church. Of this in the mean time I rest persuaded, that it is neither too much learning that hath made this present age more mad than the former; nor any greater measure of God's Spirit than may be found in others, which makes many among us more bold than their brethren, than their Fathers in Christ, in determining greatest mysteries of Divinity. CHAP. 4. Of the agreements and differences between Theology and other sciences in respect of their Subjects: that the true historical belief of sacred Historians is equivalent to the certainty, or evidence of other sciences. BUt, in every science oportet discentem credere. Every young Scholar is bound to believe his teacher, and must take some principles upon trust, until he be able to try them himself. Yet as he is no perfect Artist, or no master of Science, who cannot see the evidence of principles, or Maxims, and the connexion between them and the conclusions issuing from them, with his own eyes: so neither doth he deserve the name of a Divine or Teacher of this faculty, whosoever he be, that cannot in the first place discern the truth of the Maxims or principles, or cannot in the second place make demonstration of the coherence or non-coherence, Cap. 4. or of the discord between them, and such conclusions as are rightly inferred or merely pretended from them. But the best is, that as a Carpenter may have skill enough to measure the timber which he buys, or a woodward the wood which he sells, or every good husbandman the quantity of the ground which he tills; and yet all their skill put together will not half suffice to make a Mathematician: so may all of us be in our callings good Christians or true believers, and yet no true Divines, but more unapt to be Teachers in this faculty, than an ordinary Carpenter to write a Comment upon Euclid, or a Husbandman to set forth a treatise of Cosmography. Thus far the faculty or science of Divinity holds exact correspondency with other sciences properly so called: and the practice of Christian men in their several callings bears the same proportion unto true Divinity, which manual Arts or trades do unto those sciences, unto which they are subordinate. 2. A difference notwithstanding there is between Divinity and other Sciences, but I cannot say whether the faculty of Divinity come short of other Sciences properly so called: or rather exceed them in that wherein they differ. The difference is this. The total subject of other Sciences, (of some at least) may be exactly known in this life; though not by any one man, yet by all that may seek after it. But this subject of Divinity can never be exactly known by any one man, nor by any succession of men, though all of them should study no other Art, besides the knowledge of God & of Christ, until the world's end. From this incomprehensible amplitude of its subject it is, that many principal points in Divinity, points necessary unto salvation, must be believed only, even by Divines themselves; we may not endeavour or hope to know them, until we be admitted into that everlasting School. And it is a great part of our profession, or of our proficiency in it, Vide Rugeriū de quaestionibus. to know what questions belong to this present inferior School; and what they be which must be reserved unto the high School Everlasting. 3. But other true Sciences there be, and in their kind truly Noble, (whose just challenge unto both these titles no man gainesayes, no man questioneth) which have their peculiar problems as well as unquestionable principles or conclusions. It is not yet resolved by Geometricians, whether the Quadrature of Circles be possible, or whether the continued protraction of lines not parallel make their coincidence necessary. Astronomers are not yet agreed whether there be so many several Orbs, as there be Planets, or how many spheres above the Planets, or whether these Orbs or Spheres, (be they few or more) be concentrique. It is controversed whether not the Planets only, but those which we call fixed stars do move in the firmament, as fishes do in the water, or as Eagles soar in the air, or whether the whole firmament from the Region wherein the fixed stars do move, unto this lower region of the air wherein we breath, be at all times so uniform for the transmission of light, or for the true representation of the exact distance whether of the altitude or latitude of the stars from us, as at sometimes it is, or as glass or the clear air is with us. This last Quaere were it agitated, and discussed as it might be, would (I am persuaded) shake many Astronomical suppositions or presumed Notions concerning motum trepidationis, that is, of the supposed reciprocal motion of those which they call fixed stars from South to North, from North to South. Great expenses without hope either of gain or of recovering the principal spent in trying Chemical conclusions by many in the former age, will not to this day give satisfaction to some modern Naturalists, whether the conversion of other metals or materials into Gold be atchievable. Many like problems there be in other secular sciences which will never be fully resolved until we shall not need their resolution. Yet were the number of insoluble problems in every one of these sciences mentioned, or in all that can be mentioned, much greater than it is, this could be no prejudice to them, so long as the deduction of many useful conclusions from clear undoubted principles may be made evident to men which have their wit and senses exercised in such subjects. That the number then of insoluble Problems is in Divinity much greater than in any other faculty, this only argues the subject of it to be more admirable than the subjects of other faculties. In other faculties or sciences we are bound to give our absolute assent to no more principles or conclusions than are clear and evident. But in Divinity we must absolutely believe many conclusions which we cannot hope in this life absolutely to know, or that they should be made evident unto us. For we must believe the final judgement with the joys of the life to come, which no man can know till he enjoy them: and we must believe the everlasting pains ordained for the Devil and his Angels, which no man hopes ever to know. Many matters of fact likewise there be related by the Prophets, Evangelists, & other sacred writers, of which there can be no ungainesayable proof or demonstration, no other ground or reason of our assent unto them, besides the authority of the Relator. Howbeit no man can rightly acknowledge such authority, as may command his assent without further proof, unless there be better grounds or motives, than the bare proposal or assertion of the Author. That we are thus bound to believe many sacred truths which cannot in this life possibly be known, doth no way argue our belief of them to be less rational, than our assent unto other truths which may be proved by reason; but rather supposeth that the true historical belief of Relations sacred doth parallel the truth or evidences of sciences properly so called. No evidence of any science doth so far exceed true historical belief of matters sacred, as it doth all historical belief of matters secular: and it incomparably exceeds all other historical belief, not only in respect of the worth or just estimate of matters related, but even for the rational evidence of the abstract or speculative truth. What esteem soever we make of Xenophons' stories, this participates no authority, no credit to Plutarch or other Grecian writers of later times. We may give deserved credit to Plutarch, to Tacitus, and yet justly suspect Herodotus & Livy in many particulars. All the credit which secular historians that live in or write of several ages, can expect of us, must grow from their own roots. The consent of many writers in several ages may serve to underprop a general or common truth, which happily would decline or fall, if it were supported by the credit of one alone. But natural propagation of truth, from one secular historian to another, is not to be expected. And without such propagation, some addition may be made to our belief of one by reading others, but there can be no true growth or augmentation of our belief of matters secular, by comparing diverse Historians. far otherwise it is in the right historical belief of matters sacred. 4. The seed of Divine mysteries, which are sown in Mosaical writings, shoot out their branches in the ensuing historians the Prophets, and bear flower and fruit in the Evangelicall stories. So that he that rightly believes the truth of Mosaical histories, cannot distrust the Prophets: or suspect the Evangelists in their relations. This is a truth supposed by the Author of Truth himself; Had ye believed Moses, you would have believed me: For he wrote of me. Joh. 5. 46. that is, Christ was if not the sole subject, yet the only scope of Moses his writings. Now to believe the histories of Moses or matters related by him, we have inducements many, no less binding then the experiments or inductions which win, and tie our assent unto the Principles of Arts or Sciences. These inducements are partly from the visible book of the Creatures, partly from the estate of the Jews sufficiently known to all Nations from time to time. Of these inducements somewhat hath been said in the first book of these Comments; somewhat likewise in the Treatise of Creation. Now the contemplation of that most exact harmony between Mosaical or Prophetical delineations of Christ, and that live image of him, which the Evangelists by his Spirit have exhibited unto our view, is no less rational, than the contemplation of connexion between the Principles of other Sciences and their conclusions. The progress in this contemplation of the Harmony betwixt the several passages of sacred stories, is not the same that is between Mathematical principles or Theorems and their conclusions. The point than next to be enquired, is, how the mysteries concerning Christ and his Kingdom, which have been revealed unto us in the new Testament, were delivered by Moses, by the Prophets; or other Canonical writers of the old Testament. SECT. 2. Cap. 5. Of the several ways by which the mysteries contained in the knowledge of Christ were foretold, prefigured, or otherwise fore-signified. Of the diverse senses of holy Scriptures, and how they are said to be fulfilled, with some general rules for the right interpretation of them. CHAP. 5. Containing the general division of testimonies, or fore-significations of Christ. ALL the prenotions or fore-significations which the Patriarches had, or their posterity might have had, concerning Christ, have been elsewhere reduced to these three general roots, To testimonies merely Prophetical, merely typical, and Typically Prophetical. The division, though no way misliked by us now, may notwithstanding upon the revise, be somewhat amended or further explained. All the prenotions or overtures of Him that was to come, were either by word, or matter of fact; either Enunciative and assertive, Sect. 2. or representative, or partly Enunciative, partly representative. All enunciative or assertive testimonies of Him that was to come, may be reduced to the first branch of the former division, that is, to testimonies merely prophetical. But so cannot all representations of Evangelicall mysteries be reduced to prenotions, merely typical, or prefigurations real. For there may be a true representation or deciphering of mysteries future, as well in characters of speech, in single words or proper names, as by matters of fact, by men's persons or offices, legal ceremonies or historical events. We are then in the first place to treat in general of prenotions or testimonies merely prophetical or expressly assertive. In the second, of prefigurations merely typical, yet (in their kind) Real, as of legal ceremonies, of men's persons, of historical events or matter of fact. In the third place of prenotions or Testimonies typically prophetical, that is, in which there is a concurrence of express prophecy or prediction, and of some matter of fact or real prefiguration of Christ or mysteries concerning him. In the fourth and last place, we are to give some Hints or general heads of observations concerning prenotions or representations of Evangelicall mysteries merely literal or verbal. More particulars of every kind of prenotions here mentioned, shall (by God's assistance) be discussed in the particular Articles concerning our Saviour's Incarnation, Conception, birth, death and Passion. CHAP. 6. Cap. 6. Of the first rank of testimonies concerning Christ, that is, of testimonies merely prophetical. THese are in number exceeding many, yet sundry of them either not well observed or not rightly explained by ordinary Interpreters; who, as though they thought to supererogate in not observing so many as might be observed, or in not fully displaying such as ordinarily are observed, oftentimes diminish the number of prenotions typically prophetical to make up the number of Testimonies merely prophetical. Testimonies merely prophetical we account all such and only such predictions, as according to the literal assertive sense of the words, and in the purpose of the holy Spirit, by whom they were registered, are appliable only to Christ himself, not to any legal type or shadow of him. For all such predictions or bare assertions as are literally appliable to any other besides Christ, or to others with him, belong unto the third member of the former division, that is, to testimonies or prenotions typically prophetical, or (at least) prophetically typical. For some difference there is (though not much) betwixt these two expressions, as will appear hereafter. 2. All the predictions, which we have in that fifty third chapter of Isaiah, are merely prophetical: they cannot be literally avouched of any man, of any creature, but only of the Son of God himself, made a man of sorrows and infirmities for us men and for our salvation. Of the same rank is that particular prophecy of jeremy Jer. 31. 22. The Lord hath created a new thing in the Earth, the woman shall encompass the man. But whether that other prophecy Isai. 7. 14. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emanuel, be merely prophetical, or prophetically typical, will require further discussion in a more convenient place. But for that prophecy Zach. 9 9 Rejoice greatly O Daughter of Zion, shout O daughter of jerusalem: behold thy King cometh unto thee, a King just and lowly, riding upon an Ass, and upon a Colt the F●ale of an Ass, it is without all question merely prophetical, and can be literally meant of none, but of Zion's and Jerusalem's Saviour alone. And however the accomplishment of this prediction might with more facility have been counterfeited by the fraudulent Jew, than the accomplishment of any other prophetical testimony before our Saviour's coming in this manner to Jerusalem or immediately after it, yet for this fifteen hundred years and more, they have had no possible colour for disguising the truth of the prophetical prediction, or Evangelicall story how it was fulfilled. Though out of their madness they might set up a King, and cry and shout before him: yet have they had no Zion, nor Jerusalem, whereunto they could have brought him for these fifteen hundred years and more, nor have they been permitted to come near the place where it stood with any other than counterfeit joy, being enforced for many generations, to purchase the privilege or liberty of howling over the ruins of that Zion and jerusalem, unto which their expected Messias by the purport of the former prophecy was to come, at a far higher rate, than they had bought the delivery of Him into their power. 4. That the coming of their King unto that Zion and jerusalem which then were, was foretold by their Prophet Zachary above two thousand years ago, the jewist Rabbins of this age confess. That this Prophecy was literally meant of their expected King or Messias, they do not deny. That this Prophecy hath been already literally fulfilled according to every circumstance, we Christians verily believe. The particular manner how it was fulfilled in and by our Saviour Christ, will have its place in the Article of his Passion, and in the manner of his consecration to his everlasting Priesthood. Now for the better confirmation of our faith unto this general, that all the predictions of the Old Testament, which concern our Saviour Christ's Incarnation, Death and Passion, etc. were dictates of the holy Spirit of God, who neither deceiveth any man, nor can be deceived by man or wicked spirit, we are in the next place briefly to show, how sacred testimonies merely prophetical concerning Christ, exhibit that demonstration of the Spirit, whereof the Apostle speaks (1. Cor. 2. 4.—) unto all reasonable men that will seriously weigh them, together with the nature or subject of matters foretold, and with the various circumstances of time and place, etc. wherein they were uttered or fulfilled. CHAP. 7. What manner of predictions they be, or of what matters the predictions must be, which necessarily infer the participation of a divine Spirit. EVery Prophecy is a true prediction; but every true prediction is not a Prophecy. Any ordinary man that is Arbitrator of his own actions, and master of his word, may truly foretell some events, projected or seriously purposed by himself, unless death or some extraordinary casualty prevent his accomplishment of them. And no wise man will foretell the performance of what he promiseth, or the accomplishment of his purposes, otherwise then with subordination (either express or implied) unto his good will or pleasure, who seeth all things, even the very secret purposes of our hearts, much better than we ourselves do; and worketh all things according to the Counsel, not of our will, but of his own. However, though by his permission and assistance, we make performance of whatsoever was for many years before promised or purposed by us; Cap. 7. yet this is no demonstration of a divine or prophetical spirit in us. To arrogate or challenge the name of a Prophet from the truth of such predictions, were more then enough to prove the party so peccant to be a false Prophet. Besides those predictions which are common to all men whilst they have the ordinary gift of memory, discretion, or understanding: there be predictions peculiar to several Arts or Faculties, which come somewhat nearer to the nature of Prophecies properly so called, but (well examined) fall further short of them, than they go beyond the former presages or predictions of ordinary wise or discreet men. 2. A man of ordinary skill in Astronomy, able by his own or others skill to foretell the set times of the Eclipses, whether in the Sun or Moon, might easily gain the reputation of a Prophet or a Soothsayer amongst barbarous illiterate people: yet no civil Nation will account men thus far skilful to be extraordinarily learned, much less for celestial Prophets. Hypocrates or Galen (so they had been disposed to play the Mountebanks) might have gotten a better opinion amongst the vulgar, or their Patients, than they had of themselves or their own skill: for both of them could and did discover the nature of such diseases and alterations ensuing in men's bodies, as the wisest men then living, but not so good Physicians as they were, could not guess at aright, much less distinctly foresee. Yet neither of these two famous Physicians (for aught I can learn) did take upon them to interpret the aspects or motions of the Stars after such a manner, as many meaner Physicians since their time have done. So far were they from challenging the name or title of Prophets or Soothsayers, that they did not take upon them to foretell, what the secret motions or dispositions of their Patient's bodies, whether alive or dead, did presage either to private men, or to public States. Yet to foretell strange events to come, by observing the alterations in men's living bodies, or by the Anatomy of them dead; is in any reasonable construction more congruous and facile, then to foretell the success of war or politic projects by anatomising dead brutish Creatures, or by inspection of their intralls. This later skill many in times passed amongst the Heathens have professed, and have had the reputation of Augurs or Soothsayers. But albeit their predictions in this subject might for the most part prove true (which I do not believe) yet all this was not sufficient to purchase the just title of Prophets or Diviners: it only argues some deeper insight in ominous forewarnings or portendments, as Hypocrates and Galen had in medicinal presages, above ordinary men. That there may be a peculiar skill or dexterity of conjecture concerning the peculiar signs of times, whether by interpretation of dreams, of prodigies of Comets, or the like, is a point not worth the debating in Divinity. That this skill (were it granted to be much greater than the Professors of it in what kind soever arrogate unto themselves) doth amount to the nature of a true Prophecy or divination properly so called, all true Divines must deny. 3. That skilful Physicians may truly presage the certain issue of some diseases settled or growing, as of the life and death of their Patients, far beyond the capacity of vulgars', and to the admiration of men otherwise more learned than themselves; is not doubted by any man of understanding. But all wherein they exceed others not skilled in Physic, is this; that their art and experience enables them to discern the working or first projects of causes Physical, or seminal Originals of alterations in men's bodies, much sooner and with more dexterity, than men without skill or experience in their art can do. But so a well experienced, though illiterate Gardener, will distinguish several herbs or simples at the first peeping out of the mould wherein they were hid, much better than a mere contemplative Artist (which hath pored oftener and longer upon Mathiolus, Dioscorides, or other Herbalists, than the most industrious Gardiner hath done on his plots) shall be able to distinguish them after a month's growth. Yet will not the cunningest Gardener, though a contemplative Herbalist withal, take upon him to tell what seeds have been sown by another of his profession so long as they lie hid in the ground. Nor will the most skilful Physician (unless conceit of his skill far exceed his wit or understanding) adventure to foretell what diseases in particular shall befall men for the present in perfect health, for any one or more of the next seven years to come. Astrologers (for aught I can say against their profession) may truly foretell or give a happy guess at such events as usually follow upon the apparition of Comets. But I never heard of any ginger that could prognosticate, at what time, in what degree of altitude, longitude, or latitude, any Comet (before its appearance) should be seen, neither whether there should be any Comets at all the next five years to come; much less, if any appear, what course it shall observe. I dare not deny all artificial or experimental skill in the interpretation of dreams, but none of this profession (I presume) will be so bold to foretell what his Neighbour shall dream of in the several nights of the next month, or to recall his dreams to mind if happily he have forgotten them. There was more true Divinity in that brief reply of the Chaldean Astrologers, or supposed Diviners, unto Nebuchadnezzars' unreasonable demand Dan. 2. v. 10. then in all their professed Art of Divination. The Chaldeans spoke to the King O King live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation. The King answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me▪ if ye will not make known unto me the dream with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a Dunghill. The Chaldeans answered before the King and said; There is not a man upon the Earth that can show the King's matters: Therefore there is no King, Lord, nor Ruler, that asked such things at any Magician, ginger, or Chaldean. And it is a rare thing that the King requireth, and there is none other that can show it before the King, except the Gods whose dwelling is not with flesh. Dan. 2. ver. 4. 5, 10, 11. In this last clause only they failed. For that God which revealed Nebuchadnezzars' dream, and the interpretation thereof unto Daniel was to be God with us, to have his dwelling in our flesh. 4 However, they knew by light of nature and of reason, that it was but one and the same skill to tell or retrieve matters of this nature past, that is, whereof they had no hint or notice, either from their own senses, or from History or tradition; and to foretell things contingent, or not determined in their comprehensible causes. Now to foretell things of this nature, any Future that falls not out by the constant and observable course of nature; or which hath no dependence on any visible cause already attempting its effect (though so secretly as none but a perfect Artist can discover the project) is that kind of prediction, which only deserves the title of Prophecy, or Divination properly so called, and is not communicable to any creature, save only by participation of the divine spirit. All such predictions must be derived from some revelation immediately made by God himself unto some one or other of his creatures, from whom the rest receive it, either by writing or by tradition. This Topicke of Divinity, the Lord himself immediately taught the Prophet Isaiah, Cap. 41. ver. 21. Produce your cause (saith the Lord,) bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of jacob. Let them bring forth and show us what shall happen: Let them show the former things what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them, or declare us things for to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are Gods. This case comes home against all pretended divinations given by Oracles, by the supposed heathen Gods, and their Priests and Prophets: So doth that other, Isa. the 47. 5, 6, 7. fully reach all pretended Astrological divinations of contingents future. 5. Yet all the predictions concerning Christ, in the writing of Moses or the Prophets, are of this rank and nature, which God himself denies could be foreseen or foretold either by supposed Heathen Gods or by Astrologers. Now this principle being once granted, [That all the Prophecies concerning Christ alleged by the Evangelists, were uttered many years before the relation of their accomplishment by them] no rational man can deny, that the first revealer of them was God himself, who calleth things that are not as if they were, and foretelleth things to come, as if they were already past. Many things foretold by the Prophets concerning the incarnation of the son of God, his birth, his death, and passion, resurrection, etc. demonstratively infer a creative or Omnipotent power, from whom they received this spirit of divination. Many again, (besides the supposal of his Omnipotent power) manifestly argue a wisdom truly infinite. Of the deduction of both these attributes from prophetical divinations, of legal or other typical praefigurations of Christ and his Kingdom, hereafter (by God's assistance:) as the exposition of types or Prophecies, or of both, either severally or jointly considered, shall minister matter or occasion. That predictions of this rank and nature, whereof we now treat, did suppose a power divine for their Author, was a common prenotion amongst the Heathen, amongst the Latins especially, in whose language the faculty of foretelling things thus contingent was called Divinatio. A fuller expression (as Tully somewhere observes) than the Grecians had of the like skill. For it imports a great deal more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or other like titles assumed by such Mountebank, as were the true disciples of the grand Impostor and Father of lies. Nor could this grand Impostor himself have gotten the esteem of a Deity or power divine amongst rude people by any other means, then by counterfeiting predictions truly divine. The major proposition [that all prediction of Contingents to come, or of events not as yet seminally extant in their natural causes, was from divine inspiration] the Heathens rightly believed and acknowledged. But that such spirits as demanded sacrifice, or other like observances of them, could foretell future Events of this rank, was never sufficiently proved unto them. These infernal Impostors, and the Mountebanks their Scholars, whether Astrologers, Soothsayers, etc. played the Jugglers in this assumption or minor: and by this means wrought their Followers to subscribe unto most desperate practical conclusions. CHAP. 8. Of the Sibylline Oracles whether they came originally from God or no: that the perspicuity of their predictions doth not argue them to be counterfeit or forged since the incarnation of the son of God. BUT if the infallible predictions of future events, which have no causes discernible either by the general eye of nature, or peculiar skill of Art, coexistent with them, do necessarily infer the spirit of Prophecy, or divination properly so called; it will be further demanded what is to be said or thought of the Sibylline Oracles; whether they were from Heaven, or from Earth, or from the region under the Earth? Whether God or any good Angel did inspire these Prophetesses with their predictions concerning Christ? That many things concerning his life, and Kingdom were expressly foretold by these Heathen Prophetesses, Cap. 8. the best amongst the ancient Christians did believe, nor did the Heathens that lived with them or before them, question the Authority of the Records which they alleged. The only question than was, whether their predictions of strange alterations to ensue throughout the world, did punctually refer to Christ whom the jews did crucify, or to some other Heroic person. That these Prophecies were extant for many generations before the blessed Virgin, the mother of Christ (from whom alone he took his bodily substance) was borne or conceived, no literate Christian or Heathen did ever question. Yet upon her Nativity to have foretold, that she should conceive and bring forth such a son as should likewise be the son of God, the great Redeemer of the world, did far surpass all Astrologians skill, or any other Prognostics which cannot finally be resolved into the spirit of the only wise immortal God, as into their first Author or Fountain. 2. But many great Divines, many good Antiquaries and Critics of best note in these latter times (which would be accounted the most learned) move question, whether all, or most, or any competent part of those verses, which now go under the name of Sibylline Oracles, be the very same either for matter or form, with the ancient Records, which, it is granted by all, were extant long before our Saviour's coming into the world? Or whether most passages in these now extant have not been composed by Christians desirous to make a supplement unto some fragments of the true Originals, which had been lost? To induce this suspicion or opinion, that the volume of Oracles now extant, is but a supposititious brood of later times, it is plausibly alleged by good Writers, that thus much must be granted, or else we must grant (which may seem worse) that those mysteries of Christ and his Kingdom which we Christians believe, were more expressly revealed unto the Heathen by these supposed prophetesses, than they were to the jews, God's chosen people, either by Moses or the Prophets. For such is the nature and quality of these Sibylline predictions, as now we have them, that they may rather seem to be exegetical explications of Moses and the Prophets, then original Prophecies, which are for the most part enigmatical or parabolical. 2. All the arguments notwithstanding which can be drawn from this or the like Topique, are more plausible than pregnant, and (well examined) conclude aut nihil, aut nimium. Which way soever they be drawn or made to look, either they do not reach home to the point in question, or else they overreach, or fall awry of it; none of them do punctually fall upon it. For no Christian or Heathen Writer whether ancient or modern, hath hitherto made question whether the fourth Eclogue of Virgil, were penned by this Heathen Poet, or composed by some which lived after our Saviour's death, in favour of the Christians. Now if we had the notes of that plain song (on which this Prince of latin Poets runs such curious descant) in the very characters wherein Sibylla Cumaea left it, (for Virgil, as he himself professeth, was but a Commentator upon this one, among many other heathen Prophetesses entitled to this name of Sibyl:) I do not see, nor can I conjecture, what passages in the old testament do more literally and plainly express the sacred mysteries concerning Christ and his Kingdom, which the Evangelists have unfolded unto us, than that one Sibylla did, on whose writings Virgil comments in lofty and curious verse. 3. The Law and Prophets (saith our Saviour) continued unto john the Baptist. His meaning is not that the matter of those writings did then expire or determine; or that the writings themselves should then become obsolete or out of use: But rather, that John should take the lamps which they had lighted and deliver them to such as were to pursue the same course, which he after the law and Prophets had undertaken. He was Lucerna arden's & lucens, a bright and a burning Lamp, to enlighten such as lived with him or came after him to follow his steps with zeal and devotion towards him, whom he did usher into the world. As John's entrance upon his office was a kind of period to the Law and Prophets, after which there was a new Epocha, or distinction of times to follow: so there was to be a determination of Sibylls' Oracles about that time wherein Virgil wrote that fourth Eglogue, Vltima Cumaei venit jam carminis aetas. Virgil did grossly err in the person or party of whom this prophecy of Sibyl was literally meant, according to the intention of the spirit of divination, by which it was first conceived: and err he did, though not so grossly, in the circumstances of the time wherein it was to be accomplished. But these two errors and other circumstances being pardoned, the substance of his discourse, or descant upon Sibylla Cumaea's verses, is Orthodoxal, and such as concludently argues the text, whereon he Comments, to have been originally more than humane, truly divine. 4. For however we have learned long ago, that all the gracious promises made by God unto the ancient Israelites, for continuation of the aaronical Priesthood and other like prerogatives peculiar to that Nation under the style or tenure of Legnolam, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ever, were to determine at the revelation of their long expected Messias: and although many Christian writers well versed in Hebrew Antiquaries, assuredly inform us, this was an unquestionable tradition amongst the ancient Hebrew Rabbins, though now denied: yet no writer either Jewish or Christain give me so full satisfaction in this point, as Virgil in the forecited Eglogue doth. For after he had said, Vltima Cumaei venit jam carminis aetas, He addeth immediately, Magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo. This implies, that as there was then an end of that age or world wherein Sibylla Cumaea lived, so there was another age or world to begin at the accomplishment of her prophecy, which was to have no period, but to be as we say, Saecula Saeculorum, a world of worlds, or a world without end. Such wee Christians believe the Kingdom of Christ to be, which was to take its beginning here on earth at the accomplishments of the prophecies concerning his resurrection and exaltation. With his Cross or humiliation Virgil meddles not, having transformed all that Sibylla prophesied of Him, into the similitude of the Roman Empire as then it stood goodly and glorious, and so to continue (as he hoped) with perpetual increase of strength and happiness. If we had all the single threads as Sibylla left them, which this Heathen Poet hath twisted into these and the like strong lines: jam redit & virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna. jam nova progenies caelo demittitur alto: 5. Me thinks they might lead us by a compendious and gain way unto a clearer view of many divine mysteries recorded by sacred writers, concerning our Saviour's eternal generation, incarnation, nativity and propagation of his Kingdom; then we can hope to approach unto by the perplexed Labyrinths of many modern Interpreters, of diverse Schoolmen, or by any tradition of the ancient Hebrews as now they are extant. But the exact parallel between the undoubted Oracles of God's Prophets, and such hints as Virgil descants upon, from Sibylla Cumaea, I leave to younger Academic Divines or Moralists. It shall suffice my present purpose to add some one or two more unto the former. The first Revelation concerning Christ and his Kingdom which is extant upon sacred record, is That Gen. 3. ver. 15. I will put enmity (saith God to the Serpent) between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. That this woman's seed was to be a man, all that believed the truth of Moses writings, did know: but that he was to be the son of a pure virgin, was more (as is most probable) than our Mother Evah, more than the father and mother of Noah at the birth of their first borne, did apprehend, and perhaps more than some Prophets and many godly men after them, did explicitly believe. Yet of this mystery, that Sibylla, whom Virgil follows, had certainly a prenotion, though transformed by Virgil into Poetical fictions of Astraea. For it is likely by jam redit & virgo &c. he meant her return unto the Earth. The accomplishment of that first prophecy Gen. 3. ver. 15. by our Saviour's victory gotten over Satan upon the Cross, was first declared by himself after his resurrection to his Disciples, Mark 16. 17, 18. And these signs shall follow them that believe. In my name shall they cast out Devils, they shall speak with new tongues: they shall take up Serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them, etc. Of all this the Heathen Sibylla had a prenotion, expressed by Virgil in few, yet pithy words: Occidet & Serpens, & fallax herba veneni Occidet.— 6. a Assyrium vulgo nascetur amonum etc. Molli paulatim flavescet campus aristâ; Incultisque rubens pendebit sentibus uva: Et durae quercus sudabunt roscida mella. — Nec nautica pinus Mutabit merces: omnis feret omnia tellus. Nec varios discet mentiri lana colores, etc. Sponte sua sandix pascentes vestiet agnos. Aspice venturo Laetentur ut omnia Saeclo. The wilderness (saith the Prophet Isaiah cap. 35. 1, 2.) shall be glad for them and the desert shall rejoice and blossom. It shall blossom abundantly. And again cap. 41. 19 I will plant in the wilderness the Cedar, the Shittah tree, and the myrtle, and the oil tree. I will set in the desert the fir tree, and the pine and the box tree together. All these and the like expressions of matter of joy in these two chapters and elsewhere in this Prophet, have their parallel in that forecited Eglogue. And, as if he had foreseen that which the Apostle tells us of, Ecce vetera praeterierunt, nova facta sunt omnia; He concludes—. CHAP. 9 Answering the objections against the former resolutions; that God did deal better with Israel then with other nations, although it were granted that other Nations had as perspicuous predictions of Christ and of his Kingdom, as the Israelites had. BUt if we acknowledge the Revelation of these and the like divine mysteries unto the heathen, to have been so perspicuous as the Sibylline Oracles (whether those which now are extant, or those which Virgil did comment upon) do exhibit; shall we not hereby contradict the Psalmists avouchment of God's special favour to his peculiar people, Psalm 147. 19, 20. He showeth his words unto jacob: his Statutes and his judgements unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any Nation: and as for his judgements, they have not known them. For how can it rightly be conceived, that he should deal better with Jacob or Israel, then with any other people, if it be granted that the Romans or other Nations, which were, if not by God's command yet by his permission depositories of the Sibylline Oracles, had in them as perspicuous testimonies or revelations of Christ, as Jacob and Israel had either in the Law or in the Prophets. Most certain it is, that the measure of God's gracious dealing with any Nation, people or State, must be taken from the several manner or model of Revelations made unto them, Cap. 9 concerning the incarnation, death & passion, etc. of his only son: for whose only sake and merits all the blessings which have been, which are, or which shall be bestowed upon the sons of men, were first promised or intended unto them; in whom all that have any promise of such blessing, receive their interest, and immediate title unto them: by whom and through whom all celestial blessings are actually derived unto, and accomplished in all such as having just title, make right claim unto them. 2. The Psalmist himself (from whose authority this objection is borrowed) affords a fair hint for a right answer unto it. He doth not say, that God showeth his word unto Jacob alone; or that no other Nation besides Israel had any knowledge of his word, or prenotion of the word which was to be made flesh. Wherein then did he deal better with Israel, then with any other Nation? In showing his statutes and judgements unto that Nation alone. For albeit the Revelations made unto the Sibylls' (if now we had the undoubted originals) might be more perspicuous than any prophecy in the old Testament; or admitting they had been delivered in the selfsame words which God did speak to Moses and the Prophets: this would not infer that the ancient Heathens had as good means of knowing Christ as Israel had, or that the manner of showing his words unto both was (as the words are supposed to be) altogether the same. The statutes and judgements which he had given unto Israel only were given unto this purpose, that the words which he had spoken by Moses and the Prophets, might make more legible impression in their hearts. Amongst many statutes and judgements peculiar unto Israel, these were principal and fundamental, that the words which God had spoken by Moses and the Prophets, should be publicly read, often inculcated, and expounded unto them: that all his visitations of this people, whether in mercy whilst they obeyed his voice, or in judgement for their disobedience; should be registered, to remain upon record as so many ruled cases or Precedents. 3. To have the mysteries of salvation however revealed is a great blessing to any Nation. But it is not one and the same blessing to have the ways of life perspicuous in themselves, and to have them made perspicuous unto this or that age or party. This later blessing even those, to whom these Sibylline Oracles were imparted, did want. And want it they did through their own default, in that they made no better use of these particular prophecies, than they had done of the common book of nature. Rom. 1. 20, 21. The Lord of heaven and earth was good and gracious unto many Heathens in dispensing or suffering these or the like Crumbs to fall unto them from his children's table: yet not so gracious to them as he was to his children, in that he gave them no laws and ordinances for the publication of these mysteries, or for observing the times wherein they were to be fulfilled. Nor had these Heathens the grace or goodness in them to enact public Laws for this purpose: but like that ungracious servant in the Gospel, they held it a point of wisdom to imprison these precious talents in their Archives, not to be looked upon, but upon occasion of state. 4. But suppose the Heathens had been as peremptorily admonished by God himself, or as strictly enjoined by Laws of their own making, to acquaint posterity with the Sibylline Oracles, as the Israelites were to instruct their children in God's word delivered by Moses; would this have made the meaning of these prophecies, in themselves (as is supposed) most perspicuous, either more perspicuous or more effectual to succeeding generations than they were? God knows that. But the daily experience of this age, of this year current, and of some few late past, will not suffer us not to know, that abundant plenty either of spiritual food, or of medicines in themselves most divine, though daily administered, doth not always the facto purify the hearts of Christians from Heathenish humours or diseases. What then is wanting, where spiritual meat and medicines do so abound? A want there is, first of severe discipline to teach Physicians themselves, how to dispense the food or Physic of life aright. Secondly, a greater want there is of coercive Laws (or of the execution of them) for binding our patients to a right posture or diet, whilst they are under our cure. The loud out-crying sins of these times awake the thoughts of all that are not dead in sin: and the oftener it is thought upon, the more it will be lamented by every honest heart, That God the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, that Christ who is God and man, our gracious Lord and Redeemer, should be more traduced, and more grossly mistransformed through liberty of prophesying (as they term it) amongst us Christians, than they have been in any age before amongst Turks or Heathens, which have died in their sins for want of prophesying. But as for Israel of old they wanted no laws or discipline for these or the like good purposes; and prophecies they had in abundance: Only they were wanting to themselves in not exercising the Discipline, in not executing the laws which God had given them. And unto this defect they added an excess of traditions contrary to the laws appointed them by God, and extremely opposite to wholesome discipline or doctrine. 5. But such jewish traditions as were contrary to the Law of God, how prejudicial soever they were unto their souls which first invented or followed them, do not prejudice us Christians (of this age) half so much as the loss of some jewish traditions or rules for interpreting Scriptures, which had been constantly received amongst the ancient Hebrew Rabbins, but rejected by the later jewish Masters. And it would be a work in itself, worthy any one man's labours or works of this life, to retrieve the footsteps or progress of the ancient Rabbins, whereof some scattered prints here and there, may be observed in ancient Writers. That such rules there were constantly received in the time of our Saviour's conversation here on earth, (though now either wilfully concealed, or through ignorance not acknowledged by later jewish Rabbins) is hence apparent, in that the mouths of modern Jews are widest open to bark against our interpretation of those passages of Mosaical and Prophetical writings, whose bare allegation whether made by our Saviour himself, or by his disciples after his resurrection, did stop the mouths of those cruel dogs which sought their lives. What these rules or traditions were in particular, is not of facile conjecture, nay almost impossible to determine. This general notwithstanding is most certain, that God did show the incarnation, death, and passion of his only son, even all whatsoever Israel was to believe concerning the person or Offices of the expected Messias, or wee Christians concerning Jesus Christ and him crucified, not by mere Prophecy only, or by words literally and expressly assertive; but withal by signs of the time, by historical events, by matters of fact, by rites and ceremonies, by types and shadows. By all these ways God did speak or declare his purpose. For as the Psalmist saith, That the Heavens declare the glory of God, that days and nights have their words so loud and shrill, that their sound goes throughout all the world, Psal. 19 so likewise signs and wonders are said to have their voices. And it shall be (saith God to Moses, Exod. 4. 8.) that if they will not believe thee, nor hearken to the voice of the first sign (which was the reciprocal conversion of Moses rod into a serpent) yet they will believe the voice of the latter sign; and that was the smiting of Moses his hand with leprosy as white as snow, and restoring it to perfect sound flesh again. If signs and wonders have their voices, than God doth speak unto us by them, as well as by his audible, and written word, but even where his written word is for the sense most plain, the matters contained in it have their voice or speech. This manner of Gods speaking unto men, is excellently expressed by Gregory the first in the * Quamvis omnem scientiam atque doctrinam scriptura sacra sine aliqua comparatione transcendat, ut taceam quòd vera praedicat, quòd ad coelestem patriam vocat, quòd à terrenis desiderijs ad superna amplectenda cor legentis immutat: quòd dictis obscurioribus exercet fortes, et parvulis humili sermone blanditur, quod nec sic c●usa est ut paves●i debeat, nec sic patet ut vilescat, quòd usu fastidium tollit, et tant● ampliùs diligitur, quanto ampliùs meditatur, quòd legentis animum humilibus verbis adjuvat, sublimibus sensibus levat, quòd aliquo modo cum legentibus crescit, quòd â rudibus lectoribus, quasi recognoscitur, & tamen doctis nova semper reperitur. Vt ergo de rerum pondere taceam, scientias tamen omnes atque doctrinas ipso etiam locutionis suae more transcendit, quia uno eodemque sermone dum narrat textum, prodit mysterium; et sic scit praeterita dicere, ut eo ipso noverit futura praedicare, & none immutate dicendi ordine, eisdem ipsis Sermonibus novit, & ant●acta describere, & agenda nu●●iare.] 20. of his Morals and 1. cap: To say nothing of the weightiness of the matter or subject: the Scripture excels all other sciences in its peculiar manner of expression. For in plainest and punctual, or textual narrations it points at mysteries, and it so speaks of matters passed as in them it foretells things to come, and in the very same words records things done and passed, and discovers things to be afterwards done. This passage of S. Gregory refers especially unto historical narrations in Scripture, which besides the plain literal have a further mystical and hidden sense, Cap. 10. of both which we are to speak hereafter. The next point in order to be prosecuted, is of testimonies or prenotions of Christ merely typical. CHAP. 10. Of Testimonies in the old Testament concerning Christ merely typical, and how they do conclude the truths delivered in the new Testament. Under this title we comprehend all prefigurations of Christ exemplified in the old Testament by the persons and offices of men, by legal rites and ceremonies, (either annual and solemn, or commanded to be used upon private special occasions;) or by any matter of fact or event, whereto no express prophecy, no assertive notation of him, or application unto him who was to come, is annexed. And herein the wisdom of God appears most admirable, that the contents of every Article in the Apostles Creed, were respectively foreshadowed by some one or other of these ways mentioned, and some of them by all. The manner of his conception was clearly prefigured (for substantially represented it could not be) by the conception of Isaac, of Samson, and of Samuel. And that Generation wherein he was conceived and borne, was sufficiently warned to observe these three prefigurations (as then to be accomplished,) by the strange conception of john the Baptist. His circumcision with the mysteries implied in it, or subsequent unto it, were foreshadowed in the covenant established between God and Abraham in the Circumcision of Isaac. Of his Baptism (though that be not expressed in our Creed) the washing of the high Priests body in the day of atonement was a type. Of his leading into the wilderness, (upon the same day) to be tempted by Satan, the ceremony of the escape Goat was a true prognostique. Of his appearing in the form of a Servant, and of his performance of all the duties, which can be required from a servant in the most exquisite manner that can be imagined, holy job was more than a type, a living shadow. Of all his troubles and deliverance from them, his Father David was a live example. Of his depression by his envious and malicious brethren, and of his exaltation by the immediate hand of God, the history of joseph and of his brethren exhibits an illustrious image. Of his death upon the Cross, and the glorious victory obtained thereby over Satan, the brazen Serpent erected by Moses in the Wilderness, was a conspicuous Hieroglyphic. His enclosure three days and three nights in the womb of the Earth, and his resurrection from the grave, were portended by the imprisonment of jonas in the Whale's belly, and by his deliverance thence. And of his resurrection in particular, the offering of the first fruits in the feast of unleavened bread, from the first institution of that solemnity, was an annual sign or token. Of this celestial Kingdom of peace, Salomon's glory and peaceable reign here on Earth, was an exquisite map. Of his ascension into Heaven the translations of Enoch and Elias were undoubted pledges. The Eternity of his person and everlasting duration of his Priesthood were exquisitely foreshadowed, the one by the person, the other by the Priesthood of Melchisedech. The full view and contemplation of these and the like types, and the examination of their congruity with the live body, to wit, Christ, whom in some part or other every one of them did fore-picture, we must refer unto the explication of the several Articles in this Creed, whereunto they do respectively appertain. 2. The rule or Topick for demonstrating the truth of every Article by these & the like types, is the same with that forementioned in the former Chapters concerning testimonies merely prophetical, or predictions of future events as yet not extant in any causes visible or comprehensible by art. To draw an exact picture of a child as yet unborn, or whose parents at this time are not conceived, is a skill as impossible for any Painter or Limmer to attain, as it is for an Astrological Physician to describe the nature, complexion, or disposition of men that shall have no actual being or existence till he be dead. Now Christ's acts and offices, his humiliation and exaltation, were not more exactly fore-described or displayed by the Prophets, than they were fore-pictured or foreshadowed by Historical events, or legal types. Every such type or event was a real or substantial, though a silent Prophecy; and the most express prophecy concerning Christ, was but a speaking type or vocal shadow. The spirit of God did speak by the one, and signify his purpose by the other: his wisdom in both is alike admirable. The most exquisite Artist living cannot take so true a proportion of a man's face, as itself without any art or invention, will draw in a true glass: yet this we admire not because it is ordinary. But to make as perfect a resemblance of a man's visage by a chaos of Chimeras, or painted devises which represent no visible creature, if you look upon them single, or transmit their shapes into a plain glass, might well seem an invention surpassing all skill of Art, if a late Artist had not given us an ocular demonstration of this skill, in thus representing the perfect visage of that great and famous Prince Henry the fourth of France: however there be no resemblance of any humane face, or of any part thereto belonging in the painted Base; yet the reflection of such incondite figures, or confused fancies as are thereon painted, falling upon a Column of brass or Bell mettle glazed with latten, placed in the centre or point assigned in the plain table by the Author of this invention, doth effigiate this great Prince's visage and countenance as perfectly as any picture, which hath been taken of him in his life time. The skill in this devise is so admirable, as it would require but a very little skill in Rhetoric to persuade an illiterate man which hath seen him living, that his Ghost were present (though invisible to by standers) looking upon itself in this artificial visible glass: yet all this skill exhibited in this masterpiece of modern inventions, how admirable soever it may seem to men not exercised in the like, is comprehensible to accurate Artists in this kind, and can afford no true illustration of the incomprehensible wisdom of God, in forepicturing Christ with his Acts and offices. Of this incomprehensible wisdom we have a better model by adding this supposition or fiction to the former invention; that an hundred picture-makers or more having had free liberty one after another, to draw their lines and postures upon the same table (none of them acquainting another with his intention or work) should have framed such a true representation, as this now extant is, of Henry the fourth French King, in the age before he was borne. But after a more admirable manner, than this fiction supposeth, were Christ and his Cross, etc. forepictured by matters of fact, by historical events; by types and ceremonies, and by the concurrence with these of men's free actions & intentions which knew not one another, much less had notice of their purposes, the last of them living more than 400. years before Christ was conceived. For the right apprehension or imblazoning these merely typical representations of Christ, no artificial skill is more useful than the true Art of Heraldy or skill in Hieroglyphics. And no kind of learning more useful for the right apprehension of the third kind of testimonies or prenotions concerning Christ, than the insight in Emblems, devises or imprese. CHAP. 11. Of testimonies concerning Christ typically prophetical, or prophetically typical, and of their concludent proof. Mere types are true Hieroglyphics, and Hieroglyphics are as bodies without souls, that is, Pictures without inscriptions. Emblems or Imprese must have both body and soul, a devise with its inscription or motto. And so do testimonies of the third rank proposed concerning Christ, consist of a Type as the body or devise, and have words prophetical annexed, as the soul or breath. And this kind of testimony or prenotion of Christ is of two sorts: either typical and prophetical, or Prophetical and typical. That some difference there was betwixt these two expressions, not only in the order or placing of the words, but in the matter also thus transplaced, was intimated before, Chapter 5.— Wheresoever the type hath precedence, or is concomitant to the inscription annexed unto it, yet so as both point at Christ to come: there the testimony or proof is typical prophetical. Cap. 11 Where the words or prophecy have precedence of the type, and both refer unto Christ; the proof or prenotion is prophetically typical. That the ceremony of the paschal Lamb was instituted by God himself to prefigure or forepicture our Saviour Christ, no Christian denies. And one Law concerning the Paschall Lamb was, that not a bone thereof should be broken. Exod. 12. 46. The words of this Law were no prediction in respect of the first institution of the passover, but an appendix or concomitant; and yet a most remarkable prophecy in respect of our Saviour Christ, in the manner of whole death both the type and the Law of the type were, by God's admirable providence, exactly fulfilled. Then came the soldiers, saith St. John and broke the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him: But when they came to jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they broke not his legs, but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side. That our Apostle Saint John did take both these events as a concludent proof, that Christ was the true Lamb of God foreshadowed by the Paschall, is apparent from his emphatical expression of his observation upon it. He that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that he might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled; A bone of him shall not be broken. And again, Zach. 12. 10. They shall look on him whom they have pierced. John 19 32. 37. 2. Those words of the Prophet Hosea cap. 11. 1. according to their literal sense, refer to an historical event forepast; When Israel was a child than I loved him, and I called my son out of Egypt. They bear no semblance of prophecy in respect of the Israelites deliverance out of Egypt by Moses; but both this deliverance & the prophet's observation upon it, have a peculiar aspect unto Christ, who was by divine appointment to sojourn a while in Egypt, but to be called thence. So as the same words which are an historical narration in respect of the type (to wit, Israel, or the sons of Jacob brought out of Egypt by Moses:) are an express prophecy of Christ's coming thence, with Joseph and his mother, into the Land of promise. That speech of the Psalmist likewise Psal. 118. 22. The stone which the builders refused, is become the head stone of the Corner; doth allude or refer unto some historical event then fresh in memory. They contain no prophecy in respect of the event, whatsoever that were, yet are they a most true concludent Prophecy of Christ's exaltation by his father, after his rejection by the Priests and Elders. So our Saviour interprets it Matth. 21. 42. All these three testimonies mentioned, consisting both of word and matter of fact, are first typical, then prophetical. But oftentimes the same words (though not always according to the same sense,) are prophetical as well in respect of the type as of the antitype, and then the proof or testimony is prophetically typical or merely typical from their first date, and afterwards in process of time both typical and prophetical. Of this rank is that prediction made to David, 2 Sam. 7. 12, 13. etc. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his Kingdom: He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his Kingdom for ever. I will be his Father, and he shall be my son; if he commit iniquity I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men, but my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thy house & thy Kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. Of the same rank and order is that repetition of this promise Psal. 89. from ver. 20. to the 37. Both places contain an express prophecy of God's favour unto David and to his posterity, and both include the prerogative of Solomon above all Kings that had gone before him. And yet, in as much as Solomon in the height of his glory was but a shadow or picture (though a fair one) of the son of God, who was to be made the son of David likewise: the same words which were undoubtedly verified of Solomon in his time, were afterwards exactly fulfilled in Christ, who was the living person or substance whom Solomon did forepicture. No Christian can, no Jew will deny these words of the Prophet Isaiah cap. 22. 20, 21, 22. etc. to be prophetical in the first place of Eliakims' advancement to be chief master or high Steward over the house of David in Shebna's steed. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand, and he shall be a Father to the Inhabitants of jerusalem & to the house of judah: And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulders: so he shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place, and he shall be for a glorious throne to his Father's house. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, etc. But in as much as Eliakim both by name and office did but prefigure or delineate Christ in his acts and office, the same words which were literally meant of Eliakim, are in a more exquisite sense fulfilled in Christ. But of the several senses of Scriptures and how the Scriptures are said according to these several senses to be fulfilled, somewhat in the two next chapters following. These proofs or testimonies whereof we now treat, whether typically prophetical, or prophetically typical are in number many, and of all the rest most concludent to Readers but ordinarily observant. For they contain the entire force and strength of the two former proofs or testimonies (merely typical or merely prophetical) by way of union, and it is universally true, Vis unita semper fortier. 3. Imagine a man of ordinary insight in Architecture should come into some large and curious palace (or City) newly built, and after a diligent survey of the form and fashion of every particular room, house, or street, should find a model of elder date than the work itself, which did bear the just proportion and inscription of every room or building: this would resolve him, that such exact correspondency could not fall out by chance, but that the City or Palace had been built by his directions, which made the model, or by some others which made use of his skill, albeit no handy-workman employed in the building, albeit none but the Architect, or general director, did perceive as much. Thus all historical events related in the new testament concerning Christ his birth, his death, and passion, etc. have their exact Maps or Models drawn in the history of the old testament, besides the express prophetical inscriptions, which instruct us how to refer or compare every part of the legal or historical model unto the Evangelicall edifice answering to it. This to every observant Reader is a concludent proof, that one and the same spirit did both forecast the models, and in the fullness of time accomplish the work itself, to wit, the building up of Zion and Jerusalem, though this he effected (as master builders in like cases do) by the hands of inferior workmen, not acquainted nor comprehensive of his project or contrivances. 4. Every house (saith the Apostle Heb. 3. 4.) is builded by some man, but he that built all things, is God. This power of God by which he made all things, even the materials of all things whereon men do work, doth not farther exceed the power of other builders, than the wisdom of the same God, which is manifested in the edifice of the heavenly temple, doth surpass all skill or contrivance of the most skilful Architects or Projectors. For whatsoever is by them forecast or projected, doth never prosper, never come to any perfection, unless the workmen employed by them follow their rules or directions. But this greatest work of God; the erection or edification of his Church, did then go best forward, when the workmen or builders employed about it, did forsake his counsel, and followed the directions of his malicious adversary, who sought the confusion both of it and them. He built up the Kingdom of Zion and Jerusalem in peace without let or interruption, even whilst the master builders designed by him did lay the foundation, or chief corner stone of it, in blood. And after it was so laid, did accomplish whatsoever he would have done in this great work, by the hands of such workmen, as did nothing less, than what he would have had them to do. Though Judas, one of the twelve, by Satan's suggestion did betray his Lord, though the high Priest and Elders became the Devil's agents to condemn him, and though Pilate (lastly) turned Satan's deputy to sentence him to death: yet all these did that which the most wise, most righteous and most merciful God had fore-determined to be done. Those things (saith Peter Acts 3. 18.) which God before had showed by the mouth of all his Prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Yet saith S. Paul Acts 13. 27. They that dwell at jerusalem and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voice of the Prophets, which are read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. So then God is said to fulfil all things which were written of Christ, because he did order and direct all the counterplots and malicious intentions of his enemies according to the models and inscriptions which had been exhibited in the old testament. judas his treachery against his Lord and Master, with its accursed success, was exactly forepictured by Achitophel's treason against David. The malice of the high Priest and elders was foretold and forepictured by the like proceeding of their predecessors against Jeremy, and other of God's Prophets, which were Christ's forerunners, and types and shadows of his persecutions. They then fulfilled the Scriptures in doing the same things that their predecessors had done (but in a worse manner and degree) albeit they had no intention or aim to work according to those models which their predecessors had framed: nor to do that unto Christ which the Prophets had foretold should be done unto him: For so S. Peter, Acts 3. 17. Now (Brethren) I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your Rulers. 5. But here I must request all such as read these and the like passages of Scriptures, not to make any other inferences or constructions of the holy Ghosts language or manner of speech, than such as they naturally import, and such as are congruous to the rule of faith. If we say no more than this, God did order or direct the avarice of judas, the malice of the high Priest, the popularity of Herod, and ambition of Pilate, for accomplishing of that which he had fore-determined concerning Christ, we shall retain the form of wholesome doctrine. In thus speaking and thinking, we think and speak as the Spirit teacheth us. But if any shall say or think, that God did ordain either judas to be covetous, or the high Priests to be malicious, or Herod and Pilate to be popular and ambitious, to this end and purpose that they might (respectively) be the betrayers and murderers of the son of God; this is dangerous. The orthodoxal truth, and wholesome form of expressing it, in this and the like point, is acutely set down in that distinction, which (for aught I find) was unanimously embraced by the Ancients, and by all at this day that be moderate, acknowledged to be true, Deus ordinavit lapsun Adami: non ordinavit ut Adamus laberetur. God did dispose or order Adam's fall (for by his allseeing providence, and all ruling power, he turned his fall into his own and our greater good:) but he did not decree, ordain, or order that Adam should fall, or commit that transgression by which he fell. For so he should have been the Author both of Adam's first sin, and of all the sins which are necessarily derived to us from him. For no man (I think) will deny, that God is the sole Author of all his own ordinances and decrees, or of whatsoever he hath fore-decreed or fore-determined us for to do. CHAP. 12. Cap. 12 Of the several senses of Scripture, especially of the literal and mystical. WIthout knowledge of Scriptures there can be no true knowledge of Christ, and to know the Scriptures is all one as to know the true sense and meaning of them intended by the holy Spirit. I will not here dispute, whether every portion of Scripture in the old Testament admit more senses intended by the holy Spirit, than one; or whether in some sense or other, every passage in Moses writings, in the Prophets, in the book of Psalms, or sacred Histories, do point either immediately, or mediately at Christ, or at Him that was to come. But that diverse places, alleged by the Evangelist out of the old Testament, to prove that Jesus, whom the Jews did crucify, was their expected Messias; admit more senses, I take as granted. The question is, how many senses either the places alleged by the Evangelists or Apostles, or other passages in the old Testament, may respectively admit. And in this Quaere I will not be contentious, but only crave that liberty which I willingly grant to others in all like cases, that is, to make mine own division, and to follow mine own expressions of every several sense or branch of this division, that so I may refer the particular explication of every type, of every Prophecy, or other praenotion of Christ, which hath been fulfilled, without perplexity or confusion, to its proper or general head. That sense of Scripture, in my expression, may happily be referred unto the literal, which in some other men's language would be accounted figurative or Allegorical. That sense again (according to my division) may be reduced unto the literal, mystical, or moral, which some great Divines make a distinct sense from all these, to wit, Anagogical. Or admitting all these and more senses of Scriptures, I may perhaps sometimes touch upon another sense, which is not (to my apprehension) reducible to any of these. 2. The several senses of Scriptures (especially such as more immediately point at Christ) cannot be better notified, or more commodiously reduced to their several heads, then by a review of the several ways, by which God from the beginning did intimate or manifest his will, his good will towards mankind, in him and through him which was to come. And the ways, by which God did manifest Christ to come, were in the general two; either by words assertive, and express prediction, or by way of picture and representation, or by a concurrence of both: which third way is no way opposite to the two former, but rather a friendly combination of them. The second branch of this division, to wit, praenotions of Christ representative, may (as heretofore it hath been) be subdivided into representations real, as by type, historical event, or other matter of fact; or into representations merely literal, verbal, or nominal. The first general branch of this division, (that is, prenotions of Christ delivered in words expressly assertive) exhibit to us that which we commonly call the literal or grammatical sense. For that (as best Divines agree) is the literal sense or meaning of the holy Spirit, which is immediately signified by words assertive, whether legal, prophetical, or historical, without any intercourse or intervention of any type or matter of fact. Whether the words be logical & proper, allegorical, or otherways figurative, skills not much. The variety of expressions by words assertive, if so the words immediately express the matter foretold without intervention of type, or matter of fact, doth not divide or diversify the literal sense. As when God foretold that the wilderness should be planted with pleasant trees, Isa 41. 19, etc. That the Wolf should dwell with the Lamb, that the Leopard should lie down with the Kid, and the Calf and the young Lion, and the Fatling together. The form of speech is figurative, and (in the language of saecular Rhetoritians) Allegorical. And so that other of the Vineyard, Isay 5 is parabolically figurative. And yet the sense of all these places is in the School of Divinity as truly literal, as when it is said, The woman's seed shall bruise the serpent's head; or that in Abraham's seed all the Nations of the earth should be blessed. For by the trees wherewith the wilderness was to be planted, by the Wolf, and by the Lamb, by the Leopard and the Kid, etc. diverse sorts of men were immediately meant: and to the fulfilling of all, or any of the prophecies, it was not required that there should be a transformation either of men into trees, Leopards, Wolves, or Lions, etc. or of these or like creatures into men. For how ever the sense of Scripture in all these places be literal; yet it is literally Allegorical. And of the literal or verbal Allegory, that Maxim is most true, Sensus allegoricus non est argumentativus, No firm argument can be drawn from the allegorical, parabolical, or other figurative signification of words. As we may not infer that the wilderness was to be planted with trees, or that the Wolf and the Lamb, the Leopard and the Kid, were to consort as well together on dry land, as sometimes they did in Noah's Ark, whilst the deluge lasted, before these prophecies could be fulfilled, according to the literal sense; as this sense in the language of the holy Ghost, is opposed unto the Allegorical: For that in the Apostles language is said to be spoken allegorically, which is not immediately foretold or signified by words (whether proper or figurative) but foreshadowed by some real event, by men's persons or their offices, or by matter of type or fact. It is written (saith our Apostle, Gal. 4. 22, 23.) that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman: but he who was of the bondwoman, was borne after the flesh: but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an Allegory, for these are the two covenants. The Evangelicall mysteries implied in this Allegory, and unfolded by our Apostle, were not immediately notified by any words or proposition in the history of Sarah and Hagar, and their sons, but only fore-pictured by matter of fact, or by the things themselves, which the words, according to the literal sense, did immediately foresignify. For the word Hagar did in that story literally signify Sarahs' handmaid or bondwoman. But this bondwoman, and her son, and their estate or condition of life did excellently represent the estate and condition of such as did adhere unto the Law after the Gospel was proclaimed. And the Gospel with the happy estate of such as embrace it, was not fore-signified by the name Sarah, or by the name Isaac, but by their estate and condition who were so named. Most of our Apostles Arguments throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews are drawn, not from the literal, but from the allegorical sense. Yet God forbid that we should say or think, that his arguments did not conclude. I should rather say (if it be lawful to compare sacred testimonies or authorities, one with another) that Arguments drawn from the Allegorical sense of Scriptures are most admirably, if not most firmly, concludent. For they are Arguments of proportion, and presuppose four terms at the least either expressed or implied, And the Allegorical sense of Scriptures always includes the mystical, though the mystical doth not always include the allegorical. For wheresoever any Evangelicall mystery was foreshadowed by any type, by any historical event or matter of fact, there is a latent mystical sense, though not expressed by words or letters. 3. But it oftentimes so falls out, and (as I take it) always in testimonies either typically prophetical, or prophetically typical, that there is an inseparable concurrence or combination of the literal and mystical sense, though not always after the same manner. Sometimes the literal sense, according to the same propriety or signification of words, doth fit the Antitype or body as well as the type or shadow. As whether we apply that speech, Exod. 12. 46. Ye shall not break a bone thereof, unto the paschal Lamb, or to Christ, who was mystically foreshadowed by it: the literal sense is the very same, there is no variety in the signification of the words. Christ had as true bones as the Paschall Lamb, and the preservation of his bones was literally fore-prophecied in the Law concerning the Paschall Lamb, but withal mystically fore-pictured by the observance or practice of that law. Sometimes again the literal sense doth better befit the Antitype, than the type. As those words forementioned, 2. Sam. 7. 14. I will be his Father, and he shall be my son: are more proper in respect of Christ who was the Antitype, then of Solomon who was the type or shadow of his Sonship. So that our Saviour's incarnation or nativity is collaterally foreprophecyed with the nativity of Solomon; and his royal office and favour with God, mystically foresignified by Salomon's person and office. 4. But many times the expressions of the holy Ghost (as well in testimonies typically prophetical as prophetically typical) are like inscriptions or mottoes in Imprese or Emblems. Now these Inscriptions besides the plain literal native sense of the words, have a further Symbolical importance, or moral signification. No man that sees that devise of bulrushes couched in a swelling stream, with this inscription, flectimur, non frangimur undis: but will acknowledge, the plain literal sense to point immediately at them. Yet besides this literal sense, they have this Symbolical importance (partly employed in the words themselves, and partly represented by the body of the devise,) that he which gave this devise, had learned that lesson of the Poet, Dum furor in cursu est, currenti cede furori▪ that he was resolved to stoop awhile unto the iniquity of the times, not without hope to bear up his head again, and to overtop his Adversaries, after the present tyranny were overpast, Ad literam traditur fuisle paratus lapis ad templi aedificium, nec tamen congruè in 〈…〉 potuit, donec consummato opere in angulo sursum positus est ita congruè, quod mirarentun 〈◊〉, nec praeter significationem factum intelligerent; hic est Christus qui fundamentum est, ita quod structurae supereminet. Quod cum audissent sacerdotes & pharisaei, voluerunt cum tenere, sed 〈…〉. Petrus Commestor in histor. Euang. c CXXVII. as bulrushes do the waters wherein they grow, when the flood (unto whose violence for a while they yielded) hath spent its strength. That forecited saying of the Psalmist, Psal. 118. 22. [The stone which the builders refused, is become the head stone in the corner. This is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes:] according to the literal sense, is terminated to an historical event, then present or fresh in memory. And, if we may rely upon the authority of the Author of the Scholastic History, the historical event or matter of fact to which these words literally and immediately refer, was a remarkable stone for which the builders of the Temple could find no convenient place in the intermediate structure, which yet unexpectedly proved the fittest corner stone or finisher that they could have desired. This saith he was even then acknowledged not to fall out by mere chance or without some further portending meaning or signification. The exceptions taken against this tradition avouched by this Author Petrus Comestor, are (to men acquainted with the manner of sacred expressions of things to come,) so weak that they add strength unto it. But whatsoever the historical event were, at which these words in the literal sense immediately point, we Christians know, that in the Symbolical or spiritual sense they refer to Christ. His exaltation unto Majesty and glory, after the chief Rulers of the Temple had cast him aside and rejected him, as not fit to be entertained amongst God's people, was mystically foreshadowed by that matter of fact or historical event, whereof the Psalmist speaks (whatsoever that were:) yet not expressly foretold according to the direct literal sense of his words, but only signified according to the Symbolical importance. After the same manner the forecited words of the Prophet Isa. 22. 23. [The key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder: so he shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open:] do in their literal and native sense immediately point at Eliakim, of whose office in the house of David a material and visible key was the ensign or pledge, as the like is of some great offices in modern Prince's Courts. But according to the emblematical or symbolical importance, both key and office, both inscription and matter of fact, refer unto the spiritual invisible power of the son of David, Who hath the keys of Hell and of death Rev. 1. The keys likewise of the Kingdom of Heaven; and where he openeth, no power in heaven or earth can shut, nor open where he is pleased to shut. That which some call the moral sense of scriptures, is always reducible to this general branch last mentioned, to wit, to the emblematical or symbolical importance of the words expressed, as they concur with matter of fact or real representation. Only there may be a moral sense, where there is no prophecy, no representation truly mystical. As when it is written, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox, which treadeth out the Corn: this law was to be observed according to the plain literal sense. And yet both the law itself, and its observance from the first date of the letter, had that moral, which the Apostle makes, That such as serve at the Altar, should live by the Altar. 5. To this branch likewise belong all the significations of legal ceremonies, which do not immediately point at Christ, in whom they were exactly fulfilled, but at moral duties to be performed as well by us Christians, as by the ancient Jews. Christ our Passeover (saith the Apostle 1 Cor. 5. 7, 8.) it sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast; not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness: but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. This was the true moral of that legal observance of the feast of unleavened bread, which was to be kept according to the strict letter of the law, whilst the law of ceremonies was in force. Concerning this symbolical or moral sense (especially when it is not prophetical,) Maldonats advise is very good; He that will search after such senses, must hold close to the letter: Propiùs mihi Rupertus videtur in quaerendo morali sensu ad literalem accessisse; quod semper faciendum esse ei, qui ridiculus esse nolit, saepe monumus. And of allegorical, mystical or symbolical senses, which are prophetical or prefigurative, none are current or concludent, but such as hold exact proportion with the sense historical. 6. Some good Divines there be, which would have an anagogical sense distinct from all these mentioned. The Allegorical, Spiritual, or Mystical sense is by them limited to matters already accomplished in the Gospel; whereas the Anagogical reacheth to matters of the world to come. But this difference in the subject or time unto which whether words or matters sacred refer, makes no formal difference in the sense or manner of the prediction or prefiguration. Whatsoever is in Scripture foresignified or intimated concerning the state and condition of the life to come, is either literally foretold by express words, or mystically foreshadowed by matter of fact, or notified by some concurrence of prediction and representation; and so may be reduced to one or other of the senses mentioned, either to the mere literal, or to the merely mystical, or to the literally or symbolically mystical or spiritual sense. CHAP. 13. Cap. 13▪ Of the literal sense of Scripture not assertive, but merely charactericall. BUt divine mysteries (as was intimated before) are sometimes neither notified by express prediction or words assertive; nor by matter of fact, historical event, or type, nor by the persons actions or offices of men; but represented only by words or names, by notes or letters, or other secret characters of speech. Now this manner of representing mysteries divine produceth a sense of Scripture distinct from all the former, which can hardly be comprehended under one certain denomination, unless it be under this negative, the literal sense not assertive. Or if the Reader desire a positive expression of it, he may term it, the charactericall sense. To begin with the first words of Scripture, In the beginning (saith Moses) Bara Elohim, The Lord created etc. Although these words be assertive; yet the mystery of the Trinity is not avouched in Logical assertion or proposition, but only represented or insinuated in the peculiar form or character of the grammatical construction, if happily it be here either represented or intimated at all. For some both judicious Divines, and great Hebricians there be, as well in the Romish as in the reformed Churches, who will acknowledge no intimation of any mystery in this conjunction of a noun plural with a verb singular; but tell us this form of speech is usual in the Hebrew dialect, as the like is in some cases in the Greek. For the Grecians (as every grammar Scholar knows) join nouns of the neuter gender plural with verbs of the singular number, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These men's authority would sway much with me, if I did not find it counterpoised, by observation of Wolphgangus Capito an exquisite Hebrician and discreet searcher of the mystical sense of Scriptures. Now, if his observation do not fail him, the construction of verbs singular with nouns plural is never used amongst Hebrew writers, unless the noun do want the singular number. In this case alone they do not extend the signification of the verb into such plurality, as is in the noun, Contrary to the use of the Latins, who, to make the adjective and substantive agree in number, stretch Vnum, one, or unity itself, into a plural form as unae literae, una maenia; which would be a harsh kind of speech in our English or other modern tongues. But the plural Elohim (as * See Capito in his hexameron and Paulus Fagius in his several Comments upon this place. Capito well observes) doth not want its proper singular Eloah. Therefore unless the holy Ghost had intended the notification of some mystery in the form or character of his speech, Moses would rather have said Barah Eloah, than Barah Elohim. 2. I am the more inclined to this opinion, because many of the ancient and most orthodoxal writers observe a more distinct expression of the blessed Trinity throughout diverse places of the first chapter of Genesis, from the repetition of the name of God or Elohim in the more perfect works of several days; as in the works of the fourth day ver. 14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the Heavens. This is the voice of God the Father giving out his fiat, and it is repeated again ver. 16. And God made two great lights. This refers to God the Son by whom all things were made, and by whom these lights were set in the firmament ver. 17. It is lastly added ver. 18. And God saw that it was good: The note or character of the holy Ghost approving what was made by the Son from the authority of the Father. So Moses again describes the works of the first day. And God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly ver. 20. And in the 21. he repeats again. And God created great Whales. etc. And again, God saw that it was good. When it is said ver. 22. of the same day's work, And God blessed them saying, Be fruitful and multiply: this may refer unto the three persons jointly. So in the works of the sixth day ver. 24. God said Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, etc. And it is repeated again ver. 25. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, etc. And God saw that it was good. But when Moses comes to the accomplishment of the sixth day's work ver. 16. he altars the form or character of speech, and makes the Verb, as well as the noun, plural. And God said, Let us make man in our Image after our likeness. This order observed by the ancients in the first creation of all things is admirably exemplified in the manner of man's redemption, wrought by the Father, Son and holy Ghost jointly, yet not without distinction of order in their joint working, in their undivided work. But of this, by the assistance of this blessed Trinity, hereafter. 3. But however the Ancients, or such as follow them may fail in this or the like particular search of mysteries, from no better hint than the repetition of the same words or matter: Yet their endeavour in the general to find out deep hidden mysteries from these or the like superficial or charactericall prenotions, is warranted by the word of God according to its literal or assertive sense. For so we are taught by Moses, that such repetition of the same things as in secular sciences would incur suspicion of tautology or superfluity of words, may be the undoubted character of some matter more than ordinary, and more observable than if it had been represented but once, or after one manner only. A secular Soothsayer or professed Interpreter of nocturnal representations, would have sought after more interpretations than one of Pharaohs two dreams; especially seeing the matter represented to him in the first vision, was so unlike to the matter represented in the second. Yet joseph by the guidance of God's Spirit discovers these two dreams, though distinct in time and manner of representation, to be for substance but one. And joseph said unto Pharaoh, The dream of Pharaoh is one: God hath showed Pharaoh what he is about to do. The seven good Kine are seven years: and the seven good ears are seven years: the dream is one. And the seven thin and ill favoured Kine that came up after them, are seven years, and seven empty ears blasted with the East wind, shall be seven years of famine, Gen. 41. 25, 26, etc. And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice, it is because the thing is established by God: and God will shortly bring it to pass. 4. When we say, an honest man's word should be as good as his oath, we suppose that this moral integrity or perfection in man, hath a far more exquisite pattern in God. He is no less immutable in his promises than in his oath. It is impossible for him to change his mind, or to deceive men in the one as in the other: To what end then doth he so often interpose his oath, sometimes when he denounceth judgement, otherwhiles for the consolation of men, and confirmation of their belief in his gracious promises? Sure it is one thing to say, God's purpose, will, or promise is immutable; another, that the thing purposed, willed, or promised by him, is immutable. The absolute immutability of his purpose, or promise, can yield us no full assurance, that the things promised or purposed by him are unchangeable, or that sentence denounced (though in terms peremptory) is irreversible. But unto whatsoever promise or sentence we find his oath annexed, Vide Authorem Incognitum dictum (id est Aguanum ut Lorinus saepius monet) et patres quos in hunc finem citat, in Psa●mum CX. it is an undoubted character, a not most infallible, that the thing promised is unalterable, that the sentence so denounced is irreversible. This is one of the most Catholic rules for the right interpreting of many, and for the reconciliation of diverse Scriptures, which otherwise seem most opposite. But the proof and use of this rule will come under a more full examination in the treatise of our Saviour's consecration to his everlasting Priesthood; and in some other discussions, in what sense God is said to repent; in what cases not to repent. For both assertions are frequent in Scriptures. 5. Sometimes divine mysteries are represented not in some one word or name, but in the very character or frame of some one letter, or in the addition of a letter or point. There is no question amongst us Christians, but that he who called unto Moses (Levit. 1. 1.) from the mercy seat (as we gather from Numb. 7.) was the son of God, the eternal word who since hath taken our nature upon him, and calleth unto us with a voice and mouth truly humane, though the voice and mouth of God. But at that time he called to Moses not in a loud and thundering voice (like that in Mount Sinai) but with a soft and gentle voice. And this gentleness of the voice (as the Hebrew Doctors observe, and some good Christian Hebricians approve their observation) with the mystery foreshadowed by it, is charactered unto us by the extraordinary smallness of one letter in the original word. 6. The like mystery is represented unto us after the same manner, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vide Ainsworth in Levit. 1. 1. Isa. 9 7. etc. The Prophet displaying the titles of the Messias and his kingdom (contrary to the rules of ordinary Orthography) mutat quadrata rotundis, begins the Hebrew word rendered by our English of the increase, with Man rotundum, with a round letter instead of a square. And this unusual character, the Jews themselves acknowledge to be a note of some mystery (as * johannes Baptista in Confutatione Hebraicae Sectae. prima paride primo Messiae adventu fol. 12. dictioni primae Pematbe litera, quae mem rotunda apud vos nuncupatur, contra regulam grammaticalem vestram ibi imponitur, quod quidem mysterium aeternitati imperij, vestri recte attribuunt, per verba prophetae immediate sequentia, [ut confirmet illud] & corroboret in judicio et justicia à modo usque in sempiternum; quamvis ipsi prophetam de Ezechia loqui dicant, quorum falsitas ex eo patet, quod haec perpetuitas in Ezechiae imperio visa non est. Bene autem in Christo jesu, ut Scripturae omnes testantur, et experientia docet, verificatum videmus. one of them being converted to Christianity observes against his brethren which love darkness more than light.) The mystery notified in this particular (as this Author tells us) is by their own rules, in cases wherein they are no parties engaged, the same with that, which is immediately after expressed in words assertive and plain. That of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom to order it, and to establish it with judgement and with justice, from henceforth even for ever: the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. I refer the observation of the like charactericall representations, unto the diligent Readers of the old Testament in the original tongue, or of ancient Hebrew Commentators, whose a P●rro placet, christianes lector te hic admonere, hanc vocem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ubique in biblijs hebraicis defectiuè, hoc est sine vau alteroscribi, exceptis duobus locis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et eo qui extat in libello Ruth cap. ultimo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est, Et istae sunt generationes peretz, etc. In quibus tantum duobus locis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uti vides, integrescribitur, aliâs semper sine va●, cum punct● holem loco vau posito, hoc modo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Causam nostri hanc assignant, omnes generationes imperfectas esse, praeter generationem caeli & terrae à Deo productan & generationem Messiae, qui juxta carnem è familia peretz, unde & Rex David prodijt, natus est. Qui deus, & homo est, & ab incorrupta virgine, operatione spiritus sancti, absque omni peccatorum labe, in hunc mundum editus. Nihil tale enim edit car●, et sanguis. 〈◊〉 vetores etiam doctiores Hebraei perhibent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic integre scribi, propter Messiae ex familia peretz 〈◊〉, nati●itatem, quodea futura esset absque omni defectu, ut nulla alia. Paulus Fagius in Gen. 2. vers 4. testimonies in many cases where they are no parties, are no way to be contemned. And amongst other branches of that rule for interpreting Scriptures, which was constantly received amongst the ancient Jews (as Peter Martyr and Bucer with others somewhere observe) this representation of divine mysteries by letters or characters unusual, might (for aught I know) be one. 7. As for the representation of like mysteries by proper names of men especially, who by their place or office were types or forerunners of Christ, that (I presume) no sober Christian will except against or call in question. And this representaon or prenotification of future mysteries, was exhibited, either in the first imposition of names, or in the change of names, or in the several use of diverse names, when the same party retained more names than one, There was scarce a son of jacob, whose name did not imply a kind of prophecy, Rachel did truly prophesy of the state and condition of the Benjamites, when she called the Father of that Tribe at his birth Benoni, the son of her sorrow. And jacob did as truly prophesy when he changed his name into Benjamin, the son of his right hand. Nun the Ephramite did call his son Hoseah by divine instinct or direction. And Moses did truly prophesy, when he changed his name into jehoshua. With what intention Isaac or Rebecca did call their younger son jacob, I know not; or whether they had any other motive (known to themselves) to give him this name, besides that which the manner of his birth did minister, for he caught hold of his brother's heel in the birth. But this name jadgnakab, hand in heel, made afterwards by close composition (as it seems) jagnakab, did (as the attempt signified by it in the birth) portend, that he should supplant his elder brother, and get the birthright from him. 8. After this name given him by his Parents, he was in his full age named Israel by God Himself, by way of addition only, without any change or determination of his former name, or the Omen of it. But it is not without observation why he is sometimes called jacob, sometimes Israel in the same continued historical Narration, the name jacob characterizing his present infirmity; the name Israel notifying his recovering or gathering of strength. But one of the most admirable prerepresentations literal not assertive, of mysteries plainly afterward avouched and fulfilled, which I have either observed, or found observed by others, is in the Benedictus, Luke 1. 68, etc. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his people; and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, etc. To perform the mercy promised to our forefathers, and to remember his holy Covenant, the oath which he swore to our Father Abraham, that he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, might serve him without fear; in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life. The sum of that which God had spoken by the mouth of his holy Prophets, which had been since the world began, was now reavouched by Zacharias (being filled with the holy Ghost) in a literal assertive sense, plain and easy even to the capacity of the natural man. And yet the sum of all, which Zacharias by the Spirit of Prophecy did now utter, was clearly represented (to men of spiritual understanding in the Scriptures, or experienced in their spiritual sense) in the very names of john Baptist and of his Parents. For Zacharias (the Baptists Father) is by interpretation the remembrance of God. Elizabeth (his mother) as much as the oath of God. And the name john, imports the free grace of God. And all these put together sound as much, as that God did now remember his people with that grace, which he had sworn to bestow upon them in his Covenant with Abraham, that is, with grace of deliverance from their enemies (& their own sins were their greatest enemies) with grace enabling them to serve him in holiness and righteousness all the days of their life. Of more particulars in this kind, as they shall fall within the compass of Prophecies or prefigurations concerning Christ, hereafter. CHAP. 14. Cap. 14 That the Scripture is said to be fulfilled according to all the former senses: that one and the same Scripture may be oftener than once fulfilled according to each several sense. THe fulfilling of any thing written supposeth a foretelling or presignification of the same. And because matters related by the Evangelists and other sacred writers of the new Testament were of course and of purpose either foretold or prefigured in the old testament, hence it is, that this phrase of fulfilling that which was written, is in a manner peculiar to these sacred writers, not in use amongst secular historians. Yet the phrase is not therefore barbarous, because not used by politer writers in the same subject, that is in historical narrations: For it is used by Tully and other most elegant writers in the same sense which sacred writers use it: As because every man (as was intimated before) may foretell those things which were by himself projected or promised, Cap. 7. §. 1. they are likewise said implere promissa to fulfil their own promises, or to fulfil the Omen, or signification of their own names: so an elegant Poet saith Maxim, Dicitur autem prophetia, quantum equidem observare potui, quatuor mod●s impleri. Primum, quam id ipsum. fit, de quo propriè, et literali, ut dicitur, sensu intelligebatur, sicut cap. 1. 22. Matthaeus dixit impletam in Maria Isaiae prophetiam fuisse; Ecce virgo concipiet, et pariet filium. Secundo, cum fit non id de quo propriè intell gebatur prophetia, sed id quod per illud significabatur, ut 2 Reg. 7. 14. Ego ero illi in patrem, et ille erit mihi in filium, quod propriè de Solomone dictum esse perspicuum est. Diws tamen Paulus de Christo, cujus Solomon figura erat interpretatur Hebrae 1. 6▪ quasi in eo impetum esset, et quod Exod. 12. 46. d●ctum est: Os non communuetis ex eo, certum est intelligi de agno, tamen joan: cap: 19 36. in Christo, qui per agnum significabatur, impletum dicit. Tertio cum rec id fit de quo propriè intelligitur prophetia, nec id quod per illud significatur, sed quod illi simile est, et omnino ejusmodi, ut prophetia non minus apte de eo, quam de quo dicta est, dicipotuissè videatur, nam Poptulus hic labijs me honorat, de judeis qui tempore Isai: erant, Deus dixerat Isai: 29. 13. Christus autem in eyes, qui suo erant tempore, impletum significat. Mat. 15. 7, 8. Simile est exemplum Mat. 1●. 14. & Acto: 28. 26. Quartò tum id ipsum, quod per Prophetiam, aut Scripturam dictum erat, quamvis jam factum fuerit, tamen magis ac magis fit. Tunc enim Scriptura impleri dicitur, id est, quod per eam dictum erat, cumulatissime fieri. Observamus enim in Scriptures saepe fieri, dici, non solum quod fieri incipit, sed quod magis, ac magis fit, sicut joan. 2. 11. dicuntur discipuli Christi, viso miraculo aquae, in vinum conversae, credidisse, quia magis, ac magis crediderunt nam jam certe ante crediderunt. Maldonat in vers. 15. Mat. 2. qui tanti mensuram nominis imples. Now seeing this phrase [This was done that the Scripture might be fulfilled] is so frequent in the new Testament; Maldonat did very well and like himself in unfolding the several ways (as he conceived them) according to which the Scripture is said to be fulfilled, almost in the very beginning of his learned Commentaries upon the four Evangelists. Yet some question there may be, whether he did all this, which was so well and wisely attempted by him, so well and so judiciously as might in reason have been expected from him. 2. The Scripture (saith he) so far (as I could hitherto observe) is said to be fulfilled four manner of ways. First when that very thing is done or comes to pass which was meant by the Prophet or other sacred writers in the literal and proper sense: As when Saint Matthew (to use his instance) saith Chap. 1. 22. That which was spoken by the Prophet, (behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emanuel) was fulfilled in the blessed virgin. The rule is true and without exception, but the illustration of it is not so fit, as Maldonat supposed. For that saying of the Prophet Isaiah was fulfilled more ways than one, perhaps according to all the four several ways, which he conceived, in the conception birth and name of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Secondly, the scripture is said to be fulfilled, when that comes to pass which was foreshadowed by the proper and immediate subject of the Prophet's speech. As that saying Exod. 12. 46. Ye shall not break a bone of it, was properly and immediately meant of the paschal Lamb, yet fulfilled in our Saviour Christ, of whom the paschal Lamb was the type or shadow. Unto this second rule or branch he likewise refers that prophecy 2 Sam. 7. 14. I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a son. This was fulfilled in Christ as the Apostle teacheth Heb. 1. 5. though properly meant of Solomon, as Maldonat takes it for granted; although some judicious Commentators of the Roman Church in his time do question, or rather peremptorily (yet too boldly) deny it. However, this second rule of Maldonat is good and acknowledged by all, only his expression of the two instances needs some correction: for the first place alleged by him was as literally and as properly meant of Christ as of the Paschall Lamb; and the second more properly meant of Christ than of Solomon, though literally and properly meant of Solomon and fulfilled in him. The truth is that both places were two ways fulfilled both in the literal, and mystical sense, and the second twice fulfilled, once in the literal, and again both in the literal and mystical sense. 3. Thirdly (saith the same Author) the Scripture is said to be fulfilled, when neither that which was literally and properly pointed at by the Prophet, nor that which was foreshadowed by it comes to pass, but some other thing which is so like unto it, that the same speech may as aptly and as handsomely be applied unto it, as unto that which was properly and literally meant. For illustration of this third rule, he allegeth that of the Prophet Isaiah cap. 29. 13, 14. For as much as this people draw near unto me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me; but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold I will proceed to do a marvellous work amongst this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder. For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid: This (saith Maldonat) was properly meant of the Jews which lived in Isaiahs' time; and yet our Saviour Matt. 15. 7, 8. gives us to understand that this was fulfilled of the Jews, which conversed and disputed with him. Yet Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophecy of you, saying: This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far me. Unto this third rule or observation, Maldonat would draw that other saying of the Prophet Isaiah cap. 6. 10. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert and be healed. Yet this prophecy, as our Saviour expressly tells us Mat. 13, 14. was fulfilled in the Jews to whom he spoke o'er tenùs, in parables. And so doth S. Paul Acts 28. 26. where he expounds the Orthodoxal meaning both of our Saviour's & the Prophet's words. The truth of this third rule will come in some question in the next chapter: but admitting it for the present to be orthodoxal and true, yet the instances or illustrations are impertinent. For all the passages alleged by him were more literally and more properly meant of the incredulous Jew's which conversed with our Saviour than of those Jews which were the Prophet Isaiahs' coëvalls; as the understanding Reader will easily collect from the 12. of john 41. being compared with the forecited 6, of Isaiah. The fourth way by which (in Maldonats' observation) the scripture is said to be fulfilled, is, when that which was foretold or prefigured though already done in part, or begun to be done, is afterwards more constantly and more fully done. The observation or rule is unquestionably true, but it is not a rule or branch distinct from the two first, but rather a transcendent to all the ways according to which the scriptures may be rightly said to be fulfilled. 4. And these ways can be neither more nor fewer, then are the ways by which God did either foretell or prefigure things to come, and to be accomplished in Christ. Some predictions were merely prophetical, some prefigurations were merely typical, other merely literal or charactericall. And unto these & their commixtures all the Testimonies or prenotions concerning Evangelical mysteries have been reduced. Now according to all these ways the scripture is said to be fulfilled. Where the testimony is merely prophetical, that is such as is literally appliable to Christ alone, the scripture is said to be fulfilled only in the literal sense. When the testimony or prenotion is only typical, as when the representation is made by matter of fact or historical event, in this case the Scripture is fulfilled only according to the mystical sense; and after this manner most of the legal ceremonies are said to be fulfilled in Chr. The history of the brazen Serpent was mystically fulfilled in his death upon the cross: the story of jonas his imprisomment in the whales belly was thus fulfilled in his burial, & 3 days abode in his grave: the Ceremony or rite of offering the first fruits was thus fulfilled in his resurrection. Where the testimony & prenotion is both typical & prophetical, as is that of the Paschal Lamb, & of the stone which the builders refused, there the Scripture is fulfilled both according to the literal & the mystical sense, whether the words as they are referred to Chr. be logical & proper, or whether they be allegori: or symbolical; yet can we not say that these Scripture were fulfilled as well in the type as in Christ, but in Christ alone. For neither of these passages [Ye shall not break a bone of it] [the stone which the builders refused] were prophetical in respect of the type, but only in respect of the mysteries typified. And no Scripture is said to be fulfilled, otherwise, then as it is either a prediction or prefiguration of somewhat to come. But where the testimony is prophetically typical, there one and the same Scripture is twice fulfilled both in the type and in the antitype, as that 2 Sam. 7. [I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a son] was fulfilled in Solomon in the literal sense, but in Christ both according to the literal and mystical sense. So was that forecited passage Isay 22. fulfilled in Eliakim according to the literal sense, but afterwards fulfilled in Christ both according to the literally symbolical and the mystical sense. And thus the names given to john Baptist himself, and to his Parents had their accomplishment when Christ was exhibited in our flesh: and yet these, and many other of the same rank, were more exactly fulfilled after his resurrection. Maldonat his fourth rule (as was before intimated) will hold in all these several ways, according to which the Scripture is said to be fulfilled, whether according to the mere literal and assertive sense, or according to the mere mystical sense, or according to both with their several branches, or according to the charactericall sense, or literal representative only not assertive. According to every one of these senses may one and the same Scripture be oftener fulfilled than once or twice, and in a manner more remarkable at one time than at another, though always truly fulfilled and according to the intention of the holy Ghost. 5. To begin with the literal assertive. No man I think will question whether that of the Prophet Isaiah [with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked] were literally meant of any besides our Saviour Christ. And there is no question but these words were fulfilled within the compass of that age which brought him forth, and so then fulfilled in sundry wicked ones: yet do not these words refer to them, or those times alone, but are to be fulfilled in a more remarkable manner at the day of Judgement, or perhaps before it. For from this place of the Prophet Isaiah, our Apostle had that revelation 2 Thess. 2. 8. Then shall that Wicked he revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. Many like prophecies there be concerning the glory of Christ's Church and the happy estate of his elect, which are even in this life literally fulfilled or verified by way of pledge or earnest, but shall not be exactly fulfilled, save only in the life to come. Ignorance of this rule, or nonobservance of it, hath been the nurse of dangerous and superstitious error, as well in the Roman Church as in her extreme opposites: in such I mean, as begin their faith and anchor their hopes at the absolute infallibility of their personal election with no less zeal or passion then the Romanist relies upon the absolute infallibility of the visible Church: 6. That very instance which Maldonat allegeth for the confirmation of his third rule [This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips, etc. Matth. 15. 8.] was literally meant of the Jews which lived in Isaiahs' time, yet not properly fulfilled in them or of them; for in respect of them, it was not a Prophecy, but a sharp reproof or tax; yet this reproof or tax was a most exact prophecy in respect of the Jews which conversed with our Saviour, of whom it was literally meant in a more exquisite sense than of their Ancestors, and in this sense often fulfilled. The ancient Jews did not honour God being personally and visibly present, with their lips as these later did, nor were their hearts so maliciously set, at least their malice not so diametrally bend, against God at any time, as the hearts and malice of these later Jews were against Christ, who was the God of their Fathers. As these later Jew's did fill up the measure of their Father's sins; so whatsoever God did threaten to this stiffnecked people for their rebellion against him, was more exactly fulfilled in this last generation, than it had been in any former. The several generations or successions created no difference in the true object of the literal sense: that may and did as equally respect many generations as one man, infinite transgressions as truly as some few. This Scripture may be as truly fulfilled in all as in one, though no● in all according to the same measure. So S. Stephen tells the Jews Acts 7. 5. 52. Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the holy Ghost: at your Fathers did, so do ye. Which of the Prophets have not your Fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the just one, of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers. And our Saviour himself chargeth the present generation of the Jews with the blood of Zacharias form of Barachias, whom their forefathers had slain many hundreds of years before Matt. 23. 35. adding withal, that his blood should be required of that generation present. Which is a proof sufficient that this Zacharias was not the Father (as some have supposed) of john the Baptist. For if he had been slain between the Temple and the Altar, he must have been slain by that present generation to whom our Saviour directs this speech, and so there had been no matter of observation capable of that Emphatical Epiphonema Luke 11. 51. Verily I say unto you it shall be required of this generation. Now his blood was to be required of this last generation, because they had fulfilled the measure of their forefathers sins, who had prodigiously slain their high Priest Zacharias. But how the Prophecy of this their high Priest, or rather his dying curse, was fulfilled more exactly of this last generation than of that generation which put him to death, would require a particular treatise, not in this place to be inserted. His dying speech (though uttered by way of imprecation) was prophetical. And the event of his imprecation, though exhibited shortly after his death was typically prophetical of that which happened to this last generation within forty years after the death of our Saviour, whom Zacharias did in his death (though not in his dying speeches) exactly foreshadow. 7. As one and the same Scripture may be oftener than once fulfilled or exactly verified in different measure only by way of growth or increment of the same literal sense; so likewise may it be of one and the same man in respect of several times. For out of question it is, that the Scripture Gen. 15. 6. Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, was literally verified of Abraham at that very point of time, when God first called him from his own kindred and his Father's house into the promised Land. And yet S. james saith cap. 2. 23. that this very Scripture was fulfilled when Abraham offered up Isaac his son upon the Altar: and from this last performance of Abraham he had, if not the first, yet the truest, title to be called the friend of God. Not altogether after the same manner, but after a manner not much different was that Scripture Isaiah 53. 4. twice fulfilled of our Saviour before his resurrection: Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows, etc. This was most exactly fulfilled in his sufferings (whatsoever these were) upon the Cross, unto which S. Peter refers it, 1 Pet. 2. 24. He his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we being dead to sin, should live to righteousness, by whose stripes you were healed. Yet was the same testimony truly fulfilled before, as S. Matthew more fully instructs us cap. 8. ver, 16, 17. When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with Devils; and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the Prophet saying, Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses. The testimony alleged by these two Apostles unto several purposes is one and the same, and yet concludent of what they both purposed or intended. Nor is it necessary to search out two several senses of one and the same testimony alleged and twice fulfilled. For of one and the same literal sense or signification there may be two objects or more. The literal sense of the words, as forecited by S. Peter, hath for its object our Saviour's sufferings, or his bearing our infirmities and the diseases of our souls upon the Cross. The object whereto S. Matthew refers, was the infirmites' or sicknesses of men's bodies; for these he bore though not (as we say) in kind, yet by exact sympathy or fellowfeeling, before he bore our spiritual infirmities upon the Cross; and whether he bore these after such an exact sympathy, as he did the bodily infirmities of those whom he cured, may be discussed in the Article of his passion. 8. But as for testimonies either typical prophetical or prophetically typical, besides that they may be oftener fulfilled then once, according to the same sense in general, (as either according to the literal or mystical sense or both) they admit in greater variety of particular senses no way opposite unto the general, but subordinate and coordinate one to another. Sometimes the same words fit the type in such a proportion, as the names of shires or Provinces do those parts of the Maps wherein they are represented; but fit the Antitype in such a measure as the same name in the Map doth the province which it represents: sometimes in one and the same Prophecy or continued historical narration, one clause or passage doth fit the type only, another the antitype only, according to the proper literal sense; and some others so fit both. As in Psalm 72. 1. Give the King thy judgements, O God, and thy righteousness unto the King's son: by the King it is evident David meant himself, and by the King's son, both Solomon, and him of whom Solomon was the shadow or type; the one according to the literal sense only, the other both according to literal and mystical. These words again in the 2. verse, He shall judge the people with righteousness, and the poor with equity, refer both to Solomon, and to Christ; to the one as to the model, to the other as to the edifice. So doth that other passage ver. 8. He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the River unto the ends of the earth. This prophecy was fulfilled or exactly verified according to the letter in Solomon: For he did command from the Phaenician sea unto the sea of Edom, and from the river Euphrates unto the lands end, according to that ancient terrar which the Lord himself had given of judah's dominion. Yet this dominion whilst it was most entirely possessed by Solomon, was but a Map of Christ's Kingdom; he was to rule from Sea to Sea, over all the Seas in the world, and from river to river from every point of sea and land unto the same point again; For all was to be given him as well in earth as in heaven. Salomon's earthly Kingdom doth fit Christ's Kingdom here on earth, as a Map of paper doth a Country or Province; and Christ's Kingdom here on earth is but the scale of his Kingdom and dominion in heaven. 9 Sometimes the same passage of Scripture may according to the intent and meaning of the holy Spirit be fulfilled or verified of the type or pledge in an ordinary literal or proverbial sense, (which is somewhat more than the ordinary literal) and yet be fulfilled of Christ in the most exactly punctual literal sense that can be imagined. They that dwell in the wilderness (saith David Psal. 72. 9) shall how before him, and his enemies shall lick the dust. This was truly meant and verified of Solomon in the literal and proverbial sense, but most exactly fulfilled in Christ, unto whom all knees shall how of things in heaven, of things in earth, and of things under the earth: and all his enemies, death itself, and him that had the power of death, shall inherit the Serpent's first curse, that is, to be fed with dust, Gen. 3. 14. No doubt but Solomon and his share in that prediction v. 12. He shall deliver the needy when he cryeth, the poor also and him that hath no helper; Him that is not able to cry or speak for himself. But Solomon could never give sight unto the blind, or limbs unto the Lame, or speech or hearing to such as were borne deaf or dumb. These were prerogatives peculiar unto that son of David whom Solomon did foreshadow. But even the deaf and dumb had some friends to solicit Christ's aid for them; the lame, the blind, and the sick, could cry themselves, unto him or make signs of their desire of his help; yet others he helped which did not either by themselves or by their friends desire his help, as that impotent man which had laid so long at the pool of Bethesda. Solomon might deliver the poor from civil oppression or bodily violence, and might raise them in their temporal fortunes; but it was the promised son of David alone, that could deliver them from the oppressions of the Devil, or from the imprisonment of their own bodily senses. Thus he delivered Lazarus from the very bonds of death, and from the prison of the grave, when he himself could not, and his sisters would not or did not cry unto him for this deliverance, but rather dissuaded him from attempting it. Now the very name Lazarus is by interpretation as much as David in that verse expresseth, Him that hath no helper. According to this difference or allowance most passages in that 72 Psalm besides the 5 ver. & the conclusion from the 17, are literally meant both of Solomon and of Christ. But these prayers of David were prophetical both in respect of the type and the antitype; so are not many other like passages in the Psalms, which contain pathetical expressions of the parties desires, griefs, or sorrows, which did pen them; and yet are no less exquisitely fulfilled in Christ, than the former which were literally meant both of Christ and of the Psalmist, though prophetical only in respect of Christ. Every religious man, which had a religious woman to his mother, might frame his prayers in the same literal form that the Psalmist useth Psal. 116. 16. O Lord, surely I am thy servant, I am thy servant, and the son of thy handmaid. Yet in as much as this Psalmist (who ever he were) was a type of Christ, that which he spoke and meant of himself in an ordinary and common sense was fulfilled of Christ in the most exquisite sense whereof these words or letters are capable. For he was the son of an handmaid, of God's handmaid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in such a peculiar manner as no son of man before him was nor after shall be. And he was the servant of God in such a sense and after such a manner, as no man could be, no man would desire to be, save only that man who was the eternal and only son of God. But of this Title of the son of God, his being the servant of God, in his proper place. 10. The Psalmist again did questionless both act and pen his own part, when he thus exclaimed, Yea mine own familiar friend in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lift up his heel against me. Psal. 41. 9 This was but an expression of some intolerable ingratitude and wrong, either past or then in working; the speech was neither altogether figurative nor hyperbolical, but a typical prophecy of judas his Traitorous dealing with his Lord and Master; and in judas alone it was properly fulfilled according to the most exquisite and most punctual literal sense that could have been devised. For judas being in an office of trust, did then lay wait for his master's life, and did then fully resolve upon his intended treason, when he was in the mess, and dipped his finger in the same dish with him. The Father of lies, of treason, and ingratitude did enter into his heart at the same instant, wherein he devoured the bread his master had reached unto him. By the speedy and more disastrous issue of this prodigious Treason, preventing the Traitor for triumphing in his master's death, as his bloody confederates did: this people might have known that Christ was the man whom God did favour, whom the Psalmist did foreshadow in his complaint; and of whose resurrection he prophesied in his prayer Ver. 10, 11, 12. But thou O Lord be merciful unto me, and raise me up that I may requite them: by this I know that thou favourest me, because my Enemy doth not triumph over me. And as for me thou upholdest me in mine integrity, and settest me before thy face for ever. All that the Psalmist here pens, was more exquisitely acted by our Saviour, if we subduct the imprecations upon his enemies, which the Psalmist mingles with his prayers for himself. 11. The Author of the 69 Psalm (were he David the son of jesse, or some other so enstiled for the same reason, for which john Baptist is by our Saviour himself called Elias) did not utter that complaint without some urgent cause or pressing occasions, Ver. 20, 21. Reproach hath broken my heart, and I am full of heaviness, and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none, and I looked for comforters, but I found none. They gave me also gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegert● drink. These passionate expressions could hardly proceed from such sympathy, as a pure prophetical vision of what the malignant Jews would do for many generations after unto Christ, was likely to raise. They seem live characters of experienced grief and sorrow, and it may be the Psalmist was then a prisoner fed with the bread of affliction, and compelled to drink water as bitter as his bread was nasty. But whatsoever the Psalmist here speaks of himself, and of his miserable perplexities, though in an high and tragical strain, or in a sense somewhat hyperbolical; was we know fulfilled in Christ according to the literal and punctual sense. Briefly, all the Psalmists and other Prophets, in all their causeless and undeserved sufferings at the hands of worthless and malicious men, were true types, and yet no more than types or shadows, of Christ in his agony and bloody passion. But in their importunate and bitter imprecations uttered in their guiltless sufferings, they were not so much types as foils of his unspeakable patience, meekness and long suffering: for he never prayed against his enemies (as the Prophets did) but always for them. Their demeanour in their calamities, disgrace, or torments was such as did show themselves to be but men: His, always such as did declare Him to be, what he often said of himself, truly God. And yet the bitter imprecations which the Psalmist and other Prophets used in their indigne sufferings, or against the malicious enemies of his Church and people did (by divine inspiration) prove most exact typical prophecies of all the Calamities which befell the Jewish nation after they had declared themselves to be the enemies of the God of their Fathers, and put the Lord of life, their promised Messias, to death. As in particular and for instance, that imprecation of this Psalmist ver. 23. unto the 28. with that other Prophecy Isa. 29. S. Paul did see in part fulfilled in the Jews of his time Rom. 11. 8, 9, 10. According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber: eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare and a trap, and a slumbling block, and a recompense unto them. Let their eyes be darkened that they may not see, and bow down their back always. This imprecation made by the Psalmist (but never resumed by our Saviour) did fall upon them by the law of retaliation. Therefore their Table became a snare unto them, because they gave the son of God gall for meat●, and vinegar in his thirst to drink. But in what sense his death, or the indignities which they put upon him, was the cause of Jerusalem's destruction & extirpation of the Jewish Nation, is more fully set down in other meditations somewhat of which may (if need so require) be inserted in proof of the undoubted truth of the Articles of his resurrection and ascension, against the Jews. CHAP. 15. Whether all Testimonies alleged by the Evangelists out of the old Testament, in which it is said or employed, [this was done that the Scripture might be fulfilled] be concludent proofs of the Evangelicall truths for which they are alleged. IT would require a great deal of diligence in later Divines to redeem the negligence of former, either in not observing, or in not transmitting their observations to posterity; at what time, on what occasions, and by whom the several Psalms were written. For that all of them were written at the same time, or by the same hand, is no way probable in itself, nor so accounted amongst the best Divines of this age. Theodoret amongst the Ancients, Melancthen and Moller amongst modern writers, have better attempted this profitable work, than they have been seconded. The historical occasions, and other circumstances of the times wherein these Psalms were written, Cap. 15 were they known according to the literal sense, would lead us by a fair and safe way, as it were by the rule of three, unto the just product or capacity of the true allegorical and mystical sense, in which they were fulfilled. But as our case now stands, the luxuriant and perplexed branches of such forced Allegories, as men fancy to themselves, or frame by guess, without any perfect scale or proportion from the true historical sense, have occasioned many judicious Divines, to doubt or question whether those things which by the Evangelists are said to be done that the Scriptures might be fulfilled do always imply some concludent proof or demonstration of the Spirit. Calvin, for being sometimes too bold, sometimes too sparing in the exposition of such places, as the Evangelists say are fulfilled in Christ is deeply taxed by the Lutherans generally, and by many of the Romish Church. But Christian charity will persuade men of sober passions, that it was rather fear lest he should give offence unto the Jews, than any desire or inclination to comply with them, which made him sometimes give the same interpretations of Scriptures which they do, without expression of, or search after farther mysteries than the letter itself doth minister. How ever it be, if Calvin be liable to a judgement, jansenius, Sasbout, and Maldonat, three of the most judicious Commentators of the Romish Church for these many years, are liable to a Council, for their unadvised presumption in this kind. One of them denyeth that often forecited place; I will be to him a Father, and be shall be to me a son, to be literally meant of Solomon: wherein he gives just offence unto the Jews, and by superstitious fear of committing that error, whereof Calvin is often accused, doth fall into the contrary. The two others question whether that of the Prophet Hosea, Out of Egypt have I called my son, were properly fulfilled in our Saviour, or only said to be fulfilled per accommodationem, by way of allusion, that is, in such a manner as we might say that of the Poet, Omnis in Ascanio chari stat cura Parentis, were fulfilled in any father or mother, whom we saw to dote upon, or much to delight in their lovely son. And this was the explicit meaning of Maldonats third rule before cited, in what sense the Scripture is said to be fulfilled. 2. That this was his meaning in that place, may be gathered from his comment on that other saying of S. Matthew, Chap. 13. ver. 34, 35. All these things spoke jesus unto the multitude in parables, and without a parable spoke he not unto them; that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the Prophet saying, I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things which have been kept secret since the foundation of the world. His observations upon this place are, in his own words (englished) thus. The particle, That, doth not denote the cause why our Saviour spoke in parables; for he did not thus speak, to the end that David's sayings might be fulfilled, but because his Auditors were unworthy of such perspicuous declarations, as he used to his Disciples in private. This he takes as granted from our Saviour's speech ver. 13, 14. Therefore spoke I to them in parables, because they seeing see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the Prophecy of Isaiah which saith, By hearing, etc. The abstract of his observations upon ver, 34, 35. is this; that it was no part of our Evangelists meaning, to teach us, that David's prophecy was properly fulfilled by our Saviour's parables: seeing David's discourse (as he conceives) was indeed no prophecy, but an historical narration of matters past, besides that the word which the Psalmist there useth, doth not signify such parables as our Saviour in this 13. chapter meant; but rather such pithy sentences, as the greeks call Apothegms. Maldonats' conclusion therefore is, that the Evangelist (according to his usual manner) did only accommodate that which David had spoken, to our Saviour's speeches in this place, to which they have some affinity or similitude, though no concludent congruity: and for our better satisfaction, he refers us to his Comments upon Matth. 2. 15. that is indeed, to his third rule, in what sense the Scriptures are said to be fulfilled. But in this, and other like passages to the same purpose, this Author only gives us to understand, how easy a matter it is for good Divines, sometimes to spend a great deal of learning and wit to no good purpose; especially when they strive to be hypercritical, or to be censorious of others pious endeavours, though perhaps not so accurate. 3. To revise these his animadversions ordine retrogrado, that is, beginning with the last, and ending with the first: No man did say that the narrations in that Psalm were prophetical in respect of the matters literally and immediately signified by the words themselves; Yet in as much as these matters though past, as God's wonders in Egypt and in the wilderness, the conducting of his people to the land of Canaan, and their rebellious behaviour in it, were true types or shadows of the like events in future times; there is not any thing in that Psalm related, which in the mystical sense doth not fore-represent some parallel event, when the God of their Fathers should come in person to expostulate with his people, in such a manner as David did with the people of his time, which he did not in his own name or authority, but in the name and authority of his Lord and God. For so he begins that Psalm, Give ear, O my people, to my Law, incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable, I will utter dark sayings of old. This preamble cannot literally be applied to David or any Prophet, save only as he was a type or shadow of him that was to come. The Psalmists words immediately following though Apophthegmaticall and pithy, were plain in respect of the literal sense, (if you consider them only as matters of fact forepast;) were known and had been taught, at the least by some of their Fathers, though perhaps forgotten by posterity. However, in respect of their mystical importance or as they contain a proportionable parallel of the Kingdom of Heaven with the Kingdom of Israel according to the flesh; they are sentences both hard and dark, and such as did require a better paraphrast upon David or the Author of this Psalm, than he was of Moses or of the sacred Historians before his time. For by the parables meant in ver. 2. of this Psalm, if we may believe S. Matthewes paraphrase upon these words, were meant, things which had been kept secret from the foundation of the world Matt. 13. 35. This was the mystical sense of the Psalmists words, and according to S. Matthewes literal expression of them, they necessarily import the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven; and so all the parables which our Saviour used in that Chapter (as he there useth many) respect the Kingdom of Heaven, and were hard and dark to such as were not of Christ's disciples, or such as the Psalmist there describes, A stubborn and faithless generation. It is true therefore which Maldonat in his second animadversion saith, that the cause why our Saviour spoke to his common Auditors in parables was, because they were unworthy of clearer revelations, uncapable for the time of greater talents, having used their former ordinary talents so ill. Thus our Saviour resolves his Disciples ver. 11, 12. Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given: and he shall have abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. And to the same effect the Psalmist had prophesied or forewarned this generation, even all generations following. It was then an allegation unconcludent and impertinent, and no way beseeming Maldonat, to say our Saviour did not speak in parables, to the end that David's sayings might be fulfilled, but because this present generation did deserve no other language. For these two are no way opposite, but subordinate. And if it be ill for men to separate those things which God hath conjoined, it is much worse to set things at odds or in opposition which the Spirit of God hath made coordinate, or set in concord. Now both these assertions, as well that which Maldonat refuses, as that which he approves, have a divine truth in them. First it is most true that our Saviour did speak unto the multitude and to the Pharisees, on whom they relied, in parables, because they were for the time unworthy of such declarations as he made to his disciples for the increase of their talon which they had used not so much amiss as the others had done. And no less true it is, that the Psalmist did foreprophecy that the posterity of Israel from his own time until the coming of the Messias should be more unworthy hearers of divine mysteries then their forefathers had been; unless they seriously repented both their own sins, and the sins of their forefathers. So that our Saviour did speak●●nto them in parables for these two reasons. First, because they were unworthy hearers. Secondly, to the end his disciples might know and believe, that this manner of speaking was foreprophecied by the Author of the 78. Psalm. 4. Maldonats' first animadversion was, that this Latin particle ut, or the greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not always signify the cause of what is said or spoken, but sometimes the event only. How true soever this be, it no way prejudiceth the truth now delivered by us. For it will not follow that this particle ut either in this place of S. Matthew, or in any other place where it imports the fulfilling of Scriptures, doth not signify the cause, because it sometimes or oftentimes signifieth the event only. But seeing the right use of this particle, or the knowledge of its several references, is much conducent to the just valuation of many testimonies which have been, and must be hereafter alleged out of Scriptures; it will be very useful in this place to unfold its several significations or importances once for all. Sometimes this particle, as well in the Greek, as in the Latin, and in our English, is transitive only; and imports neither any true cause nor the event; as in that of our Saviour john 17. 3. This is life eternal, that they may know thee, the only true God. The resolution of which words, without any wrong either to their full importance in logical construction, or to their grammatical elegancy, is but this, Cognoscere te esse verum Deum est vita aeterna, To know thee to be the only true God is eternal life. From this use or importance of this particle ut, that other, which Maldonat makes, is not different, or no otherways different than the end of a transition or passage is from the passage or transition itself; as when our Saviour saith Mat. 23. 34. I send unto you Prophets and wisemen &c, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel, etc. God forbid any good Christian should refer this particle That unto the first words, Behold I send unto you Prophets, &c, and by this means conceive the end and cause why God did send wisemen and Prophets unto them should be this, that all the righteous blood shed by their Fathers, should be required of this generation; it refers only to those words, Some of them shall ye kill and crucify, etc. The true importance is, as if he had said, ye shall, or you will, go on in your Father's sins so far and so long, until at length the blood of all the righteous whom your Fathers have slain, shall come upon you: Or, as S. Luke hath it, shall be required of you. So that the importance of this particle ut in this place denotes the event of their practices or resolutions, not the final cause of the Prophets coming unto them. And it is the same with that which S. Paul expresses in the infinitive mood Rom. 1. 20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The end why God did manifest himself unto men in the book of his Creatures was, that they might know him to be God, and glorify him as God. And it was the ample measure of manifestations made to this end, which left even the Heathens themselves without Apology or just excuse; and according to this importance of the particle ut, (as it noteth only the event or some transition to the event) many good writers would value that of S. john chap. 12. 37, 38. Though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him. That the saying of Esaias the Prophet might be fulfilled which he spoke, ut impleretur ille sermo; Lord who hath believed our report, and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed. And I could wish, that Maldonats' animadversions upon the forecited 35. verse of Matthew the 13. had been as Orthodoxal or discreet, as they are upon this place of john. For of such Commentators as I have read, none speaks more pertinently or more discreetly to the difficulty wherewith that place is charged, unless it be his brother Tolet, who hammers out Athanasius his exposition as learnedly (and more fully) as Maldonat doth upon the expositions of other Greek Fathers. However, I cannot assent to them, or to any others, in this one point, in that they would make the particle ut, here, (as elsewhere it doth) to point only at the event, not any cause. That it cannot in this place denote the final cause, Athanasius carries it clearly against some heretics of his time or before him, who did so interpret it; who yet spoke consequently enough to their wicked opinions in that they acquit these unbelieving Jews from blame and lay their charge upon Esayas, whose prediction, they thought, did either cause or infer the necessity of these Jews infidelity, after so many glorious miracles as had been done by our Saviour in their sight. 5. But that this particle, ut, doth in this place denote and import more than the event, that it refers unto some true Cause, is most evident, in that the use of it ver. 38. is, in S. john's meaning, equivalent to that other particle used by him ver. 39, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Therefore they could not believe because Isaiah said again etc. Now that this particle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore, ideo, quia, and such like, do always refer immediately unto some true cause, we cannot deny without some wrong to Priscian or without some non obstante, or such licentious dispensation (as it is said a Pope once gave) ut fiatur contra omnes grammaticos. It is certain again, that neither particle doth immediately refer to any real cause of the thing itself avouched by S. john or that Esaias his saying, or the fulfilling of it, should be any cause at all of the Jews infidelity, neither the principal cause (as the Heretics whom Athanasius refutes, did conceive) nor any accessary or less principal cause, as some modern writers imagine, whom Maldonat (without naming them) well confutes. But we should consider how that which is the true effect of some real cause, is ofttimes the true cause of our true knowledge or apprehension of the cause itself, or of its connexion with the effect: and such a causality these and the like causal particles or conjunctions, ideo, quia, propter, &c do usually import. As if one which had never seen the King or Court before, should say, Sure this is the King, because the rest stand bare before him: this speech imports a true cause not of the thing itself avouched, or why this is the King, but of the party's knowledge or notice of him as King. And so we know that Mary Magdalen had many sins forgiven her because she loved much: but her love was the effect not the cause of this plentiful forgiveness, as the more intelligent sort of Pontifician writers now grant, and the circumstance of the text will clearly evince it, against all that shall avouch it to be any more than a cause of our knowledge. However seeing every cause is a cause of some effect, or refers to some things produced or occasioned by it, The question still remains of what effect the fulfilling of Isaiahs' prophecy, or the contemplation of the event which he foretold, should be the true cause, if it were no cause at all of these Jews infidelity? 6 The serious contemplation of this Prophets saying after the holy Ghost had called them, and the matter which they so have fitted unto our Evangelists mind, was a true cause why he did cease to wonder at the stupidity of this people. For if Isaiah had not long before deciphered their froward & stubborn disposition, posterity would have suspected either that S. john's taxation of their stupidity had been more hyperbolical than true, or else that our Saviour's miracles had not been so all sufficient in themselves, as the Evangelist makes them, for winning credence to his doctrine, or respect unto his person. But seeing nothing breaks forth in this last generation, whose seeds & roots had not been discovered by Isaias in their forefathers, this takes away all occasion in posterity to suspect either the truth of S. john's narration, or sufficiency of our Saviour's miracles. No these causal particles only, as, ut, or, propter, but adversative also, as verunt amen, sed, do sometimes refer not to any written clause or sentence precedent, or any matter contained in them, but unto the secret or tacit thoughts of the writer or speaker, or to some strong affection seeking to vent itself in such abrupt or unusual language. To begin a speech with name or veruntamen would be a ridiculous solecism, unless it were by way of decorum in some appointed to act or utter a ridiculous part. And yet an exquisite Poet did thus begin his doleful Elegy; Hîc tamen umbrosum nactus nemus, Hieronymus Vida in carmine, cui titulus Gelelmi Vide et Leonae Oscasalae parentum manib. hîc loca sola Ne mea quis nimiùm carpsit lamenta severus. The particle, Tamen, without solecism or breach of Grammar rule, hath an elegant reference to his former thoughts or affections which had been these or the like; It is an unseemly part for a man of my place and breeding to blubber and weep for the death of his Parents: notwithstanding seeing the place affords opportunity, nature shall take her forth for a while. And after this manner the Psalmist begins the 73. psalm, Veruntamen Bonus est Deus Israel, Notwithstanding God is good to Israel, This particle refers to his precedent thoughts or secret disputations with his own heart, which had been these or the like; Surely God hath forgotten his promise unto Israel, or else he never meant them so much good as he seemed to promise, in that he suffers them to be trod under feet by their wicked and blasphemous enemies; and in the crisis or conquest of these and the like cogitations (which he afterwards confesseth of himself) he bursts out into the former expression, Notwithstanding God is good to Israel. And after this manner, these two causal speeches [ut impleretur ille sermo Isaiae, Joh. 12. Propterea non potuerunt credere etc.] refer to these or the like precedent cogitations of S. john; Is it possible that men of Abraham's lineage, that any creatures endued with reason, should not believe, after so many miracles done in their sight? Yes, I know it to be more than possible, because the Prophet Isaiah hath foretold as much. Yea, but S. john goes further, and says, they could not believe because Isaiah had foretold their unbelief. Yet if we scan his words aright, S. john doth not resolve the impossibility or difficulty of their unbelief into Esaias his prediction formally taken, but into the hardness of heart which Esaias had foretold. For so his words are; Therefore they could not believe; because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and her deved their hearts, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart●, and be converted; and I should he 〈…〉. These things spoke Esaias, when he saw his glory. The most that can be made of these words, the strongest collections that can be inferred from them, for inferring any divine causality of their unbelief, will amount to no more than this; It is not possible that the greatest part of men in our times should understand many divine truths about which they dispute, or be wise unto salvation; because it is said by a good Author, [Wisdom cannot enter into a froward heart.] This speech is Canonically true of all such men sensu composito, that is, whilst they continue perverse and froward, but not true in sensu diviso. for though it were absolutely true, that it is impossible for wisdom to enter into a froward heart, yet it is possible for a froward heart to put off frowardness, and for such as are now a stiffnecked and stubborn people in good time to brook the yoke of Christian obedience. 7 But doth this period of S. john [after so many miracles done before them, they did not believe, that the saying of Esaias might be fulfilled] import no more than if a man should say, the factious spirits of our times cannot believe aright, because it is written that wisdom cannot enter into a froward heart? In Maldonats' exposition on this place of S. john, and of that other Mat. 13. 34. &c, this is the utmost value of both allegations [that the Prophet's words do so well fit the events related by these two Evangelists, as that they could not fit them better although 'twere granted that it were meant of them alone, or had been spoken to no other end, than to notify these two events.] Yet if we may have the liberty to express the Prophet's meaning, or to speak consequently unto the truth itself (acknowledged by all good Christians) or to some special truths formerly delivered, the prophecy of Isaiah, alleged by S. john, was in a more peculiar manner fulfilled in the strange infidelity of the Jews which saw our Saviour's miracles, than any Proverbs of Solomon or other general Maxims can be fulfilled or verified of any misbelievers in these our times, either of such as deny Christ in express words, or confessing him in words deny him in deeds. For the words of Solomon or other moral sayings of Canonical writers, how well soever they may fit the errors or infidelity of our times, had no punctual aspect to them, but were uttered as absolute truths without respect of age, time, or persons, and fit all men and every sort of men, of what condition, age, or nation soever they be. Whereas the former forecited prophecy of Isaiah was punctually or literally meant of the Jewish Nation, which lived after his time unto the destruction of the City and Temple, and to the return of the Babilonish captivity. For so it follows in the 6. chap. ver. 10. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and convert and be healed. Then said I, Lord, how long? And he said, until the cities be wasted without inhabitants, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate: and the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the Land. But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return and shall be eaten, as a Teyle tree and as an Oak, whose substance is in them when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof. This very prophecy was more exactly fulfilled in the excecation and obduration of the Jews which did not believe our Saviour's miracles, and in that desolation of Judea which ensued upon his death. But whether the last part of this prophecy, concerning their return again to God, shall be as exactly fulfilled in these outcasts of Israel, future times would better resolve us or such as shall live after us, than any living interpreter of Scriptures can. With this question S. john meddles not, but besides that the former part of that prophecy doth according to the literal sense as truly point at this later generation of the Jews, as at the former: The real event itself or matter of fact foretold was more conspicuously remarkable in this later generation, than it had been in the former: For it was a prediction prophetically typical. The first desolation was such a real type of the later, as Israel's casting off God from being their ruler in the time of Samuel, was of that solemn abrenunciation of Christ which these later Jew's made before Pilate, when they cried; We have no King but Caesar. Or the like desolation was such a Crisis of that deadly disease, whereof the excecation and obduration mentioned by S. john was the symptom, as that calamity which befell judah the next year after Zacharias death was, of the calamity which befell the whole Nation within forty years after our Saviour's death. 8. So then the particle Vt, neither in this place of S. john, nor in any other, doth ever import any true causality of excecation or obduration on God's part or his Prophets; but in this place of S. john, and in every other, where it is said, [that this or that was done that the Scripture might be fulfilled] the same particle doth always import, that whatsoever was so done, whether positively or directly by God himself, or with permission of his just providence, by the positive intentions of Satan or incorrigible stubbornness of men, was always ordered by God to this end and purpose that posterity might believe and know, no such event did follow by chance, or that the Prophet did foretell such events only in general, without special reference unto the particular events related by the Evangelist. Seeing every final cause is purposed or projected by some intelligent nature, one and the same particle, That, or the like, with reference to several projectures, may sometimes denote a true final cause, sometimes the event or consequent only, in one and the same proposition; as in that of our Saviour Matth. 23. 34. Some of them you shall kill and crucify; etc. that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, The final cause projected by Satan, was to bring righteous blood upon these Jews, but this was the event or consequent only, no final cause, of their projects against God's messengers: But these messengers were sent by God only to this end, that they might recall his people to their allegiance; yet this end or purpose did include this condition, that if they continued or made up the measure of their Father's stubbornness, they were to suffer more grievous punishment, then if they had not been forewarned by the Prophets. In like manner the excecation and obduration of these later Jew's was the mark at which Satan aimed, no true cause (though a necessary consequent) of their continued abuse of that talon which God had given them; but no final cause, no cause at all why our Saviour did so many miracles amongst them: their excecation and perdition was from themselves. 9 That Prophecy of Isaiah, and that other of our Saviour's Matt. 23. 35. that upon you may come all the righteous blood, (or as S. Luke hath the same prediction more emphatically,) Verily I say unto you it shall be required of this generation: both these and the like were conformable to that general rule delivered by jeremy, Chap. 18. ver. 7, 8. At what instant I shall speak concerning a Nation, and concerning a Kingdom, to pluck up and to pull down, and to destroy it: If that Nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And our Saviour's prediction Luke 11. 31. though the words may seem most peremptory, did implicitly contain or admit the same condition, which he in another prediction of his to the same effect doth express Luke 13. 3. I tell you nay, but except you repent ye shall all likewise perish, that is, perish after the same disastrous manner that the Galileans there mentioned, or the inhabitants of Jerusalem, had perished. Now however the prediction of Isaiah or Zacharias his imprecation when he died; were no true causes of this people's infidelity or destruction, yet in as much as what they threatened, though with this condition and Proviso [Unless they do repent] did so exactly come to pass, the event is of most concludent proof to us that they spoke by the Spirit of God; a true cause of our knowledge that they were Prophets indeed, and that these events were not causual in respect of their predictions, though in themselves contingent, or holding the true mean between necessity of being, and necessity of not being. 10. But the best way to convince them of error, who teach that prophecies are sometimes said to be fulfilled only by allusion, will be, to declare the particular manner how these places at which they stumble most, do conclude what the Evangelists rather intimate, then fully express. For so it was the will of God, that even the Evangelists themselves should oft times only give us hints for searching out those demonstrations of the spirit, which they perfectly knew, but would not set down at large, lest this should occasion slothful negligence in succeeding ages, or prevent our admiration at the exact consonancy between Prophetical predictions and evangelical narrations. To conclude this present treatise: it is always more safe for the most learned expositor of Scriptures to say, [I do not conceive how this or that allegation doth conclude, or how this or that prophecy was exactly fulfilled] then peremptorily to avouch of any particular alleged by the Evangelist, that it was no concludent proof but allusive only, because he, or such as he hath read, cannot conceive how it is fulfilled. It is hard for any one man to see or hear all that hath been said or written by others upon any parts of Scripture, but it may be easy for others that come after, to say somewhat in arguments of this nature, which no one before had said or observed, yea somewhat more than the Prophet himself did distinctly foresee, when he spoke or wrote these very words which the Evangelists say were fulfilled. CHAP. 16. Whether the Prophets did always foresee, or explicitly believe, whatsoever they did foretell, or foresignify concerning Christ. SOme have resolved upon the affirmative part of this problem, not only as true in itself, but as one special ground of difference between the Prophets of the Lord, and the Heathen Soothsayers or Diviners, which sometimes foretold that which afterwards proved true, Cap. 16 but without any apprehension of the truth of it. That Heathen Diviners did sometimes rave, or speak they knew not what, in their divinations, I will not deny; that they did always thus; is more than I can affirm. However, between raving predictions and a distinct apprehension or foresight of matters foretold, there is a greater difference then between staring and being stark mad. That the Prophets of the Lord did never rave in their predictions, that they had always a true apprehension of the truth delivered by them, and a foresight of the events future which they foretold, I rest assured. But that this foresight should extend to all the branches of truth, which are said to come to pass, that their sayings might be fulfilled, I see no convincent argument to persuade me. The contradictory to his assertion, (if any be pleased to undertake it) we thus infer. The Evangelists and Apostles, or others enabled to preach the Gospel with power from above, men visibly anointed with the holy Ghost to this function, were bound to teach no other things than what had been foretold by Moses and the Prophets. And yet the Evangelists both knew and taught others to believe many things, which the b Mat. 13. 17. For verily I say unto you, that many Prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear and have not heard them. Prophets, even the c See Lu. 10. 24. For many prophets and Kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them etc. Kingly Prophets, much desired but could not be admitted to see or hear. And this is a concludent proof, that the Prophets did not always distinctly foresee or apprehend all things which were foretold by them, not those events which the Spirit of God saith came to pass that their sayings might be fulfilled. Otherwise, they must have seen all that the Evangelists saw, have known all the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven, which the Apostles after our Saviour's resurrection knew or taught: but this is directly contradictory to our Saviour's assertion; and whatsoever is contradictory to truth itself must of necessity be untrue. Wherein then did the Prophets of the Lord differ from heathen Soothsayers or raving Diviners? 2. He that can make a good construction of what he speaks or writes, cannot be said to rave, albeit he know not the issue or full importance of things uttered by him. Caiaphas' did not rave when he said, it was expedient that one man should die for the people rather than all should perish. Yet was he no Prophet, although (as S. john tells us) he did in this speech prophecy. For he did not intend or take upon him to foretell any unusual matter or divine mystery, but only give his political advice or placet concerning the business then in hand. Any worldly wiseman might have spoken as wisely as he did. That his speeches then did prove so happily ominous as they did, this was merely from the extraordinary disposition of divine providence. He neither spoke as heathen Diviners did when they raved, nor as the Prophets of the Lord used to speak whensoever they foretold things to come in the name of the Lord. For they always had a true intention to foretell such things, and to give assurance unto the people that whatsoever they foretold in the name of the Lord should come to pass, whether their predictions were for form expressly disjunctive; or whether they were absolute and peremptory, that is, not charged with conditions, exceptions, or Prouisoes either implicit or explicit. Somewhat than they always expressly foresaw, as often as they took upon them to foretell or foreshow things to come, but seldom did they know all which came to pass, that their saying might be fulfilled. 3. The Problem proposed cannot be distinctly resolved without a review of the different ways or manner how things future were foretold by the Prophets. Now of divine testimonies or predictions some were merely prophetical, others prophetically typical, and both these stems again did divide themselves into more branches. Some predictions merely prophetical were delivered in a plain grammatical or historical sense of words, others in terms allegorical or enigmatical. Of such predictions merely prophetical as are expressed in the plain grammatical or historical sense of words, some did refer to one matter or fact, or to some determinate point of time, and in the intention of the holy Ghost were to be but once fulfilled. Others according to the same literal sense were to be fulfilled (sometimes in the same; sometimes in a different measure) oftener than once, at diverse times, and in several ages. Of such predictions as were to be but once fulfilled, and that according to the plain literal sense, this affirmative is universally true; [The Prophets had always a distinct knowledge or apprehension of the sum or substance of the events which are said to come to pass that their saying might be fulfilled.] Search all the predictions of our Saviour's Incarnation, Nativity, Circumcision, of his Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension. Whatsoever places in the Prophets do literally refer to these points, were to be but once fulfilled. For our Saviour was to be but once incarnate, but once to be borne, to die but once, to be raised from death once for all. Now if the Prophets which did literally foretell these things, had not distinctly foreseen the substance (at least) of these Evangelicall mysteries, they must either have raved in their predictions (as it is presumed the heathen prophets or Apollo's priests used to do) or else have foretold them only after such a manner as Caiaphas did foretell his death. And the fulfilling of their prophecies, though according to their plain literal assertive sense, could not prove them to have been Prophets properly so called, that is, men endowed with the true spirit of divination. For no man I think will say, that Caiaphas was thus qualified, although he prophesied in some sort of our Saviour's death. jeremy surely did foresee that the promised seed should be conceived of a pure Virgin, when he uttered that prophecy chap. 31. 22. So did Esaias foresee, that the Messias, whom they continually expected, should be despised of many, should be a man of sorrows, should dye and rise again, when he uttered that Prophecy chap. 35. v. 3. But we have not the like inducement to believe that he did so distinctly apprehend that the expected Messias should be brought up in Nazareth, although this was foretold by him, chap. 11. 1. not in the plain literal sense, but enigmatically. 4 Where the prediction, according to the plain literal sense, was in the intention of the holy Ghost to be oftener fulfilled than once, the Prophet which foretold it, did always distinctly foresee the event in the first place foretold, or the first fulfilling of his own prediction. There is not the like necessity for us to believe or think that he had the like distinct foresight or apprehension of those events in which one & the selfsame prophecy was the second, third, or fourth time to be fulfilled. Esaias distinctly foresaw the future inclination of these Jews by their present disposition to draw near to God with their lips and be far from him in their hearts, and that their hypocrisy (if continued) would work their destruction; otherwise he had but raved, or but spoken by guess, but that the matter of this his reproof or Prophetical admonition should be more exactly fulfilled of the Jews six hundred years after his time, as it was; we cannot determine whether he did foresee this or no. In that vision made unto him, chapter the 6. he distinctly foresaw this people's proneness to wink withtheir eyes, & to harden their hearts unto their own destruction and desolation of their Country; & out of his distinct foresight hereof, he did deliver his message in an imperative sense, excaeca, obdur a, make blind their eyes and harden their hearts, which in the prophetical use of these words is usually as much (but no more) as if he had said, I am commanded to forewarn you of such a spirit of slumber and hardness of heart now creeping upon you, that (unless you repent) your Cities shall be desolate, etc. But albeit we resume what we formerly granted, and cannot now deny, that Esaias had a distinct apprehension of our Saviour's death and resurrection; yet whether he had the like distinct apprehension or foresight of that excecation and obduration of his people, which did presage the second desolation of Jerusalem and destruction of the second Temple, as he had of the former made by Nabuchadnezzar, is questionable. And the more probable part of the question is, that he had not. Of the return of judah from the Babylonish Captivity Esaias (as appears from the 6. chapter) had a true prenotion: yet neither so full nor distinct as the Prophet jeremy had, when he saw the Captivity come upon them. For from the book of jeremy, not of Isaiah, Daniel (a Prophet no way inferior to either of them) learned the distinct time of his captived people's return to their own Land. As for the time of the second Temple's destruction, or for the destruction of it at all: that Daniel did neither learn from the prophecy of Isaiah or of jeremy, or of any books before extant; for it was revealed unto him immediately from the Author of truth himself, and after such a manner as that we cannot reasonably imagine, either the substance or circumstance of what was then revealed, to have been known to any Prophet before him. And yet it is true, that diverse prophecies both of Isaiah and of jeremy were more exactly fulfilled in the desolation of Judah by Titus, than they had been fulfilled in the former desolation by Nabuchadnezzar. 5 But predictions prophetically typical (as well as testimonies merely prophetical) were of two sorts. In some such predictions the plain literal sense did fit the antitype as well as it did the type; as in the prediction before mentioned. I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a son; & in the like Psal. 72. In others the literal inscription did fit the type only according to the plain literal or logical sense; and the antitype only in the moral or symbolical sense. Of both sorts it is true that the Prophets always had a view or apprehension of that which was immediately foretold, according to the literal sense or of the first fulfilling of it; the case is the same as it was in testimonies merely prophetical. But of that which was immediately signified not by words but by some matter of fact or historical event, whereto the words in the literal sense immediately refer, of such second events, or of the fulfilling of the Prophecy both according to the literal and mystical sense, the Prophets had not always a distinct foresight or apprehension. Such as they sometimes had, was by extraordinary privilege or dispensation, it was no necessary appendix of the ordinary gift of prophecy; less appendent thereon than the prenotion or foresight of the second or third event was upon the foresight or apprehension of the first. For in that case the same prophecy, though often fulfilled, was yet always fulfilled only according to a fuller importance or growth of the same literal sense, without the intervention or mixture of any matter of fact which could properly be called a real type or map of that which afterwards happened. As, if the Prophet Isaiah did not by virtue of the ordinary gift of the Spirit foresee the second or third remarkable fulfilling of that prophecy; This people draw near me with their lips, but are far from me in their hearts; it is less probable that the Prophet jeremy should foresee the second or more exact accomplishment of that Prophecy: Behold the day is come (saith the Lord) that they shall no more say the Lord liveth which brought the children of Israel out of the Land of Egypt; but the Lord liveth, which brought up the house of Israel out of the North Country: etc. jerem. 23. 7, 8. For in the second fulfilling of this prophecy, besides the improvement or sublimation of the literal sense, there was an intervention of matter of fact or type. 6 Again, if it be doubtful whether the Prophets had always or for the most part such a distinct foresight of the antitype as they had of the type, or if it be more probable that they had no such apprehension of the antitype, when the literal sense of their words did (though in a different degree) truly fit both; then is there no probability that they should foresee the second accomplishment of such prophecies as no way reach the antitype in the plain literal or grammatical sense, but by symbolical or Emblematical importance. Isaiah, no doubt, had a clear foresight of Eliakims' admission into Shebnah's office, whose deposition he likewise foresaw: But that he foreknew the harmony between the deposition of Shebnah (which he knew would shortly be fulfilled) and the rejection of the Jewish Rulers, or between Eliakims' advancement and our Saviour's exaltation after his resurrection, we have no probable inducement to believe; but inducements many to persuade us that the foreknowledge of things thus foreprophecied and foreshadowed, was for the most part reserved unto the holy Spirit, not imparted to the Prophets, who in foretelling or foreshadowing the antitype were for the most part his Organs only, though his Agents in the prediction of the type, and did engage their credits only for the first fulfilling of the Prophecies or for their fulfilling in general. Of the difference betwixt the knowledge of the Spirit of God, and the Prophets whom he did employ in representation of mysteries to come, we may have a proportionable scale in the difference betwixt the extraordinary Herald, or other inventor of such devices as they give, and the ordinary Painter. An ordinary Scholar that should see a painted Eclipse of the sun with this inscription, totion adimit quo ingrata refulget, would easily apprehend that this word ingrata refers to the Moon; but what ingratitude or ingrateful person the Moon in this devise should represent, that he could not learn from skill in painting but from the history of the times, or from the Author of this devise, which (to my remembrance) was an Italian Prince, who had been brought under a cloud, much prejudiced in his honour & fortunes by an unthankful plant of his stock, whom his favour and countenance had advanced to the dignity of a Cardinal. Or if one should entreat a skilful Painter to represent three small vessels in the same river, distant one from another near upon the same line, one of them using the furtherance of oars and wind to go speedily against the stream, another the benefit of oars to outrun the stream, and a third in the middle moving neither swiftlier nor slowlier than the stream itself doth, with this motto or inscription, videor occursari utrisque, the engrosser of this devise from his own experience would easily conceive the truth of the inscription in the grammatical or natural construction of the words, and might conjecture in general, that they imported somewhat more than a bare representation of what we see by daily experience verified of things floating in the water. For whilst we row swiftly by them, we think they come against us, when they go the same way which we do, but more gently. And this is the condition of such men in our times as will not combine with factions spirits, either with such as by help of Arts and other potency directly oppose the truth, or such as follow it with furious zeal or indiscretion. He that seeks to hold the middle course betwixt these opposites, regulating as well his affections as his opinions by the placide current of the water of life, neither striving against it, nor seeking to outrun it, shall be thought to oppose both parties and come in danger of being crushed between them. But this moral is more than the engrosser of such a devise could apprehend, without further instruction than the review of his own work, or the grammatical sense of the inscription (suppose he understood Latin) would afford him. Now the Prophets in many cases were but the engrossers of such visions or representations of mysteries to come, as the holy Ghost did dictate unto them, whether by word or matter of fact, or both ways. The full importance of many such representations neither was, nor could be revealed, save only by him which had the spirit of prophecy not by measure. 7. If Enoch, Moses, Elias and the whole fellowship of Prophets which foretold our Saviour's coming (whether first or second) had been spectators of all his miracles, or eare-witnesses of all his words; every one of them would have learned more from him, than all of them knew before. Each of them would have been able to make better construction of one another's words, than any of them, without his interpretations, could have made of his own. It is a lamentable negligence in many interpreters, not to observe or seek after the manifest proofs which our Saviour gave of his immense prophetic spirit, from which, for the most part, they gather only moral doctrines and uses. For that saying though delivered by Authors not Canonical, is yet canonical and universally true, Never spoke man like this man. And thus he spoke as well in interpretation of prophetical predictions or legal Ceremonies, as in his expositions of the moral Law. 8. Briefly then, if we had no better interpreter of the Prophets than the Prophets themselves, or no clearer apprehension of the mysteries now exhibited than they had when they foretold them; this would be sufficient to confirm our faith, that they spoke by the Spirit of God; more than sufficient to leave us without excuse, if we should not glorify Christ as God: but when it is said that we are built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, the meaning is nor, that we are bound to ground our faith only upon the actual apprehensions or intentions of the Prophets and Apostles, but especially upon the intent and meaning of the sacred Spirit by whom they spoke and were inspired. For (as I said before) they were sometimes or in some respects his agents, in others his Organs only: Nor are we bound to believe, that his inspirations or instructions, such as concern the particular point whereto they spoke, were always comprehended by those that were plentifully inspired by him. For his inspirations were oft times more plentiful than their capacity was, and yet the overflow not spilt, but plentifully diffused to after-ages in matter of fact or historical event, Cap. 17 if we do not so much contemplate these in themselves, as the sweet disposition of them by the divine Allseeing Providence. Lastly, in those places of prophetical predictions which admit either amphibology of construction, or equivocal sense of words, or both, it was not necessary that the Prophets themselves should distinctly apprehend both constructions or senses, but only that which they intended; and yet their sayings might be and have been fulfilled in both. Yet this last branch of the resolution of the former question will bring forth another; whether the prophecies of the Scriptures without prejudice to their sacred truth admit amphibologies, or equivocal literal senses. CHAP 17. Whether divine prophecies or predictions concerning Christ may admit amphibologies, or ambiguous senses. WEre I in this place to meddle with the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament (a point which in due time and place will come to be discussed in these Commentaries:) I should surely balk that saying of S. Peter Acts 3. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. that is, in our reading, Whom the Heavens must receive or contain until the time of restitution. This one place, in some men's judgements, will sufficiently conclude for us in that great controversy concerning Christ's transubstantiall, or consubstantial presence in the Sacrament. For if the heavens must contain his body or humane nature until the time of restitution; he neither is nor can be present (according to this nature) in the Sacrament, whilst it is celebrated here on earth. But to this allegation the Lutherane long since hath shrewdly replied, by making a quite contrary construction of the words alleged, without alteration of any letter or point, though not without some amphibology in the whole sentence, besides an equivocal or double signification of one word. First than it cannot be denied that the words forecited may, without violencence to any rule of grammar, be construed as if they were thus transposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it, He must receive the Heavens, rather than the Heavens him. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without fraud or covin may import as much as to take the possession or government of heaven, which our Saviour after his resurrection did, and is to retain both possession and dominion of heaven and all things else, until the time of restitution whereof S. Peter there speaks. Plutar: in vita Camil: For so Camillus is said by a good Author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to have received the city, that is to have taken the government of it upon him. And the Hebraisme, whereof the Greek in the new testament hath for the most part some tincture or relish, is not averse from this interpretation. For so saith the Psalmist speaking (I take it) by way of prophetical type, of our Saviour's exaltation; When I shall receive the Congregation, I will judge uprightly. Psal. 75. 2. Now our Saviour's receiving of Heaven and of the world itself, in this sense is without interruption, without dispensation; for he is perpetual Governor of it. But that Heaven doth so indispensably receive or contain our Saviour's body or humane nature, that he may not at any time go or be out of it, until the time of restitution or the last day, is more than any man safely may affirm. Surely he was present with S. Paul and was seen by him after another manner, than he is present with or seen by the Lutherans or Papists in their Sacraments. And how erroneous soever their doctrines concerning the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament be, this text can be of no great use to refute them. 2. Yet some have replied upon the Lutheran, that by the forecited interpretation of this Text, they make S. Peter (a most sacred Writer doubtless) to speak in the language of Ashdod, as ambiguously as Apollo (whilst he did best deserve or brook the style of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) ever did in his heathenish oracles. But this reply, with what eloquence soever it might be pressed upon the Lutherans, may by them be as easily, and yet as forcibly retorted upon such as make it. For if it be a fault to grant that these sacred oracles may admit amphibologies, or a scandal to give such interpretations as may occasion others thus to conceive of them: the fault and scandal (for aught I conceive) must be equally divided between the Lutheran interpreters and their opposites. For if either would yield to other in their interpretations of this text, either for the right placing or construction of the words, or for the various signification of one and the same word, there could be no scandal given or taken. He in this case gives the greatest scandal, (if a scandal it be to grant Amphibologies in prophetical or Apostolical writings,) who is most peremptory in his own opinion, or faster wedded to the interpretations of his own sect or faction. For myself, (I thank God) I can with patience and christian charity permit either party to embrace their own interpretation of this place, being fully resolved that to grant either amphibologicall or equivocal senses or both in one, and the same sentence whether of moral or prophetical writings, can be no prejudice to that sacred esteem, which all men ought to have and may have of them. And he that will take upon him to distinguish the dictates of the holy Ghost from the answers of Apollo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by this division or difference, that the one did admit ambiguous constructions (whether for amphibologies or equivocal senses) which the other doth not admit, shall in this doing neither much prejudice the heathen Apollo, nor much magnify the Oracles of God. 3. To the objection we are to answer anon. Our position for the present is, that many passages as well in the Prophets, as other sacred oracles, may and do admit both Amphibologies and ambiguous senses, and that the same prophecies are oft times fulfilled according to both senses: that in the interpretation of moral precepts, which are ambiguous, we do not offend, unless we choose the sinister or less safe part in our practice. It is so in this case, as in doubtful opinions: the one part is usually more safe to be followed in practice then the other, although there be no absolute resolution whether is speculatively more true. As suppose it to be equally probable on both sides, whether tithes be due jure divino, or no: yet it would be the safer way for every man to pay his tithes as duly, as if he were fully resolved that they were due by God's peremptory Law. For so long as any doubt remains, whether they be due by God's Law or no; the detaining of them cannot by any humane law be made ex fide, Rom. 14. 23. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and whatsoever is so, is (in our Apostles sense) a most grievous sin. But to proceed in our assertion. 4. Two grave and learned * Angelomus and Rupertus. writers in their times (and their times were ancient in respect of ours) have observed an amphibology in the directions which Samuel gave to Saul (from Gods own mouth questionless) 1 Sam. 10. 8. Thou shalt go down before me to Gilgal, and behold I will come down unto thee to offer burnt offerings, and to sacrifice sacrifices of peace offerings: seven days shalt thou tarry till I come to thee, and show thee what I will do. It was Saul's misfortune, shall I say, or misdemeanour to make choice of the worse part of that double construction which these words may admit, for this amphibology was not in scripto, but in words uttered, though afterwards committed to writing. Reason might have taught Saul, that if the war were undertaken, it was to be administered likewise by the counsel of the Lord; and therefore he did foolishly in adventuring to offer sacrifice or do any other solemn act, before the Prophet (who was the Lord's Ambassador in this business) came unto him. Although it be said Chap. 13. ver. 8. That he tarried seven days, according to the time set by Samuel, yet in this doing surely he did not as Samuel appointed him to do: otherwise Samuel had done more foolishly of the two. He stayed then the just measure of that time which Samuel had appointed, but he did not observe the season, the end, or purpose which Samuel had appointed. The seven days were appointed him to offer solemn sacrifice, and if he had not digressed from samuel's direction herein, the seven days of sacrifice had been his solemn inauguration to the Kingdom, as may with probability be gathered from the 13. verse of the 13. Chapter. Samuel said to Saul, thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the Commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy Kingdom upon Israel for ever. 5. To admit either an amphibology in sentences by mutual transposition of words or clauses, or ambiguous signification of words by changing of points, can be no greater disparagement to the sacred authority of the original Text, than the equivocal or ambiguous signification of the same word without any alteration of points or letter, would occasion; if either sort of ambiguities did justly minister any such occasion at all. Now that the selfsame word, or words, may in one and the same sentence admit ambiguous and much different significations, no man that reads the Scriptures with as much diligence or observance as reverence, can make question. There is no difference at all betwixt Christians and Jews, much less amongst the Christians themselves, about letters or points in the 8. Psalm in that verse especially. Thou hast made him little lower than the Angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. This word little admits two senses grammatically much different, and yet must respectively be interpreted according to the full purport of both. This Psalm by the title and inscription is a Psalm of David, and bears the character of David's pen: The subject or matter of it is thanksgiving to God for his extraordinary favour unto man above all other visible creatures. That which raised his thoughts to such an high pitch, and his expressions of them in such a lofty Prophetical strain as he here useth, was his serious contemplation of the beauty of these Heavenly bodies, the Sun, Moon, and Stars, &c, all which he knew to be the works of Gods own hand: and yet he saw them nothing so much regarded by him as man, even the meanest of men Enosh or Ben Adam. The heavens indeed were far above men in situation or place; but man was further above them in dignity, than he was below the Angels or Celestial Creatures Elohim. Now if we respect only the plain literal sense of the Psalmists speech, or consider it as it reflects only upon the history of the first creation, the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an adverbe of quantity, and is rightly rendered by the Latin paulò or aliquantulum, as it is most true, that man by the gift of creation was little lower than the Angels, being true Lord and King of this inferior world. But most Psalmists (David especially) whilst they contemplate the sacred Histories of times past, not as Politicians do histories soecular, but as vates praeteritorum, as men rapt with God's goodness towards their Forefathers, become withal vates futurorum, true Prophets of better things to come. In this admiration of man's first estate which was now lost, David had a view or glimpse of his restauration to it, or a better: Whatsoever his thoughts or apprehensions for the present were, his expressions by disposition of divine providence, reached the manner of man's restitution to it, as they do the first estate itself from which we fell. And in respect of this mystical sense the same Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any alteration at all, is an adverbe of time, and is most divinely rendered by our Apostle Heb. 2. 5, 6. etc. Unto the Angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak, but one in a certain place testified saying, What is man that thou art so mindful of him, or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou madest him lower for a little while than the Angels, thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands. Thou hast put all things under his feet, etc. His inference is admirable: For albeit the former words, thou hast made him but a little lower than the Angels, were literally true of the first man Adam, yet were they not verified in any son of Adam. Nor were the words following thou hast given him dominion over the works of thy hands &c, ever fulfilled either in the first man, or in any other creature; nor can they in their exquisite sense be applied to any beside the second Adam, or son of man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He is now Lord of all, all things are subject to him, even as he is the son of man. And that he might be thus crowned with glory and honour, and bring his brethren (miserable men, and the sons of miserable men) unto glory, he was for a while to be made lower than the Angels through the sufferings of death, as our Apostle hath it ver. 9 But to be made lower than the Angels after this manner, was to be made a great deal lower than they or the meanest of men, as the son of man was, though but for a little time. 6 But the utmost extent of that variety of senses which may arise either from the different signification of one and the same word, or from amphibology of construction, from diversity of points or change of letters, is not infinite. And if we should examine all the possible changes of points or letters which the Rabbins or others imagine, there will not appear any such difference, throughout the whole Bible, for the quality or morality of the several senses thus occasioned, as the alteration of one point often doth in secular writings: not any such as was in that ambiguous answer, which a Bishop of this Land sometimes gave to a wicked proposal, Edvardum occidere nolite timere bonum est, Had be pointed this saying as it might have been pointed, his counsel had been good and Ghostly, but leaving the pointing of it to their discretion which asked his resolution, his dealing was impious and diabolical. But the Founder of an Abbey did leave this inscription upon the frontispiece thus rightly pointed Porta patens esto: nulli claudatur honesto: The turning of one point out of his place thus, Porta patens esto nulli: claudatur honesto, did turn the Abbot (as the tradition is) out of his place. Sicque anum ob punctum perdit Robertus Asylum. But the variety of pointing or changing letters, which hath been by diverse imagined in the Hebrew, exposeth no man to the like danger, can give no countenance to any lewd or wicked practices. A various reading may sometimes hinder or encumber the true mystical or spiritual sense; it never depraveth the moral sense: and oftimes again it furthereth the true and mystical sense. As that place of jeremy chap. 25. ver. 38. is very ambiguous and variously rendered by diverse good interpreters. Some read, the Land shall be desolate because of the fierceness of the Grecian; as if Greece had taken the name of Iönia from the Hebrew jonah, which is the word used in that place. Others, and those of good note, read, because of the fierceness of the Dove; most of modern writers read, because of the fierceness of the oppressor, or Tyrant. The participle or the verbal (as some good Hebricians observe) is both active & passive, either an oppressor or an oppressed. From the passive signification the Dove hath its name in the Hebrew, because it is so simple a creature, exposed to oppression, without active ability to oppress others. Howsoever we translate it in this place or in the like jerem. 46. 16. there will be no danger in the moral sense, nor no controversy about the fulfilling of this prophecy in Nabuchadnezzar, who was no Dove for disposition, unless it were for his folly after his conquest of Egypt and the neighbour countries. 7 Yet dare I not condemn the vulgar * Thus to think of the vulgar translation Fagius his testimony of the translator persuades me upon the 8. verse of the 4. chap. of Genes. Thargum Hierosolymitanum consentit cum Latina v●dgata editione, sic enim habet, Et dixit Cain ad Hebel fratrem suum, veni, egrediamur foras, sive in agnum, etc. Quod propterea huc adsere, ne quis temerè, et impudenter vulgatam editionem Lat nam rideat, exibilet explodat, atque plane condemnet, sicubi illam a veritate hebraica for●e dissen●ire invenerit. Hoc enim fere, deprehendo, quòd ubi ea veritatem hebraicam non sequitur, aut septuaginta, ●ut Thargum Onkeli vel jonathae, aut Hierosolymitanum, aut aliquem ex Commentatoribus Hebraeorum sequitur. Adeò, ut ejus translationis author quisquis fuerit, non temere ex suo capite finxerit, si qua inre a textu hebraico discrepare videtur. Fagius in translat. praecip. vet. testam. collat. p. 22. translation, or some ancient Interpreters who follow the vulgar, or the same translation which the vulgar makes: Neither of them (as in charity I presume) being ignorant, that the words may bear the same translation which the most now follow. Both of them might have better reasons of the two known senses which the original might well bear, to choose that sense which they embrace, than I have to approve the contrary. For however the Dove be a silly impotent creature in itself, yet was it a nursing mother (as some ancient writers say) unto Semiramis that great Foundress of Babylon, and was the royal ensign of the Babylonish Empire, sometimes as terrible to the Eastern Nations, as the Roman Eagles were to the Western. And it is not unusual even for sacred writers, to decipher the tyrannical or revenging power of greatest Sovereignty's by their Ensigns, whether these were by nature terrible or weak. And thus our Saviour himself describes the sagacity and potency of the Roman forces by their Ensigns. This latter reading à fancy columbae doth much better characterise the swiftness of Nebuchadnezzars' coming upon the Egyptians, and the necessity of the Jews speedy flight from out that Land, than if we read from the face, or wrath of the oppressor, or (as the seaventie have it) from the mighty sword. The Prophet in that 46. cap. v. 16. implies, that unless they take their flight in time, they should wish, when it was too late, that they had wings like a Dove to fly away and be at rest. The Author of the vulgar Latin differs in many places from our modern translations, not out of ignorance of the different senses which the original might bear, but out of choice. And although he sometimes err, yet for the most part Caus●● habet error honestas, he had some probable reason so to err: nor doth the error, howsoever occasioned, induce any dangerous depravation either of the moral or prophetical sense. Sometimes he aims at some further mystery, than the contrary reading which the Hebrew (supposing it were always pointed, as now we have it) will reach unto. There is as great a difference in the reading of one or two words, without alteration of any consonant, in the last verse of the second Chapter of Isaiah, betwixt the vulgar translation & ours, as in any place which I have observed. That verse we read. Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of? And thus we read it upon supposition that the original— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was thus pointed. The vulgar Latin (according to Forerius his emendation of it) thus, Quiescite ergò ab homine, cujus spiritus in naribus ejus est: quia excelsus reputatus est ipse: and thus both he and the former vulgar read it, presuming that the original word was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I refer the determination of this various reading to accurate and unpartial Critics of the Hebrew dialect. Sometimes it signifies the high places appointed for God's service, as 1 Sam. 9 13, 14. and Deut. 32. 13. it signifies the excellency or choice places of the earth. For mine own part, I must confess, the material circumstances of the text may in line unto that reading which the vulgar follows, and S. jerom approves, yea is very zealous for it. But it may be questioned, whether the original Bamah do usually, or in any other place besides this, denote the height or dignity of any man's person or place, though it be the usual word for expressing those high places which were dedicated unto Idols. But this question I submit to the same reference with the former more general. It sufficeth that there is no harm in either sense. 8. However if the oracles of God do admit such amphibologies or various senses, as these places last alleged by us do; why do we Christians blame the heathen Oracles for giving doubtful or ambiguous answers? or wherein do the Scriptures afford more manifest documents of a divine spirit speaking in them, if prophetical oracles be as ambiguous for the sense, as the oracles of Apollo were? It was not amphibology or equivocation simply considered, but the artificial or meditated contrivance of ambiguous or equivocal senses after they had been consulted concerning businesses already set on foot and in agitation, which did convince the heathen oracles of delusion. Had that ambiguous answer [Ato te Aeacida Romanos vincere posse,] been given by the Oracle (unconsulted) two or three hundred years before Pyrrhus his birth or the Roman Empire's growth unto that mediocrity, which in Pyrrhus' days it had, the very prediction of such equipoize between the house of Aeacu● and of Rom●lus, or of such doubtful conflicts as happened between the Epiroteans and the Romans, would have been a good proof of a divine inspiration; no presumption of delusion, on which side soever success had taken. Or if the like ambiguous oracle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, had been delivered, unsought after, as long before the birth of Croesus as that Prophecy of Isaiah cap. 45. 1. etc. was before Cyrus was conceived, before he could think of God, or be thought of by men;) Whatsoever in the issue had become of Croesus, the foretelling of his name, and manner of expedition against Cyrus, would have argued a spirit truly prophetical, though not so distinctly prophetical or sublime, as that spirit was by which Isaiah conceived the forementioned prophecy concerning Cyrus. But seeing the Oracle was dumb until Cyrus was in arms against the Babylonians and their confederates, until victory did hover betwixt two mighty adversaries without expressing of her inclination to either, both of them being so deeply engaged that the one (even in politic conjecture) was to have a mighty fall; the contrivance of this answer in such doubtful and ambiguous terms, argues it to have been conceived by the spirit which hath proffered his service and assistance to later Popes, when they were consulted upon like occasions. Now seeing our sacred Oracles were given many hundred of years before the events fore●old by them, and since exhibited, had any seminal cause or observable Original out of which they were to grow: the greater the variety of their senses or constructions is, the more admirable proof doth their accomplishment exhibit of that infinite wisdom, which did dictate them unto the Prophets, especially of one and the same Oracle in process of time be verified or fulfilled according to two or more possible constructions, or in senses which may seem contrary or much different. After this manner was that forementioned Prophecy jerem. 23. 6. 8. fulfilled; first in the ordinary and usual sense, in the people's return from Caldaea and those Northern Countries, through which they had been dispersed: and about five hundred years after, or from the time of our Saviour's death, the same prophecy was accomplished again in the most exquisite literal sense, and according to the primevall signification of one and the same word, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] yet these * From the North land, and from the land of darkness. two senses in which this Scripture was fulfilled, though different, were not contrary, but subordinate. 9 That place of the Prophet Isaiah chap. 19 ver. 18. is subject to the like variety of reading or doubtful sense, not by substitution of one or two points for others, but by the mistaking of one consonant for another being very like unto it, as of Man for Samech. The Prophet, no doubt did write and intent Cherez not Cherem, for it had been Verbum male o●inatum an ill abodance, if the first of these five Egyptian Cities, which were to speak the language of Canaan, should be called the City of destruction. It was to all of them matter of glory to become subjects to Christ's Kingdom, and it was the glory of this one above the rest, that it should be the first participant of this glory. For this word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] without any alteration of letter or point, doth signify sometimes the first as well as one, because one is the first in numbers. Now the first of these Cities did never so well brook its ancient name of Heliopolis, that is, the City of the Sun, by which it was known amongst the Heathens, as when it was enlightened by the Sun of righteousness, and yet this splendour, through its inhabitants default, was not perpetual: for, as I take it, before S. Hieroms' time, it was become the city of destruction or desolation, having turned God's blessing (as many others did) into a curse. And this alteration or change might be truly characterized in the substitution of one letter for another; whether that happened by the negligence of transcribers or otherwise. For (as it is * In a sermon entitled [Nazareth & Bethleam] towards the later end, and in a treatise of the holy Catholic Church. elsewhere observed) those things which be aequivoca à casu, in respect of men, are aequivoca à consilio with reference to the divine providence, which though it never cause the errors of men, yet doth it order and moderate them. 10. It is doubtful (as some good writers observe) whether the Prophet Zachary cap. 11. 13. did write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Potter or the treasury. That hebrew Rabbi, whom Vatablus amongst other good Christian writers approves, is of opinion, that he wrote, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the letter jod was added by negligence of transcribers. Admitting his conjecture to be true, yet it no way disparageth the sincerity of the Hebrew text, but rather occasioneth a greater admiration of the allseeing Providence of the Author of Scriptures, in representing that devolution of the price of blood (which judas retendred unto the high Priest) from the sacred treasury, (unto which such brogues or escheats as this, were by ordinary course due) unto the buying of the Potter's field. It is but one and the same branch of divine providence, thus to turn the negligence of transcribers to the setting forth of his wisdom, and to divert the wicked intentions of men unto the manifestation of his justice and goodness. 11. Sometimes again one and the same original word may have contrary significations, and have another to parallel it in its contrariety. So the Hebrew Kalal in its abstract or first signification answers to the Latin elevare to be light or of no weight: and hence according to the variety of the matter or subject whereto it is appliable, it sometimes imports vility or contempt, and sometime exaltation or advancement. If we value the first signification of it as it is appliable to the balance or just scale, to be elevated or discovered to be light implies no good, but evil. Yet to be lifted up or exalted above others, not in just balance, but whiles things compared stand upon their own bottom or Centre, includes matter of glory, or praeeminence. The Hebrew Cabad which in its prime signification is contrary to Kalal, and punctually answers to the Latin Grave esse, or (in our English) to be weighty, heavy, or sway downwards, so long as the comparison stands betwixt things weighed in just balance, argues matter of better value or preeminence. And hence it is that one & the same word which in its prime signification imports weight or heaviness, in the next metaphorical or translated sense imports praise, honour, or glory: yet if we take it out of the balance and set it in some other special reference, it implies depression, disgrace, or ignominy. Now according to the two contrary significations of each of these words, whose prime significations are directly contrary, that prophecy of Isaiah cap. 9 ver. 1. was exactly fulfilled. 〈…〉 Primo tempore alleviata est terra Zabulon & terra Nepthali: & novissimo aggravata est via maris trans jordanem Galilaea gentium. Populus qui ambulabat in tenebris, vidit lucem magnam. So the old vulgar reads it; but according to Forerius, thus, Primo tempore vilis fuit terra Zabulon, & terra Nepthalin, & novissimo honorata fuit, via maris trans jordanem Galilaea gentium. Populus qui ambulabat in obscuro, vidit lucem magnam. Zabulon and Nepthali in our Prophet's time had been weighed, as Balshazzar afterwards was, in the balance, and were found too light. They were the first which were swept away by the rod of Ashur, and led Captives into a strange Land. Yet wore they the first into whom the Gospel of the Kingdom was preached by our Saviour himself: and so the former prophecy which had been in our Prophet's time fulfilled of them according to the prime signification of the Hebrew Kalal, which is to be vile or light, was in our Saviour's time fulfilled of them according to the second importance of the same word, which is, to be exalted or advanced; and according to the first translated sense or metaphorical signification of Cabad which is to be honourable or glorious. The former fulfilling of this prophecy ye have in the sacred history 2 Kings 15. 29. In the days of Pekah King of Israel came Tiglath Pileser King of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abelbethmaachash and janoah, and Kedesh, and Haz●r, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the Land of Nepthali, and carried them captive to Assyria. 12. The second fulfilling of it is exactly related by S. Matthew chap. 4. ver. 12, 13. etc. Now when jesus had heard that john was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee: and leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelled in Capernaum which is upon the Sea coast in the borders of Zabulon and Nepthali: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaias the Prophet saying. The Land of Zabulon and the Land of Nepthali, by the way of the Sea beyong jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness, saw great light, and tathem which sat in the region and shadow of death, light is sprung up, But as Zabulon and Nepthali changed their minds or opinion of Christ, whom at first they honoured; so the words of this prophecy did change their signification, and were fulfilled of them again in a contrary sense. It was their glory that they were elevated or lift up to heaven, at our Saviour's first coming to them: is was their ignominy and misery that they afterwards became graves or gravati, pressed down with their sins to hell. For unto this place of the Prophet Isaiah that speech of our Saviour refertes Matt. 11. 20. etc. Then began he to upbraid the Cities, wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not. Woe unto thee Cherazin, woe unto thee Bethsaida: for if the mighty works which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repent long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgement, then for you. And thou Capernaum which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for it the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained unto this day. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgement then for thee. In this our Saviour did speak as never man spoke, and manifest himself to be the Prince of Prophets, in that all his solemn speeches as well as deeds (if we would be observant of them) direct us to some Prophetical Oracle or other, or reveal some mysteries before latent, or (which is all one) some mystical sense of Scriptures. And however no prophecy can be truly said to be fulfilled only by way of accommodation or allusion; though there be no allusive sense of Scriptures distinct from the several senses before mentioned: yet shall we not be able to perceive either the manner how many prophecies are fulfilled, or the literal sense of many places in the new Testament, unless besides the grammatical signification or construction of the words, we know withal the matter (be it rite or custom &c) whereto they allude or refer. CHAP. 18. Containing the general heads or Topics for finding out the several senses of Scripture, especially for the just valuation of the literal sense, whether in the old Testament or in the new. SUch qualificatios whether for learning or life as Tully and Quintilian require in a complete orator, Galen in a Physician, or other Encomiasts of any liberal science; profession or faculty may require in a perfect professor of it; is but a part of these endowments which ought to be in a true divine or professor of Divinity. The Professors of every other faculty may without much skill in any profession besides their own, truly understand the genuine rules or precepts of it. All the learning which he hath beside, serves but for ornament, is no constitutive part of the faculty which he professeth. But the very literal sense of many precepts, or of many fundamental rules and Maxims in Divinity, can neither be rightly understood, nor justly valued, without variety of reading and observations in most other faculties and sciences that be; besides the Collation of scripture with scripture, in which search alone more industrious sagacity is required, then in any other science there can be use of. The references, without whose knowledge the positive sense of many scriptures cannot be known, Cap. 18. are respectively almost infinite, at least incomprehensible to any one man's reading or observation. It shall suffice in this place to comprehend the generality of all under this brief division. The matters whereto the Scriptures whether of the old or new Testament refer, are either rites and customs civil, or natural experiments not recorded by any Canonical writers; or rites and customs, practices and experiments recorded in the Canon of faith. It would be no difficult work to write a large volume of instances in either kind. Of both I present only these few, first of customs, practices or experiments not expressed in any Canonical writer. 2. Set thou an ungodly man to be Ruler over him, Post haec rogavit Chilpericus Pontifices ut aut vestis Praetextati scinderetur, aut centesimus octavus Psalmus (qui maledictiones Scariothecas continet) super cum recitaretur, vel certe in perpetuum communione privaretur. Annonius in lib. 3. cap XXVII. and let Satan stand at his right hand, (saith the Psalmist Psalm. 109. 5.) The imprecations in this Psalm, of whomsoever else they were literally meant, were fulfilled in judas Iscariot; and for this reason this Psalm was used at the degradation of Bishops, when they were found Traitors either to their calling or to their liege Lords. But the passage forecited hath a special reference to the custom of those ancient times, in which the Adversary or Accuser was to be placed on the right hand of him, that was to be condemned, and on the left hand of him that was to be acquitted. The emblematical or moral sense of this custom is expressed by the Psalmist in the verse following, When sentence is given upon him, let him be condemned. 3 Of wisdom, saith Solomon Prov. 3. 16. Length of days is in her right hand, and in her left hand riches and honour. A man of ordinary reading and observation would conceive by the character of this speech; that length of days was much better than riches or honour, because those are presented by wisdom's left hand, but length of days by her right hand. But a learned Critic (for those times, wherein he lived) hath observed a more recondite sense of these words, In quibus verbis praeter illum sensum qui est in promptu subest recondita quaedam per digitos computandi ratio, qua omnis antiquitas utebatur Quamvis enim per longitudinem dierum intelligatur interminabilis vitae iucunda possessio, respicit tamen ad illud quod qui pertingebat annum vi tae centesi●um, incipiebat in dextra manis computart, cum in sinistra superiores numerasset. Vt de Nestore, qui apud Ovidium dixerat; vixi annos bis centum, nunc tertia vivitur aetas. juvenalis ait Rex Pylius magno etc. Ant. Nebristensis in quinquagena. cap. 16. charactered unto us in the custom of those ancient times, whereunto Solomon alludes. It was the manner of the Ancients to express all numbers under an hundred upon the fingers of their left hand, but hundreds and above hundreds, upon the fingers of their right hand, as juvenal describes the happiness of Nestor; Foelix nimirùm, qui per tot secula mortem Distulit, atque suos iam dextrâ computat annos. His years were more than could be numbered upon his left hand, for he lived three hundred years; a fair age, yet not comparable to the length of days or number of years which the right hand of wisdom dispenseth to her followers: these exceed all vulgar scale both for number and happiness. 4. Some places there be even in the new Testament whose force or elegancy cannot be apprehended without some skill, either experimental or speculative, in meaner faculties. Most of the parables uttered by our Saviour, albeit we take them with his own expositions of them to his disciples, can hardly be understood by best Divines of these times, unless they be weighed with the matter or subject whereon the parable is grounded, or to which his speeches in particular refer. No parable is more clearly expounded than the parable of the sour; and yet many good interpreters have erred in the exposition of it; and from this error have made the Land of Jewry (whilst Gods temporal blessing was upon it) to be envied for its fruitfulness in respect of others. To reap twenty bushels of Corn for one of seed, exceeds the rate of fertile soils amongst us; and yet this is the lowest scantling of that increase which the seed sown in good ground did bring forth. But if we measure the increase mentioned in the parable, not from the measure of the seed which is sown and reaped, but from the particular grains which took root and prospered in good ground, we shall shall have no cause to accuse our own fields of Barrenness in respect of Judea. For one grain in some parts of this Kingdom (not the most fertile) yields more than seventy, though others in the same Land yield not twenty, and some it may be in other places above an hundred. 5 He that knows not so much in the art of grafting, as that the graft doth sweeten the sap and moisture, which it receives from the stock, not participating of its sourness, shall hardly understand S. Paul's meaning Rom. 11. 24. If thou wert cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature in a good olive tree: how much more shall these which be the natural branches be grafted into their own Olive tree? To graft wild plants in sweets stocks (at least for the graft so planted to prosper) is contrary to the ordinary custom of nature, and it is in particular more contrary to the nature of the Olive, then to any other tree, because it will hardly admit of any graft by reason of its fatness, nor will the grafts of it easily thrive in any other stock, if we may believe such, as write of plants. 6 With sowing and planting, the dressing of Vines hath more than affinity, and without some knowledge or experience of this part of husbandry, some entire parables and other allegorical speeches uttered by our Saviour himself cannot rightly be interpreted: and for these three parts of husbandry and others, the rule is but one; [that every one who takes upon him to expound those passages in the Gospel which refer to these branches of husbandry, peruse such Authors as write in particular of the customs or manners usual in that climate wherein our Saviour conversed in ancient times:] For neither doth the husbandry of these times, or of this climate wherein we live, in many points well suit with those practices or rules of husbandary whereunto our Saviour alludes. 7 But however many of our Saviour's Parables refer unto these or like experiments in vulgar trades, yet sundry parables and other speeches uttered by him, and by his Apostles, require either speculative or experimental Knowledge in more ingenuous and more noble professions; or in civil rites or customs which vary in several ages, or Nations. A man that had never seen any marriage celebrated out of his own native soil or neighbour Countries, nor read of the rites or customs in this kind used by Eastern Nations before or about the time of our Saviour's pilgrimage here on earth, could not be much edified by the parable of the ten Virgins, or the like which allude to nuptial customs in those times. Brissonius and Rea would stead a Preacher more which hath occasion to expound these parables, than twenty ordinary Commentators or Professors in divinity, unless it be such as have been beholding to these two, or other Authors of miscellane Philologie. 8 To compare the Tabernacle of the Sun which God hath placed in the heavens, and the rising of this glorious light, unto the manner of a Bridegroom's coming out of his chamber after the manner and fashion in use with us, would be but an homely expression. Yet hath it pleased the Spirit of God to describe the outgoing of this great light which governs the day, in that most elegant sacred hymn; In them hath he set a Tabernacle for the Sun, which is as a Bridegroom coming out of his Chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. Psal. 19 4, 5. But the custom or manner of ushering Bridegrooms, in those times, out of their Chambers by Lamps or Torches in the night time, had a poetical decorum for representing the manner of the sun's recourse unto us after darkness, the morning star or strained glimmerings of the dawning being as his torchbearers. And as the Bridegroom's coming out of his Chamber to fetch his Bride, was a silent poem of the Suns approach unto us; so the Psalmists description of the Sun in its rising and course is a speaking picture of the coming of the Sun of righteousness into the world, after the light of prophecies or revelations, whether by Urim and Thummim, or by voice from heaven, had been far removed from the Hemisphere of Judaea, until they began to return again in john Baptist and his Father Zacharias, who were as the day star or dawning to usher in the Sun of righteousness, who was to continue his course from the one end of the Earth to the other, with more indefatigable courage, and with more comfortable warmth, than this visible Sun doth visit the earth. He was that strong man, that Gebor, unto whom the Psalmist compares the Sun in its strength, for Gebor is its proper title. And I make no question but the glory of his kingdom begun here on earth, though descending from heaven where it shall be accomplished, was by the Holy Ghost intended according to the Mystical sense of that Psalm, which is not a History only but a true prophecy. * Sed dico: An non auderunt? Quartum argumentum 〈◊〉 ab eo quod gentes antea quoqu semper habuerunt praeclaram divinae bonitatis cognitionem. Quo argumento haud dubie judaecrum malitiae plenam retundit invidiam. Quare inquit, hic tantopere offendimini ac ringimini, semper conantes modis omnibus impedire, ne Evangelium communicetur Gentimbus. An existimatis Gentes nunquam antea de bonitate Dei quicquam audivisse? Atqui Psalmographus diserte testatur quicquid cognosci de Deo potest, vel ex ipsa conditione rerum visibllium quae in mundo sunt ab omnibus mortalibus exploratum abunde teneri. In omnam terram exivit sonus eorum, et in fines orbis terrarum verba illorum. Andrea Hyperius in D. Pauli ad Romanos Epistolam exegema cap. 10. vers. 18. And our Apostles allegation of the fourth verse of this Psalm Rom. 10. 18. Their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the end of the World, was not allusive only, but argumentative and fulfilled in the preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles and their Successors in the mystical sense, as it had been before those times daily verified in the literal. 9 But mere ignorance in these and the like parables of our Saviour, whose knowledge nearly concerned the generation in which and for whose good he uttered them, (however the knowledge of them much concern us of this age and nation) cannot be so prejudicial to all good Christians, as the ignorance of other parables, and proverbial speeches of his, which alike nearly concern mankind. Yet an ignorance there is of many rites and customs, unto which both the words of the Prophets and his explications of them, which concern man's redemption by him, punctually refer according to the literal sense. Most of us know not him as our Redeemer, because were know not ourselves, nor that miserable bond of servitude which he did dissolve for us all. And this we know not, because we consider not the state and condition of legal servants unto cruel & tyrannical Lords. We were servants to a most cruel Tyrant. And the Son of God for our Redemption became truly and properly a servant to his Father, before he became our Lord in special, and so must we be servants to him in special before we become the sons of God. For we must be sons before we be heirs, and sons by adoption, before we be made Kings and Priests unto his Father. I never read that passage of our Apostle Rom. 8. 15. [Ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba Father] but I always conceived there was somewhat more contained in it, than was to be found in any lexicon or vulgar Scholiast: yet what it should be in particular I learned of late from a * Et fallor nimiùm nili ex hoc more et locutionis genere pendeat tum Phrasis illa sacra apud D. Paulum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive adoptione in Epistola ad Galatas IV, ut eos quisub lege erant redimeret, ut adoptionem filioram (〈◊〉 liberorum) reciperemus: Quoniam autem estis filij (seu liberi) misit Deus spiritum filij sui in corda vestra olamantem, Abbae, Pater. Itaque jam non es servus sed filius aut ●roles et haeres Dei per Christum; tum illa ad Romaenos VIIII. 14. Quicunquae Spiritu Dei aguntur two sunt filij (seu liberi) Dei. Non enim accepistis spiritum servitutis in 〈◊〉, sed accepistis spiritum adoptions filiorum (seu liberorum) Dei, in quo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; eodem vocabulo utroque in loco utitur, clamamus Abba, Pater. Ipse enim spiritus testimonium reddit spiritus nostro, quòd sumus filij (seu liberi Dei Si autem filij (seu liberi) et haeredes. Eleguns est, ad receptos Ebraeorum mores allusio. Johannes Sold●●● de successionibus in bona defuncti etc. ad leges Haebreorum cap. 4. learned Professor of another faculty, which he hath adorned by his more than ordinary skill in sacred Antiquity and miscellane Philologie. Now if we value the Apostles words per quem clamamas Abba Pater with reference to the legal custom, or manner by which some sort of slaves by birth and condition, did claim the privilege of manumission or of Adoption amongst the ancient Jews: the expression is full of elegancy and most divine: the manner of the Adoption to hereditaments temporal, was a kind of typical prophecy of our Adoption to our eternal inheritance in the heavens. 10. Were we as well acquainted either with boy's plays in ancient times, as with our Christmas sports; or with the several kinds of Olympic games, as we are with our Country May-games or horseraces; we might be more beholden to ourselves in many points then to ordinary professed expositors of sacred writ. For even unto childish sports the father of the fatherless, and guardian of the helpless, our Saviour himself, sometimes refers us for the true meaning of his parables, as in Matthew 11, if we may believe Lyra or Theophilact in matter of fact; But whereunto shall I liken this generation. It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, and saying, we have piped unto you and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. For john came neither eating nor drinking and yet they say he hath a Devil. The son of man came eating and drinking, and they say. Behold a man gluttonous and a wine bibber, a friend of Publicans and sinners; But wisdom is justified of her children. But whether there were any such positive custom amongst children, as Lyra and Theophilact relate, I will not dispute pro or con: However, * Paulò prepiùs sensum videtur Huge Card. attigisse: scribit enim non personas personis; sed negotium negotio: nec partes partibus: fed totum toti con parari. Sensum enim esse, perinde see scribarun & Pharisaeorum causam habere, atque si pueri dicant sodalibus suis, cecinimus vobis, etc. Sic enim posse illis dici, joannes vobis lamentatus est, & non planxistis; filius hominis cecinit, & non saltostis Hunc esse verum sensum ver. 19 magis probabimus. Nunc satis est ut moneamus valde esse usitatum, ut in parabolis non personae personis, non partes partibus; sed totum negotium, toti negotio comparetur Ca 13. 24 simile factum est regnum caelorum homini, qui semi navit bonum semen in agro Non enim regnum caelorum homini, sed potius semini, aut agro simile est. Itaque sensus est, idem accidit in regno caelorum, atque si quis seminasset bonum semen in agro suo. & ibidem versiculo 45. Simile est regnum caelorum homini negotiatori quaerenti bonas margaritas. Non enim homini sed potius margaritae simile est, & idem accidit in regno caelorum, atque si quis quarat bonas margaritas, inventa autem una pretiosa margarita vendat ominia, quae habeat, & e●at eam. Sexcenta sunt exempla generis ejusdem. Itaque frustra laborat, qui anxiè quaerit, quomodo personae personis, parts paertibus respondeant. Totum sententiae corpus intuendum est, & integrum ex integra parabola trahendum: ne in parts divisum pereat, atque dissoluatur. Maldo. vers. 16. cap. undeci: Mat. Maldonats' observation upon the place is of very good use for any that either intent to make a comment or to read Commentators upon our Saviour's parables, with liberty of judgement or discretion. The best is, jansenius hath better expounded this place with reference unto children's sports in general, than Lyra or Theophilact have done, although we grant them such a peculiar kind of sporting as they supposed was then in use. Verum ut ludi genus hoc incertum est, ita nec convenit literae. Non enim in litera dicuntur hi quidem dicere, Cantavimus vobis & non saltastis, aliis vero, lamentavimus & non plorastis, sed utrumque eisdem tribuitur. Et vana est Nicolai interpretatio, qui ideo dictum put at [coaequalibus suis dicunt,] quia pueri divisi erant in duas aequales parts. Coaequales enim proprie dicuntur Coaetanei, & Graecè in Matthaeo, est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, idest, sodalibus. Proinde simplicius fuerit, sine specialis alicujus ludi imaginatione exemplum hoc intelligere secundùm consuetudinem communem puerorum, qui in foro & laetioribus locis civitatum congregati inter se student ludendo effingere, quicquid ab aliis vident seriò agi. Itaque aliquando nupiias effingunt, & nuptiales laetitias tibiarum aut aliorum instrumentorum cantu imitantur; aliquando vero funeralia obsequia expriment, in quibus apud Iudaos planctibus & lamentatione quorundam ac lugubrium decantatione, solent homines ad tristitiam & fletum provocari. Haec dum imitantur pueri, fit frequenter, ut quod joco agunt, nonsit efficax, vel ad tripudia nuptialia, vel ad fletus funer ales provocandoes. 11. But as for the Olympic games, or the like whether elsewhere instituted in imitation of them or before them, it is evident, that the Apostles and other sacred writers (S. Paul especially) had both seen them, and made good use of them for the more lively expressions of many Christian duties. And unless we know the particular * All that concern this argument are exquisitely handled by Petrus Faber in his Agonisticon. Customs unto which their words refer, we shall but play at Blind man-buffe in our expositions of them, or in our exhortations to such practices as they prescribe, Consider him (saith our Apostle) that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be weary and saint in your minds, ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Heb. 12. 3, 4. The words are metaphorical, or Verbo tenùs Allegorical, and allude unto those strive or conflicts which seldom were determined without blood, wherein it was a shame to yield, before any blood was drawn. Such was the law or practice of those games which the Latins call Pugilatus, wherein manus demittere, to let down the hands, was an acknowledgement of victory; which happily might have been recovered by the party wounded or remitting his hands, unless his heart had been weaker than his hands. To this purpose that exhortation Heb. 12. 12. Wherefore erect the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees. The duty whereto he exhorts them, was no practice of alms or charity towards impotent or feeble men, but that the Pastors, whom this precept doth especially concern, should encourage their flock to strive against sin, with as great courage and resolution as the Olympic or other Gamesters did against their Antagonists, not to let down their hands, or give over after many wounds or resistance unto blood; as being sure, though they died in fight to be better rewarded, than the Victors were in these bodily fights. Unto the same courage and resolution the Prophet Isaiah had exhorted the people of God in his age, though not them only but all succeeding generations. For his words are typically prophetical, & point directly to the time of our Saviour's coming to visit and redeem his people: and yet allusive withal unto the bodily strive or wrestle of those ancient times. Isa. 35. 34. Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees, say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not, behold your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompense, he will come and save you. The end and scope as well of the Prophet as of our Apostle, was to inspire such life and courage into God's people in their heaviest pressures, as that Caesarcan soldier did into his mates, when Pompey's followers, in Caesar's absence, had almost beaten them out of their trenches: — a ●ucanns Peterem faelicior umbras Caesar is aspectu, testem hunc fortuna negavit; Pompeio laudante cadam etc. Vicimus, O Socij, veniet qui vindicet arces. 12. If we knew the true importance of manus remissas, we might know withal the true importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used by our Apostle in the same place; which sometimes signifies a profane person, but so it signifies by consequence only: the punctual meaning of it in this chapter ver. 16. (if I be not mistaken) is better expressed by the Syriack, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by the Latin remissus, then by profanus, that is, such a one as is ready to yield rather than to endure any hard conflict; or such as Esau was, who did choose rather to relinquish his inheritance then to suffer a sharp hunger or thirst for a season. Usual it was with S. Paul, and with other (whether sacred writers or writers of sacred mysteries) to draw arguments à minore ad majus, that is, from the practice of such as were disposed to try masteries for temporary Crowns or Garlands, to persuade such abstinence or other observances requisite for all who seek after the incorruptible Crown of glory, which cannot be taken from them: for the winning or wearing whereof no man can be prevented, so he strive for it lawfully. Witness that one place, for this present. 1 Cor. 9 24, 25, &c, Know ye not that they which run in a race, run all, but one receiveth the price? So run, that ye may obtain; And every man that striveth for the mastery, is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible Crown, but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly: so fight I not as one that beateth the air. But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. But if of all those which run in secular razes, it be not possible for more than one to receive the prize, or (as the original word imports) to snatch it from the bleed or staff whereto they run; we may be sure that not so many would offer themselves to try masteries in this kind, as otherwise would be forward, if every one that did his devoir might be assured of some reward sufficient to acquit or countervail his pains. If then this similitude between such as seek a corruptible and an incorruptible Crown, did run (as we say) quatuor pedibus, few of our Apostles Auditors would have adventured their pains or endeavours in that Christian course to which he exhorred all. Maldonats' forementioned rule for the right interpretation of parables or similitudes of this kind, is as useful for the right interpretation of this place, as for any other parable or similitude in Scripture: and his rule (or rather the rule of Hugo Cardinalis from whom he borrowed his animadversions upon Matthew, 1●. 16.) is thus. b See his words noted in the margin, paragraph the 10, of this chapter. We are not to compare persons with persons, nor to be curious in suiting particulars to particulars, but to accord the whole businesses handled in gross: as when it is said, The Kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that sowed good seed in his field, we are not to parallel the man, but rather the seed sown, or the field where it is sown, with the kingdom of heaven: or in this or the like generality; It happeneth in the plantation of the kingdom of heaven, as when a man hath sown good seed in his ground, the envious man comes and sows tares. 13. But what was S. Paul's meaning in the 24. of the forecited Chapter? That every one which professeth Christianity must be more resolutely circumspect in his undertake and their managing, than those few in comparison are, who enter the lists for a temporal prize or garland. Otherwise they shall be sure to fail of their hopes, to be in worse case than such as come only as spectators, that purpose to be no actors in such prizes, or then such Actors as do nihil agere, or after they have run, sit down with loss. To this effect he expresses himself in the verses following; Every man that striveth for the mastery, is temperate in all things etc. But the very literal importance of those three words in the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cannot be so well learned from any dictionary or Lexicon, as from such as write of the Olympic games, or of that kind of trial of masteries which in his time or before was in use. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is proper (I take it) unto Wrestlers, whose practice it was to keep under other men's bodies not their own, or to keep their Antagonists from all advantage of hold, either gotten or aimed at. But our Apostle did imitate their practice upon his own body, not on any others, for his own body was his chief Antagonist. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath in that place no immediate reference unto the preaching of the Gospel, but did generally import such as were tryers of Olympic games, whether wrestle, whirlebats, or the like. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehends all which lost the prize for which they contended, whether by sluggishness or foul play. The same word cometh to signify a Reprobate, or a man finally rejected by God, or irreverfibly deprived of his good spirit, but at the second third or fourth hand. And those interpreters of sacred writ, who take this title usual in Scripture to be a metaphor or speech borrowed from false coins or counterfeit metals, fail more in Logic then in Grammar; though fail they do in both. It sometimes indeed refers or alludes unto false or counterfeit it coins, and according to this reference it comes the nearest to the denotation of a Reprobate, or a man finally rejected by God. For that coin which is for substance but brass or copper; will hardly (if at all) after it be cast aside upon trial, go amongst wise men for currant money. The transmutation of base metals into more precious, however some men profess this skill, is seldom effected, perhaps not facible: whereas he that was this year 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Olympic games or other like prizes, might the next year be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or crowned as victor. But the original word, for its formal or abstract signification, is a great deal more general than to be restrained either to coined metals, or to men which strive for mastery in any kind of activity. It properly imports a rejection upon just trial, and is appliable to matters and persons almost infinite. 14. Or if we interpret this word by its reference unto money or coins, yet even these may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more ways than one; either for the baseness of the metal, or for the counterfeit stamp, or for want of weight. For if it be but some few grains too light, any man may refuse it, although it bear Caesar's image and superscription. Or if it be full weight and pure gold withal; yet if it be elsewhere estamped, then where Caesar shall appoint, or by any stamp or person not authorized, no man is bound to receive it, and he that tenders it, is to be punished. And yet both these kinds of Reprobate coins may be legitimated or made currant, by new coining or addition of quantity without any alteration of the quality. But coins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the metal, as if that be brass, copper, or silver gilt, and estamped for gold, albeit they be full weight, are by no Law's currant. And yet some there be (as we said) which profess the art of turning such metals into gold, but whether this be facible, or no, is no point of Divinity. But surely the Almighty Creator of all things hath more skill in transforming men of what condition soever, than any Alchemist hath in changing metals from worse to better. Even such as are said to be given over by him into a Reprobate sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may (for aught we know) be afterwards refined by him, and become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Justifiable men. Many of the Gentiles were delivered by him into a reprobate sense, not particular persons only, but even whole Nations; and so hath the Nation of the Jews for the most part been for these many years. But that God did finally reprobate any person, whether Jew or Gentile which lived in opposition to the Christian faith, or whether there shall not be a reversion of that curse which hath befallen the Jewish or other nation, God alone must judge and determine. So that it will be hard for any man to prove that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth any where in the new Testament punctually answer unto that use or notion which custom hath now in a manner prescribed for in many theological disputes; that is for men irreversibly fitted or designed to everlasting destruction. If in any place it were to be taken in this strict sense I should suspect that of S. Paul. 2 Cor. 13. 5. above others; but that not from the Grammatical signification of the word, or from any reference it hath in that place more than any other to false coins, but from the peculiar reference which the matter and circumstances of that place have to matters of fact or historical types in the old Testament; without whose knowledge or observation the true meaning or importance of many words usual in the New, can never be truly valued. The Apostles words in the forecited place are thus; Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith, prove your own selves; know ye not your own selves, how that jesus Christ is in you, except ye be Reprobates? CHAP. 19 Cap. 19 Of the use of sacred, or miscellane Theology for finding out as well the literal, as the mystical, or other senses of Scripture. WHat shall we say then, that every one that is not certain of his own salvation, or every one not assured by faith that his name is written in the book of life, is irreversibly appointed to everlasting death, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to our Apostles meaning in this place? God forbid. No Christian man (I hope) will forbid us, or deny us leave to restrain the Apostles words, in what sense soever we take them, unto such men only as those Corinthians were, that is to men which have been instructed in all points necessary for a Christian to believe, to men that have been baptised in this faith, to men partakers in a plentiful manner of the word preached and of the Sacraments. But may we or ought we to apply this peremptory sentence unto every man that is a visible member of the true Church, or of those Churches in which the pure word is constantly preached, and the Sacraments duly administered? Are all these bound upon pain of Reprobation to believe, either that they are already completely regenerated, or that they have so mortified the deeds of the body, that they cannot die the death of the soul? If thus we should preach or teach; how should we be able to comfort afflicted consciences in their perplexed fears? And would not the best fruits of our labours be presumption in many, and despair in most of our hearers? Yet if thus we may not say, must we therefore deny that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the forecited place to be taken in that strict sense, in which it is usually taken by some modern Divines, not in that place only but in many others of the new Testament, that is, for men either irreversibly ordained to death, or finally forsaken of God? That the word is used by our Apostle in this strict sense, I dare not either peremptorily affirm or deny. The point more questionable and more useful for our edification will be, to inquire what the Apostle means by these words, Know ye not, that jesus Christ is in you? The branches of the enquiry are two; the first what manner of Christ's being in them is here to be understood. The second what kind of knowledge they were to have of his being in them: or whether for Christ to be in them be all one, as for them to be in Christ by the spirit of regeneration and adoption, or all one, as to be elected, that is irreversibly ordained unto glory; and whether they were bound to believe all this certitudine fidei, by the certainty of faith. 2. To this we answer that neither all nor any of those points were necessarily to be believed by these Corinthians, much less by ordinary Christians at this day; albeit we grant the word Reprobates to be taken in the strictest sense, that is for men irreversibly fitted for destruction. For so it may be taken, and in my opinion ought to be taken in that place if in any. But so taking it, we must rate our Apostles meaning in the words precedent [Know ye not that Christ is in you] by that peculiar reference, which the present estate of those Corinthians had unto the estate of the rebellious Israelites, who after so many wonders and manifest documents of Gods peculiar providence over them, did tempt him and require further signs, whether God were among them or no. Exod. 17. 7. And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the Children of Israel, and because they tempted the Lord saying; Is the Lord among us or not? Unto the same height of iniquity those Pharisees were come, who after they had seen so many miracles done by our Saviour, as did fully testify that he was that very God whom their Fathers had thus tempted in the wilderness, yet came forth unto him, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. Mark 8. 11. And hence it was, that this Heavenly Physician of their souls, upon this desperate Crisis, sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? Verily I say unto you, there shall be no sign given to this generation: and he left them. ver. 12, 13. Now these Corinthians, after unquestionable experiments of many miraculous effects of Christ's power wrought amongst them by the ministry of Paul, did seek after a further proof or sign of Christ's speaking in him, 2 Cor. 13. 3. and for their satisfaction, he exhorts them to examine themselves whether Christ were not in them, not in him alone: and this they might know, unless they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, such Reprobates as the forementioned rebellious Israelites were. For it could be no other than a Symptom or Crisis of a Reprobate mind, or of men rejected by God and left of Christ, to murmur, doubt or question, whether the gift of tongues, of healing, and other wonderful effects of Christ's power manifested by Paul's ministry, did not truly testify that his Commission was from heaven, or that Christ was amongst them, to wit, in that Church. For so the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in his place to be taken, as it is elsewhere in the New Testament; as when cur Saviour saith to the Pharisees Luke 17. 21. The Kingdom of Heaven is within you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the power of it is manifested amongst you: but he meant not that the Kingdom of heaven was in the hearts of all them to whom he spoke. And so the Septuagint (whom the Evangelists and Apostles follow) renders the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the forcited place Ex. 17. 7, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Is the Lord in us; or no? So that neither our Saviour's expression, nor that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 9 doth infer any more than we have said. 3 It is not all one for any amongst us to doubt or question whether the doctrine contained in the Apostles Creed or in the new Testament, be the doctrine of life and salvation; as to doubt or be uncertain, whether he himself be personally in the estate of life or a chosen vessel. To doubt of the former general is infidelity, a sin not incident to a true Christian. But many amongst us may doubt of the later point, and yet be as good Christians, as those who think they have assurance of faith, that they are predestinated, and condemn all others as Reprobates in the worst sense, who do not as certainly believe that they live in Christ, as that Christ died for sinners. But this was no part of our Apostles meaning in that passage to the Corinthians. The question between him and them was not about special belief of personal election, but about this general, whether he were a true Apostle or no: Or, whether the miracles which had been manifested amongst them by his ministry, were wrought by the power of Christ or no. If they continued in this doubt or tempting of God, they would (as he forewarns them) hereby prove themselves to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is such as the murmuring Israelites had been, or such as the present generation of the Jews for the most part, were, that is, cast off from being God's Church or people. So that if we take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the strictest and severest sense, it rather imports a national or provincial rejection of that people from being his people, or from his residency amongst them by his public Spirit, than a personal Reprobation of every particular or individual. For to pronounce thus much of every Jew, that hath not adjoined himself to Christ's body the Church, since the general rejection of that Nation, is beyond my Commission, altogether without the praecincts of this present inquisition, which was only to show the true use of sacred philology for finding out the just extent and value of many passages aswell in the old Testament as in the New, whose grammatical sense is for the substance usually plain, but indeterminable for quantity, without observance of their peculiar references either to some special matter of fact recorded in Scripture, or to some sacred passages more ancient. 4. What place of Scripture is there less controversible for grammatical signification of the words then that of S. Paul Rom. 9 19? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thou wilt say unto me; Why doth he yet find fault or chide? for who hath resisted his will? To this effect an ordinary Scholar in any extraordinary Grammar School in this Kingdom would at first sight render the original. But concerning the extent of the same words taken in this unquestionable sense, there is and hath been much controversy amongst great professors of Divinity. Many extend them to Reprobates in general, as if our Apostle had said, [Why doth he find fault with Reprobates, seeing he hath irresistibly ordained them to destruction?] But what occasion S. Paul here had to mention Gods chiding or expostulation with Reprobates in general, is without my capacity to conceive. Or were it granted that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, why doth he chide, doth refer to all this sort of men; yet would it still remain questionable, unto what time or part of time the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did refer; for it is an adverbe of time not to be universally taken for all successions of time, but always points at some limited portion of time. God doth not always find fault or expostulate either with all Reprobates, or with any one Reprobate. 5. The limitation then of this speech in respect of the person, must be taken from reference to that which the Apostle had said ver. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For this very cause have I raised thee, or stirred thee up, that I might show my power in thee. Now these words refer to Pharaoh alone, to that Pharaoh whose heart was remarkably hardened. Nor did God at all times from his birth chide or expostulate with this very Pharaoh. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies, and our Apostle supposeth, that the Lord had expostulated with him before that time, unto which our Apostles words in special refer. Otherwise the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have no place in that passage according to any grammar sense; for that is, as if he had said, why doth he chide or find fault with him any longer, or why doth he expostulate with him at all, after that time wherein he had said, For this very purpose have I raised thee up, or kept thee alive (being already fitted for destruction) that I might show my power in thee. 6. This question is very pertinently made by our Apostle, seeing Pharaoh at this time was so hardened, that he could not repent, without some special mercy or extraordinary dispensation. For wise men only chide those of whose amendment there is some, though small hope left. Unto this Quaere our Apostle frames that answer; Nay but O man, who art thou that replies against God. ver. 20. unto 24. Concerning the punctual meaning of which, I have none for the present, if any other man have any desire to dispute, my advice unto him is, that he would weight our Apostles forecited words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with that speech of God to Pharaoh, unto which our Apostle refers us, Exod. 9 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and yet exaltest thou thyself against my people, that thou wilt not let them go? And this God spoke unto Pharaoh immediately after he had told him, for this very purpose have I raised thee up; or (as the Septuagint, and junius) for this very purpose have I reserved thee alive: with whose translation and interpretation of this place in Exodus, I would request every ingenuous sober reader to acquaint himself, as well as with the ordinary expositors of the 9 to the Romans, and not adventure to sail in a narrow uncouch and unsounded sea only with the help of a general card, as some have done, and for want of an experienced Pilot have either fallen upon dangerous Rocks, or stricken upon such shelves as there is small hope of their safe arrival without some such extraordinary mercy, as S. Paul and his fellow passengers found, yet with loss of the ship wherein they sailed. 7. Divers other places of Scripture there be, which (in my opinion) are usually extended beyond their native compass, though sometimes without any great danger of bad consequences, yet always with some loss of contentment to him that desires the true knowledge of the holy Ghosts meaning in them. And thus they are over-extended through want of observation, unto what matters of fact, or special circumstances of some peculiar times they punctually refer. Seeing the Psalmist in the eighth Psal. doth so magnify the goodness of God, and his special providence over mankind in general; it must needs put an observant Reader of those sacred Hymns to a demur, why the Author of the 90 Psalm should so pathetically complain of the shortness and misery of men's days or years. And to this demur; I know not how to make any just reply, if we take the matter of his complaints to concern all men which lived either in that time or since. But if we consider that Moses the man of God was the Author of that Psalm, (as the inscription of it directs us to think) and that he penned it some few years after the deliverance of God's people by him out of Egypt; the cause or occasion of the complaint is very justifiable and serious, yet peculiar to those present times and the people whereof he was governor. For I think it was never experienced in any age or Nation beside, that of six hundred thousand living souls, and likely to live in respect of the constitution of their bodies or any Epidemical disease, that then did reign, so few (males at laest) should outlive threescore and ten years, and fewer fourscore. And yet of all the males which had been delivered out of Egypt, not one that was but twenty years old did live above threescore years, not one that was but thirty could live above threescore and ten, not one that was but forty (two or three only excepted,) could live above fourscore years; or if some attained to that age or above it, yet their pilgrimage was to be full of sorrow, all of them, (besides two or three) excluded by oath from entering into the Land of their promised rest; all above twenty (besides Caleb and joshuah) were to dye within forty years in the wilderness c Deut. 4. 21. Even Moses the man of God himself, who penned this Psal. was prohibited to enter into the Land of Canaan and therefore had just reason to complain, as there he doth (yet without murmuring) not of God's disrespect unto mankind in general, but of that heavy doom which he had pronounced against all the sons of jacob above twenty years old; of which number we cannot imagine fewer than two hundred thousand. That the 33. verse of Psalm the 78. [therefore their days did he consume in vanity, and their years in trouble] doth punctually refer unto that sentence denounced Numb. 14. against those rebellious Israelites whose carkeises fell in the wilderness, is unquestionable. Now albeit the words of this verse be not the same with those of Moses Psal. 90. 10. [Yet is their strength labour and sorrow: for it is soon cut off, and we fly away] yet their signification is Synonimal. 8. But this error in stretching the native sense of Scriptures beyond its proper lists or bounds: is sometimes committed by oversight, not in matters of history or morality only, but in the greatest mysteries of faith, as in that place jerem. 31. 22. How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? For the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man, (as we usually read it.) Such as acknowledge the great mystery of the woman's seed, or incarnation of the son of God, to be included in this prophecy, extend the native signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the earth, too far. Howbeit in this error or oversight, there is no falsehood; for that the woman or female should enclose or compass the male, or that mighty one the second Adam, was a new thing indeed and a wonder to all the earth. But this general truth doth not hit the punctual meaning of the holy Ghost in that place, for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 earth, is to be restrained unto the Land of Ephraim or of Israel, as it was opposed unto the Land of Judah. Thus much the literal circumstance of this prophecy alone will enforce, and that prophecy of Isaiah parallel unto this, will persuade us, Isa. 11. 13. The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the Adversaries of judah shall be cut off, Ephraim shall not envy judah, and judah shall not vex or upbraid Ephraim. The implication is, that the one Kingdom was to share with the other in the fulfilling of this grand mystery foretold by these two Prophets in the forecited Chapters. The Kingdom of Ephraim, of which Nazareth was a Limb (though a smalone) was to be graced with the Messias conception and incarnation, and with the Angel Gabriels' presence for the avoucher. The Kingdom of Judah (whereof Bethlem was a remarkable portion) was to be dignified with his birth; and that was proclaimed by an host of Angels. 9 Of this mystery I have treated in other * See Nazareth & Bethlehem, or Israel's portion in the son of jesse. meditations published some fifteen years ago, and should scarcely so much as have touched it in this place, had not some exquisite * Ainswor: upon Deu. 24. ver. 3. Hebricians (with whose meditations I have since that time been acquainted) without any reference to what I had then said or conceived, altogether waived or slighted the great mystery acknowledged by antiquity as well Jewish as Christian, in this place of the Prophet jeremy. In their opinion, the new thing which the Lord promised to create in the earth, is no more than that the Law Deut. 24. 1, 2, 3, 4. (though indispensable in respect of man and wife) should be dispensed with, or repealed, as it did concern Ephraim or Israel who had been sometimes God's spouse, but now divorced for her manifold adulteries, and yet by God's special grace had liberty to return unto him again. To this purpose I am not ignorant that some later Rabbins interpret this place, (as they do many other) to elevate the mystery of the incarnation; but so do not those exquisite Christian Hebricians, from whom I must crave pardon to descent. All that they say concerning God's dispensation with that Law, Deut. 24. is most true, but not the whole truth, nor any part of the Prophet jeremy's true meaning in that 31. Chapter. That meaning which they would fasten upon this place, was expressly delivered by our Prophet, Chap. 3. not to Ephraim, but to Judah before she followed Ephraim into Captivity; and therefore this could be no new thing to be created afterwards in the Land of Ephraim. They say if a man put away his wife, and she go from him and become another man's, shall he turn unto her again, shall not the Land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many Lovers, yet return again to me, saith the Lord. 10. And howerver the original * Non extat apud nos in lingua sancta (vocabulum) quo productionem rei ex nihilo significamus nisi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bara Similiter & Rabi David Kimhi Omnis significatio creationis est innovatio rei, & progressio ejus a non esse ad esse. Secundo, usurpat etiam Scriptura [creandi] verbum, ubi aliquid non ex mero nihilo, sed ex praeiacente materia; sed quod magnum, exin●●um, praeclarum, & novum quiddam sit, singulari Deí virtu●e, ac potentia in lucem profertur. Atque hinc est quodeo utitur, ubi cetorum, & hominis conditionem proponit. Sunt enim caetivastae, & portentos● quodammodo magnitudinis. Homo ob eximias dotes omnibus creaturis praestat imo omnium creaturarum quasi caput & princeps est. Hunc quoque vim significandi, creandi verbum in Numeris habet cap. 16. 30. ubi de absorptione Corab, Dathan, & Abiram agitur. Ibi enim Moses sic loquitur. Sin recens quicquam creaverit Dominus, aperueritque terra es suum & dev●raverit eos. 〈◊〉 in collatione in Ca: 〈◊〉. Gen. ac etiam in exegesi dictionum hebraicarum in idem caput. Bara do not always include as much, as some Schoolmen would appropriate to the Latin creare, that is to make something of mere nothing: yet it usually imports some great work of the Almighty maker, which one way or other is equivalent, or more than equivalent, to the first creation of Heaven and Earth our of nothing, if we may believe Capito and Fagius, upon whom any Novice in the Hebrew tongue, or ordinary professor of it, may as safely pitch an implicit belief or trust, as upon any which have lived since their times. Again however the Prophet jeremy Chap. 3. 1. avouch a relaxation of that peremptory Law Deut. 24. 4. yet doth he not intimate, that this relaxation was such an extraordinary work, as that the Lord might be said to have created it as a new thing whether in the Land of Judah or of Ephraim, or in the earth or wide world itself. Nor is there any other word in that 31, of jeremy ver, 22. besides the word Lord, which is the same with any other word used either by jeremy, chap. 3. ver. 1. or Deut. 24. 3, 4. In both which places man and wife are described by their proper characters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor is the wives returning to her husband decypherd by a circular motion or compass, but by a plain return unto him. Whereas in the 31. of jeremy ver. 21. the charactericall notion of the persons there meant, is first not Ish an husband or vir, but Geber, (that mighty man or woman's seed promised Gen. 3. 15.) and this Geber (not Ishah) the wife or woman simply, but Nekebah the female, was to encompass or enclose, the original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes refers to motion, and is as much as the Latin circumire or circumvenire, to encompass or go about, which may be either by a circular or by a spherical motion. Sometimes the same word refers to station or rest, and is as much as our English, to begird or environ; as an Army doth a besieged City; or as guests placed at a round table; and according to the difference of the subject, to enclose or go round about, or to environ on every side. And so much it imports in that name which jeremy gave to Pashur the son of Immer the Priest, jer. 20. 3, 4. The Lord hath not called thy name Pashur, but Magor Missabib, For thus saith the Lord, behold I will make thee a terror unto thyself, and to all thy Friends, and they shall fall by the sword of their Enemies, and thine eyes shall behold it etc. And thou Pashur and all that dwell in thine house shall go into Captivity, and thou shalt come to Babylon, and there thou shalt dye, and shalt be buried there, thou and all thy friends to whom thou hast prophesied lies, verse 6. As this Pashur was every way beset with terror, so was the Geber every way to be enclosed or encompassed by Nekebah the Female. And the new thing which the Lord promised to Create in the earth hath special reference to the first Creation of male and female in mankind. Gen. 1. 2. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Male and female created he them. The original which there notifies the female, is the very same which our English in the 31. of jeremy renders woman, that is the weaker sex. But the original Zakar— rendered (Gen. 1. 27.) by the male, is not so much as Geber,— For though every Geber be Zakar, yet every Zakar is not Geber, nor was the first Adam enstyled by this name. The Prophet jeremy's meaning than was, that in this new Creation in the land of Ephraim, not the male or man only, but the mighty male, that Geber of whom Gedeon and Samson were but types and shadows, was to be enclosed in the female or weaker sex, as the first woman or female was in the first male. As she was flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, so was this Geber to be of that females flesh and bones which was to enclose him. And this was a work of God's Creation, a new Creation far surpassing the first Creation, wherein the woman was made of man. For in this new Creation the Geber, the son of God himself was to be made man of a woman. And it is not unworthy the observant Readers consideration, that when the Lord doth as it were woo Ephraim or Israel to return again unto their own Land or to him, he doth not entreat them as a husband doth his wife, but as a loving Father doth his prodigal son, or roaming daughter as ver. 20. Is Ephraim my dear son? Is he a pleasant child? for since I spoke against him, I do earnestly remember him still therefore my bowels are troubled for him, I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the Lord. Set thee up way marks, make thee high heaps, set thine heart towards he high way, even the may which thou goest, Turn again O Virgin Israel, turn again to the sethy Cities, how long wilt thou go about o thou backsliding Daughter, for the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth (or in thy Land,) the woman shall encompass the man. 11 Divers places there be in the new Testament, which touch not upon any article in this Creed, which have tortured many good Interpreters, no less than some vulgar Interpreters have tortured them. I shall at this time instance only in two. First in that of S. Matthew 23. 34, 35, 36. Behold I send unto you Prophets and wise men, etc. That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the Temple and the Altar, verily I say unto you, all those things shall come upon this generation. The reason why most Interpreters of S. Matthew have wandered as men overtaken with a thick mist upon a wild heath or forest, was because they did not consult the Index Mercurialis, which S. Luke, from the words expressly uttered by our Saviour, had set up for their better direction. For whereas S. Matthew expresseth the Epiphonema or conclusion of our Saviour's speech, thus; All these things shall come upon this generation: S. Luke cap. 11. expresseth it; Verily I say unto you it shall be required of this generation. What was to be required of this generation? The blood of all the Prophets from Abel to Zacharias, & Zacharias his blood in particular. For though this present generation by not repenting for their forefather's sins had made themselves guilty of the blood of all the Prophets, which stood upon sacred Record from Abel's time unto the destruction of the Temple: yet Abel and Zacharias the high Priest, whose death was in many respects most prodigious, were the especial avengers of blood. For the blood of the one after he was dead, and the dying voice of the other, did cry to God for vengeance. For so it is recorded in the second of Cron. 24. 22. of Zacharias, [When he died he said; The Lord look upon it, and require it.] Now our Saviour in the words recorded by S. Luke, forewarns this impenitently stubborn generation, that Zacharias his dying curse (which had been through his mediation often deferred and often mitigated) should be executed upon them, as an ungodly race of ungodly Ancestors in a fuller measure than perhaps Zacharias intended. The exact parallel between the sins of this people in the days of joash King of Judah, who caused Zacharias to be stoned to death in the Temple, and the sins of this present generation who put the High Priest of their souls (the Lord of Glory himself) to an ignominious death; in what sense the blood of Zacharias was more required of this generation than the blood of our Saviour or of his Apostles; in what manner the death of Zacharias and of our Saviour, were the causes of this present generations destruction, I have elsewhere discussed at large, and, if God permit, mean shortly to publish amongst other meditations upon our Saviour's prophetical function, or of such prophecies wherein he spoke as never man spoke; which were not to be fulfilled in himself, as in his death, resurrection, and ascension, or coming to judgement. For all prophecies of this rank which, shall come unto my memory or observation, will have their fit place in these Commentaries. 12 So will not that speech of his Mat. 24. 28. Wheresoever the Carkerse is, there will the Eagles be gathered together. Yet seeing the exposition of this place hath been omitted in the explication of some prophecies with which it hath most affinity, as with the signs of his coming to Judgement, Math. 24. and Mark the 13. I have thought good to say somewhat of it in this place. Most Interpreters grant the speech to be proverbial, and yet (as uttered by our Saviour) to be a Prophecy. The mystery foretold most of the Ancients would have to be the gathering together of Saints unto Christ's body at the final judgement; or at least the gathering together of those bodies, which being alive, shall be reached up into the air to meet him at his coming. But however the Eagles (at least some kind of Eagles) may be fit Emblems of God's Saints, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the body or Carkeise whereto the Eagles resort, hath no handsome or comely resemblance of Christ's appearing in glory; although it were granted that his wounds or scars should then be conspicuous. I make no question but our Saviour in the forecited place, did mean that kind of Eagles, whose properties we have described by God himself, even by this our Lord God and Redeemer, joh. 39 27. Doth the Eagle mount up at thy command, and make her nest on high? she dwelleth and abideth on the Rock, upon the Crag of the Rock, and the strong place, from thence she s●●keth the prey, and her eyes behold a far off: her y●●●g ones also suck up blood, and where the slain is, cheer is she. The Eagle here displayed is either the Vulture, or of the Vultures kind, and their sagacity whether in smelling slain bodies a far off, or in presaging where great slaughters are like to happen, as also their swift resort unto the prey, is well known to secular Philologers. But the flocking together of this kind of Eagles doth rather menace destruction, then minister any matter of comfort, according to the literal sense either of proverbial speech or of prophecy. So the Prophet Habakuk doth character the fierce and swift incursion of the Caldaeans by this kind of Eagles hastening to the prey, chap. 11. ver. 8. Their horses also are swifter than the Leopards, and are more fierce than the Evening Wolves, and their horsemen shall spread themselves, and their horsemen shall come from far; they shall fly as the Eagle that hasteth to eat. And so Moses long before had threatened this people Deut. 28. 49. The Lord shall bring a Nation against thee from far from the end of the earth, as swift as the Eagle fleeth, etc. And this prophecy was most exactly fulfilled in the Conquest, oppression, and destruction of this Nation by the Romans and their Allies, especially the Italians, Spanish, German, and British with other of these Western Nations. And our Saviour in the forecited place foretells the fulfilling of this prophecy of Moses upon the Jews of that present age; For all that our Saviour had said in that 24. of Matthew was to be accomplished (according to the literal sense) in that age current: for so he saith ver. 34. Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Now it is evident, that this gathering together of the Eagles, was to be fulfilled before those signs of his coming to judge Jerusalem were to be exhibited ver. 29. Our Saviour's prophecy than cannot (according to the literal sense) refer unto his coming to final judgement, but unto his coming to visit Jerusalem and the Nation of the Jews, of whom, as he intimates, some few should be strangely reserved, others remarkably plagued, and so to be plagued by the Romans, whose ensign was the Eagle. Those whom God had forsaken or appointed to the slaughter within that age current were (as we say) dead in Law; & whithersoever they fled, the Roman Eagles, which God had authorized to be his executioners of the heavy Judgements there denounced, would be more swift than they; more sagacious than they were subtle. And albeit these wand'ring Corpse did take the Temple for their Sanctuary, and make Jerusalem and it, the last seat of that deadly war; yet even there should these Eagles or Vultures be gathered against them, and teach their young ones to suck their blood. And indeed if a man would accurately observe the process and success of the war against them by the Romans, it would appear to have been begun and ended rather by such secret instinct or presage, as the Eagles have of great slaughters then by rational project or humane consultation. 13. To this expression of the literal meaning of the forecited place S. Luke directs me, who of all the three Evangelists mentioneth the immediate cause or occasion of our Saviour's proverbial speech, Luke 17. 37. And they answered or replied) and said unto him, where Lord? The meaning of the interrogatory is, where shall the place or seat of these strange Calamities be? and to this he answers, Wheresoever the body is, there will the Eagles be gathered together. The importance of his answer is, whithersoever these sons of death shall repair, thither will the executioners of God's wrath be gathered together; to wit, the Romans, who should not spare such as did resist or seek to save their lives by hostility or strength, and yet be ready to spare such as would submit themselves unto their mercy. Thus much (in my apprehension) was intimated ver. 33. Whosoever shall seek to save his life, shall lose it, and whosoever shall lose his life, shall preserve it, I tell you in that night there shall be two men in one bed, the one shall be taken, the other shall be left: Two women shall be grinding together, the one shall be taken and the other left. And they answered and said, where Lord▪ etc. This I take to be the literal meaning of this prophecy. As for the mystical, parallel to this literal (if this afford any such) that cannot elsewhere be so fitly handled, as in the Article of Christ's coming to judge the world, both quick and dead. Now according to the mystical sense, we are (I take it,) to understand by the body, the bodies of the Saints deceased: and then to make the Allegory or proportion (such as the Scripture always maketh) handsome and comely: the Eagles must not be such as job describeth, either Vultures, or of Vultures kind, but jovis Aquilae, which as Philologers tell us, do not use to feed on dead Corpse or slain flesh. These are fit emblems of the swift ministry of Celestial Angels in gathering or summoning the bodies of deceased Saints from the one end of the Earth to the other. SECT. 3. Cap. 20 That the incarnation of God, and of God in the person of the Son instiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Word, was foretold, praefigured, etc. in the Writings of Moses. Of the hypostatical union between the Son of God and seed of Abraham. CHAP. 20. That God according to the literal sense of Scriptures, was in later ages to be incarnate, and to converse with men, with the seed of Abraham especially here on earth, after such a peculiar manner, as we Christians believe, Christ, God and man did. THat which in the first place we are to know concerning Christ and him crucified, is that he was to be both God and man. And this we are to learn from the sacred Oracles, whether in the literal or mystical sense, in this order. First, from such Oracles as teach us that God was to be incarnate and to converse with men more humano, after an humane manner here on earth. Secondly, from such divine Oracles as instruct us that God was to be incarnate, and thus to converse with men in the person of the Son. Sect. 3. Thirdly, from such as foretell the manner of the incarnation, and of the permanent union between the son of God and the humane nature. 2. To dispute with the Jew or other Infidel who acknowledgeth the truth of the old testament without some manifest ground of the literal sense, were but to beat the air. For there can be no concludent allegorical or mystical sense, unless it be grounded on the literal. And of all the branches of the literal sense none is so evidently concludent against the Jew, the Arian, or Photinian whether ancient or later (to wit, the Socinian) as that which for the most part is least observed, or most slenderly prosecuted by such as seek to confute the Jew, or other Infidels or heretics which subscribe unto the literal sense of the old Testament. The best Topick or seat of arguments for this purpose must be borrowed from those passages in the Old Testament, which according to the plain literal or grammatical sense cannot, without blasphemy or literal solecism, be applied to any person but God, to any besides the God of Israel, and yet cannot be meant of God himself (according to the punctual literal sense) save only as he was to be incarnate, or to have his conversation amongst men, after a more peculiar manner then in the ancient times of the world he had. And these places be for number many, perhaps more than all the other prophecies or predictions concerning Christ whether literal or mystical. My purpose is not in this place to rehearse all of this kind which I have observed, but rather to explicate some few of these many. The first shall be that Exod. 29. 45, 46. And I will dwell amongst the children of Israel, and will be their God, and they shall know that I am the Lord their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell amongst them: I am the Lord their God. That this place cannot be literally meant of any person, man or Angel, but of God himself which brought Israel out of the Land of Egypt, no modern Jew doth or can deny. The same promise is renewed or repeated, Leu. 26. 11, 12, 13. And I will set my tabernacle amongst you, and my soul shall not abhor you, and I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people. I am the Lord your God, which brought you forth out of the Land of Egypt, that ye should not be their bondmen; and I have broken the bands of your yoke, and made you go upright. 3. God before this time had appeared unto them, had conducted them by a cloud by day, and by a pillar of fire by night, had diverse ways manifested his special presence, and spoken to Moses their leader in a more familiar manner, than he had done to any Prophet before or since his time. Yet all those evidences of his glorious presence amongst them, were but pledges of a more special manner of his future presence with them, or of walking or talking, not with some one principal man amongst them only, such as Moses was, but with all that are willing to walk and talk with him, as Moses had done with that generation. Neither of those prophecies could be exactly fulfilled, according to the punctual literal sense, of those ancient times; wherein the first Tabernacle did wander with them in the wilderness, though verified according to the vulgar literal sense, in those times. For God their Lord was said to remove or to arise, when the Ark removed or set forward Psal. 68 1. Nor were the same prophecies fulfilled in those times, wherein the Lord had a permanent Tabernacle, or constant place of residence amongst them in Jerusalem. Albeit he was then said to dwell between the Cherubims and to have chosen Zion for his place of rest, yet Ezekiel after the desolation of the Temple projected by David and built by Solomon, doth promise this people more than a redintegration of the Temple, or any other material Temple, more than a mere revival of the former promises, Exod. 29. 45. and Levit. 26. 12, 13. for so the Prophet astipulateth in the name of his God chap. 37. ver. 26, 27, and 28. Moreover, I will make a Covenant of peace with them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore: my Tabernacle shall be with them, yea I will be their God, and they shall be my people; and the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify. Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore. 4. But now we see, and seeing cannot but bewail that the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, whom this promise did (in the first place) concern, hath had no place of dwelling in the land of Canaan almost for these sixteen hundred years past. Nor hath the God of Israel dwelled amongst them, after such a manner as he did, during the time of the first Tabernacle, or whilst the first or second Temple were standing. And yet this covenant was (according to the literal sense of the Prophet) to be an everlasting Covenant, yea perpetually everlasting, after it once began to be in esse: God was to dwell with Israel or with the sons of Abraham there meant without interruption in this life, and everlastingly in the life to come. Besides this everlasting covenant, was a covenant likewise of everlasting peace to such as were partakers of it. For the peculiar manner of Gods dwelling with Israel, the Jew cannot imagine a more punctual fulfilling of this prophecy then the Evangelist S. john hath left upon record chap. 1. ver. 14. And he dwelled amongst us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) fall of grace and truth. Thus he dwelled and conversed with the children of Israel, according to bodily descent, and with none else; how then is it said by the Prophet that he was to dwell with them for evermore, or that this covenant of peace should be an everlasting covenant? Seeing Israel or the sons of jacob by bodily descent did for the most part reject this covenant, when God for his part was ready to seal it unto them, the Gentiles were ingraffed in the believing stock, when the natural branches were broken off: and yet God still dwells in medio Israel he hath his everlasting Tabernacle in Israel, that is in the seed of Abraham and of jacob which he assumed and did choose, not as he had done Zion or jerusalem, but for a perpetually everlasting rest. And though this place of his rest be removed, not only from the sons of Israel, but from all the sons of men that live here on earth; yet he still dwelleth with us, who are ingraffed in the stock of Abraham and of Israel, unto the end of the world, and so shall dwell with true Israelites world without end. He hath his residence in every Church throughout the world, in as peculiar a manner as he sometimes did reside in the Temple of Jerusalem: for wheresoever God is truly worshipped there doth he dwell. 5. This covenant of everlasting peace, which the Prophet foretold was to be established as the first covenant, was by blood, but by far better blood than the blood of Bulls and Goats, by the blood of the Testator himself, that is, of God himself. Bellum gessit, ut nos pace fruamur, He was once for all to war with flesh and blood, with powers, and principalities, that all such as embraced this covenant avouched by Ezekiel, might enjoy everlasting peace, not the peace of this world, yet peace in this world, to be accomplished in the world to come. And our Saviour the son of God, for more full declaration that he was the Author of this covenant, a little before his death bequeathed the legacy of peace unto his Apostles and Disciples, as feoffees in trust for all that should follow the faith of Abraham. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, not as the world giveth, give I unto you: let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid, john 14. 27. And after he had sealed this covenant with his blood, his salutation unto his Disciples was, Peace be unto you; and, Behold I am with you unto the end of the world. After his death he did walk and talk only with his Disciples, but before his death he had walked, conferred and conversed with all the children of Israel, that would come unto him, in a more familiar manner, than he had done with Moses himself in Egypt and in the wilderness. And though his body be removed out of their sight and ours, yet he dwelleth in his Church and walketh in it by his spirit. These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden Candlesticks. Revel. 2. 1. and 21. 3. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, behold the Tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. God was said to walk with the children of Israel, whilst the Tabernacle did remove or wander with them; but not to dwell with them, until the building of the Temple. Whereas I have not dwelled in any house, since the time I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt even to this day, but have walked in a Tent and in a Tabernacle. 2 Sam. 7. 6. But the same God doth now walk in the Church, and dwell in his Church by his spirit, and the Church shall dwell with him in his heavenly Temple. 6. This prophecy of Ezekiel, is one of that sort and rank before rehearsed Chapter 14. par: 6, 7. to wit, a prophecy which was oftener to be fulfilled then once and after different measures in several times. It was to be fulfilled according to the ordinary scale of the literal sense, and in the intention of the holy Ghost, at this people's return from the Babylonish captivity. From that time Judah and Israel, or Ephraim, were not to strive or contend: and thus we see it fulfilled, unto the destruction of the Temple. For though many of the several Tribes of Israel did return to their own land successively or now and then, yet all were instyled or indigitated by the name of judaei or Jews, a good name, until they forfeited their interest in this promise. And God did upon their returne● 〈…〉 amongst them, that is his Temple, wherein he did dwell, as he formerly had done in 〈◊〉 Temple. Now this covenant, which God did promise to make with Israel and Judah upon the delivery from the North Country, and from all the Countries wherein he had scattered them, was to exceed the former covenant, which he had made with their fathers, when he brought them out of Egypt, as appeareth jer. 23. 5, 6, 7, 8. And to exceed it, not only in respect of benefits spiritual, or the matter promised, but in respect of the very form and tenure of the Covenant itself. Not that this deliverance was either in itself, or in the Nations eyes, greater than the former, but that this covenant after it once began to be in esse, was to continue for ever without interruption; whereas the former Covenant was broken, did expire, or determine. For during the time of the Babylonish Captivity, neither Judah nor Israel had either a wand'ring Tabernacle or standing Temple, God did not dwell amongst them according to the native and literal meaning of that promise Levit. 26. 1●. But according to this Prophecy of Ezekiel, God even their God was to dwell amongst them to have his Sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. But did this Sanctuary or Tabernacle there promised, continue in the midst of them since that time? yes, it hath so continued, and shall continue for evermore, though not in the same kind, or quoad materiam, yet by an aequivalency or more than aequivalency, or by a spiritual and supereminent manner. For when the second Temple begun to decay, or become as a Carcase, or body without a soul; the body of our Lord and Saviour Christ, which he took from Abraham and David, became the Temple of God, and continueth to this day our Sanctuary, or Sanctification itself. And we Heathens or Gentiles do now know, that the Lord hath sanctified Israel, and that his Sanctuary is in the midst of them for evermore. 7. All those places wherein God promised to be their God, all those sacred hymns and prophecies which enstile him God, even our God, in the exquisite or sublime literal sense, refer or drive to that point which we Christians make the foundation and roof of our faith, to wit, that he was to be God with us, or God in our nature or flesh, God made man of the seed or stock of Abraham, like us in all things, sin excepted. This new & glorious Temple was according to strict propriety erected in medio Israel, or in interiore Israel, that is, in one that was truly an Israelite, the very Centre or Foundation of Abraham's seed, or of Jacob's posterity. But being erected in the midst of Israel or in the seed of Abraham after this sense it was not erected only for the sons of Abraham or of Israel by bodily descent, but all were to become true Israelites that should be united to this seed and worship God in this Sanctuary. For in that Christ Jesus was the son of God, he was more truly the Israel of God then jacob had been, and all that are ingraffed into this Temple of God, all that receive life from him are more truly the children of Israel than any of Jacob's sons were, which refuse to be united to him. CHAP. 21. Cap. 21 That this peculiar manner of God's presence with his people by signs and miracles was punctually foreprophecyed by the Psalmists. BUt for God to dwell with this people, or in the midst of them, is a phrase not unbeseeming God, even in their judgement, who hold the Divine Majesty to be altogether incorporeal, immaterially immense, as many of the wiser and more sober Heathens did. But in most of the Prophets, in the book of Psalms especially, many characters there be of the divine Majesties peculiar presence in his Church, with this people, or in the world, which to any heathen, either accurate Philosopher, or elegant Poet, would seem more unseemly, than a poor country man's petition, of his own drawing and penning, to his Sovereign Lord would be, or then his speech would be; if he were sent Ambassador to a foreign Prince. Both speech and behaviour would in this case be rustic, and his salutations such as would only befit his honest or worshipful Neighbours. And thus most Prophets, in the descriptions or displays of God's attributes, speak of him, if we look only in the vulgar literal sense, at the best but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, scarce observing that decorum, which an ordinary Courtier would use to any greater Prince. Yet may we not think that God did send such Ambassadors to his people, or appoint such Orators from him to them, and from them to him, as he had not enabled to speak in such manner, as did become both himself and them. And surely it is the fault or imperfection, not of the Psalmists or other Prophets, but of their Interpreters, to make them speak of God, only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as we would do of great men. For even those speeches, which seem most homely, or least observant of Decorun, do fit God incarnate, or God made man, more exactly than the choicest titles that a Secretary of Estate could use unto a King; more accurately, than a well made garment doth the party, for whom it was made; then the bark doth the tree or the skin the body, which not art, but nature hath provided for their covering. All those speeches of God which some would have to be spoken only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will come within this latitude. They are either spoken of God made man, or from the time of his birth unto his baptism, or whilst he was in execution of his prophetical function; or whilst he uvea in the form of a servant, or during the time of his consecration to his everlasting Priesthood, or after he was made both Lord and Christ, that is, after his resurrection and ascension. As for those passages, which concern the incarnation of God, his circumcision, or other things concerning him between his birth and his baptism, these I shall refer to these particular Articles. The first instance in this kind after he was anointed to preach the Gospel, shall be that of the Psalmist Psalm. 89. 8, 9 O Lord God of hosts, who is a strong Lord like unto thee? or to thy faithfulness round about thee? Thou rulest the raging of the sea, when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them. And again, Psal. 107. 23. etc. They that go down to the Sea in ships, that do business in great waters, these see the works of the Lord and his wonders in the deep. For he commandeth and raiseth the stormy wind which lifteth up the waves thereof: they mount up to the heaven, they go down again to the depth, their soul is melted because of trouble, they reel to and fro and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wit's end. Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distress. He maketh the storm a Calm, so that the waves thereof are still: then are they glad because they be quiet, so he bringeth them to their desired haven. For Majesty or beauty of speech, an heathen perhaps would be ready to compare some descriptions of Virgil, or other Poet, with either or both of these passages. But this is not all nor the principal point to be considered in the Psalmists displays of the Divine Majesty either in these or most other Psalms. For they were not only divine Poets or vates praeterit●rum, but true Prophets of things to come, and did (at least enigmatically) foretell wonders to be visibly unfolded, and openly revealed in later ages. Masters and teachers they were, not only of Orthodoxal doctrines, and their moral uses, but of sacred mysteries, such as none but true Prophets could foretell. It was a point of vulgar Catechism amongst the Jews, that unless the Lord did guide the ship the Pilot labour was but lost; except the Lord did rule the Sea, the Mariner's pains were to no purpose. Every son of jacob according to the flesh did know, and many of them, upon experience of his special providence over the Sea, and Seafaring men, would heartily acknowledge, that it was the Lord, not their skill and pains, that brought them to the haven, where they would be. But whatsoever the Psalmists occasion was to pen this Psalm, the holy Ghost, by whose inspiration he took occasion to pen it, by whose direction it was inserted into this sacred Canon of Scripture, did intend, that this acknowledgement of God's experienced favours in times past or present, should be a prophecy for the direction of times to come. And however the Nation of the Jews were for the most part affected, the understanding of the better, and more religious amongst this people was enlightened by the Spirit to foresee, all of them were bound to exact the fulfilling of this prophecy, in a more distinct, remarkable, and exquisite manner, than the Psalmist, or his forefathers, had any experience of. If any man desire to know the time when, with the manner how, it was thus remarkably fulfilled, let him peruse that Evangelicall story Mat. 23. etc. And when he was entered into a ship his Disciples followed him; And behold there arose a great Tempest in the Sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves, but he was asleep. And his Disciples came to him and awoke him saying, Lord save us, we perish. And he saith unto them, why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? then he arose and rebuked the winds and the Sea, and there was a great Calm. Or as it is, Mark. 4. 39 And he arose and rebuked the wind, and said unto the Sea, peace, be still; and the wind ceased, and there was a great Calm. He used no ceremony, no instrument, such as Moses, Elias, or other Prophets used in the miracles wrought by their ministry; but lays his command upon them, in token and testimony that he was absolute Lord of both, that very Lord of whom the Psalmist had said, Thou rulest the raging of the Sea, when the waves arise, thou stillest them: that very Lord unto whom Seafaring men did use to cry in their distress. There were more passengers at this time with him, spectators of the miracle, and earewitnesses of his words, for as S. Mark tells us, there were also with him other little ships ver. 36. And these other Passengers, not his Disciples, perhaps were those whom the same Evangelist ver. 41. saith, did fear exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him? His Disciples sure at that time did apprehend him to be more than man, and though they do not express so much in words, yet by an implicit or secret instinct, they acknowledge him to be that very God, whom the Psalmist had described; otherwise they had not presented their prayers immediately unto him in that form which S. Matthew relates, Lord save us, we perish, but rather thus, Master pray unto thy God, or, unto thy Father, that we perish not. But he being with them, though they are not aware of his peculiar, and immediate presence: So that we may conclude, that all this was done and said, that the former Scripture might be fulfilled; and the reason perhaps, why he taxeth them so sharply for want of saith, was not so much for that they feared to perish in such a terrible storm, but that they did not apprehended, that there was for this time no such occasion to fear, because the forecited prophecies were to be punctually fulfilled by their prayers unto him being visibly present. And for the same reason, it may be, he reproveth Peter for want of faith, when he walked towards him upon the Sea: for Peter might and ought to have conceived, that his Master was that very Lord and God, which stilleth the raging of the Sea, and that this was the very point of time, wherein that other prophecy of the Psalmist Psal. 77. 19 was to be remarkably fulfilled. Thy way is in the Sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known; and that he could conduct him as safely over the sea of Tiberias, as he led his people by the hands of Moses and Aaron, through the Red sea. If we knew the times or occasions of the writing of those Psalms, or what days they were appointed in the ancient Church of the Jews, it would much conduce to this or the like search, how and when they were fulfilled; it may be they were appointed to be read upon those very days wherein these miracles were done. That there was to be a second fulfilling even of those miracles which the Psalmists celebrate, as being done before, we gather from the Prophet Isa. 43. 15, 16. I am the Lord your holy one, the Creator of Israel, your King: Thus saith the Lord, which maketh a way in the Sea, and a path in the mighty waters etc. Remember ye not the mighty things, neither consider ye the things of old, Behold I will do a new thing: Now it shall spring forth, shall ye not know it? I will make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert. Now this Prophecy of Isaiah was to be remarkably fulfilled, when the Lord their Redeemer came to visit them. 2. Amongst other Attributes of the God of jacob, mentioned by the Psalmist, Psal. 146. these are inserted ver. 7. He giveth food to the hungry, the Lord looseth the Prisoners: The Lord openeth the eyes of the blind, the Lord raiseth them that are bowed down. No child of jacob, which had been relieved in his hunger and thirst by the hand of men, but was ready in the first place, to thank the Lord God of his Fathers, for his bounty. They knew it was the Lord, which gave men power to gather wealth, that putteth it into the hearts of the rich to relieve the poor. If the liberality of the Princes and Nobles at any time did abound, they knew they were Almoners to the God of jacob. If any of them being formerly (by law or authority) kept in durance, were set at liberty, they were taught to thank the Lord, more than man, for their deliverance. Him they knew to be Lord of Lords, to have the hearts of Kings in his hands; yet all this was not the only, or the principal use, which the godly and learned amongst the Israelites made of the Psalmists doctrine. They were taught by their fathers to expect, that the Lord himself would come to feed them with his own hand, and would set Prisoners free viuâ voce, with the words of his own mouth. That this Lord was to live amongst them, and to converse with them, from the greatest to the least, in more visible manner, than he did with Moses on the Mount or in the wilderness, at the time appointed for the exact fulfilling of this, and other prophecies, Thou openest thine hand (saith the Psalmist) and satisfiest the desire of every living thing. Psal. 145. 16. Now that Jesus was that Lord, of whom the Psalmist, in these two places last cited, speaketh, was fully testified by the miracles which he wrought, in feeding many thousands with some few loaves, and two small fishes, and in filling so many baskets with the fragments or relics of that small provision, wherewith he had filled thousands. From these miracles, the people which had seen him do them, and tasted of his bounty, did rightly infer, that he was that Prophet, which was to come into the world, as you may read john 6. 14. and being supposed to be that Prophet, they consequently presumed, that he was likewise to be the King of Israel; and out of this conceit or presumption, they would have enforced him to be their King, ver. 15. But all these good prenotions of him, as their promised Messias, were drowned in their bellies, which were indeed to them their gods, and these being satisfied their religion was at an end; their zeal was come unto a period. For as our Saviour saith ver. 26. they sought him not because they saw the miracles (which did truly prove him to be that God, which filleth all things living) but because they ate of the loaves, and were filled. And that upon condition he would so feed them with material food continually, they would have made him King, and have enforced him to undertake this charge, as it is, ver. 15. Who the Psalmist did mean by the hungry, in the forecited Psalm, is certain, and how the Lord himself did feed them, is plain; but who are literally meant by the Prisoners, or what Prisoners Jesus, during the time of his prophetical function, did unloose or set at liberty, is not so evident from the Evangelicall story. It is not indeed at the first sight, or according to the rate of the English phrase. But the learned Commentators upon the 61, of Isaiah have well observed that by Prisoners or men shut up, the Hebrews usually understand the deaf, the dumb, the blind, and the phrase is very proper and elegant. For hearing, as the Philosophers observe, being the sense of discipline by which man learns to conceive and speak; deafness, where it is natural, and implanted hath always dumbness for its consort, and is no other than a close imprisonment of the humane soul. For the greatest misery of close imprisonment is, that men so imprisoned can neither open their minds to their dearest friends, nor their dearest friends open their minds to them: ●heir souls notwithstanding are free to express their grief unto their keepers. But the souls of men, whose ears have been shut up from the womb, can neither receive any intelligence from others, nor give any significations of their own thoughts unto their friends, with whom they converse. Yet many souls thus shut up from the womb did Jesus, during the time of his prophetical function, set free by the breath of his mouth. If he said but Ephphata, the prison doors were opened, and the fetters broken. Such as had been deaf, and dumb from the womb, had their ears unstopped, and the strings wherewith their tongues were holden presently untied. 3. But the Psalmist added, The Lord opened the eyes of the blind, and blindness is a part likewise of the soul's imprisonment, such as before the Psalmists time had received their sight, by help of Physic or other secondary means, were said (in the language of those good times) to have their eyes opened by the Lord; because unless the Lord do bless the medicine, the Physician's labour is in vain. Yet of many blind men restored to sight by miracle or by the immediate hand of God, we read not in the old Testament. Miracles of this kind were altogether, or for the most part, reserved till the manifestation of God incarnate, as * See the Treatise of Christ's answer to john. we gather out of the 35. of Isaiah. Nor could the Pharisees, though they were the greatest Antiquaries amongst the Jews, disprove that blind man's testimony of whom we read john 9 32. Although he● exposed himself to great disadvantage in undertaking an universal negative; since the world began, (saith he) was it not heard, that any man opened the eyes of one that was borne blind. What then was he bound in conscience to think of Jesus, who had newly opened his eyes, which had been shut up from the womb? The lest he could think of him was, that which in plain terms he avoucheth against the Pharisees, If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. But if no man, since the world began, had done the like, why should he not believe that this Jesus was more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, more than a man sent from God, even God himself? Why did he not acknowledge, that the clay, which jesus made to open his eyes, had been tempered by the finger of that God, which had made the earth itself of nothing, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made? unto this point of belief he came by degrees; and our Saviour from this experiment, begets belief in him unto the main point of Christianity, and works his soul unto confession, that he was the son of God. jesus heard that they had cast him out, and when he had found him, he said not unto him, dost thou believe on the Prophet that is to come into the world, on the Messias or King of Israel? but dost thou believe on the son of God? He answered, who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And jesus said unto him, thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him. john 9 35, 36, 37, 38. With what worship? with which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only? Doubtless with that worship, which was due only unto God. Thus you see, that Jesus by feeding the hungry with his own hand, by opening the ears of the deaf with the breath of his mouth, and the eyes of the blind with his finger, doth prove him to be that very Lord and God, in whose praises that excellent hymn (the 146, Psalm) was written and daily sung by the jews and Pharisees, although their eyes, because they winked with them, and hated the light, were not open to understand the meaning of it. 4. But were there no other Prisoners, besides the deaf and the blind, which the Psalmist foretells the Lord (in whose praise that Psal. was conceived & sung) would unloose? no other whom jesus during the time of his prophetical function did unloose? Sure all were prisoners that were bound by Satan, and so bound were most of these lame and diseased, which our Saviour cured, more particularly that poor woman, mentioned Luke 13. 15, 16. was Satan's prisoner, as we may gather from our Saviour's reply unto the ruler of the Synagogue, whose heart was inflamed with distempered zeal and indignation aswell against our Saviour for healing, as against the people for bringing their sick to be healed upon the Sabbath day. The Lord then answered him and said, thou Hypocrite doth not each one of you on the Sabbath lose his Ox or his Ass from his stall, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond, on the Sabbath-day? And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed, and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him. Luke 13. 15, 16, 17. Not only the cure itself, but his manner of working it, manifestly witnesseth that he which wrought it, was that Lord, in whose praise the Psalmist conceived that song. For he did not cure her as a messenger sent from God, or as a minister of delegated power or authority, but by word of majesty as Lord and Author of the health which he bestowed upon her. Woman saith he, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid his hands upon her, and immediately she was made strait, and glorified God. Besides the exact correspondence between the Psalmists words, [The Lord raiseth up them that are bowed down] and the Evangelists description of the party cured and the cure, [as that she was bowed together, and could in no way lift herself up;] there is another point very remarkable in the character or phrase of the Evangelist. For in the beginning of this relation he saith, when jesus saw her he said unto her: (this was before she was healed) but when he relates our Saviour's reply unto the Ruler of the Synagogue (after she was healed) he doth not say, jesus then answered him and said, but the Lord then answered him and said; as if he himself had conceived, and would lead us into the same truth that this very fact had sufficiently manifested that jesus, whom the people took for a Prophet, to be that very Lord, of whom that Psalm was literally meant, and in whom this clause of raising up those that were bowed down, was at this time, and not before, punctually fulfilled. For conclusion, I would request the Reader to observe that our Saviour's answer unto john Matt. 11. 5. hath as special and peculiar reference unto this 146. Psalm, as it hath unto those places in the 35, and 61 of Isaiah, which have been expounded * In Chr: answer to john's question. elsewhere. All three places, but the 35, of Isaiah and this 146, Psalm especially, evidently prove Jesus to be not only the Messias, or him that was to come, but to be the Lord God of jacob, whose praises this Psalmist and other Prophets sought to set forth. 5. The difference between the Evangelists relation, and the Psalmists prediction of Christ's miracles Matt. 11. 5. is very little, or (to speak properly,) is no difference, or a difference implying such exact correspondency, as is betwixt the character and the letter, or impression which it makes. The verbal difference, and real correspondency is this. The Evangelist from our Saviour's mouth in the first place relates the miracles, [the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the Lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, etc.] and from these particulars makes up this general principles, [Blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me.] The Psalmist chose first sets down the same principle, and afterwards foretells the miracles, which were to be as so many proofs or experiments, whereby this people might know the God of jacob, when he should come in person, to make them happy. Happy is he (saith the Psalmist) that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God. Why are they happy which trust in him, or would not be offended in him, when he came unto them? Because he made heaven and earth, the Sea and all that therein is, which keepeth truth for ever, which executeth judgement for the oppressed, which giveth food to the hungry, the Lord looseth the Prisoners, etc. Psal. 146. 5, 6, 7. 6 The sum of all that the jew or heathen can object against us, for thus interpreting this place, or for adoring Christ jesus whom they crucified, as the very God here meant by the Psalmist, must amount from that general prohibition, (as they will interpret it) ver. 3. Put not your trust in Princes nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help, or no salvation. But ye Christians (will they say) put your trust in the son of man, in the son of Mary a woman, and therefore transgress the Psalmists precept. But admitting these words [Put not your trust in Princes etc.] had been expressed in this universal form [Put not your trust in any Princes, nor in any son of man whomsoever: for there is no help in any of them] Yet such universal rules do usually admit some exception, or an exception of some principal particular. As when it is said, he hath put all things under his feet; it is manifest saith the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. 27. that he is excepted, who put all things under him, though He be more than all things that are put under him. And when our Apostle tells us, that we must utterly renounce all works, and only rely on the mercy of God in Christ: Yet the renouncing of all works (which is the greatest of all works) must be excepted from this general rule. For he that renounceth this work cannot come to Christ, cannot be partaker of God's mercy in him. And so in this general prohibition of the Psalmist, put not your trust in Princes, nor in any son of man, that son of man must be excepted, who is also more than the son of man, more than any Prince, the son of God, the Lord God of Israel. In all other Princes, besides this one Prince, who was to reign for ever, there is no help, no salvation, and because they are void of help and salvation, they are uncapable of our confidence; we may not safely repose our trust in them, or upon them. But I would demand of the jew, what opinion his Forefathers, in the time of Moses, Samuel, David, and the Prophets, had of their expected Messias? What opinion the seed of Abraham this day living have of the son of David, whom they expect shall reign over them? Was he, in the opinion of their forefathers, to be no more than the son of man, though the son of David? If he were to be no more than so, there was no confidence, by the Psalmists rule, to be placed in him; they were not to expect help or salvation from him; he could be but another David, another Samson, another joshuah or Moses. If he were to be but a King on Earth, as many others have been before him, though all others, though put together, of much less power than they expect he shall be; yet their expectation of him is fuller fraught with revenge and malice towards others, then with hope of any great good unto themselves, if so he were to be but a mighty Prince or Monarch, not truly God, or if his Kingdom were but of this world, or to be bounded within the sphere of the Moon, for so he might bruise and crush the Nations, as joshua the Canaanites, or David his enemies; he could not make all his own followers Kings and Monarches. Nor could Monarchies or Kingdoms make them happy, on whom he did bestow them; there could be no help or salvation general either in Prince, or Subject. The more bountiful he were in bestowing temporal blessings, wealth, power or honour upon the seed of Abraham after the flesh, the greater calamity he should bring upon other Nations. How then could he be that promised seed of Abraham in whom all the Nations of the earth were to be blessed? Finally if the ancient jews (as I think these modern jews will not deny) expected help and salvation from their Messias, if they taught their posterity to put trust in this promised seed of Abraham, whensoever he should be revealed, than it is concluded, that their expected Messias was to be that God of Israel, whom the Psalmist in the 146. Psalm describeth. And this is the fundamental article of Christian faith, unto the acknowledgement whereof this Lord God of Israel in his good time bring the seed of Abraham after the flesh, and all others which either deny it, or are ignorant of it. CHAP 22. That the God of Israel was to become a servant and a subject to humane infirmities, was foretold by the Prophets according to the strictest literal sense. THough all these Prophecies were punctually fulfilled (according to the strict propriety of the literal sense) of God incarnate, or whilst he conversed with men here on earth, in the form of a Servant, which is somewhat more, than the form and essence of a man: yet other prophecies there be, which more punctually refer unto this estate in particular, and unto those grievances, which it was impossible for him that was truly God to suffer, unjust for any man to suffer, who was not by estate and condition a true servant in the strictest sense of this word. Now we read that when jesus had said to one sick of the Palsy, Be of good Cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee; the Scribes and Pharisees (who were then present) begun to reason, saying, Who is this, that speaketh blasphemy? who can forgive sins but God alone? Luke 5. 21. And for thus censuring his speech, they presume they had the warrant of God himself Esay 43. 25. ay, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will remember thy sins no more. It was most true what from this place they collect, to wit, that God alone could forgive sins. But from the present miracle, Cap. 22 and the manner of our Saviour's conversation with them here on earth, and their most wicked dealing with him, (had they compared these with the words immediately precedent in the Prophet) it had been easy for them to have gathered that he was that only God, which did forgive sins. For so the Prophet had said to this people in the person of his only God, Thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thy iniquities. This in particular is one of those many places, which even by the Jews confession, could be literally meant of none, but God himself, and yet could never be literally and punctually fulfilled or verified, but of God incarnate. For this people did never make God to serve under their sins, he was never wearied with their iniquities; save only whilst he took the form of a servant upon him, and did bear their sins in the substance of their flesh. 2 Of the same observation is that other place, Esay 63. 9, 10. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the Angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them, and he bore them, and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled and vexed his holy Spirit. Therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them. And so it is said, that he was grieved forty years with that generation, which he had delivered out of Egypt. And both places, were they to be limited only with reference to times past, could not be meant of God otherwise then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or in a metaphorical sense. But as well that complaint of the Psalmist, as this of the Prophet Esay, were not merely historical, but prophetical, both to be fulfilled after a more exquisite sense in later ages. For all God's mercies and loving kindness to their Fathers were but as pledges, or talents given by way of earnest, for greater goodness, and more tender mercies towards later generations; so they would be thankful for the former. God, whilst he was only in the form of God, could not in strict propriety of speech be troubled, could not be grieved with compassion, could not be wearied. All those are passions, or accidental affections, incident only to flesh and blood, or at least to nature's subject to servitude and punishment. But of God in our nature, and form of a servant, all these pathetical complaints were most exactly accomplished. Who was weak amongst his people, and he not weakened by their weakness? who amongst them did mourn, and he not mourn with them? who was afflicted in body or soul, and he not partaker of their afflictions? Of all those duties of Christian charity, or fellow-feeling of others infirmities, practised by his Apostles, and commended to us by them; he by his practice and conversation, set the most exquisite pattern, more exquisite than any, who was but man, could have set. For he was a man of sorrows and infirmities to bear all our grievances. He cured no bodily infirmity (though he cured many) whose grief (until the cure was wrought) he did not suffer by exact and perfect sympathy. And only by the anguish of his soul and spirit, not Israel alone, but all people throughout the world, whoever found, or hope to find any, must find rest and comfort to their souls and consciences. Yet all this the wicked posterity of that wicked generation, (whose ingratitude towards the God of their Fathers did minister both matter of complaint and of prophecy to the Prophet Esay, and the Psalmist) no way regarded, but requited all the pains, trouble, and affliction which he had undertaken for their poor brethren's bodily good, and the comfort of all their souls, with superaddition of those deadly griefs and sorrows, which by the Romans help they brought upon him. This God of Israel in former times had fought for them, and had conducted them in the form of an Angel, joshuah himself being but his deputy, or under Commander. But now that they have thus ungratefully requited him for all his loving kindness towards their Fathers, whilst he was only in the form of God, or did appear in the garb or figure, not in the substance of an Angel, and for all the troubles and grievances undertaken by him for their good, whilst he was in the substance of man, and form of a servant, he at length became their Enemy, and fought against them. For as Visitors, though far absent, do yet visit by their Commissaries; so this God of Israel, that Jesus whom the Jews had crucified being made King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, did judge jerusalem, and the Nation of the jews, by Vespasian and Titus, as by his deputies. It was he, not they, that in that great war did overcome them. As they had grieved him more than their Forefathers had done, with whom he was grieved forty years in the wilderness; so they did remain in the Land of their promised rest, but forty years after his death, and so they remained in far worse case, than their forefathers had done in the wilderness: and their posterity since have wandered throughout the world, as unwelcome guests, for almost these sixteen hundred years. CHAP. 23. That God was to visit his Temple after such a visible and personal manner, as the Prophet jeremy in his name had done. THe modern jew cannot deny that of the Prophet jeremy chap. 7. ver. 3, 4. etc. to be meant of God alone: nor is he able to show us how it was, or could be otherwise fulfilled, then of God incarnate, or of God in the visible nature and substance of man-comming to visit his Temple: Thus saith the Lord of hosts the God of Israel; Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place. Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord are these, And again ver. 8. Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit. Will ye steal, Cap. 23. murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods, whom ye know not: and come and stand before me in this house which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations? Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of Robbers in your eyes? Behold even I have seen it, saith the lord To have denied, that God at this time did truly hear what this people said, did truly see what they did, did perfectly understand their secret thoughts, had been an error much grosser, and more dangerous, than the error of the Anthropomorphitae, that is, of such as imagined God by nature to have eyes, ears, and heart like man. For that was but an heresy or transformation of the Deity; the other was Epicurism, the worst and grossest error wherewith the very heathen or Infidels were possessed. And so the Psalmist describeth it, Psal. 94. 7. Yet they say, the Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of jacob regard it. Understand ye brutish among the people, and ye fools when will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that form the eye, shall he not see? etc. 2. Sight and hearing were, in those times, as truly attributed to God, as now they can be: yet in a general or transcendent, not so exquisite, so proper, and formal a sense, as the pathetical expression, which the Prophet there used, doth literally imply. Behold, even I have seen it, saith the Lord. For certainly that implies a great deal more, then by ordinary Catechisms, or domestic instructions, they could have learned: thus much at the least; that the Lord God himself, who sent the Prophet to deliver this message, The Lord God of Israel, who neither slumbreth nor sleepeth, would watch his opportunity, unless they did amend these misdemeanours, to visit them and his temple, not by a Prophet or deputed Commissary, but in person, and after as evident and visible a manner to flesh and blood, as the Prophet had done, but with far greater power. The Prophet had only mere spiritual power to protest against them, no coërcive authority to punish the delinquents, or to banish these abuses out of the Temple: This case was reserved unto the Lord himself, and was put in execution by him oftener than once, as I take it, at two several Passovers. For so we read john 2. 13. etc. And the jews Passeover was at hand, and jesus went up to jerusalem, and found in the Temple those that sold Oxen, and sheep, and Doves, and the changers of money sitting. And when he had made a scourge of small cords he drove them all out of the Temple, and the sheep and the Oxen; and poured out the changers money, and overthrew the Tables, and said unto them that sold Doves; Take these things hence, make not my Father's house an house of Merchandise. This was done, I take it, at the first Passeover after his baptism, but he exercised the same power with greater authority at his last coming to Jerusalem in triumph, so we read Matt. 21. 12, 13. And jesus went into the Temple of God, and cast out all them, that sold and bought in the Temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold Doves; and said unto them, it is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thiefs. It is to me remarkable, that this Evangelist saith, he went into the Temple of God: and yet when he relates the very words which he then used, he saith not, as in the former place of S. john he did; It is written, my father's house shall be called an house of prayer; but My house shall be called the house of prayer, yet ye have made it a den of thiefs. And both S. Mark and S. Luke retain the very same character of speech: jesus saith he, went into the Temple, etc. and would not suffer, that any man should carry any vessel through the Temple, (an abuse for which jeremy had denounced God's judgement against their forefathers:) and he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, my house shall be called of all Nations the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thiefs? etc. Mark 11. 15, 16, 17. The like is Luke 19 46. Both by his speech, and by the extraordinary exercise of his more than royal authority, he gave them evidently to understand, so they would have been taught by him, that he was that very Lord, that very God of Israel, unto whom that house had been dedicated, that Lord which had sent his Prophet jeremy, to dehort their forefathers from polluting the Temple, as now their posterity do. And if we consider the usual condition, or stubborn temper of Church trading men, and the strong back which long continuance of this plausible custom of making provision for sacrifices in the temple, had given unto that sharp edge, which the opportunity of this great and solemn feast had set upon their wont desires of gain; it is not imaginable, that so many men would so quickly have quit their seats of merchandise, for the lash of any one man's hand unless it had been withal the very hand of God: not credible that all the eyes in the world beside could have blencht them in their wont course, unless they had been eyed & looked upon, by the very eyes of God himself, of that God who was chief Lord of the Temple. For so the eyes of Christ, as we Christians believe and know, were as truly the eyes of God, as the Prophet jeremy's eyes were his own, and that whilst he saw and looked upon those abuses of the temple with humane eyes, yet he saw them with the eyes of God in as strict and exquisite a sense, as jeremy had seen them with the eyes of man. 3. The contents of this text are a prediction, or presignification, of that rank and nature, which hath been before deciphered in the general, that is, a prediction typically prophetical; such as that of the Psalmist, The stone which the builders refused, is become the chief stone in the corner. Or that which in the literal or historical sense did respect the Paschall Lamb. [Not a bone of it shall be broken.] For the Prophet jeremy did by express words foretell, and by matter of fact foreshadow, that which afterwards was most exactly accomplished. He was persecuted by that generation wherein he lived, for the delivery of that message Chap. 7. ver. 12, 13, 14. But go ye now into my place which was in Shiloh, where I set my name at the first, and see what I did to it, for the wickedness of my people Israel. And now, because ye have done all these works, saith the Lord, and I speak unto you, rising up early, and speaking, but ye heard not; and I called you, but ye answered not: therefore will I do unto this house, which is called by my name, wherein ye trust, and unto the place which I gave to you, and to your fathers, as I have done to Shiloh. The same message was delivered by him, many years after this time, by the express commandment of the Lord, chap. 26. ver. 4, 5, 6. And thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord, if ye will not hearken to me, to walk in my Law which I have set before you to hearken to the words of my servants the Prophets, whom I sent unto you, both rising up early, and sending them (but ye have not harkened:) then will I make this house like Shiloh, and will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth. His persecution for this delivery of his message from the Lord, is upon sacred record, ver. 8, 9 Now it came to pass when jeremiah had made an end of speaking all that the Lord had commanded him to speak unto all the people, that the Priests and the Prophets and all the people took him, saying, Thou shalt surely die: why hast thou prophecited in the name of the Lord saying? This house shall be like Shiloh, etc. The last generation of the Jews, with whom our Saviour conversed in as visible and familiar manner, as jeremy had done with their forefathers, did charge him first, and afterwards his Martyr S. Stephen, with capital blasphemy, for saying, the Temple then standing should be destroyed. The accusation of our Saviour for these words (conceived to be uttered by him) you have Mat. 26. 60, 61. Yea though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses and said, this fellow said, I am able to destroy the Temple of God, and build it in three days. Or, as S. Mark hath the same accusation, Chap. 14. ver. 57, 58, 59 And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We have heard him say, I will destroy this Temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness agree together. If they had agreed, or come home to the interrogatories proposed, he had died (if they had had the power of death) for saying the very same words in effect, for which their forefathers threatened jeremy with death. The same practice you have reiterated against S. Stephen, Acts 6. ver. 12, 13. And they stirred up the people, and the Elders and the Scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the Council, and set up false witnesses, which said, this man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the Law. For we have heard him say, that this jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us. Whether S. Stephen said thus or no, I will not dispute, but most probable it is, that he did never say this in express terms, because the Text saith, They set up false witnesses against him. However, these false witnesses against S. Stephen. did truly prophesy as Cataphas' did. For Jesus being made Christ, did destroy the Temple by the Romans, and abrogated the ceremonies given by Moses, because they had made up the measure of their forefathers sins, who persecuted jeremy for saying no more, in effect, than they laid to S. Stephen's charge. And that which jeremy threatened, was in part fulfilled not long after his persecution and imprisonment. For Zion became like Shiloh, a desolate place and forsaken of God for a long time; yet re-edified again within the age or generation then living: so was not Shiloh until this day. Nor hath Jerusalem or Zion been restored, since they forsook the Lord God of their Fathers, when he came to visit his Temple, as jeremy had done, and to be anointed King over Zion. 4. All that I have to add unto the former testimony, jer. 7. is this; that our Saviour, at this time of his consecration, or whilst he was a King or Priest in fieri only, did give some documents of his royal power, or just challenge to his right over Judah and Jerusalem, in a more special manner, then at any time before he had done. For we do not read, that he did take upon him to judge between party and party in matters temporal, nor to dispose of the goods or possessions, whether of Jews or of Gentiles, save once, when he gave the Legion of Devils leave to enter into the heard of Swine, and to carry them headlong into the Sea. And this he did immediately after he had manifested himself to be God, by commanding the wind and the water, as was before declared. Before this time he might have said more truly than Samuel did, whose Ox or Ass have I taken? Yet now when he came to visit his Temple, he gave his Disciples Commission more than royal, to take an Ass and her colt for his service, to ride on them in triumph (as the Prophet Zachary had foretold) unto Jerusalem and to Zion. And this he did jure dominii, by right of Dominion. The tenor of the Commission, and the execution of it, you have distinctly set down, Matt. 21. 1, 2, 3. And when they drew nigh unto jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage unto the Mount of Olives, thou sent jesus two Disciples, saying unto them. Go into the village over against you, and strait way ye shall find an Ass tied, and a colt with her; lose them, and bring them to me. And if any man say aught unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them: and straightway he will send them. And S. Mark tells us, Chap. 11. ver. 5. And certain of them that stood there, said unto them, What do ye losing the colt? And they said unto them, even as jesus had commanded; and they let them go. 5. This manner of his coming to Jerusalem, his powerful visitation of the Temple immediately upon it, and the Inscription which Pilate made on his Cross, some four days after, with other remarkable circumstances of the story or journal of that sacred week, be a pregnant testimony, that this jesus of Nazareth, whom we adore, was that King of the jews and of Zion, whose coming Zacharias had so long before foretold. But it is not so apparent out of his forecited prophecy, either that this King of ●●on was the God of Zion, or that the God of Zion, and of Israel, was to be made King of both. For in that he was God, he was the King not of Israel or judea only, but of all the earth, God over all from everlasting to everlasting by right of Creation. The next point then in question betwixt the jew and us, is this; Whether it may be concludently proved from the literal sense of those Oracles which they adore, that he, who was the God of Zion, and of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting, were to be made King of Zion in later times, or after the gift of Prophecy did cease in judea and jerusalem. CHAP. 24. Cap. 24 That the God of Israel was to be made King, and to reign not over Israel only, but over the Nations in a more peculiar manner than in former ages he had done. WEre there no other part or volume of the Old Testament left, besides the book of Psalms; the testimonies contained in it, which according to the literal sense will abundantly induce this conclusion, are for number more, and more punctual, than all the testimonies which the Jew can bring out of all other Scriptures, that they were to have a Messias, or son of David, whose throne was to be exalted above the throne of David or of Solomon. Or if this book of Psalms were the only book, whereby both Jews and Christians were to be regulated in points of faith, this book alone would condemn both, of such folly and sluggishness of heart, as Christ our God and Saviour upbraideth those two Disciples with; Luke 24. 26, etc. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses, and all the Prophets, he expounded to them, in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself. He did then enter into his glory, when he was made a King of glory: and such a King he was not made, until he had endured an harder servitude, or condition of life more miserable to flesh and blood, than Israel had done in Egypt, or then any of the Prophets, whether Psalmists or others, had undergone. Of this servitude or hard condition of life, which was prefigured by matters of fact, in most of his Prophets, and in all those Psalmists, and foretold in all those Psalms, which contain matter of complaint, or imploration of release from oppression, in its proper place. We are now briefly to peruse some of those Psalms, which according to the literal sense, imply the exaltation of the God of Israel, or of Zion, to be the King of Israel or of Zion & for this view it would much avail, if we knew, who were the Authors of such Psalms, and upon what occasion they were penned. 2 The Author of the seaventh Psalm was David himself, and no other, as the inscription and occasion of his complaints, therein mentioned, do manifest. The complaints he tenders immediately unto God, and yet this God, who was to be awaked, was to return to his throne on high. Arise O Lord (saith he ver. 6.) in thine anger, lift up thyself, because of the rage of mine enemies, and awake for me to the judgement that thou hast commanded: so shall the Congregation of the people compass thee about; for their sakes therefore return thou on high. The Lord shall judge the people. judge me O Lord according to my righteousness, and according to mine integrity that is in me. He that is to arise, was certainly laid down, and he that is to awake, was for the time asleep; and he that was to return on high, was questionless descended from the highness of his throne. Nor are these speeches to be considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, more than that judgement of the people, which he implores of God. I dare not affirm, that the 47. Psalm was penned or conceived by David himself, yet authentic and Canonical among the jews. Now the whole current of that Psalm contains a general acclamation, or gratulatory hymn of God the Lord, who was to be made King. O clap your hands (all ye people) shout unto God with the voice of triumph. For the Lord most high is terrible: he is a great King over all the earth. He shall subdue the people under us, and the Nations under our feet. He shall choose 〈◊〉 inheritance for us, the excellency of jacob whom he loved. Some passages in this Psalm had their literal verification in the practice of this people, at such solemn feasts as this Psalm was appointed to be sung. For they did then exhibit such joyful acclamations, as are here charactered, and exalt the name of the Lord, by hymns of praise and thanksgiving. But both songs and ditties, the gestures of both Priests and people which sung them, did foresignify matter of more universal triumphant joy, to be communicated to all Nations, when God should become such a gracious King over them, as he had been over the seed of Abraham, ver. 7, and 8. For God is the King of all the earth, sing ye praises with understanding. God reigneth over the Heathen: God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness. Was it the chief matter of this public joy, that God should subdue the Nations under the feet of Jacob's posterity? This had been rather cause of sorrow to the heathen Nations, than any just cause of comfort to the jew, if these words (according to the literal) did import a temporal or civil subjection of the Nations by conquest of sword. Nor doth the original word import any such thing, but a voluntary subjection or submission wrought by fair and gentle persuasion. And by the unquestionable meaning of the very letter; the Nations were to rejoice, in that they were to be thus subdued, not to the whole Nation of the jews, but to the inheritance which God had chosen for them, or to the excellency of jacob whom he loved. And these (as Theodores rightly observes) were the Apostles and Disciples, whom God had chosen out of the jewish Nation. These indeed have brought not our bodies, but our souls and consciences, under subjection to the yoke of Christ; who was the God whom the Psalmist therefore prophesied should be very highly exalted, not by ascending of the Ark into Mount Zion, nor by propagation of his Kingdom, or gaining a greater multitude of subjects here on earth, than he had whilst the Jews only were his chosen people; but by erecting a new throne and Kingdom in the highest Heavens, where now he dwelleth, and executeth the royal judicature which he before did in the Tabernacle or in the Temple: there he had a visible throne, and a visible mercy seat, but there his presence was not always visible, nor visible at any time but in type or figure. And if we may believe the later jewish Doctors, when they speak unwittingly for us against themselves, that solemn festival wherein this triumphant song was publicly sung, was first instituted, and afterwards continued, as an anniversary memorial of the dedication of the Temple, a Vide Mollerum in argumentum hujus Psalmi. or for bringing the Ark into it: and that was as much as the inthronization of the God of Israel, as peculiar King and Lord of Zion. But they themselves do grant, that this very Psalm was not only a triumphal memorial of what was past, but withal prophetical, and to be fulfilled in the days of their expected Messias. And so we Christians see it now exactly fulfilled, according both to the mystical and to the punctual literal sense, in Christ jesus their Messias (though they acknowledge him not) now sitting at the right hand of God, and designed to be the supreme judge, not of the jews only but of all the world, of quick and dead. 3 That the God of Israel was to become King of all the world, to be crowned with Majesty and glory, was to judge the world after another manner then from the beginning of it, or at that time, when these late cited hymns were consecrated to his praise, had been experienced; many other Psalms do so punctually import, that without this supposition, or this interpretation of them, they can have neither any true literal meaning, nor contain any remarkable truth worthy the note of Selah, which is often inserted in Psalms of this kind. The Lord (saith the Author of the 93. Psalm) reigneth; he is clothed with majesty. The Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself. He was to be thus clothed, thus girded with strength, not as God, but as King. The world also is established; that it cannot be moved. Thy throne is established 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of old, â tunc, from then, that is, from the time wherein he was thus to reign, and thus to be clothed with Majesty. And by this establishing of his throne, the world was to be established after another manner than it had been. He himself indeed (as it followeth in the same verse) was from eternity. So was not the throne or Kingdom which the Psalmist there doth not only describe but prophecy of; [his throne is an everlasting throne] yet everlasting (as we say) à parte pòst, from the time it was established, not from eternity: and so is the kingdom here meant. And Psalm 96. 10. etc. Say among the Heathen, that the Lord reigneth, the world also shall be established, that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously. Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad, let the sea roar, and the fullness thereof: Let the Fields be joyful, and all that is therein, then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice before the Lord: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth, he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth. All these are characters of times future; and that joyfulness of the fields and all that is in them, etc. which the Prophet mentions, is (I take it) no other than the fulfilling or satisfying of the earnest expectation of the Creature, waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God. Rom. 8. 19 That of the Psalmist, Psal. 97. 1. falls under the same line of observation: The Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice, let the multitude of the Isles rejoice. This literally implies, that the earth, whether generally taken, or restrained to the Land of Jewry, should have better cause to rejoice, and the multitude of the Isles new occasions of greater gladness, then in former times they had known. When then was this new matter of joy and gladness, there promised to all the earth and her inhabitants, to begin to bear date, or be in esse? From that point of time, wherein the Lord began to reign after another manner, then before he had done. The reign of the Lord over all the earth, and over all the Lands of the earth (if we consider him only as God) was from the beginning of the world, and so shall continue without change or alteration World without end. The reign of the Lord then, in this place foretold, must be the reign of God incarnate, or of Gods being made King. And those holy men of God which thus speak, did by the spirit of prophecy foresee those days which Abraham saw and rejoiced to see. Now the beginning of these joyful days; was from the time wherein the Lord did lose the Prisoners, did deal his bread unto the hungry, did open the eyes of the blind, and raised them, that were bowed down, with his own hands, or with his own voice. For so the Author of the 146. Psalm (a little before paraphrased) doth conclude that admirable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or triumphant song of the God of Israel; The Lord shall reign for ever, even thy God O Zion unto all generations. All the former works of mercy and piety towards miserable men, were but praeludia or portending documents of his future reign, or ecumenical Kingdom shortly after to be established. CHAP. 25. Cap. 25▪ That the former Testimonies do concludently infer a plurality of persons in the unity of the Godhead: and that God in the person of the son was to be incarnate, and to be made Lord and King. BUt if the Lord God of Israel were to serve under the sins of this people, or to be made a servant for their sins; if he were to be anointed King not over them only, but over all the earth beside; it will be demanded, unto whom he was to be a servant, and who (after this his service,) was to make or Crown him King? Surely, being God, he was not to be a servant unto man or Angel: if he that was God must be a servant, he must be a servant to him who is, and truly was, God. If he that was truly God, were to be anointed King, and to be enthronised he must be anointed by him alone, who was as truly God. These considerations enforce us, and when God shall give them hearts to take these and the like into serious consideration, will persuade the Jews, that however the God of Israel be one, yet in this unity of the Godhead; or divine Majesty, they and we must acknowledge more than an unity or identity of persons. What it is to be a person, and what manner of distinction is between the persons in the blessed Trinity, are points which I never had mind to dispute More Scholarum, since I first knew the Schools, or bent my studies to know Christ; but was always ready to admire, what I knew not to express. Nor could I ever well understand the language of such as thought themselves able to instampe these high mysteries with Scholastic forms of words, but have taken more delight and comfort, for these thirty years and more, in rehearsing daily, (as I am bound by oath evening and morning) the Collect appointed by our Church for Trinity sunday, with the Hymn annexed unto it in the ancient liturgies; then in all the variety, whether of Schoolmen, or of such polite writers as seek to adorn and beautify their ruder expressions of this great mystery. And, I have * In the preface to the Treatise of the Catholic Church. engaged myself not to meddle with this point until (by God's assistance) I have finished the rest of these Comments; and then, by way of meditation or devotions only. Thus much notwithstanding, the former considerations, and the very fundamental grounds of true Christianity enforce us to grant; that in the divine nature, though most indivisibly one, there is an eminent ideal pattern of such a distinction as we call between party and party; a capacity to give, & a capacity to receive; a capacity to demand, and a capacity to satisfy: Capacities sufficiently different for the exercise of justice and love, not ad extra only, but within the divine nature itself. If there were but one party, or person in the divine nature, the remission of men's sins without satisfaction had been more proper and pertinent, then remitting of them upon satisfaction. For one and the self same party to demand satisfaction of himself, and to make it to himself (especially by way of punishment or disgraceful affliction) is so unconceivable to reason itself, that it is altogether uncapable of admiration to reason sanctified, or enlightened by grace. 2. But this is that which some modern heretics labour to prove; to wit, That God did not exact satisfaction for our sins of our Saviour Christ jesus; that it had been exact cruelty in God to have laid the burden of all our sins upon him, who knew no sin. But how then is Christ said to have taken away our sins? God, (say these man) did freely remit them without satisfaction, and Christ did take them away, by setting us a pattern of holiness; and of patience in affliction; That is, in such sort as a Physician might be said to have taken away an epidemical disease, by prescribing a recipe, which every one after might make for himself, and be his own Apothecary. Briefly, they think that God cannot be excused from cruelty, but by denying all true and proper satisfaction made to him by Christ. But it is an oversight usually incident to men enclouded in grosser errors, to object that unto their Adversaries, as an inconvenience or absurd consequence, which is such only according to the objecters own tenets, but most true and consonant to their principles whom they oppugn, if these might be taken into due consideration. Thus some great Clerks in the Romish Church (but none of their wisest men) object against us, that we make God a Tyrant by teaching that he hath given us a Law which is impossible for us to fulfil. The objection is unanswerable, according to their principles, who teach, that a man cannot be justified or absolved from the sentence of death denounced by the Law, without perfect inherent righteousness or fulfilling of the Law: But the same objection no way toucheth us; who teach, that albeit we must still be doing that which is good, yet after we have done all we can (suppose much better then either they or we do) we must still deny ourselves, and renounce not the works which we have not done, but the good works we have done, and wholly rely upon the mercies of God in Christ, who once for all suffered for our sins, and daily absolves us from them, so oft as in sincerity of heart we confess our sins, and implore his propititation for them. Unless we knew the fulfilling of the Law, whether by habitual or actual righteousness, or by doing those things which we ought to do, or leaving those things undone which we ought not to do, to be impossible for us in this life; our reliance on God in Christ could not be so firm, or so perpetually constant, as the doctrine of our Church, (so it be rightly embraced,) will make it. 3. The Socinians wander in the like, but much grosser, ●●st of errors, wounding one another whilst they shoot at us, who are sufficiently armed against their poisoned arrows by the armour of God on the right hand & on the left, to wit, the distinction of persons in the blessed Trinity. Indeed, were there but one party or capacity in the divine nature, which were the only party or person offended; their arguments for remission of sins after their way would conclude against us, who press a necessity or convenience of satisfaction unto God. But their strongest Arguments fall either wide, or short, of all such as maintain this distinction of parties, or persons in the divine nature. For if the son of God, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were truly God from eternity, and remained God after man did make himself the servant of Satan; he might, without wrong to any man, to any party, without wrong to himself (for volenti non sit injuria) voluntarily take the form of a servant upon him, and in that form, or low condition of man, make perfect satisfaction per translationem paenae, for all our debts, for all our sins; and our debts being fully paid, restore us to the liberty and privilege of the sons of God. He both might and did truly purchase that peculiar dominion over us, which he hath over all men, an absolute dominion of punishing all Gods ungracious, and of crowning all his thankful and faithful servants. This dominion, as it is peculiar to Christ, was purchased by true and real satisfaction made unto God. 4. But what it was for Christ, the son of God, to take upon him the form of a servant, or wherein this condition or form of a servant did properly consist, are points which neither the Arian nor the Socinian did ever take into serious consideration. If the Socinian would yet do so, he might clearly see that his former objections could not reach us, but must rebound upon himself. For the man Christ Jesus, being so just a man, as we believe, and he grants he was, unless he had been more than man, truly God, and truly a servant withal, it could not have stood with the goodness of God, nor with any rule of justice divine or humane, either to have punished him for our sakes, as we say God did, or to have suffered him to undergo such hard and cruel usage at the hands of wicked and sinful men, as the Socinians confess he did undergo; without murmuring or complaint. But this is a point which cannot be orderly handled, until we come to the death and passion of our Lord and Saviour, which was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or period (rather,) of his servitude, or of being in the form of a servant, which was the Basis of his humiliation. And albeit I purpose not in that place to dispute, whether God could possibly have freely remitted our sins without any satisfaction (a question to which no wise men will take upon them to give a peremptory answer, whether negative or affirmative:) yet I shall by God's assistance, there make it clear, that no other means of manner of remitting out sins, of absolving or justifying us, or of bringing us to glory, which either the Socinian, or the wit of man can imagine, could have been so admirable to sober capacities, as that way and manner which the Scripture plainly teacheth, and that in brief is this. 5. The divine nature, in the person of the Father, requires satisfaction for the transgressions of man against the eternal Law and unchangeable rule of goodness, or those positive Laws which he had given in special to man. The same divine nature in the person of the son, undertook to make satisfaction for us, in taking our nature upon him, and He having by right of consanguinity, the authority and power of redeeming us; the same divine nature in the person of the holy Ghost doth approve, and seal this happy and ever blessed compromise. This ineffable accord between the divine persons in the unity of the Godhead, concerning the great work of man's redemption, is most exactly parallel to that accord, which some of the Ancient have excellently observed betwixt them in that work of creation, as hath been before expressed in that article. Not to repeat, nor to add to that which was there delivered, but to continue these present discussions concerning the eternity and person of the son of God. 6. Some there have been, and are, who granting all that we have said, or can desire to be granted, concerning the incarnation of God, or Trinity of persons in the unity of the Godhead, further demand; why God rather in the person of the son, then in the person of the father, or of the holy Ghost should be incarnate or made flesh? But might not these men (some perhaps will say) as well have demanded, why God the Father did make the world rather by the son then by himself, or by the holy Ghost? Or why this title of Him, by whom all thing were made, should be peculiar to God the son? And to this question, it would be a satisfactory answer to say, that we must believe that the world was so made because the Scripture, which is the only rule and guide of faith, doth so instruct us; or because the persons of the blessed Trinity (for reasons best known unto themselves alone) would have it to be so, and so to be written. But many arguments there be well observed by the ancient, and better explicated by modern Divines, (some of whose works are extant in print, others worthy of the press) unto which I shall be as far from adding as from detracting. These reasons alone abundantly satisfy all the desires, which I ever had to be informed in this point. First, seeing the blessed Trinity was pleased to have satisfaction made for the sins of mankind, and by this satisfaction to exhibit an exquisite pattern of justice and equity: Secondly, seeing man's sin did especially consist in rebellion; the satisfaction was (according to the rule or pattern of equity and justice) to be made by most exquisite obedience. Now the most exquisite obedience that can be performed, is from a son unto his father, or from a servant unto his Lord. Hence it pleased the eternal wisdom, and son of God, to take not the nature of man only, but the form of a servant (for a while) upon him, to make the most perfect and abundant satisfaction, by the most exquisite obedience of which both the state of a son, and condition of a servant was capable. 7. The stone of offence, whereat the Socinians (who account themselves good Christians, and do not deny Christ to be the Son of God) do so much stumble, is in part the very same with the prejudice which the Arians had of the orthodoxal truth; whose breach or disruption in the Canon of the ancient Catholic faith, the first Nicene Council sought to repair, not by addition or superstruction of any new Articles of belief, but by a gentle diduction or dilatation of that sense, which was included in the Apostles Creed, or in the ancient rule of faith. I believe in one God, &c, and in one Lord jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, begotten of his father before all worlds, and again, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of the same substance with the Father, etc. It is not improbable, that the Arians and their followers might take offence, or pick a quarrel, at this Title [of being the only begotten son of God before all worlds] the rather, because some of the most ancient, and not a few middleage writers do seek to ground this article upon that divine oracle, Ps. 2. Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee▪ as if hodiè in that place did not literally and punctually refer to any peremptory day or time circumscriptible by remarkable circumstances, or notable historical events, but were put for bodiè aeternitatis, which implies no time, but an indivisible interminable duration. And if the allegation were true in this sense, there could be no question between professors of Christianity about the eternal generation of Christ Jesus, as he is the son of God. But so it often falls out, that some one impertinent allegation, or weak proof, being too much stood upon, doth provoke or embolden such men, qui ita veritatem amant, ut velint esse vera quaecunque amant, to deny the general truth, for whose confirmation weak and impertinent proofs are brought; albeit the same truth might be most strongly proved from many other irrefragable testimonies of Scripture. That the Psalmist Psal. 2. speaks of our Saviour's resurrection from the grave, is most clear from the Apostles testimony; and in what sense it was fulfilled, whether in the literal only, or in the mystical, or in both; whether according to the plain literal sense, it took aswell retrò as antè, or have any especial reference to what is past, shall, by God's assistance, be discussed in the explitation of that great Article. I dare not in this place, use the former authority, to prove the eternal generation of the son of God. 8 That he should be [the only begotten Son of God] otherwise then by his begetting from the dead unto glory and immortality; or that he should be so before the World (from all eternity) may seem to imply a contradiction in terminis. For the Father must be before the son, unless we take these terms, as terms merely relative, not as importing any substance or persons. All terms merely relative quà tales are simul naturâ, coaevall for standing. Abraham, though an ancient man, was not Isaac's Father, before Isaac was his son. But if we respect the persons, or substances betwixt whom such relations stand, the person of the Father is always before the person of the son, according to precedence of time; or if we consider not the persons or substances, but that which they call proximum fundamentum relationis, that act or operation, from which such relations do immediately result; so it is true that generans est prior generato, Begetting or to beget hath priority or precedencis (though not of time yet of nature) of being begotten. But if the Son of God be coeternal to his Father, there can be no place for either of these precedencies or priorities, nor for any thing truly proportionable to them, seeing in eternity there is nihil prius, nihil posterius, no priority, no succession. How then can Christ Jesus be conceived to be the only son of God, begotten of his father before all worlds, if to be before all worlds, be as much as to be from all eternity, or in eternity? To this we answer, that where the truth of the matter is unquestionable; men soberly minded should not wrangle about the strict propriety of words; especially in mysteries whose comprehension far surpasseth man's capacity, and are even to blessed Angels ineffable, or unexpressible in any punctual or proper phrase. The truth which the Nicen Fathers sought to establish, was this; that Christ Jesus was not made the Son of God before all worlds, but was the son of God, very God of very God, from all eternity, coeternal, and coequal to his Father. For so they express themselves [He was begotten and not made] The manner of his eternal generation or begetting, they seem to resemble to the generation or production of light. For so they say, light of light, very God of very God, etc. Now that light which the splendid body of the sun diffuseth through the air (but especially through celestial bodies) is coevall with its Fountain, which produceth or begetteth it. For it was never held a solecism, to call Lumen filiam lucis, to say light is the daughter of the sun. But however it shall please men to express the manner of the Son of God's Eternal generation; the former inductions, that Peter est prior filio naturâ et tempore, that the person or substance of the Father hath always precedency both of time and nature in respect of the person and substance of the son, or that generans is prius naturâ generato, to beget hath always precedence of nature, (though not of time) of being begotten, are true only in temporal generations, or successions. All men, and other generable creatures since the world began have been moratall de facto. The first man was but conditionally immortal. And albeit he might have lived for ever, yet had he a beginning of life in time; and so were his sons or successors to have; albeit they had been borne immortal, or both borne and begotten before he did subject himself and them to mortality, by sin. If immortal creatures could have sons or successors by nature, they were to be immortal by nature: otherwise they should be a kind of monsters, or an equivocal brood. If then he who possesseth eternity, have a true and proper son [which the word only begotten implies] after what manner soever he be his son, (though by a manner altogether unconceivable to us) that son must be coeternal to his Father. For the truly eternal God to have, beget, or produce a son which is not eternal, but everlasting only à parte pòst, is as unconceivable to reason, as that an immortal Father should beget a mortal, or a mortal Father an immortal son. No Schoolmen did ever acknowledge the generation of the Son of God to be univocally like to other generation in all points besides the eternity of it. For even in that we acknowledge it to be eternal, we difference it from all other generations by such an unexpressible superminencie, as eternity hath over time, or divine immensity of all bodily magnitudes, or the Divine Essence itself of Created Natures. CHAP 26. That by the Son of God and the Word, we are to understand one and the same party or person: that the Word by whom S. John saith the World was made, is coeternal to God the Father, who made all things by him. BUt to wave this point (for the present) concerning the manner how the eternal God should beget an eternal son: the thread which we are to unwind (as far as possibly we can without knot or ravell) is this: that Christ Jesus is ●eri, bodiè, yesterday, to day, the same (only true son of God) for ever, truly coeternal to his Father. And this being a point of so great consequence, I will not allot one place only for the clearing of it, but insist upon it (more or less) in all the articles which concern Christ. For in all of them, we shall be enforced to encounter the Jew, as well as the Arrian, or Socinian. 2 Whether of these two be the greater sinner, or more dangerous enemy to the cross of Christ, that I leave to God the Father, and Christ Jesus the judge of quick and dead, and to the holy Spirit to determine. But seeing it is no sin to refute or censure both their errors; the error of the modern Jew, who utterly denieth Christ to be the son of God in any sense seems to me more excusable, Cap. 26 at least less inexcusable than the error of the Arrian or Socinian; who granting Christ to be the son of God, deny him to be coeternal to his Father. And my reason is, because it is not more plain or pregnant out of the writings of Moses or the Prophets (which the Jews only acknowledge) that God was to be incarnate or to become man (though that be most pregnant;) then it is from the Evangelist and other sacred writers of the new Testament, (whose authority the Socinian denies not) that Christ is the only son of God from all eternity. Two or three testimonies shall suffice for the present. Were there no other place besides that of the Apostle Heb. 7. 3. and that of S. john chap. 1. these would captivate my understanding to the obedience of belief in this point. The Apostle speaking of Melchisedech saith, he was without beginning without end of life, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, albeit he had both Father and Mother, beginning and end of days, yet he is represented unto us, without beginning or end of days, that so he might be a type or shadow of the son of God. But how far a type of the son of God? only in this, as he was without beginning of days, or end of life. That the Apostle by the son of God did mean Christ Jesus and none else, none deny. The very scope and end of this parallel betwixt Melchisedech and Christ was, to show that Christ the son of God was truly and really such as Melchisedech was only by shadow or representation; that is really and absolutely without beginning or end of days, he who is, who was, & is to come: perfect characters of eternity. Again, it is evident, that the son of God who died for us, was the same person and party with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with that word which was made flesh. This consequence is ungainesayable [that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Word were without beginning or end of days; God blessed for ever, and coeternal with him, who said, Let there be light, Let there be a firmament, etc. then Christ jesus the son of God, who not only we but the Socinians grant did die for us, was and is without beginning or end of days, truly coeternal to God the Father] 3 That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [the word of God] was absolutely eternal not made so in time, is a truth which the wit of man cannot more punctually press against all that in future times should deny or question it, then S. john doth in the beginning of his Gospel. And the manner of his reiterate emphatical expressions of himself, (every later adding strength unto the former) confirms the opinion or tradition of the Ancient: that he purposely wrote that majestic proem to his Gospel (which is but a paraphrase, though most divine, upon the writings of Moses, and the Prophets touching this great mystery) for preventing of the spreading of the Arian or like heresy whose seeds were by the envious man sown in S. john's time, after Christ's other Apostles were fallen asleep. In the beginning (saith S. john) the Word was; What beginning doth he mean? The same which Moses meant, when he said, In the beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth. The original phrase, whether used by Moses in the Hebrew, or by S. john in the Greek, exactly answers to the Latin in principio. Now though every cause be Principium, the beginning or that which gives beginning to its proper effect: Yet Omne principium every beginning is not a proper cause of that which usually follows upon it. For the first dawning or scaring of the morning is the beginning, yet no true positive cause, of the day following; it is first in order of time, but not of causality. And this ambiguity of the Phrase in the beginning is the same both in the Hebrew, and in the Chaldee as the learned in these tongues (no parties in this business) have observed. Now in that first of Genesis, we must take the word beginning, not for the cause of all which followed, but for the first in order or precedency of duration. For the heavens and the earth (if we take them as now they are) were not made in that beginning or point of time wherein God is said to have made the heaven and earth: Nor did any of these, or any other parts of the world spring or result by way of causality from the first mass which was without order of parts; or true form; otherwise the distinction of light from darkness, or separation of the waters which are above the firmament, could not have been works of creation properly so called, but rather of generation; whereas the Scripture tells us, that these were the works of the first and second day: much less could the production of plants or vegetables, or substances endued with sense have been any proper works of creation, after the heavens and earth were made. When then Moses saith, * Inprincipio erat verbum hoc est erat ante omnia: Significat enim differentam filii Dei, & rerum creatarum, quip hae in principio fiunt: at aeternus filius nequaquam fit in principio, verum erat ante omnia sacula. Et quenadmodum caelum, & terra in principio, id est ante omnia fuerunt facta: ita Dei verbum erat ante omnia creata. Nam praeteritum antiquitatem, & praeexistentiam nobis designat. Adhaec 〈◊〉 principio fiunt, sed ●on est 〈◊〉, ut s●●t: at verbum Dei in principio erat, quod est, non factum est, sed erat & est. Simon Portius in initio Scholii in haec verba loannis. In the beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth, this is all one, as if he had said, the heavens and the earth had a beginning, & that this unformed mass was the beginning or first draught of them, and all things else whereof this mass was the beginning, did begin to be before they had any permanent or determinate kind of being. And when S. john saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the beginning the word was: the Phrase in grammatical construction necessarily implies that the word had a perfect actual being when all things else did but begin to be, and having then an actual proper being, it could not at that time, or any time since, not at the beginning of time itself, begin to be, but was and is and so continues, without ending. 4. Or lest wits unarmed with arts, or unable to untwist arguments subtly contrived by sophistry, should be made to stagger in this article of the eternity of the word, he adds the word was with God, and the word was God, not by extrinsecall or borrowed appellation (as Princes and Angels sometimes are called Gods) but by nature God, the Almighty God. Hence he adds, the same was in the beginning with God, that is, had as perfect being as God himself had, when all things else begun to be [there is his eternity] or if this were not enough, he further saith, ver. 3. All things were made by him, to wit, by the Word [This is the character of his Almighty power or coequality with God who made all things by him.] But here perhaps the Arian, or other involved in his error, will object, at least in favour of this opinion it may be objected, that this universal of S. john, all things were made by the Word, is subject to the same limitation or exception which those two universal before * Chap. 21 parag. 6. mentioned were, the one out of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 15. [When he saith he hath put all things under his feet, he is excepted who hath put all things under him:] the other out of the Author of the 146, Psal. [that we may not put trust or confidence in any son of man] which admits of this limitation [unless it be in that son of man, who is also the son of the Lord God of Israel:] why then may not this universal of S. john [All things were made by the Word,] admit of this or the like restraint; All other things besides the word were made by God, and by the word as his coagent, but the word himself made by God alone? Indeed if our Evangelist had said only thus [All things were made by the Word] this limitation would be more tolerable; but to prevent this cavil or captious limitation, he expressly addeth [Without him was not any thing made that was made] This clause reacheth home, and caries it clear, that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word, was not any of those things which were made or created, otherwise it should have been made or created by itself, which is impossible. The addition of this clause is but an exegetical, or fuller expression of that which S. john said before [that the Word was with God in the beginning,] that is, when all things which have beginning, did begin to he, this word was God's coagent, truly eternal and Almighty. 5. The same conclusion is contained (though more closely couched, especially in our English version) in that of S. Paul, Heb. 1. 2. God in these last days hath spoken unto us by his son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the Worlds. Though he be appointed heir of all things, as he is man, yet this right of inheritance was derived unto him as man, from the work of Creation, as he was the son of God. For as the Apostle there adds, God by him made the Worlds. Were there then more worlds than one? If there were, all were created by the son, and without him neither any world, nor any part of the world was created. Howbeit the world in the original, doth no signify this visible or quantitative world, non mundos sed saecula, non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not the heavens, the earth, the elements, or any other part which we see, but all things whatsoever, which have any duration or succession, were made by the son of God; and he had a perfect being before any thing could he made by him, and is therefore truly eternal. The worlds in the original comprehends all things which heretofore have been, and now are not; all things which now are and sometimes were not; all which hereafter shall be, though after their beginning of being they shall have no end. So that S Paul's speech expressly extends itself somewhat further then that of S. john, All things were made by him, and without him was nothing made that was made. S. john's speech (expressly) refers only to things which were then made, S. Paul's speech extends itself as well to things future as past, not only for their making or beginning, but for their preservation or supportance. For so he saith Heb. 1. ver. 3. He upholdeth all things by the word of his power. As the father then created all things, so were all things created likewise by the son. The Father preserveth all things, and yet the son (who is the express image of his glory,) preserveth and upholdeth all things. And however we render the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the brightness, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he is the Almighty splendour, and the Almighty expression or character of the father Almighty's glory and person. Finally, as he is heir of all things else, so is he heir of the Almighty Essential Attributes; these he enjoys, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not by adoption or participation; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by right of inheritance, as being his only begotten son: yet not his successor but his coequal from eternity. And here (by the way) I cannot sufficiently admire the care and wisdom of the ancient Church, in appointing the gospel for that great festival, (wherein we celebrate the memory of Christ's nativity) out of the forementioned Chapter of S. john: and the Epistle for the same festival, out of the first of the Hebrews; to the end that all Christians might be sufficiently instructed as well in the truth of his eternal generation, or eternity of his person, as he is the son of God, as of his nativity in time, as he was the son of David borne of the Virgin, or of his begetting from the dead. And as for the error of the Arians or others, who acknowledging the divine truth of the new Testament, deny the eternity or eternal generation of the son of God; The most compendious way to refel them is not (as I conceive) fiercely to dispute against them, but rather to let them be carried with the blast of their own doctrine, or draw them unto these fundamental Rocks, and let them split themselves. 6. But to follow S. john's expressions a little further, which come nearer to the point now in handling, ver. 4. In him (that is, in the word) was life, this is more than if he had said, he is the word of life. For so is the Gospel by way of efficacy or efficiency; but men only, who live by it, are the seat and subject of that life which it imparts; which is wrought by the preaching of it. But when the Apostle saith, in the Word was life, this implies, he was that seat and fountain of life, from whom both the efficacy of the Gospel, and that life which is subjectively in men or Angels, is derived or participated. And the life was the light of men, and the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. All these are Attributs or expressions of a nature truly divine, characters of a living essence, or of life itself, before men or the world were made, and this is confirmed to us ver. 8. The Word was the true light, which lighteneth every man that cometh into the world, And if every man that cometh into the world, than the first man Adam was enlightened by this word: For he was both the light and life of the world, ever since the first beginning of either; albeit the world and worldly men did not apprehend him to be such, as it is expressed ver. 10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, but the world knew him not, So them, he was in the world ever since it was made, and the world was in him (as in its eminent, or ideal efficient cause) before it was made. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. Who were these his own? If all generations of men, or all succession of time, or things temporal were made by him, all these were his own. Yet before the coming into the world, of which the Apostle here speaks, all these were not his own by the same peculiar right. He always was Lord of lords, and King of kings, and supreme ruler of such as ruled the nations; yet were not all nations his peculiar inheritance: this was the prerogative of Abraham's seed or Jacob's posterity. And albeit he had been in them and with them after a more special kind of presence for many generations: yet at this time, whereto the Apostles words refer, he first came by a peculiar manner, both into the world and unto them, by becoming an inhabitant or sojourner in the territories bequeathed to Abraham and to his seed. But these who were thus his own by peculiar redemption from the land of Egypt, for the most part received him not. Yet his coming (though) after this peculiar manner, to his own was not lost, nor was God's promise to Abraham any way impeached by their refusing, or not receiving of him. For to as many as received him (whether they were of Abraham's seed after the flesh, or of the Gentiles, to all of both sorts) he gave a right or privilege to become the sons of God. ver. 12. All were made the true and lively sons of Abraham by receiving him, who was before Abraham, but was now made man of the seed of Abraham. Now in that he made all the sons of God which received him: this presupposeth he was the son of God, not by making, not by taking the seed of Abraham; but the son of God by nature or eternal generation, the true God of Israel. For so the Evangelist concludes that heavenly discourse ver. 14. And the word was made flesh, and dwelled among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. 7. Why S. john in the proem to his Gospel doth iustyle Christ Jesus the word of God, rather than the son of God, why it is rather said, the Word became flesh, than the son became flesh: in what prophecy the words becoming flesh was foretold or foreshadowed, with the manner how it was made flesh, or the meaning of this phrase; must be the subject of some Chapters following. This, for the present, is evident out of places before alleged, that S. john did mean no other party or person by the word, then him whom afterwards, throughout his whole Gospel, he styles the son of God: and out of the same places it is as evident, that the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was that very God of Israel, who had promised to erect a Tabernacle and dwell in his people or amongst them, and to manifest his glory to them after a more peculiar manner, than he had done, either during the time of the first tabernacle, or of both the Temples. For that text of S. john john, 1. 14. He dwelled amongst us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the only begotten son of God, imports the exact fulfilling of all those prophecies, wherein the manifestation of God's glory in succeeding ages is promised. That the glory of God was to be revealed in the flesh, S. john did learn from Scriptures, which were extant before our Saviour's incarnation; though this he learned not by study or art, but from Divine revelation. But that the man Christ jesus, with whom he conversed here on earth, was the word, which the Scripture foretold should be made flesh, or that the glory, which shined in him, was the very brightness of God's glory; this S. john knew by experiment; as having seen his transfiguration upon Mount Tabor, and conversed with him after his resurrection. This both he and S. Paul believed from sensible evidence of experiments exactly answerable to the predictions of Moses and other Prophets, concerning the glory of God, which was in later times morefully to be revealed, then in former. 8 To omit those two places before cited Exod. 29. 44, 45. and Leviticus 26. 11, 12. (unto both which places that of S. john chap. 1. 14. doth in special refer) we will insist a while upon that text Exodus 33. 14. to the 23. The Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh with his friend. The sum of this dialogue is expressed ver. 14, 15. My presence (saith God) shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest. And Moses said, if thy presence go not with us, carry us not up hence, for wherein shall it be known here, that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? But Moses not satisfied with the promise of God's presence, and separation of them from other people, requests a sight of his glory, and this in part is granted ver. 21, 22, 23. And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shall stand upon a Rock. And it shall come to pass while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the Rock, & will cover thee with my hand, while I pass by. And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. For so God had said ver. 20. Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see my face, and live. Yet this sight of God's glory, or so much of it as Moses saw, left such an impression in his face or Countenance, as you may read chap. 34. ver. 33. that he was constrained to put a veil upon his face, whilst he talked with the people, who were not able to behold the glory. But this veil as our Apostle tells us, 2 Cor. 3. 14.) is put away in Christ. It is true. Yet this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the word, was not the Christ to do away this veil, till he put on the veil of flesh. The flesh than was a veil to him, but as a glass or mirror to us. We may in Christ with open face behold that glory of God, whose reflex on Moses face the Israelites could not behold, but through a veil. Christ then is that glass or mirror, wherein the brightness of God's glory, which the Israelites could not then behold, may now be seen. But did the jews or Israelites in the time of the old Testament (or in that time, wherein the Author of the book of Wisdom wrote) conceive any such matter, as our Apostle here infers, that the glory of God should be more fully revealed; or that men should be more capable of the participation of his presence in later ages, than they had been in former? Some of them did, others did not; all of them ought, even by their own prenotions or interpretations of Scriptures, so to have conceived and believed. For thus some modern jews conceive of Moses his request. What was that (saith a great Rabbin amongst them) which Moses our Master sought to attain unto, when he said, I pray thee show me thy glory? 9 He requeged to know the truth of the being (or essence) of the holy blessed God, until that he were known in his heart, like as a man is known, whose face is seen, and whose form is engraven in one's heart: so that man is distinguished or separated in his knowledge from other men. So Moses requested that the Essence of God might be distinctly known in his heart from the essence of other things, so that he might know the truth of his Essence as it is. But God answered him, that the knowledge of living man, who is compounded of body and soul, hath no ability to apprehend the truth of this thing concerning his Creator. * Ainsworth upon this place, out of Maimony etc. That knowledge of God or sight of his glory whereof Moses was uncapable, was truly engraven in the heart of the man Christ jesus, and in his light we see light. He that saw him with the eyes of faith, did see the father; he did see the glory of the Godhead. The brightness of the divine glory is alike inaccessible, alike incommunicable in the Son as in the Father, if we consider them in their divine nature alone; but in the man Christ jesus, and in him alone, we may behold the brightness of the Divine glory, which neither eye nor heart of man could behold in itself, or in any divine person alone, but only in the divine person which was incarnate. 10 And it is not here to be omitted that the forecited 29. of Exodus ver. 45, I will dwell among the Children of Israel is thus translated by Onkelus in his paraphrase & ponam praesentiam divinitatis meae in medio filiorum Israel. So Fagius (with some others) render it; and why he so renders it, gives the reason. * Paraphrasi quaedam usus sum ad explicandum vim et energiam vocis Chaldaicae Shechinah, quam, ad verbum quietem vertere, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enim verbum, quaescere significat. Hinc Hebraei presentiam Dei quae seize in tabernaculo circa arcam exerebat, à quiescendo, (quod ibi videretur quasi quietem et sedem suam habere Deus). Shechinah appellant. Nos jam quietem, jam praesentiam Divinitatis, jam majestatem illius reddidimus. Fagius in Exod. 29. 45. And the later Rabbins (as b Ainsworth upon this place. one well conversant in their writings, saith) generally observe that whensoever it is said in the person of God, that I will dwell amongst them; this may not be understood but of the Majesty of the holy and blessed God. To this purpose they allege the 9 verse of the 8▪ Psalm, His salvation is near them that fear him, that glory may dwell in our Land. And Simeon, in his dying song, doth testify, that Jesus the son of Mary, whom he embraced, when he was presented in the Temple, was the salvation of God. Lord now latest thou thy Servant depart in peace, according to thy Word. For mine eyes have seen thy Salvation. And although our Saviour, whilst he lived here on earth, had no constant dwelling, no place of inheritance; yet at this time the Godhead, or that glory of the Godhead, of which the Psalmist speaketh, was incorporated in him. These and the like Scriptures S. john did see fulfilled in Christ, when he said, the Word was made flesh, and dwelled amongst us, and we saw his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father; that is, such glory as could not be communicated to any but to him, who was by nature the son of God: such glory as no flesh could behold, otherwise then as it was in Christ, or in the word made flesh; such a declaration of the divine Majesty as none besides the son of God could declare. So the Apostle saith, ver. 18. No man hath seen God at any time, but the only begotten son who is in the bosom of the Father, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he hath declared, or expounded him. But wherein doth this declaration consist, or how was it made by the son? Not by word only, or by declaration of his will, but by matter of fact, or real representation. But of this point more fully in the exposition of the name jesus. Seeing Moses had said, that no flesh could see God and live, it may seem strange to men, which have not their senses exercised in the search of Scriptures; that the Prophet Isaiah should avouch the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. Isay 40. 5. Moses speech, and that conceit which the ancient had, [that man could not see God and live] was universally true, until the word or brightness of God's glory was made flesh. But this was the very mystery which Isaiah in that chapter foretold, as elsewhere hath been declared in part, and shall be (as it comes in order to be handled) more fully a little after this Chapter. 11 That the modern jews can expect the God of their Fathers should dwell with them, should walk with them, should manifest his glory unto them, after such a manner as their own Doctors interpret his promise made to Moses to all these purposes, after any other way or manner, than the Evangelist witnessed, he did walk with, and manifest his glory unto, his Disciples: This (to us Christians) is an evident demonstration, that the vale, which their Forefathers put before their faces, when they could not behold the brightness of God's glory, which shone on Moses face after he had seen God and talked with him, is to this day put before their hearts, when they read Moses and the Prophets. For this glorious Majesty of God, the very express or graven Image of his substance, which (they say) Moses desired to see but could not, did so personally dwell in the man Christ Jesus, that whilst he walked with his people, God did walk with them; whilst he remained within the territories of judah or Galilee, salvation & glory did dwell in their Land. And to this day in whomsoever he dwelleth by faith in him God dwelleth by faith. As he is the express image of the person of his Father: so every one in whom he thus dwelleth, in him is the express image of him as he is man; he is the Tabernacle or Temple of the living God. The inference is our Apostles 2 Cor. 6. 16. Ye are the Temples of the living God, at God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Our Evangelist S. john Revel. 21. 3. exegetically dilates the former testimonies of Moses, and the Prophets a great deal further, than S. Paul here doth, I heard a great voice out of Heaven, saying, Behold the Tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God, and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain, for the former things are passed away. But this mortality must put on immortality, and our corruptible flesh become incorruptible, before this last clause of S. john's prophecy can be literally fulfilled in us; or begin to bear date in esse. And before this happy change of our mortal bodies, none of those other prophecies Exod. 29. Levit. 26. Ezek. 37. shall be finally accomplished; albeit all of them have been already fulfilled in different measure & manner, both according to the literal, and mystical sense: For God hath dwelled and doth dwell more properly in the man Christ jesus then at any time he did in the Tabernacle or Temple. These were in their times the seats of Gods peculiar presence, of the manifest appearances of his divine Majesty, from which all the blessings upon Israel or Abraham's posterity by bodily descent were derived, after such a manner as the visible light in this inferior world is derived from the body or sphere of the sun. Yet such as were partakers of these blessings, all the particular Synagogues through the land of jury, did not by this participation of his presence in the Temple or Tabernacle, become Temples or Tabernacles of the God of Israel: these were never conceived to be or instyled the seat of his rest, or of his peculiar presence. But since the Word was made flesh, since the seed of Abraham was made the Temple of the living God; every particular Church, truly Christian, becomes a more proper seat of God's peculiar presence, than the material Temple in its glory and splendour was; and far more communicative of all blessings spiritual to every true particular member of them. Every individual or particular man, who is incorporated into this Church, and made a living member of it, doth by the participation of that Spirit which dwelleth in it, become a true Temple or Tabernacle of the living God. Whosoever truly believes in Christ, whosoever eateth his flesh, and drinketh his blood, Christ (who is the prototypon and true temple of God) doth dwell in him, and he in Christ: he is in God, and God in him after a more peculiar manner, then either the patriarches or Prophets were in God, or God in them. But this peculiar manner of Gods dwelling in us by faith, and we in him, hath his peculiar place in other principal Articles of the Creed, or in the Treatise of the Sacrament, concerning the mystical union betwixt Christ and his members. The next Quaere, which in this Section offers itself to be discussed and must be the Title of the next Chapter, is briefly this: CHAP. 27. Cap. 27 Why S. John doth rather say, the word was made flesh, then, the son of God was made flesh, albeit the son of God, and the word, denote one and the same person. TO this Quaere some judicious Divines make answer, that the second person in Trinity was (at least implicitly) known unto some heathen Philosophers, under the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, long before his incarnation, and longer, before S. john wrote his Gospel. Now it is not improbable, that those heretics which did call the Divinity of Christ in question, (against whose heresy the Evangelist did put in that Caveat in the beginning of his Gospel) at the least such as were in danger to be seduced by them, were (to his knowledge) better versed in the writings of Plato and Trismegist then in Moses and the Prophets. And men naturally both conceive and embrace the truth with more facility, when it is delivered unto them in terms, whereunto they have been enured. Now such as were well read in Plato or Trismegist, or would be willing to read them, could not be ignorant of an eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they called the son of the eternal mind or essence. And this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word or image of the eternal mind was not in their apprehension merely notional or representative only but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Word or reason (or however we express it) truly operative, the invisible cause or maker of all things visible. Unto these & the like prenotions, which the heathen Philosophers had of an eternal Father in his eternal son, S. john (in the judgement of some great Divines) did purposely apply himself, and frame his expressions to their capacity, whom he sought to reclaim, or to instruct. Nor is it either unusual, or unbeseeming the Apostles themselves, to alter both the matter and form of speech, according to the diversity of the parties whom they seek to reform. S. Paul did not dispute with the Athenians after the same manner, he did with the Jews, nor did he instruct the Hebrew converts in the same language or form of catechism, which he used amongst the Gentiles. S. john then (in the conjecture of the former ancient Divines) did make the 〈◊〉 advantage of the prenotions which the heathens had of this truth, which S. Paul did from the inscription of the Athenian Altar; that God (saith he) whom ye ignorant by worship, him declare I unto you. But did these harmless speculations of these Philosophers require any such reformation from S. john, as the Athenians superstitious worship did from S. Paul? Sure their followers were to be better catechised in this truth, than they had been, or could be, by any Philosophy: their best speculations (though in themselves true) were to their Professors altogether fruitless, and (as I take it) without any prenotion or expectance that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that word, by which they acknowledge all things were made, should be made visible in our flesh, should exhibit a more exquisite representation of the divine nature, and essence, in the microcosm or little model of man's body, than had been exhibited in the making and governing this great universe. They knew, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was truly God without beginning, but they did not either adore him as God, neither did they adore their eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God, or by him. All this they were to learn from S. john: for this is a mystery which far surpasseth the capacity of man to conceive or comprehend, without revelation or instruction, either mediately or immediately made unto us, by this: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Word himself. 2 Nor is it probable that either Plato or Trismegist did first discover so much of this grand mystery as was known among the Heathens, before S. john wrote his Gospel. And it is no less impious than improbable, to suspect, that S. john should borrow those divine expressions of the Words divinity from any Heathen Philosopher; as that blasphemous Platonic exclaimed when he read the beginning of his Gospel, that he had stolen his expressions out of his master Plato. Nor was S. john himself the first of all sacred writers, which did display the titles of the son of God by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or by the word, light, or life which was without beginning or ending: most probable it is that Plato and Trismegist did borrow that light, which they had in that mystery, from the ancient Hebrews, or from rules received by them, by constant tradition, for interpreting not one but many passages in Moses and the Prophets; as S. john there doth from the same rule or tradition. No doubt the Chaldee Paraphrasts did express the divine nature of the son of God by the word; the one before S. john did write his Gospel; the other near upon the same time. For jonathan (as Fagius tells us) did live about the time wherein Herod reëdified the second Temple; Onkelos a little after the destruction of it and of Jerusalem by Titus. 3. The word of the Lord (saith an exquisite c Shindlerus in vocabulo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hebrician, Constat enim cum ex Hebraeorum, tùm Latinorum scriptis hunc nostrum paraphrastem Chaldaeum, quem Onkelos appellant, cui translatio pentates chi adscribitur, filium fuisse sororis Titi Imperatoris nec diu post devastationem secundi templi paraphrasim suam conscripsissè. Alterun vero paraphrastem, quem Jonathan filium Vzielis vocant, cui prophetas tribuunt ante devastationem templi sua scripsissè. Tametsi sint quia elint utrumque tota biblia in linguam Chaldaicam transtulisse. Sed audiamus hac de re testimonium doctissimi viri Galatini, qui libro primo de arcanis catholicae veritatis contra Judaeos Cap. 3. sic scribit: Per idem ferme tempus, anno scilicet ante Christi natalem circiter secundo, & quadragesimo, Jonathas Vzielis filiis, Hillelisque auditor atque Symeonis justi qui Christum infantulum suscepit in brachijs, condiscipulus, totum vetus instrumentum in Chaldaeam vertit linguam, atque exposuit: ita sensum ê sensua traduceus, & ita obscurissima quaeque exponens vocabula, ut quaecunque de Messia dubia & latenter scripta erant, certa atque clarissima reddiderit. Adeo ut ejus editio, non tam interpretatio, quam glossa, atque expositio videatur. Quam Hebraei thargum, id est translationem nuncupant. Tantaeque apud eos est authoritatis, ut non solum ei contradicere nemo audeat, sed non minus quoque fidei, quam ipsi textui passim omnes eidem adhibeant etc. Paulus Fagius in praefatione ad versionem Onkeli. Vide simile testimonium Lyrani in cap. 8. Isaiae. and judicious peruser of the Chaldee paraphrase) is often used instead of jehovah, or Elohim (both being proper names of God) and denotes Messiah, or Christ, by whom God made all things and preserves them. He instanceth in that of Isaiah 1. ver. 14. Where the Hebrew text is literally thus, My soul abhorreth your new moons etc. The Chaldee or Targum renders it thus, My word abhorreth your new moons. And again, jer. 1. 8. Where God speaking in his own person saith, I am with thee, the Chaldee renders it, My word is with thee. And according to the Hebrew, where we read Isaiah 45. 17. Israel shall be saved with an everlasting salvation in the Lord, or by the Lord; the Chaldee hath it, Israel shall be saved with an everlasting salvation by the word of the Lord. But two places of Onkelus there be, more remarkably pertinent to our present purpose, than any others which I have observed. The first is Gen. 3. 8. And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden, that is (as Onkelus renders that place) they heard the voice of the word of the Lord; or, the voice of the Lord God the word. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word (which in the beginning was with God, and was God) did convent our first parents, as having peculiar reason to examine and convict them of their transgression; because he in person, not the Father or holy Ghost, was to undertake for their restauration, was to combat with the Serpent for their redemption, whom immediately after he convents in the woman's presence, and denounceth this sentence upon both; The Lord God said unto the Serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field: upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life, and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and hers, etc. Gen. 3. 15. 16. It is no harsh construction to read this place, and they heard the voice of the word the Lord, per appositionem, not the voice of the word of the Lord, which the Latin renders in the genitive case, the voice or the word of the Lord. Yet if we read it so, we shall not descent from the forecited meaning of the Chaldee; and the same interpreters refer the word walking unto God himself, (as if he had said, they heard the voice of God, which walked in the garden) not unto the voice whether of God, or of the word of God, though Fagius, with some other, think the word walking may be read in the accusative case, audiverunt vocem Domini Dei ambulantem, they heard the voice of the Lord walking, that is, increasing or intending itself by degrees. But this, otherwise most judicious writer sometime censures the seventy Interpreters of ignorance in the Hebrew tongue, sometime sleights their interpretation, without just cause. For seeing it hath pleased the holy Ghost, in the greatest mysteries concerning Christ, to follow their interpretation, though not so authentic in itself as the Hebrew Canon is; this commands my assent, though not to the opinion of some among the ancients, that these seaventy were as truly inspired by the holy Ghost, as the penmen of the Hebrew Canon were; yet thus far, that they were directed, either immediately by the Spirit, or by the rules and traditions, in their times received, for the right unfolding of many places, which in the Hebrew were either ambiguous or involved; and better directed by such rules then modern Hebricians are by Masorets or the later Rabbins: albeit both of them be of good use. Thus to think of the LXX, their consonancy with the Chaldee Paraphrase, in many places of great moment, doth (besides the former special motives) somewhat incline me, yet did not the Chaldee (as I am persuaded) borrow aught from them, or they from the Chaldee; but both were beholden to the prenotions or received rules of the ancient Hebrews. 4. The second remarkable place, wherein Onkelus doth not descent from the Hebrews, but rather unfoldeth the mystery implicitly contained in it, is that of Genesis 22. 15, 16. By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, that in blessing I will bless thee, etc. and in thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice. So the Hebrew: The Chaldee, thus, By my word have I sworn (saith the Lord,) that blessing I will bless thee, etc. Because thou hast obeyed my Word. This translation of the Chaldee affords more light for the right and punctual explication of S. Paul Heb. 6. 17. then most Commentators of that place have done, albeit some greek Scholiasts which I have consulted (but whose words I now remember not) have made acute and accurate search for the true meaning of it. God, saith the Apostle, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise, the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath. So our English reads it; yet with this correction or animadversion in the margin [interposed himself by an oath] but the original verbatim sounds thus, Deus intermediavit juramento, God did intermediate by oath. Now the object of this oath (as our Apostle tells us, ver. 13.) was God himself; When God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he swore by himself (yet this, by myself have I sworn, is more express in the Septuagint, then in the Hebrew.) But the Chaldee further instructs us, that the object of this oath was the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which did not note only God himself, but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the mediator between God and man; and the tenor or contents of the oath was, that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (who was God himself, and the object of this oath) should become the seed of Abraham, and make mediation by such a sacrifice, as God the Father, for trial only, did require of Abraham. The coming of the son of God, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, into the world, which had long before been promised, was not newly ratified only by oath: but from this time the son of God was truly predestinated to be the seed of Abraham, or the seed of Abraham to be the son of God; as afterwards the seed or son of David was; to wit, from that time wherein the Lord had sworn to David, that his seed should endure for ever, and his throne as the days of Heaven. Psal. 89. 29. It is not to be omitted, that where the Hebrew Psal. 110. hath it, The Lord said unto my Lord sit thou at my right hand etc. the Chaldee hath it, The Lord said unto his Word; sit thou at my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool. And this Word, or this Lord (for so the Hebrews express it by Adonai) was then destinated, and declared by oath, to become not only the son of David, but to be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, ver. 4. All these three places will require some further consideration, in the treatise of God's Covenant with Abraham and with David, or of our Saviour's consecration to his everlasting Priesthood. Thus much for the present may suffice, that S. john was not the first, which conceived the son of God, God himself to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; much less did he need to borrow his expressions from any Writers not truly Canonical. For all this was contained in the places before alleged, as jonathan and Onkelus interpret them; and was likewise expressly contained in the Hebrew, in sundry places of the Prophets; of some of which (God willing) in the next Chapter. 5 As little probability there is, either that S. Paul Heb 1. 1. should borrow his characters of the Son of God from the Author of the book of Wisdom; or that Author his, (though much what the same) from S. Paul: as that S. john should take his expressions from the former Chaldee paraphrast, or the later from S. john. Both S. Paul, and the Author of the book of Wisdom, had their hints, (at least) from such prenotions as the ancient Hebrews had of the wisdom or son of God, or of their expected Messias, when he should be revealed. It is no way improbable, (much less incredible) that such Interpreters or paraphrasers upon sacred writ, as (for aught we know) did not expressly believe in the son of God, either before his incarnation or since, should have the forementioned prenotions concerning the promised Messias; seeing the very Samaritans had the like, which they could not gather from the ordinary reading of original Scripture, if at all they read them. Such a prenotion that woman john 4. had of the Messias, before she did believe that Jesus was the promised Messias or Christ. I know (saith she) that Messias cometh which is called Christ; when he is come, he will tell us all things. ver. 25. She had a prenotion and conceit, that the Messias should tell them all things in a better manner, than the prophets could do. For she had acknowledged our Saviour to be a Prophet ver. 19; yet rested not satisfied with his answer to her question there made, until he had told her in express terms, that he was the promised Messias. 6 But to compare S. Paul's characters of the son of God with the Authors of the book of Wisdoms characters of the Wisdom of God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Heb. 1. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. God, who at sundry times, and in diverse manners spoke in times passed unto the Fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son; whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the Worlds. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of the power; when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, Being made so much better than the Angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a far more excellent name than they. For she is the breath of the power of God, Wisd. 7. 25. and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty; therefore can no undefiled thing shall in to her. For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness. And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in her self she maketh all things new, & in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God and Prophets. For God loveth none, but him that dwelleth with Wisdom. For she is more beautiful than the sun, & above all the order of stars, being compared with the light, she is found before it. For after this cometh night: but vice shall not prevail against Wisdom. 7 There is not one proposition or character in all this passage, which (for aught I yet know) is not Canonical. No attribute of wisdom, which can fitly be applied to any person or substance save only to the son of God or at least to the holy Ghost. But whether this Author did so intend them, or apply them; or whether the holy Ghost did by his peculiar inspiration, or God by his special providence, direct him thus to speak or write, after the same manner he did Moses and other Authors of Canonical Scriptures, is not to me so evident. Nor is it probable that this book was written by Solomon, albeit the Author of it doth put upon him the person of Solomon, and personate himself under the habit or Garb of the King of Israel. The opinion is not improbable, who think this book was written by Philo the jew, to solace himself, and his Country men, upon the ill success of his Embassage unto Caius the Emperor, which was not many years after our Saviour's death, nor many before S. Paul did write his Epistle, or S. john his Gospel. The book itself (whosoever was the Author of it) is an excellent and a most elegant paraphrase upon many Canonical Scriptures, and contains many exquisite expressions of Gods special providence, and infinite wisdom in governing the world, and in overruling both the policy and the power of greatest Princes. The same book notwithstanding is, (for many reasons) justly denied by S. Jerome, by our Church, and by many grave writers in other Churches reform, to be any genuine part of the old Testament; to be any portion of the rule or Canon of the Hebrews faith received by them before our Saviour's incarnation. And being no portion of their Catholic rule or Canon, it is no way probable that our Apostle S. Paul, when he wrote the divine Epistle directed in special to the Hebrews his countrymen, would borrow his titles or Attributes of our Saviour's glory from this Author's encomiasme of wisdom. Nor can any convincing proof be brought, to persuade us, that the Author of this book (whosoever he was) did make application of these characters of wisdom (in the abstract) unto Christ; or truly believe, either that jesus the son of Mary (though living haply on earth before his time) or that the promised Messias, whose coming he did expect, should be the wisdom of God, which he so magnifies, or God incarnate in whom all former Scriptures, and his own encomiasme of Divine wisdom should in particular and punctually be fulfilled; That the commendations which he gives to wisdom, (at least the most of them) can really and truly be applied to none but Christ, who is the wisdom and son of God. All this, and more, being granted will not conclude, that he did intend or think of Christ's birth or incarnation, or apprehend the personal union between the son of God, and the son of David. For Tully and other Heathen writers have made such panegyrical descriptions of virtues moral and intellectual, of wisdom especially or of Philosophy in their abstract notion, as can have no real pattern save only in the divine incomprehensible essence: and yet they themselves lived, and (for aught we know) died without any distinct knowledge or apprehension of the true God; yea many times committed gross Idolatry with those virtues, whether moral or intellectual, which they so magnified in the abstract. 8. Whilst we peruse Authors either heterodoxal or not Canonical, this rule (I take it) is of general good use; that for matter of practice, or application, we are specially to consider quam benè, not quam bona; on the contrary, in point of speculation, not quam benè, sed quam bona, not how well, or to what good end they speak, but how good things they speak or write. The writings of the modern Jew are, for the most part, malicious and morally evil; yet (unto such as know to make right use of them) in their speculations upon the old Testament (even in such of them as are professed enemies to our Lord and Saviour, and to the Evangelical story) there be so many scattered characters or misplaced syllables, as being rightly put together, and well ordered by some judicious Aristarchus, or accurate composer, would make up a more exact commentary upon most of those places in Moses and the Prophets which we Christians usually allege for proving the truth of sundry articles in this Creed; then can be gathered out of the Christian Interpreters of the old or new Testament, which have not the care or skill to beat those enemies at their own weapons, or to retort those blows, which they offer at us, upon themselves. Those strange dreams or fancies which they have concerning mysteries to be revealed in the days of the Messias, are evident signs that the Lord hath cast them into this long slumber for the instruction of us Christians. And the right interpretation of their dreams, or their application, is one of the highest degrees of prophecy, which in this later age can ordinarily be expected. And I would to God some sons of the Prophets would address their pains and studies to this purpose, unto which according to our poor talon we shall have occasion to speak in some special articles following. But to return unto the point proposed in the beginning of this Chapter; one special reason why S. john instyles our Saviour; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word (not the son) was to make up a more exquisite resemblance of his incomprehensible Essence, of the eternity of his person, and his eternal generation, of his consubstantiality with God the Father; then (without this particular expression) we could have had, or perhaps would have sought for. Every one of his several titles, whether given to him by S. john or by S. Paul, adds something to the better expression of his unexpressible excellence, unto the raising of our apprehensions to a higher pitch of admiration of these incomprehensible mysteries, than one or two, or fewer than are made, could have done. To inform our understandings, or rectify our faith, that the son of God is more exquisitely, or more consubstantially like unto his Father, than any son of man is unto the father of his body; he is by the holy Ghost instyled the express Image or character of his Father's person, Heb. 1. 3. No man can be altogether so like another as the impression is to the print. To instruct us again that this absolute and perfect expression of the father in the son far exceed, any such expression, as the Statue can make of man, or such as the seal leaves in the wax: he is by S. john instyled by the name of life; being the living substantial image of his Father. Again, to rectify our apprehensions, that the son of God did not grow into this absolute live image of his Father by degrees, after such a manner as the sons of men do, (for no child is altogether like his father from his birth) it hath pleased the holy Ghost further to emblazon his incomprehensible generation or begetting under the character of brightness or light. He is the brightness of God's glory saith S. Paul and by S. john, the light. And this is the most exquisite of any resemblance that can be taken from things sensible. The sun and fountain of visible light doth naturally, without interposition of time, without any labour or operation, produce or beget brightness or splendour. And this it doth so uncessantly, so perpetually, that if we could imagine there had been a sun or fountain of light without beginning to continue without end of time or days; we could not but imagine, that there should be a brightness or splendour perpetually produced without beginning or without ending of such production, or of the brightness so produced, by this fountain of light. Yet this supposition being granted or admitted, the resemblance would herein fail; That this continual production of light, without beginning, without ending, did yet admit a succession, or continuity of time, which the eternal generation of the son of God doth not admit, for that only is truly eternal which is not only without beginning or end of days, but without all succession in duration, without mensuration of days or years: all which are contained in eternity, as this visible world, and all the power in it are contained in his power who is invisible and incorporeal. All these resemblances are taken from things sensible. Lastly, the eternal generation of the son of God (as most Divines will have it) is most fitly resembled by the Word, or representation of the mind or spirit, which for its nature is more immortal than the light. Yet this resemblance, or any that can be taken from our intellection, or secret conference between the spirit and soul of man within itself, is in this point (to omit others) lame or defective: that albeit the spirit or mind of man be immortal, and as uncessant in his proper acts or operations as the Sun is in sending forth light to this inferior world; yet our choicest thoughts or cogitations most internal and most spiritual vanish. The mutual conference betwixt our spirits and internal senses, is not perpetual and uncessant. The reason whereof (as the Philosopher teacheth) is, because the passive understanding (whether the cogitative faculty or fantasy) without whose continual service or attendance; there can be no constant record or remembrance of the Acts or instructions of the understanding, is corruptible especially in its act or operation; and subject to greater change and alterations than the lower regions of the air, albeit the mind or spirit be as clear and constant as the Sun. But in the life to come, when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and our inferior faculties become immortal, not only the proper acts or operations of the mind or spirit, or of the active understanding, but the apprehension also of what the mind or spirit suggests, or their impressions upon the inferior faculties of the soul, shall be incorruptible, uncessant and perpetual. And then no doubt our apprehensions of this great mystery comprehended under this name or title of the Word, shall be more clear and perfect to the most illiterate and meanest capacities (this day living) then in this life it is, or hath been to the most profound and subtlelest School-Divines, which have most studied the meaning of this mystery. And yet (under correction) the full importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as in this life may be had, and aught to be had, is either not so well conceived, or not so well expressed, by most Interpreters, (whether of the old or new Testament) as it might have been, if they had but taken notice of those several places in both Testaments, in which the son of God is instiled: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. CHAP. 28. Cap. 28. That the incarnation of the Word, or of the son of God under this title was foreprophecyed by sundry Prophets; with the exposition of some peculiar places to this purpose, not usually observed by Interpreters. ANother special reason, besides the former mentioned, why S. john doth say The word was made flesh, rather than the son of God was made flesh, was because the incarnation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word, was more expressly foretold than the incarnation of the son of God; though one and the same person or party be so really meant and intended by the holy Ghost, that the incarnation of the Word doth concludently infer the incarnation of the only son of God. But where then was the incarnation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foretold or foreshadowed? It was (I take it,) not only foretold, but solemnly proclaimed, by the Prophet Isaiah, chap. 40. and the fulfilling of what he promised, was declared by john Baptist at our Saviour's baptism. john (we know) was the voice of the Crier foreprophecyed ver. 3. of that chapter, and did perform his function (as it was foretold he should) in the wilderness. The chief contents of the cry or proclamation itself are two: the first, prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make strait in the desert a high way for our God. This was fulfilled by john Baptists preaching of repentance. The burden of his preaching was repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand. But the voice said again (whether to Isaiah or to john Baptist, or to both) Cry, and he said, what shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; because the Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the Word of our God shall stand for ever. This was the effect, or sum, of that which john Baptist was to proclaim. Of the exact congruity betwixt john's doctrine and the Prophet's prediction, I have elsewhere (to my remembrance) treated. Concerning the meaning of the Prophet's words, All flesh is grass, that is handled by most Interpreters, & Preachers, in funeral sermons especially. Nor can there be a fitter Text for displaying the mortality and frailty of our Nature: nor (as some think) for setting forth the excellency of preaching. But to magnify the word of God in general, as it is preached by us the unworthy ministers of it, is (in most men's interpretations) indirectly to magnify ourselves, or our calling, which (howsoever our persons be) is questionless honourable, and so to be esteemed by all good Christians. Yet this excellency whether of the word preached, or of Preachers, was either no part, or the least part of the Prophet's meaning when he saith the word of the Lord endureth for ever For the true use and end of that prophecy Chap. 40. is expressed in the beginning of it: Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith our God. Speak ye comfortably to jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned. For she hath received of the Lords hand double for all her sins. But what comfort could it be to Jerusalem, or to God's people, that the word of God which is preached to them endureth for ever▪ when as they were but as the grass which withereth? The more the Prophet did magnify the immortality of God's word in this sense, the more he must have increased the sad remembrance of their own misery and mortality. And however Isaias and other Prophets had preached the word of the Lord more plentifully, and more powerfully in that age wherein he lived, than it had been in any age before, or in any age since, (excepting the times wherein john Baptist and our Saviour and his Apostles lived on earth:) yet mortality and misery did still grow faster upon this people, than it had done in any age before; so fast for four or five generations, that this people became like grass withering by degrees, and at last to be rooted up. The matter then of comfort which the Prophet there promiseth to Jerusalem, was not in his time really exhibited, but to be continually expected, until the word of the Lord, which he so magnifieth for its glory & immortality, should become visible to all flesh. The comfort there prophesied of, did consist in the manifestation of that glory, which he then foretold should be revealed. For whatsoever in that Chapter he uttered, was not delivered by way of common place by ordinary catechism of doctrine and uses, but by the extraordinary spirit of prophecy. The issue of his prophecy was, that the state and condition of all flesh should be much better in later times, then in his age or any age before, it was. At what time then was this comfort actually exhibited to all flesh which before was but grass, and as the flower of grass that fadeth? Then assuredly, when the word of the Lord, which endureth for ever, did become flesh, or was incorporated in our flesh. For the life and efficacy of this word (as the text literally imports) was to be manifested by its admirable effects or operations upon the mortality or weakness of flesh. Our mortality or miserable condition (as the Prophet presumes) could not weaken the immortal efficacy of the Word, whereas the Word might give life and immortality to all flesh which should see the glory the taste the goodness of it. By the Word of the Lord then which endureth for ever, we are to understand, not Verbum Domini, not only the word of the Lord as it is daily preached, but the Lord himself, who if he speak the word, great shall be the number of the Preachers of the word, both of Prophets, and of Prophetesses. 2. The best interpretation of the prophet Isa. is already made unto our hands partly by S. Peter, partly by S. john in the beginning of his Gospel. We are brone again, (saith S. Peter) not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever. 1. Pet. 1. 23. By corruptible seed, he means our corruptible nature, as we are the sons of Adam. For so he expounds his own meaning in the words of the Prophet before mentioned, For that all flesh is as grass, & all the glory of man as the flower of grass, the grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away. Now that which itself withereth and falleth away can yield no seed of life, can minister no comfort unto misery or mortality. The antithesis then or opposition requires, that by the incorruptible seed of which we are borne again, we must understand the word of God which endureth for ever, or somewhat into which that word doth in special manner infuse life, or verbum caro factum, the eternal word as it is invailed in flesh, but in flesh exempted or privileged from all corruption. For it is called the word of God which liveth for ever; not so much in respect of its own life, but in regard of its communication of life to such as are destitute of life. That this is the true scale of S. Peter's meaning we may gather from S. john's parallel paraphrase upon the same words of the Prophet Isaiah. In the beginning was the word, and the word was God, etc. And he came unto his own and his own received him not, but as many as received him to them he grave power or right to become the sons of God, even to them which believe on his name. But who are they that rightly believe on his name? Such as are borne not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, (this is that which S. Peter saith, not of corruptible seed,) but are borne of God. And whosoever is borne of God is questionless borne of that immortal seed whereof S. Peter speaks. The further explication of this point will much depend upon the solution of these two questions. The first, in what sense we are said to be borne of God. The second, when miserable and corruptible men were first so borne. To assoil the later question in the first place; Flesh and blood were not capable of this new birth, whereof S. john and S. Peter speak until that word of God which endureth for ever, that word which was with God and was, God, by whom the world also was made, came into the world, and being made man was borne of a woman. The holy Patriarches & Prophets were true heirs of this glorious promise, but could not be real possessors of the blessing promised, before this time. But was the incarnation of the eternal word to this purpose concludently foreprophecyed by Isaiah in that 40. chapter? Yes; this was the principal part of those glad tidings which the voice of him that cried in the wilderness was to proclaim, as it is expressed ver. 5. The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. The sight of it was to be a sight of life and comfort to all flesh: and this was the height of that comfort which the sight of this glory exhibited, that as they had been the miserable sons of mortal men, so they should become the sons of God, blessed for ever. Now it is evident out of other Scriptures that no flesh could see the glory of God and live, save only as the brightness of it was to be alloyed by a veil a flesh, through which the Apostles themselves, not all, but Peter, james, and john did behold it, as weakesighted men do the splendour of the sun through a cloud. Hence saith S. john (by way of comment or paraphrase upon the forecited 40. of Isaiah) ver. 5. The word was made flesh, and we beheld his glory (to wit, the glory of the word of God which endureth for ever) the glory as of the only begotten son of God, full of grace and truth. And of his fullness all that believe receive grace for grace. When it is said that the son of God was made man of a Woman, this implies that he was as truly flesh of the woman's flesh, and bone of her bones, as the first woman was flesh of the first man's flesh, and bone of his bones. But in this the mysteries of the first woman's creation is not finally accomplished. How was it then so accomplished? In this, that no sons of men, none that are borne of women can truly and really become the sons of God, until they become flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones, who was not made the son of God, but was the son of God by nature, his only begotten son before all worlds, the light and life of men. As then the word which in the beginning was with God, and the son of God, are but titles of one and the same person: so the word of life and the word of God which endureth for ever, are but synonymal expressions of one and the same mystery to wit, of the word being made flesh, or become visible and sensible unto flesh. That (saith S. john) which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life; that we declare unto you. For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness and show unto you, even that eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested unto us, 1 john 1. 1, 2. This life was always with God, but came not into the world, was not manifested to flesh and blood; until: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word, and son of God was incarnate. 3. The same Antithesis, or opposition which the prophet Isaiah makes between the mortality and frailty of flesh, and the immortality or everlasting duration of the word of God, the Psalmist makes between his own misery and fading estate, and the everlasting happiness of his Lord God. And from the contemplation of this opposition takes the same comfort to himself, which the Prophet Isaiah was commanded to minister unto God's people, and unto jerusalem. My days, saith he, Psal: 102. 11, are like a shadow that declineth, and I am withered like grass: but thou O Lord shalt endure for ever, and thy remembrance unto all generations. And again, Of old thou hast laid the foundations of the earth, and the Heavens are the works of thy hands: they shall perish, but thou shalt endure, yea all of them shall wax old like a garment, as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed; thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. That this passage of the Psalmist is literally meant of the eternal God, the jews themselves cannot deny. And that it is meant of God incarnate, of the son of God manifested in the flesh, S. Paul in the first Chapter to the Hebrews doth assure us Christians. For he allegeth this very place ver. 10. to prove that Christ God and man was far above all Angels and principalities, and that after his enthronization as King, he was to change this world which was made by him. The very literal meaning of the Psalmist will enforce thus much, that this place was to be meant of God, not simply or absolutely but of God incarnate. For the eternal duration of the Godhead is not measurable by days or years, but the incarnation of the son of God, or his duration in the flesh, may be accounted by number of years for the time past; yet are his years as man to continue without end, without any decay or diminution of that nature which he assumed. The Psalmist foresaw his own interest in the numberless years of his Lord, whose happiness and immortality was the only comfort of his miserable mortality. The same comfort the Author of the 103. Psalm (whether he were the same with the Author of the 102. Psalm, or some other) takes to himself from the like contemplation of his own misery, and of the happiness of God incarnate. Like as a Father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him. For he knoweth our frame, he remembreth that we are but dust. As for man his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth. For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone, and the place thereof shall know it no more. But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting, upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children: To such as keep his Covenant: and to those that remember his Commandments to do them. Psal. 103. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. For the true interpretation or application of this passage unto this present purpose, it is in the first place remarkable, that where in the 13. verse we read jehovah, or the Lord, the Chaldee renders it, The word of the Lord hath pity on them that fear him: In the second, that the mercy of the Lord, or of the word of God, verse 17 is c Christ is called the mercy or gracious Saint of God Psal. 16. 10. Compare that place with the beginning of the 118. Psalm, & Psalm, 136 & others, wherein it is repeated that the mercy of the Lord endureth for ever. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, a word or term whose full importance cannot be had from any ordinary Lexicon, unless it be such as is proper unto Divinity. For it cannot be understood of that mercy or loving kindness of God which was ordinarily manifested either towards mankind in general, or towards the people of Israel in particular. Every Novice in the School of the Prophets did know that this mercy of the Lord was perpetual. But what could it avail the Author of this Psalm to consider that this mercy of God had been manifested to his forefathers before his time, and should be to posterity in their several generations after him, what comfort could it afford unto the children's children of such as feared him, that this mercy of God should be reserved for them, only after the same manner or measure which their forefathers had tasted, or had experience of it, and yet complain of their miserable and wretched estate for the present; and comfort themselves only in the expectation of that abundant mercy which they hoped afterwards should be revealed. The best exposition upon this place of the Psalmist, or what is in special meant by the mercy of the Lord, or of the word of God, is given by S. Paul, Titus the 3. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving diverse lusts, and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But after the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to this mercy he saved i●, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through jesus Christ our Saviour: That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Of this mercy and loving kindness the Patriarches and Prophets (as we said before) had the promise, but without all hope of enjoying the thing promised for the present. It was not then the mercy of God or jehovah considered in the Godhead only, but the mercy of God to be incarnate, to be made King and Judge of the earth, which did so comfort these and other Psalmists in their greatest distresses and perplexities, in all which they had just occasion to say, as S. Paul afterwards did, If in this life only, (or in the loving kindness of God, as it hath been experienced in our days) we had hope, we were of all men most miserable, 1 Cor. 15. 19 4 That this place, though literally meant of God alone, was yet to be punctually fulfilled in God incarnate, or in the Word made flesh, besides this exposition of S. Paul, the very letter and circumstance of the text doth persuade us. For the expected comfort whereupon this Psalmist pitcheth, is this: The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens, and his Kingdom ruleth over all. And here again, whereas we read the Lord, the Chaldee reads the Word of the Lord hath prepared his throne. And in that it was prepared, it was not from eternity, though after it were prepared, to continue from everlasting to everlasting, that is (as we say) world without end. And this is that throne and that Kingdom which Daniel foretold, that God long after his time would erect, Daniel, 2. 44. And in the days of these Kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed, and that Kingdom shall not be left to other people: but it shall break in pieces and consume all these Kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. And of this throne you have a most exquisite description by S. john Revel. 4. 1, 2. After this I looked, and behold a door was opened in Heaven, and the first voice which I heard, was as it were of a trumpet talking with me, which said, Come up hit her, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter. And immediately I was in the Spirit: and behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. And round about the throne were four and twenty seats, and upon the seats I saw four and twenty Elders sitting clothed in white raiment. And they had on their heads Crowns of gold etc. The four and twenty Elders fell down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever, and cast their Crowns before him saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. This praising of him that sat upon the throne, was that whereunto the Author of the 103. Psalm did solemnly invite the heavenly powers, long before S. john had this vision. For after he had said, the Lord had prepared his throne in the heavens, and his Kingdom ruleth over all; it follows immediately, Bless the Lord ye his Angels, that excel in strength, that do his Commandments, harkening unto the voice of his word. Bless ye the Lord, all ye his hosts, ye Ministers of his, that do his pleasure. Bless the Lord, all his works in all places of his Dominion: Bless the Lord, O my soul. That which our Saviour saith of Abraham, was in its measure true of this Psalmist; he also saw the day of Christ, the day of his glorious resurrection, that day whereof it is said, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, and did rejoice in soul to see it, and his own interest in it, an assured hope of his inheritance in the heavenly Kingdom. 5. But the vision of David to this purpose in that Psalm, which amongst some few others bears the inscription of Michtam, David's jeweller golden song (as some would have it,) is most punctually clear, Keep me O God, for in thee do I put my trust: that is (as the Chaldee explains it) In thy word have I put my trust, or hope for salvation. Psal. 16. 1. and ver. 2. I have said unto the Lord, Adonai. And again ver. 8. etc. I have set the Lord always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth; my flesh also shall rest in hope. But here the Eunuch's question unto Philip will interpose itself, Of whom speaketh the Prophet this, of himself or of some other? I can no way brook their opinion, who think the Psalmist speaks all this in the person of Christ, as his figure, but rather in this, as in many other Psalms, and in the two last forecited especially, some passages there be which cannot be literally applied but to the Psalmist himself, others which cannot be applied to any one but Christ, that is to God or the word incarnate: and the 9 verse My heart is glad, etc. contains a feeling expression of that joy or exultation of spirit, which did possess all the faculties both of David's body and soul. But what was the object of this his exultation, or the ground of his joy? He expresseth it, ver. 10. Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption. But the same question here interposeth again; Doth he speak all this of himself or of some other? Whatsoever may be thought of the former clause of that verse, thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell (which as some think) might be meant both of Christ and David (though in a different measure;) most certain it is, that the later clause, Thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption, was not literally meant of David, much less fulfilled in him, but literally meant of him alone, and literally fulfilled in him alone, whom David in spirit called Lord; though he then foresaw he should truly be his son. This undoubted truth we learn from S. Peter Acts 2. 29. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the Patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried; and his sepulchre is with us unto this day Therefore being a Prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne, he seeing this before, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in Hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. And S. Paul, Acts 13. 36, 37. more fully and more punctually to our animadversions upon this later clause expounds it thus: David after he had served his own generation by the will of God fell on sleep, and was laid unto his Fathers, and saw corruption. But he whom God raised again, saw no corruption. In this as in many other Psalms the comfort which did arise from the sweet contemplations was David's own, or the Psalmists who foresaw that great mystery whereof we now treat, that the fountain of their comfort was Christ or God incarnate, who was to be raised from the dead. David in this Psalm did rejoice in heart, that albeit he knew his nature to be like the grass that withereth, albeit he knew his soul should be divorced from his body; yet this divorce he knew (by faith,) should not be perpetual, that albeit he could not but expect his body, his flesh and bones should rot in his sepulchre as the body and flesh of his forefathers to whom he was to be gathered, had done; yet he foresaw in spirit, that even his body should at length be redeemed from corruption by the resurrection of that holy One, whose body, though separated for a time from his immortal soul, was not to see or feel any corruption. Finally though David and other Psalmists forecited, (if others they were) did perfectly and explicitly foreknow that they were to die; yet had they as true implicit belief of that which our Apostle explicitly delivers Golos. 3. 3, 4. That their life was hid with Christ in God, that when Christ, who was their life, should appear, they should also appear with him in glory. 6. To the former general Quaere [in what sense we are said by S. john to be borne of God] we answer; that to be borne of God, is all one with that of S. Peter, to be borne of immortal seed, but what is that immortal seed whereof S. Peter saith we are borne again? That, in one word, is the flesh and blood of the son of man, who is also the son of God. So he himself instructs us john 6. 53, 54, 55. Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. That is meat and drink indeed which nourisheth us not to a bodily but to a spiritual and immortal life; which presupposeth an immortal seed. Unto all these ends and purposes, to our new birth, to our nourishment and growth in spiritual life, the flesh and blood of the Word or son of God were consecrated by his sufferings upon the cross, and by his resurrection from the dead. He was, according to his humane nature, both the Priest appointed to obtain these blessings; and to award them ex officio; and withal the sacrifice, by whose participation they are really and actually conveyed unto all that do or shall inherit the immortality of soul and body. 7. But if his flesh and blood be the seed of immortality, how are we said to be borne again by the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever? Is this word, by which we are borne, the same with that immortal feed of which we are borne? It is the same not in nature, but in person. May we not in that speech of S. Peter by the word understand the word preached in to us by the ministers who are Gods feeds men? In a secondary sense we may, for we are begotten and borne again by preaching as by the instrument or means; yet borne again by the eternal word, (that is by Christ himself) as by the proper and efficient cause of our new birth. Thus much S. Peter's word is that place will enforce us to grant according to the letter. For having before declared, that the word of God (by which we are born again) doth live and endure for ever, he thus concludes, and this is the word which by the Gospel is preached unto you. 1. Pet. 1. 25. 8. The Gospel itself (taken in the largest sense) is but the declaration of the Evangelists and Apostles upon the prophetical predictions concerning the incarnation, the birth, the death, the resurrection and ascension of Christ. And Christ himself, who was put to death for our sins and raised again for our justification, is the word which we all do or aught to preach. The Gospel written or preached by us cannot be that word, which by the Gospel is preached unto us. This Word, in the literal assertive sense, can be no other than the eternal word or son of God made flesh, and consecrated in the flesh to be the seed of immortality. And if we take the Gospel, not according to the outward letter or bark but for the heart or substance of the Gospel, or for the glad tidings of life (which is the primitive signification of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Gospel) that is no other, than the Word made flesh, or manifested in the flesh. To this purpose saith our Evangelist, or rather the Angel of the Lord Luke 2. 10. Fear not, for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people: (this is no more than the Prophet saith, all flesh shall see the glory of the Lord:) for unto you is borne, this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. Lord he was long before, and this Lord was made flesh before that day wherein he was borne, but first manifested in the flesh upon that day, and manifested to be the Saviour of all people or all flesh, some eight days after, yet not then completely made Christ until his resurrection. Again the Gospel in its prime or principal sense is no other, or no more than the great mystery of godliness which was enwrapped in the volume of Moses and the Prophets, but not revealed or unfolded until the word was made flesh, was circumcised in the flesh, and made King and Christ. Without controversy, saith S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. 16. great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. All these testimonies put together amount to this point, that the son of God manifested in the flesh was that Word which in S. Peter's language, is preached by the Gospel. And if we do not preach this word unto our hearers, if all our sermons do not tend to one of these two ends, [either to instruct our Auditors in the articles of their Creed concerning Christ, or to prepare their ears and hearts that they may be fit auditors of such instructions] we do not preach the Gospel unto them, we take upon us the name of God's Ambassadors, or of the ministers of the Gospel, more than in vain. 9 Besides all these testimonies, and others that might be alleged, all most undoubtedly true in the literal assertive sense, that the mystery of godliness, or the joyful tidings which Abraham's seed did expect should consist in the union between the eternal Word or son of God, and our flesh, we have a most lively character or prefiguration (though not assertive) in the original word designed by the wisdom of God to express the preaching of the Gospel or joyful embassage of our everlasting peace. For one and the same word in the original doth signify flesh, and the preaching of glad tidings unto all people or flesh, without variation of any radical letter, but only of grammatical mood or declension 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the use of the original language, doth properly signify flesh, that is, men or creatures endued with life or sense; and being the root or primitive is not a verb, but a noun. The first verb that is form of it doth signify as much as the Latin nunciavit or nunciare, to bring or deliver a message, and is always used for some good or joyful message, and in peculiar for the preaching of the Gospel, which is the joyful message 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: As, to omit other places, it is thus used jerem. 20. 15. Cur said be the man that brought tidings to my Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying a man child is borne unto thee, making him very glad. And in the forecited 40. of Isaiah, ver. 9 O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength, lift it up, be not afraid, say unto the cities of judah, behold your God. And in the 61 of Isaiah, ver. 1. which is the very place wherein the preaching of the Gospel by our Saviour himself is foreprophecyed, that which S. Luke expresses chap. 4. ver. 18. by preaching the Gospel to the poor, is in the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 evangelizatum pauperes. Now that flesh, and preaching of glad tidings to all flesh should be signified by one and the same original word, no grammarian can easily give any reason. It falls not within the compass of their Etymologies or derivations: there is not here a primitive and derivative, not a principal and an Analogical sense. The true reason that may be given for it is, that the wisdom of God did thus foreordain it: that so this great mystery of the eternal Word's becoming flesh might be foreshadowed as well by verbal character, as foretold by express prophetical testimonies, delivered by way of propositions, or prefigured by real types in the Law or in matter of facts in sacred history. CHAP. 29. Of the true meaning of this speech, the word was made flesh: Whether it be all one for the Word to be made flesh, and to be made man, or whether He were made flesh, and made man at the same instant? BUt it being granted (and I hope sufficiently proved,) that the incarnation of the Word, is the very life and kernel of the Gospel, that the Patriarches and Prophets did solace themselves, and taught their children's children to do the like, in all their perplexities, by assured hope of this great mystery in the Lords good time to be revealed: yet the curious fancies of captious wits have been, and will be ready to question, though not the matter or mystery itself, yet the manner of our Evangelists expression of it, [the Word was made flesh.] To be made flesh, is to be made a substance, and the Word which is said to be made flesh, was more than a substance, the everliving essence, the life and light of men, before he was manifested in the flesh. Doth he still remain so? So we Christians are bound to believe. Yet might the Jew or mere heathen artist have liberty to oppose us, they would find matter of argument, to this or like purpose; whensoever one substance is truly made another, the former substance ceaseth to be what it was before. For the truth of this general rule, instances are plentiful in all sorts of substances which are said to be made what they were not before: Cap. 29 when one simple Elements is made another; when the water becomes a vapour, it ceaseth to be water; when the Vapour is made a cloud, it is no longer a vapour; when the cloud resolves into rain, it is no more a cloud: when of the Elements any third body is made, whether perfectly or imperfectly mixed, they cease to be what they were, they lose both their form and names. Nor skils it whether one substance be made or becomes another which before it was not by course of nature, or immediately by the finger of God, or by the exercise of his miraculous power. For it was a true miracle, and a great one, that pure water should be immediately made perfect wine, and yet the water being made wine did cease to be what it was before; it was no longer a simple Element, but a true mixed body. Now the Word, (as all Christians grant) was an everlasting Essence, more than a substance, before it was made or became flesh. How then can we Christians maintain, that it still remains the same it was, without any real alteration, or change, whether substantial or accidental? To this objection we reply, as before we have done in other cases, that multitude of instances, how many soever, cannot make up a perfect induction, if in any one pretended for grounding a rule or proposition absolutely universal, there be the least diversity or dissimilitude of reason. Every such diversity or disparity acquits the instance in which it is found, for being comprehended under the rule or law, otherwise universal. Admitting it then to be universally true of all other substances or Essences in the World beside; Whensoever one is made or becomes another which before it was not, that substance, which is made another, doth lose itself, or ceaseth to be what it was; Yet this universal rule will not reach the instance now in debate concerning the Word's being made flesh. The reason is plain, not from the manner of this miraculous work, but from the nature or supereminency of that everlasting substance or Essence, which was miraculously made flesh. All other Essences or substances, which are capable of being made, or becoming what they were not, are capable of change or alteration in their substances. They do not either lose their own names, or suffer the names of other substances to be put upon them, until they have put off their own natures, or lost possession of themselves. The law of nature ties even liveless substances more strictly not to change their names until they be conquered, or overcome by others, than the laws of Heraldry ties Nobles or Gentlemen not to alter their ancient Arms or names, which they seldom do, unless upon conquest or some marriage, or alliance, beneficial or advantageous to their house or Family. But the Word of God which endureth for ever, was and is as unchangeable as God himself: was and is from eternity, more than all things, Essence, or being itself. As all things were made by him, so he might when he pleased, be made flesh or man without any change or alteration in himself, either whilst all things were made by him, or whilst he were made this particular. It is then the pre-eminence or superexcellency of his nature or Essence, which exempts him from the former general rule or pretended induction. 2 For the more commodious expression as of diverse other supernatural mysteries or matters spiritual, so of this great mystery especially the the fittest resemblance which can be made of them, must be borrowed not from experiments or inductions in matters physical, but from cases of civil use or consequence. Mutations accidental there may be many, physically accidental in one and the same substance, without any alteration in the substance, in which such change is made: Yet such changes of accidents properly inherent, for the most part either add some perfection to the substance, or detract somewhat from it. But for a person already invested with honourable names or titles, and with realities answering to them, to invest himself with realities or titles of an inferior rank, is no disparagement to his former dignities. Thus many Princes by birth and of great possessions sometimes take the names or titles of Knights, are solemnly made Knights, created Earls, sometimes made Gentlemen of Venice, and some Kings of this Land have been made free of particular Companies or Corporations under their royal jurisdiction, and so made without any impeachement or diminution of their royal titles, but only to the grace or advancement of that order whereof they were made Knights, or of those Societies and Corporations whereof they were made free. And thus although the Word, who before the beginning of time was with God, was truly God, was in the fullness of time made flesh, this can be no impeachment to his Deity or Divine person, but an unspeakable exaltation or advancement of the humane nature which he took upon him. And herein, we poor miserable men (so we would be thankful for it) have a pre-eminence of the Angelical nature, in that the son of God, God blessed for ever, did vouchsafe to become one of our order and rank, in such a manner as he is not of theirs. 3 The resolution of the second Quaere depends upon another more questioned point, which I have no mind to dispute, and less to be tied to other men's conjectures, or voluntary determinations of it without warrant of Scripture, or any certain deductions from it, warrantable by reason. The point questionable is briefly this, whether the humane soul of our blessed Lord was infused into his body immediately upon his conception, which (as the sacred Text to my apprehension imports) was in a moment, and immediately upon the blessed Virgins assent unto the Angel's message. If at the same instant or moment of time the humane soul was inspired into his body, the Word was not made flesh before he became man. If otherwise, the holy seed did after the conception grow by degrees into a live sensitive reasonable substance, though neither after the same manner, nor by the same means, yet according to the same measure of time as other Infants do. The case is unquestionable that the son of God, or the Word, was made flesh before he was made man; For he was not made man before the inspiration or creation of the reasonable soul; but even from the very first moment of his conception, the Woman's seed was hypostically united to the Word or son of God. The flesh and blood which he took of the blessed Virgin became the flesh and blood of the son of God from the first moment of their assumption. Nor can this opinion be justly charged with any suspicion of error, or other difficulty, as containing nothing which is not exactly parallel to that which we believe concerning the union of his body with the Divine nature in his person, after his body was separated from his soul. His body in that interim of separation or of its rest in the grave, was as truly the body of the son of God, as it had been whilst it was living. His soul likewise was as truly the soul of the son of God during the divorce, as it was whilst it retained union with its body. And whether the blood which was shed from his most precious body on the Cross, were gathered again into his veins (a point not to be pried into by mortal men) or how ever it pleased him or his heavenly Father to dispose of it; yet I think I may say that not a drop of it but remains unto this day the true blood of the son of God; it lost no union, nor degree of union with his divine person: it still retains the power and efficacy of cleansing or sanctifying our nature. 4 Some I know there be who think all others to speak and think unworthily of Christ, unless they grant that his soul was not only infused into his body in the first conception of it, but that it was withal endued with all manner of knowledge which He afterwards had. Yet to bind any man to believe or acknowledge either of these (the latter especially) is to lay more upon us than God hath in his written Word or in the book of his Creatures tied us unto, if so these men will give us leave to use the spectacles of reason in reading either book. For if our blessed Saviour during all the time he was in his mother's womb, had the perfect use of sense and reason, his condition of life had been more wearisome then in any part of his pilgrimage here on earth it was; for he was as mortal, and as subject to sad impressions in the womb, as he was in the strength of his age: and death had been more welcome to him then such close imprisonment, if the excercise of reason or Contemplation had been as free there as it was, when he was endued with liberty of sense and local motion. The only reason I can conceive any man should pretend either for the infusion of the reasonable soul into his body, at the first conception, or that the reasonable soul, whether then or at the time wherein other infants become capable of it, should be endued with such a measure of actual or explicit knowledge whilst he was in his mother's womb, as afterwards it was, must be grounded on the hypostatical union between the woman's seed and the word of God. But if any reason thus grounded could infer either part of the premises, it would aswell infer, that his knowledge as man, should have been infinite from his conception. This I think no Christian will affirm; for the personal union of the divine nature with the humane, doth not endow it with the real titles of the divine. Otherwise, Christ's strength as man should have been infinite from the womb: and his body should have been every where. And it would be less unreasonable to say that his body is at this day infinite, and his humane nature every where; then that his wisdom or knowledge, as man, should have been infinite, or as great whilst he was in the womb as now it is. If the divine nature did not communicate his infinity to the humane, nor make the son of God so complete a man for strength of ability of body from the womb, as at thirty years he was; it exceedeth the bounds of my capacity to imagine, what reason those men have for their opinion, who think our blessed Lord & Saviour did not as truly grow in wisdom and knowledge, as he did in strength or stature of body. The Scripture is alike literal for both, Luk. 2. 52. jesus increased in Wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. I make no question but that such as deny his growth in wisdom, do this out of a religious fear, lest they should speak or conceive any thing of Christ which might be thought either to derogate from his greatness, or from his goodness. This fear or zealous care is in the general very good, but hath small ground in this particular. For were it either well grounded or well guided, it would rather teach us not to deny that Jesus did grow in wisdom and goodness, then to be peremptory in contradicting others which hold the affirmative. Simple nescience can be no sin in any Child nor in any man, unless it be of those things which he is bound to know. But proficiency in wisdom and knowledge is in the sons of men a praise worthy perfection, which I should be as unwilling to deny unto my Lord and Saviour in his infancy or his youth, as to rob him now of any royal attributes since he was made King. That he was without all stain of sin, the most holy Sanctuary of the most holy and blessed God from the womb, I steadfastly believe: but that he had the same measure o● knowledge at his circumcision, at his presentation in the Temple, which he had and gave proof of when his Parents found him in the Temple disputing with the Doctors, or no greater measure of this knowledge at his baptism, than he then had; or as great as his baptism, as since his resurrection and ascension he hath; I shall crave pardon for making these or the like any points of my belief. If any man be otherwise minded I grudge him not the liberty of his opinion, but will confess my ignorance, when he shall show me any express Scripture, or any deduction out of Scripture which shall not infer aut nihil, aut nimium. 5 It sufficeth me to believe and know that my Lord was so qualified with all grace, even whilst he lived in the form of a servant, that he was always more ready to understand, and comprehend whatsoever it pleased his heavenly Father to impart or signify unto him, than crystal is to receive the light of the Sun, or any glass the shape of bodies which present themselves unto it; and more ready withal to do whatsoever he knew to be his Fathers will he should do, than we are to eat when we are hungry, or to drink in the extremity of ●hrist. There was in him, even in his cradle a docility or capacity, both for learning and doing his father's will, truly infinite in comparison of other children, yet this capacity was actuated by degrees. This, I take it, is as much as we are bound to believe concerning his growth in wisdom; and this we cannot deny to be contained in the hypostatical union, of which we are without curiosity to say somewhat in the next place. CHAP. 30. Of the hypostatical and personal union betwixt the Word and the flesh, or betwixt the son of God and the seed of Abraham. THe manner of the union between the son of God and the seed of Abraham is a mystery (that one of the blessed Trinity only excepted) most to be admired by all, and least possible to be exactly expressed by any living man, of all the mysteries whose belief we profess in this Apostles Creed. And for this reason my former resolution to avoid all School disputes about the relations in the Trinity, and each several persons peculiar properties, ties me to the like observance in this present point. And in my younger days, I had a greater desire to learn more exquisite rules of Logic or other good arts, out of School-disputes in these two kinds, then can be found in the professors of such arts themselves, than I have in these declining years to learn divinity from them. 2. The particulars which the most subtle amongst the Schoole-Divines exhibit concerning the manner of the hypostatical union, are well summed up by the learned and judicious D. Field in whose computation they amount to more than I shall have occasion in this place to make use of: and are withal of so high a pitch and strain, as surmounts my aim or level for this time; Cap. 30 which is only, to show how truly, how justly, how consonantly to the known rules of reason in other cases, we Christians believe and acknowledge such a peculiar union between the son of God, and the son of David, that whilst the son of man was conceived, borne, crucified, and raised from the dead, the son of God likewise was conceived, borne, crucified, etc. Now for justifying these and the like expressions, [the son of God was conceived, was borne, was crucified, etc.] (whether we find them in the Creed, or in the Apostolic or Evangelical writings, whence they issued into this Creed;) we can have no better ground, or fundamental resemblance, then that of Athanasius [As the reasonable soul and flesh make one man, so God and man make one Christ:] yet this illustration, or expression of the manner of this mystical union is excepted against by some great Divines, and by Cardinal Bellarmine by name, yet excepted against, not as false or impertinent, but as defective. But if every resemblance of this or other sacred mystery, which is any way defective were liable to exception, the Church should do well to give a general prohibition that no man should attempt to make any. For all will come short of the mystery which we seek to express by them, or of so much of it, as we shall know in that eternal School. It was the Cardinal's fault to stretch Athanasius his expression further than he intended it, or not to allot it a certain extent, within which it is most divinely true. 3. The like comparisons sometimes hold firm and true only quoad veritatem, non quoad mensuram according to the truth, not according to the measure of the same truth. As when we beseech our heavenly father to forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us; or when our Saviour enjoins us, to be merciful, as our heavenly father is merciful: the meaning is, not that the measure of his mercies towards us should be but equal to our mercy, or kindness towards men our fellow servants: and yet, the meaning of our Saviour's injunction is, that we must be as truly merciful and charitable towards others in some degree, as God is infinitely merciful towards all. Sometimes the like comparisons are firm and true & quoad veritatem, & quoad mensuram, both according to the truth, and the same measure of truth, but not quoad modum, at least not quoad modum specificum proximum, sed quoad modum genericum aut remotum: true they may be sometimes according to the same manner, and yet not in all respects, or according to the selfsame particular manner. And such is this comparison of Athanasius. First it holds quoad veritatem unionis, As it is not the mere inhabitation of the reasonable soul in the body, but the peculiar union of these two parts, which makes a man: so is it not the internal presence or peculiar inhabitation of the Deity in the manhood, but the true and real union of these two natures, which makes one Christ. Infernal spirits may, by God's permission, take up their lodgings in the bodies of men, may be confined within them, and use them as their instruments: yet by such residence in them, men neither become Devils, nor devil's men, nor do they make any one reality, or third thing in part or whole distinct from both. 4. The former comparison doth not hold secundum omnem modum: that is, though the Godhead and humanity of Christ be as truly, as properly, and really united, as the reasonable soul and the humane body are, yet the manner of the union is herein different. The reasonable soul and the body being two distinct natures, each having their proper existence, though imperfect and incomplete, do by their union make one perfect complete nature. Their union is made by physical or natural composition. Now in all such unions or compositions, each part ingredient must abate or lose somewhat; there must be a mutual fashioning, or fitting of the one to the other. But the Deity or Godhead as it is all things else; so it is fitness itself, and cannot be fashioned or fitted to any creature, as being not subject to any shadow of change, or alteration. The creatures may be fashioned or fitted to be more or less capable of his presence, or participation. But this participation in what degree, in what manner or measure soever it be had, includes no physical composition, or confusion of natures. Thus much Athanasius, to prevent all captious exceptions against this similitude, had sufficiently expressed in the place forecited; though he be God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; One, not by the conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God, One altogether not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. 5. Some Philosophers there are and have been, who although they grant a Physical composition of matter and form in man, yet they deny the reasonable soul (the intellectual part at least) to be the form of man, or any part of the Physical compound, which (in their Philosophy) is prerequired to the constitution of man; not any proper part of his essence or nature. That visible live-substance, wherein the reasonable soul during her pilgrimage here on earth doth reside, as in a walking prison, is in these men's Philosophy or Divinity as formally distinguished by its mere organical faculties, or bodily senses, from all other living sensitive creatures, as any of them is from another. And they are distinguished each from other, only by the peculiar manner of the senses, or modification of their organical faculties. The reasonable soul, or faculty of reason, is in this opinion rather the Crown or Diadem, whereby man excels all other creatures as their King or Governor, than the Physical form whereby he is formally or specifically distinguished from them. According to this opinion there should be in one and the same man two distinct complete natures, one bodily physical compound, endued with sense and subject to mortality, another rational and immortal. And these two natures make one man, not by physical composition, or union of matter and form, but by a peculiar subordination of the sensitive Creature unto the rational, or of sense unto reason, as true, as firm and real, as the subordination of life is to sense, or bodily mixture is unto life or vegetation; but not by the same manner of subordination. If Athanasius his philosophy were of this mould, his comparison would be true quoad modum: however, leaving the examination of this opinion to the Schools, let us examime his comparison quoad veritatem & mensuram. 6 Such Philosophers as grant the reasonable soul to be a form truly physical, and an incomplete part of man's nature, do not for the most part affirm, that it is propagated from the parents of our bodies, but created by God, as the soul of the first man was. And yet even these men who deny the reasonable soul to be ex traduce, do not avouch that only the bodily part or flesh of man is conceived, but the whole man who consists of a reasonable soul aswell as of a body. The full and perfect conception of every living thing includes not only a preparation of the bodily substance for receiving the foul, but besides this, the unition of the foul, (whether sensitive only or reasonable) with its proper body. And seeing the proper nature of man consists especially in reason, there can be no perfect conception of man, as man, until the reasonable soul be seated in and united unto the bodily substance, fitted or organised for it. Whether that bodily substance were before this union endued with sense or no, is not much pertinent to the point now in hand. However Philosophers may dispute that case, this position is proper and philosophical: [Man doth beget man, and woman conceives man, although the reasonable soul, which is the principal part of man, do not take its original or beginning of being, either from the man that begets him, or from the woman that conceives and brings him forth, but immediately from GOD.] 7 This assertion likewise is Christian and Theological; [The blessed Virgin did truly conceive and bring forth Christ Jesus, God and man, the son of God, and the son of David:] albebeit the Divine nature, which is the excellency of Christ, did not take beginning from her, but was from all eternity without beginning, yet not united to the manhood till the conception wrought by the holy Ghost in the Virgin's womb. though both assertions be most true, yet the ground of this theological assertion is more perspicuous and firm than the ground of the philosopher's assertion wherewith it is paralleled. We Christians may give a better reason of our faith and form of doctrine, than the Philosophers can give of their opinion, or manner of phrase in this point. First in the conception of ordinary or mere men, the bodily substance, or the material part, hath a distinct existence of its own, before it be united unto the reasonable soul, and the reasonable soul likewise hath a proper existence (at least in order of nature if not of time) precedent to its union with its body. Nor is the union so perfect as to make simply but one existence of both. It is actually one, potentially two, and in the dissolution of body and soul, they are actually severed; there is not then so much as coexistence, or existence of the one in the other. But neither the substance which the son of God took from the blessed virgin, nor the reasonable soul which was united unto it, had any proper existence, before their union with the divine nature. The bodily substance assumed by his divine person was a part of the blessed virgins individual nature, and had its whole existence in her before its assumption, but by the assumption it hath existence wholly in him not as a part, but as an Appendix to his divine person. That which the Philosophers or School Divines say concerning the creation of the reasonable soul, and its union with man's body, is more remarkably true of Christ's humane soul. The reasonable soul (say the Philosophers) infundendo creature, et creando infunditur, is created by infusion, and is infused by creation. Christ's reasonable soul was not in order either of time or nature, first created, then assumed, sed assumendo creabatur, et creando assumebatur, it was created whilst it was assumed, and it was assumed whilst it was created. Whether it were united to the body or flesh from the first moment of their assumption, is an extravagant to this assertion. The substance likewise which our blessed Saviour took from his mother, was not either in order of time, or of nature, first conceived or prepared by any praeviall dispositions for the divine nature's habitation in it, and then assumed; sed inter assumendum concipiebatur, et inter concipie●dum assumebatur; it was conceived by assumption, and assumed in, or by its conception. 8. The next branch of this inquiry is, what is meant when we say, the fruit of the Virgin's womb was assumed by the Son of God? This form of speech imports thus much at the least; that the son of God, or the divine nature in his person, was to be partaker of flesh and blood, as we sons of men are: So the Apostle teacheth, Heb. 2. 14. For as much the● as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the Devil. This participation of flesh & blood with his brethren, is but an expression of the assumption. Verily, saith the Apostle ver. 16, he took not hold of the Angels, but he took hold of the seed of Abraham. The meaning of these expressions, as likewise of the original word, is, that albeit the Angels were created by him, yet were they not so assumed, or so united to his person, as the seed of Abraham was, and is. Nor is he partaker of their nature, or of any other nature beside, after such a peculiar manner, as he is of the humane nature by assuming the seed of Abraham. Some School Divines and followers of Aquinas will have the former similitude of Athanasius to consist especially in this; In omnibus autem rebus creatis nihil inv●●●●● huic 〈◊〉 tam simile, sicut 〈◊〉 animae ad corpus. Vnde Athanasius in symb●lo ait, Sicut a●●ma et corpus unus est homo, ita Deus & homo unus est Christus: Sed cum animarationalis uniatur corpori dupliciter, uno modo sicut materiae, alio modo sicut instrumento: non potest esse sim●litudo quanti●m ad primum modum unionis; quia tunc ex Deo, & homine fieret una natura, cum materia, & f●rma constituant propriam naturam specie. Relinquatur ergo, quòd attribuitur similitudo, secundum quod anima comparatur corpori, sicut instruments, adquod etiam dictae antiquorum Doctorum concor d●●t, qui naturam humanam in Christo dixerunt quoddam divi●●●●●● instrumentum, sicut ponitur corpus organ●m animae. Aliter 〈◊〉 se habet ●nima ad corpus (quod est proprium organ●m ejus:) aliter instrumenta extrinseca. Haec enim non est proprium instrumentum hujus hominis sicut haec 〈◊〉 cum per dolabram multi poss●nt operari: sed haec manus ad propriam operationem animae deputatur, quia manus est instrumentam 〈◊〉 & proprium, dolabra verò extrinsecum & commune. Sic in union verbi Dei, & hominis considerari potest. Omnes enim homines comparantur ad Deum, ut quaedam instruments, quibus operatur; ipse enim est qui operatur in nobis velle, & perficere pro sua bona voluntate. Sed alii homines comparantur ad Deum quasi instrumenta e●trinseca separata, nec moventur a Deo ad operationes proprias sibi, sed ad operationes communes omnis rationali naturae, ut sunt intelligere veritatem, diligere bona, operari justa. Sed humana natura a Christo assumpta est proprium instrumentum sibi unitum ad operandas operationes, quae sunt propri●e, soli Deo convenientes: sicut sunt mundare peccata, illuminarè mentes per gratiam & introducere in perfectionem vitae aeternae. Nec discrepata rerum naturalium similitudine quòd aliquid sit naturaliter instrumentum proprium alicujus, quod tamen non sit forma ipsius. Nam lingua (prout est instrumentum locutionis) est proprium organum intellectus, qui tamen (ut probat Philosophus in tertio 〈◊〉) nullius corporis est forma. Similiter etiam invenitur aliquod instrumentum quod ad naturam specie non pertinet, & tamen ex parte materi● competit huic 〈◊〉 ut seaetus digitus, vel aliquid hujusmodi. Nihil igitur prohibet 〈◊〉 unionem naturae humana ad verbum tanquam instrumentum unitum & conjunctum. Nec tamen natura humana ad naturam verbi pertinet 〈…〉 est ejus firma, licet pertinent ad ejus personam. Praedicta tamen exempla sic posita sunt, ut non omnimoda similitudo sit in his requirenda. Intelligendum est enim verbum Dei inul●● sublimius, & intimi●s humanae. naturae uni●i, qu●mquae cunque alia instrumenta propria. that as the reasonable soul doth use the body of man; so the divine nature of Christ doth use the manhood, as its proper united instrument. Every other man, besides the man Christ Jesus, every other creature is the instrument of God: but all of them such instruments of the divine nature, as the axe or hammer is to the artificer which worketh by them. The most puissant Princes, the mightiest Conquerors▪ which the world hath seen or felt, could grow no higher in titles, then. Attilas', or Nabuchadnezzar did Malleus orbis et flagellum Dei, hammers or scourges of God to chastise or bruise the Nations. But the humanity of Christ is such an instrument of the divine nature in his person, as the hand of man is to the person or party, whose hand it is. And it is well observed, whether by Aquinas himself, or no, I remember not, but by Viguerius an accurate summist of Aquinas sums, that albeit the intellectual part of man be a spiritual substance, and separated from the matter or bodily part: yet is the union betwixt the hand and intellectual part of man no less firm, no less proper, than the union between the feet or other organical parts of sensitive Creatures, and their sensitive souls, or mere Physical forms. For the intellectual part of man, whether it be the form of man truly, though not merely physical, or rather his essence not his form at all, doth u●e his own hand not as the Carpenter doth use his axe, that is, not as an external or separated, but as his proper united instrument. Nor is the union between the hand, as the instrument, and intellective part at the Artificer or Commander of it, an union of matter and form, but an union personal, or at the least such an union as resembles the hypostatical union between the divine and humane nature of Christ much better than any material union wherein Philosophers or School Divines can make instance. 9 These and the like speculations are neither unpleasant nor unprofitable, if so the Reader will not restrain the former similitude of Athanasius, only to this kind of union. But after what manner, to what special purposes, or what peculiar services the manhood of Christ is the instrument of his divine nature (as the ancient for the most part unanimously affirm) by God's assistance in other Articles following, or in the mystical union betwixt Christ and his members. Thus much in this place, and for the present may suffice, that the personal union between the divinity and manhood of Christ, (though it be in itself more admirable than comprehensible or expressible,) is more proper and firm than any union which can be made by mixture, by confusion, by composition, or compaction of several natures into one. But what Athanasius meant in that expression of taking the manhood into God, may (if I mistake not) to my present purpose (which is only to lay the general grounds of these communications of properties, which Divines whether ancient or modern observe between the divine and humane nature of Christ) be yet further explicated by answering the main objection that can be made against Athanasius his similitude, or these illustrations of it. 10. Some haply will object, (and it is all I think, that can be objected against us) that as we are, such is our flesh, such is our blood. We are by nature men, and our flesh and blood is by nature only humane, or the flesh and blood of men; but if the flesh and blood whereof the son of God is partaker be as truly his, as our flesh and blood is ours, shall they not be such as he is, that is, flesh and blood truly divine not humane? This must in no wise be granted, otherwise the son of God should not be (as the Apostle avoucheth he is) partaker with us of the same flesh and blood. The flesh and blood which he assumed and was partaker of, are as truly humane, as man's flesh & blood are, and of the self same nature that man's flesh and blood are of. And of such flesh he was to be as truly, as properly partaker, as we are. And yet it is necessary that the same flesh and blood which he assumed, be as truly and as properly the flesh and blood of the son of God, (who is by nature God blessed for ever) as our flesh is the flesh, or our blood the blood of the sons of men. Otherwise, albeit the flesh and blood assumed by him had been as truly, and as properly humane flesh and blood as ours is; yet could not the son of God have been as true and proper a partaker of humane flesh and blood as we sons of men are. For no party or person can as truly and really participate with another in that which is not his own by as perfect right, as it is the others who is partaker of it with him. So then the flesh and blood of our Saviour Christ was truly and properly Caro humana, non divina; sanguis humanus, non divinus, not divine but humane flesh and blood; and yet withal as truly and properly Caro Dei, and Sanguis Dei, the flesh and blood of God, as it was caro humana, sanguis humanus, humane flesh, and humane blood: more properly the flesh and blood of God, than the flesh & blood of man. For even the whole humanity of Christ, aswell the reasonable soul as the flesh was and is the humanity of the son of God. God, saith the Apostle, Acts 20. 28. hath purchased the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with his own proper blood. Now if the Church be Gods own not by creation only but by true purchase; then the blood by which he purchased it, was as truly his own, as our blood, or any thing within us, or without us, which we can own, is ours. But was it Gods own blood, after the selfsame manner or measure that our blood is ours? It was not in every respect, or after every manner his own, so as our blood is ours; yet his own by a more proper, more full, and sovereign title than our blood is any way ours. 11. Our flesh and blood may be said to be our own in two respects, either as it is a part of our nature, or an appertinence of our person. In this last respect the fruit of the Virgin's womb was the son of Gods own substance, the flesh and blood which he took from her were his after a more exquisite manner, or in a fuller measure of the same manner, than our flesh and blood are our own. Or if we would speak the language of Philosophy herself, rather than of Philosophers, or of such as profess themselves to be her followers, though ofttimes, (as we say) a far off. Our flesh, our blood, our limbs, are said to be our own, not so much or not so properly as they are parts of our nature, as in that they are either parts or appurtenances of our persons. That which is immediately next or linked unto our person, is by a more peculiar and sovereign right our own, than any things whatsoever beside we do possess, or are Lords of; be it Lands, goods or servants. For whatsoever we possess, being not thus annexed unto our persons, are but externals, their possession is communicable, their property may be so alienated, as others may make as good use of them as we do. A man may be wronged in every thing that is his own, whereof he is by just title possessed, but the wrongs done to a man in externals, do not touch him so nearly, as the wrongs done to his person, or to any part or appurtenance of it. 12. That there is a true and real distinction between the natures and the persons of men, or between things which are our own by union of nature, or by union unto our persons, may thus be gathered. Every part of our nature is either a part, or an appurtenance of our person: but every part or appurtenance of our person is not a part of our nature. A man may suffer gross personal wrong without pain or damage to any part of his nature, without loss of any commodity that could be made of that wherein he suffered wrong, it being (in itself considered) uncapable of wrong. As in case some joint or part of a man's body be dead and withered, irrecoverably deprived of sense, of pain, of vital motion: it thereby ceaseth to be a part of the humane nature, but it therefore ceaseth not to be an appendance or an appurtenance of his person. He that should disfigure, mangle, or otherwise handle such a dead number any otherwise then the party, whose it is, were willing to have it handled, doth wrong his person in a higher degree than if he mangled or maimed his live goods, or cattle: and yet however he handle it, he puts the living party to no pain, is being (as it is supposed) no natural or sensible part of his body, nor could it have yielded any commodity though it had been cut off before it was disfigured. Offences of this nature are not to be valued according to the excellency of the physical complexion or constitution of the bodily part wounded or contumeliously handled, but according to the excellency or dignity of the party whose flesh or substance it is that is wounded or abused; whether it be an entire live part of his nature, or an appendix only to his person, as being a joint or member in part maimed or deprived of sense before. Generally whether we speak of men's actions or sufferings undertaken for our behoof, to the loss of blood or limbs; we are not to value the one or other so much according to the physical property, or natural worth of the member lost or damnified, as according to the dignity of the person which voluntarily undertaketh such hard services for us. And thus we are to rate aswell the indignities and pains which our Saviour suffered in body by the Jews or Roman soldiers, as the anguish of his soul in that great conflict with the powers of darkness, neither according to the excellency of his bodily constitution, or exquisite purity of his soul, but according to the inestimable dignity of his divine person, of which, aswell his immaculate soul, as his undefiled body were no natural parts, but appurtenances only. 13 Lastly, that proper blood, wherewith God is said to have purchased the Church, was the blood of the son of God, the second person in Trinity, after a more peculiar manner than it was the blood either of God the Father, or of God the holy ghost. It was the blood of God the Father, or of God the holy Ghost, as all other creatures are, by common right of creation and preservation. It was the blood of God the son alone by personal union. If this son of God, and high Priest of our souls had offered any other sacrifice for us then himself, or the manhood thus personally united unto him, his offering could not have been satisfactory; because in all other things created, the Father and the holy Ghost had the same right or interest which the son had; he could not have offered any thing to them which were not as truly theirs as his. Only the seed of Abraham, or fruit of the virgin's womb which he assumed into the Godhead, was by the assumption made so his own, as it was not theirs, his own by incommunicable property of personal union. By reason of this incommunicable property in the woman's seed, the son of God might truly have said unto his Father [Lord thou hast purchased the Church yet with my blood:] but so could not the man Christ Jesus say unto the son of God, [Lord thou hast paid the ransom for the sins of the world, yet with my blood, not with thine own.] SECT. 4. Of the conception, and birth, of our Lord and Saviour, the son of God: of the circumcision of the son of God, and the name JESUS, given him at his circumcision; and of the fulfilling of the types and prophecies concerning these mysteries. CHAP. 31. The enigmatical predictions concerning Christ's conception, unfolded by degrees. THat the predictions of the prophets, which the Jew acknowledgeth for sacred, are of divine infallible authority: that according to many of these prophetical predictions, God in the person of the son was to become man, the eternal word was to be made flesh, (that is, to have our flesh and nature so united unto him, that whilst our flesh and nature was conceived and brought forth, Sect. 4. the son of God was also conceived & brought forth, whilst the man Christ Jesus did suffer in the flesh, the son of God did also suffer) This is the brief sum or extract of all that hath in this Treatise been delivered. This is the foundation of faith as Christian, the radical article of Christian Theology. It follows in our Apostles Creed, that this only son of God Christ jesus our Lord was conceived by the holy Ghost, and borne of the Virgin Mary. The name jesus was given him at his circumcision, and comes there to be handled. So was not the name Christ, but as often as the Evangelists so instyle him before his resurrection from the dead, it is by way of anticipation; for he was made Lord and Christ at his ascension into heaven, though anointed to his prophetical office at his baptism, (from which time he did declare himself by word and deed to be the Prince of Prophets) yet not then consecrated, much less admitted to the function or exercise of his everlasting Priesthood: not then enthronised King of Kings, and Lord of Lords: these royal titles were accomplished in his resurrection and ascension. The point for the present to be handled is▪ how the conception and birth of the son of God, the Lord God of Israel, was foretold or foreshadowed, and how accomplished for the substance, how manifested by the signs of the time, or circumstances concomitant. 2 The conception and birth of the son of God, with other mysteries which concern his person and offices, were purposely foretold and forepictured from the fall of our first parents until the sacred Canon of the old Testament was finished; Cap. 31 yet not foretold, or forepictured in the ●ame measure, or after the same manner, in every age of this long succession. The first predictions or representations of these great mysteries were enigmatical and implicit, but for the most part unwrapped and branched in succeeding ages. The later representations bear the same proportions to the most ancient, that maps of particular countries bear unto more general, or chorography unto Geographie. In a map of the whole world though accurately drawn, we shall hardly find any exact proportion of these British Islands, no such distinct evidences of the several provinces of this Island, as are usually represented in a map of Europe of the same quantity. And it were in vain to seek so distinct a survey of every English shire or County in a map of Europe, as we have in our ordinary maps of England: But if we descend to Chorographical platforms of every several shire, every one that knows how to use them, may find the distinct place of his birth, breeding, or dwelling. The first and most general map of mysteries concerning Christ, or of the Word to come, is that often mentioned Genesis 3. ver. 15. I will put enmity between thy seed and her seed, etc. Yet without some further dilatations, or representations of this promise made by the Prophets, it were impossible for the wit of man to discover any true proportion of those great mysteries which the Evangelists relate, although all of them were contained in this, as in their first head or fountain, or as most chorographical descriptions are, in the cosmography of the Universe. Very probable it is, that our mother Hevah did from this promise conceive, that the seed promised should be Vir jehovah, a man which should be likewise the Lord God. But questionless she did not imagine, much less believe, that this man, the Lord, should be conceived and brought forth of a pure Virgin, for such she herself was not when she uttered that speech possedi virum ipsum jehovah, in his Comments upon the 4 first Chapters of Genesis, ●nd in his Collations. as Fagius upon several revises reads it. Nor could the parents of Noah imagine that their son should be so conceived or borne, although (as many good Authors think) they mistook him as Hevah did Cain, for the promised woman's seed; presume they might without presumption, that the promised Messias was to proceed from him according to the flesh, but seeing Noah had more sons than one, it was not to him or to others then living distinctly represented, from what branch of his stock he should proceed; until Noah by divine instinct or inspiration did bequeath the birthright unto Sem; but Sem had many sons, and his posterity was great, and it is not probable that Sem himself did know from which of them the promised seed should issue, until the blessing which Noah bestowed on Sem was by God himself (and perhaps by Sem as God's Ambassador) bestowed on Abraham, unto whom the former mystery concerning the incarnation of the son of God, was more distinctly represented both by word and fact, than it had been to any of his Ancestors. He doubtless did conceive, that the seed in whom all the Nations of the world were to be blessed, should be God, the son of God, be borne after a more miraculous manner than his son Isaac had been: but Abraham's seed by Isaac became more numerous than any man's before his time had been, and was divided into twelve Tribes. In which of these twelve Tribes the promised seed was to be sought for, was as uncertain, and as undistinct, as if we should seek for the topography of some particular Town of England in an ordinary Map of Europe. jacob on his deathbed points at his parentage in this generality, (Genesis 49. ver. 10.) that he was to spring out of judah. But God by his spirit directs the Church to seek him in the Genealogy of jesse and David in the Land of judea. David himself had a distinct representation, that he should not be his son only, but that he who then was his Lord, should become his son, and be made Priest after the order of Melchisedech; and no doubt but David conceived withal, that this his Lord and son should be borne of a virgin, not begotten by any man; for thus much the holy Spirit, which spoke to him, hath literally charactered unto us in that speech, Psa. 132. ver. 11. Of the fruit of thy womb will I set upon thy throne, etc. The same mystery or the performance of this promise made to David, is, more distinctly unfolded by Isaiah Cap. 7. ver. 14. The Lord himself will give you a sign, Behold the virgin shall conceive, etc. But whether this long expected son of David should proceed from Solomon or any of his race, or from the race or lineage of some other son of David, this was not represented (for aught we read) either unto David or Isaiah; and sure the Author of the 89. Psalm, (whether David or rather some later Prophet) was nescient of this particular, and the interruption or extinction of Solomon's line was (I take it) first revealed unto jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and the accomplishment of their Prophecies (of Ezekiels' especially) first acknowledged or observed by the blessed virgin in her a Luk. 1. 52 Magnificat. In David's time the place of his conception and birth were not discovered. b Isa. 11. 1. Isa 53 2. Isaiah first points at the place of his conception in particular, but c See the Treatise of Christ's answer to john. And Nazareth and Bethlem. enigmatically. jeremiah describes the place of his conception more plainly, yet in a far greater generality, That he was to be conceived in the Land of Ephraim, as it was divided from judah. Yet haply if Herod had asked his Scribes and others, where the King of the Jews was to be conceived, it is questionable whether they could so clearly have resolved him of the place of his conception, as they did certify him of the distinct place of his birth. This they learned out of the Prophet Micah, Chap. 5. ver. 2. 3. That of our Apostle Hebrews 1. ver. 1. is exactly verified in respect of the article now in handling. The Prophets and holy men of God, or God by their ministry spoke of our Saviour's conception and birth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not at sundry times only, or in several ages of the Fathers, but piecemeal or by scattered predictions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sundry ways; sometimes literally and plainly, sometimes mystically or enigmatically. But in this later age he hath spoken unto us by his Son, (or, in his Son:) For even the historical passages of his conception and birth, though delivered unto us by his Evangelists spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his very conception, his birth and actions, as well as the words uttered by him, have their plain, and full language, and if we take them as set down by the Evangelists, are as the putting together of all what the Prophets had spoken scatteredly, or represented by broken pictures, or portions of truth. After that main head or fountain of Prophecies was opened, and had his course drawn by God himself, not by any Prophet. [I will put enmity between thee, and him, etc.] Every succeeding age (especially from the deluge) adds some new rills or petty streams unto it, the full current of which is conspicuous only in the Gospel. CHAP 32. Saint Luke's narration of our Saviour's conception and birth, and its exact concordance with the Prophets. TO begin with S. Luke's narration of his conception Cap. 1. ver. 26. In the 6. month, the Angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a City of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. In these few lines we have the exact chorography of those general or more obscure descriptions which Isaias and jeremiah had made of the place of his conception; and in the words following we have the particular and most exact survey of all Gods promises made to David, or related by other Prophets concerning that son of David, who was to rule over jacob for ever. When Saint Luke saith in the words forecited, the Angel Gabriel was sent in the sixth month, this may refer either to the time of john Baptists conception (as in all probability it doth) ver. 36.) Behold, thy Cousin Elizabeth she also hath conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren: Or it may refer unto the sixth month of the year, according to the ancient and civil account of the Hebrews: for until the time of Israel's delivery out of Egypt, the month wherein john Baptist was conceived (which answers for the past part to our September) was the first month in which (as most later Divines are of opinion) the world was created. Cap. 32 The month Abib (which answers unto March with us) became observable to the Israelites from their deliverance in that month out of Egypt, and continues in their Ecclesiastical account the first in order. In the same month the conception of our Lord and Saviour was denounced by the Angel, and our deliverance by him from the powers of darkness afterwards accomplished, and well deserves the title of the first month since his conception and passion: but in whether of these two respects, or whether in both, the month wherein the Angel was sent, be termed the sixth month is no matter of such moment or consideration, as the tenor of his message, ver. 31. 32. And behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name jesus: He shall be great, and shall be called the son of the highest, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his Father David. When the Angel said, He shall be great, and his mother shall call his name JESUS, it is implied, that as yet he was not great, that he had not the beginning of that greatness which is here promised. And may it not be as rightly implied, that when he saith, He shall be called the son of the highest, as yet he was not the son of the highest, but first to brook the name of jesus, and then first to be made and called the son of God, when he was become great, and had received the throne of his Father David. But it is not without observation, that the Angel saith not, He shall be the son of the highest, nor doth he say, that the blessed Virgin his Mother should bestow this name upon him, as she did the name of jesus. The intent and meaning of the holy Ghost in this place, is, that this fruit of the Virgin's womb, who was to be named jesus by his mother, from his circumcision, should be called the son of the highest, not in regard of his future greatness as man, or as he was the promised son of David, but by reason of his peculiar assumption, or union into the person of the son of God, who was David's Lord before he was conceived, and was publicly to be declared the son of God by his resurrection from the dead. At which time and not before, he took the especial government of that Kingdom upon him, which had so often been promised to the son of David. This meaning of the holy Ghost, the Evangelist doth open unto us, ver. 33. He shall reign over the house of jacob for ever, and of his Kingdom there shall be no end. 2. Unless this holy of holyes, who was now to be borne of the blessed virgin Mary, had been the son of God before this time, he should in reason be called the son of the holy Ghost. For unto the virgin Mary, demanding how this should be seeing she know not a man, ver. 34. The Angel answered, The holy Ghost shall come upon thee, etc. An Emphatical expression of that which we believe in the Creed, That the holy Ghost should work his conception. Now he who is Author of the conception of any person, which before such a conception had no existence, is in propriety of speech to be reputed the Father of the party or person conceived. But this very person whom we now adore under that name or title of Christ jesus our Lord, being before all Worlds the true and only son of God, albeit the holy Ghost was the Author of his conception as man (a more principal cause and Author of his conception, than any mortal Father is of his mortal son:) yet was not the fruit of the virgin's womb to be reputed the son of the holy Ghost, but of him alone who was the true and only Father of that person, unto whom the fruit of the Virgin's womb was by the operation of the holy Ghost personally united. The holy Ghost was not then the cause or Author of any new person, but only espoused, or betrothed the humane nature of Christ (which before had no actual existence) unto him who was the son of God from eternity. Now not he that gives, but he that takes the spouse given in marriage, is the true husband. And the spouse so taken, from her espousal, becomes the daughter not of him that gives her in marriage, but of the Father of her husband, with whom she is now made one flesh. Thus God the Father (by this espousal thus wrought by the holy Ghost,) becomes the Father of the humane nature of jesus, which was now united unto his son, after another manner then before he had been, of any man; and after another manner than the holy Ghost was, or is the Father of the man Christ jesus. Christ then as God and man is the only son of God the Father: The same jesus only as man, is the son of David. 3. That the promised Messias was, according to the Prophecies, to be the son of David, is evident: but by what line all descent he was to be the son of David, or by what legal right the Kingdom of David was derived unto him, is not without question amongst Christians. David, we know, by God's free donation, was King of judah and Israel, and Solomon by legal right did succeed him in his Kingdom. And Solomon's heirs or Successors by bodily descent had as firm a title to the Kingdom of David, as any other Kings or Monarches have to the Crowns and dignities of their Ancestors. But whether Solomon's line by bodily descent, were utterly extinguished before the conception or birth of our Saviour, is a point neither much debated, nor agreed upon by Divines. If it were extinguished before that time, yet David's line did not determine with solomon's. And for this reason (haply) our Saviour is instyled by the holy Ghost, the son of David, not so of Solomon; albeit Solomon was as true a shadow of him as King, as David had been: And Solomon's Kingdom and reign a fairer map of his Kingdom then david's was. And though our Saviour's intermediate Ancestors, according to the flesh from David downward, were many, as S. Luke, and more than S. Matthew relates: Yet he did immediately succeed David in the Kingdom. For so by the law of most Countries, in case the elder brethren's sons or issues fail, the third or fourth brother succeeds as lawful heir, not unto his elder brothers, or their children, but to their Grandfather or first donor. Many may be immediate heirs unto them to whom they are no immediate Successors in lineal descent. That Solomon and his line had no such perpetuity bestowed upon them by virtue of God's Covenant with David, as that it might not determine before the promised seed of David, was exhibited, the tenor of that Covenant (as it is exemplified by the Author of the 89. Psalm) puts out of question; I have found David my servant, with my holy oil have I anointed him. ver. 20. He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him my first borne; higher than the Kings of the earth: my mercy will I keep for him evermore: and my Covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of Heaven, ver. 26, 27, 28, 29. This last he speaks of David's seed as of one, not of his seeds as of many. For so it follows, ver. 30. If his children forsake my Law, and walk not in my judgements, if they break my statutes, and keep not my Commandments; then will I visit their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. This visitation with rods and stripes imports more than fatherly chastisements: true and real punishments. Yea, heavy judgements upon David's other children according to their deserts. None are utterly exempted from God's heavy displeasure, besides the promised seed, or David's son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whose prerogative is in the next words reserved by oath, Never the loss my loving kindness will I not take from David, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail: my covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips, ver. 33. This is in effect, as if he had said, however david's other sons provoke me, I will not repent of that loving kindness which I promised to him; it shall be accomplished in David's seed; for in respect of things alterable or reversible, whether promised for the good of men, or threatened for their woe, God is usually said to repent, but to whatsoever he swears, of that he never reputes. Every event ratified by oath is either unalterable or irreversible. The Lord hath sworn, saith David Psal. 110. and will not repent, that is, he will not change or alter that which he hath promised. To alter that which was only promised, but without oath, is in the phrase of the holy Ghost (as we usually render the original) to fail or break Covenant, that is in more proper language, to reverse a blessing promised. Hence it is added in the next verse of the 89. Psalm, [Once have I sworn by my holiness, that I will not lie unto David] that is, I will not make void my covenant. His seeds shall endure for ever, and his throne as the Sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the Moon, and as a faithful witness in Heaven. This is that throne, and that Kingdom which the Angel (Luke 1. 32, 33.) foretold should be given unto the seed or fruit of the Virgin's womb. As for David's other children, or for Solomon's race, their title to the temporary Crown of David was at the first but conditional or rather mutable: for every conditional estate presupposeth a state in being, but a state mutable, or reversible. Such was the state of Solomon, or the heirs of his body, aswell unto the kingdom of Judah as of Israel. The Kingdom of Israel they utterly lost in the second descent. The next Quaere is, whether this their estate unto Judah or Israel, which was by original tenor reversible, were de facto utterly reversed, and the Covenant (as it concerned them) finally canceled. 4 And of this Quaere the branches are two, first, whether Salomon's line were utterly extinguished before the return of judah from the Babylonish Captivity, or in any age before the son of God, and the promised seed of David was manifested in the flesh? The second, whether in case the utter extinguishment of Salomon's line be a point doubtful, or by any authentic Author or record indeterminable; This line, were not in the same desperate case, for recovering the Kingdom, that Eli's race was for regaining the Priesthood, from which it was by solemn oath deposed? That Solomon's line was utterly excluded from inheriting the Kingdom of judah and jacob, the Jews and Christians for the most part agree: And the tenor of that terrible sentence against jeconiah (according to the principles acknowledged by both) will infer no less. As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim King of judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence: And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand of them whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nabuchadnezzar King of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bore thee, into another Country where ye were not borne, and there shall ye dye. But to the Land, whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return. Is this man Coniah a despised broken Idol? Is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? Wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a Land which they know not? O earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord, Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in judah. jerem. 22. 24, 25, 26, etc. This last clause is (to me) a concludent proof, that the man Christ Jesus was not of jeconiahs' seed, because he was to sit upon the throne of David, and to prosper; yea, to be the fountain of all prosperity to Prince and people: And he that will avouch our Lord and Saviour to have been of the seed of jeconiah, will hardly be able to fend off that contradiction, which his assertion directly includes, not only to the Angel's promise (Luk. 1. 33.) but unto the Prophet jeremiah, cap. 23. ver. 5, 6. Behold, the day is come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a King shall reign and [prosper] and shall execute judgement and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, etc. The man Christ Jesus is in this place (and elsewhere) instyled the branch of David, or a stem of the root of jesse, but no where a branch of Solomon, or of his seed which (is most probable) did determine in jeconiah, whom his Uncle Zedekiah did succeed for a while in the kingdom of Judah, but with worse success. For Ezekiels' denouncement against him, and the Crown of Solomon was no less terrible than this of jeremiah against Coniah: And thou profane wicked Prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end: Thus saith the Lord God, Remove the Diadem, and take off the Crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is, and I will give it him. Ezech. 21. 25, 26, 27. The contents of this denunciation (as I take it) are these especially, Both the Crown and the Mitre [the ensigns of the royal and sacerdotal dignity,] were so to be crushed, that neither should remain the same they were. The Mitre was to be cast a new, but in a far less mould: the Crown to be broken, and the relics of it to be united to the Mitre, both put together to remain, but as models of that dignity, which before they generally had, until the royal and princely dignity were united in him that had full right to both, that is, in the promised seed, or Son of David. The readings upon the 27 verse, are various. The vulgar Latin (following the Septuagint) thus, iniquitatem ponam eam. The Zuricke or Tigurine thus, curvam curvam ponam eam. And if this reading be just and strait, it may serve as a character of that ●●●ked descent and tortuous revolution of the civil and Ecclesiastic power, from one Family unto another, not settling in any one line until the coming of the son of David, unto whom both by right did belong. Yet some authority in all this Tumble did still remain in the Tribe of judah, (though not in the race of Solomon or of David) until Shiloh came. And I know not whether that cited passage of Ezekiel ver. 27. It shall be no more (to wit, the same that it was,) until he come whose right it is, have not special reference to that Prophecy of jacob, Gen. 49. 10. The sceptre shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh come, and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. The Septuagint seem to interpret the name Shiloh according to the same importance that the original (as our English hath it Ezek. 21. 27.) [whose right it is,] as if Shiloh had been as much as Asherle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cui repositum est. But whether according to the ordinary rules of Grammar Shilo may stand for as much as Shello, or whether the mystery contained in this prophecy might require or dispense with some irregularity in the grammatical form of speech, I leave it to accurate Critics, or sacred Philologers: and so I do another question which is emergent as well out of the forecited words of jacob, as of Ezekiell, whether both prophecies were to be understood of Christ's first coming to judge Jerusalem (unto which later the words of Ezekiel seem most to incline, for so the original, until he come to whom judgement belongeth.) I rest contented with this part of the prophet Ezekiels' undoubted meaning, that neither the civil, nor the Ecclesiastic dignity of Judah were to be the same they were, until the coming of the expected Messiah, and yet some relics of both do remain until his coming. 5 Some of the Priestly line after this people's return from Babylon did take upon them to exercise princely authority, (as the Maccabees) but with more honour for a while, then with good success for posterity. Others afterwards did attempt the like, but were put by it, yet permitted or authorized by the Romans to exercise the Priestly function, some of them executed for their mutinous aspiring to the Crown. Lastly, when they became Competitors for the royal dignity, it was collated upon Antipater, and from him derived (or suffered by Augustus to descend) on Herod the great, in whose days the promised seed of David, the true heir unto the Crown of Judah was borne. But though Herod did exercise royal jurisdiction over Judea, aswel as over other neighbouring provinces, yet was he not created King over Judea; this was no part of his royal Title bestowed upon him by Antonius. The first solemn authorized Title of King of Judah, from the captivity of King jeconiah and Zedekiah, was that inscription written upon our Saviour's Cross, written by pilate's command, so peremptorily, that the Jews could not get a change or reversion of it in any of the three languages wherein it was written [jesus Nazarenus Rex judaeorum.] Pilate I take it did not in this inscription intent the scoff or scorn of our Saviour, or of the Jewish Nation, but only the style, or Title of the crime for which our Saviour was indicted: He neither affirmed nor denied him to be the King of the Jews, but that which the world might conceive was written in jest or in scoff, the God of Israel made good in earnest, by making this Jesus whom Pilate and the Jews had crucified, both Lord and Christ, that is, a far greater King, than Caesar himself, whom they acknowledge their only King. 6 joseph his supposed Father (in all * Otherwise our Saviour at his death would not have commended his mother unto S. john's care, but unto her husbands. probability) was dead before this time of our Saviour's passion, so that the lineal right of the Crown of David was now in Christ, as the only son of the virgin Mary, who had no child by joseph her husband, nor he any son by any former wife; so that the whole right unto the Crown of David, which either or both of them had, was by legal descent devolved upon this dying man, who after his great humiliation was to be more highly exalted, and in him alone that which was said by the prophet Ezekiel was accomplished, exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. And yet the same Prophecy had been at several times verified, or fulfilled in part before. And first perhaps in jeconiah, who after the debasing of Zedekiah, his uncle by Nabuchadnezzar, was exalted above other Captives by * 2 Kings 25. 27, 28. Nebuchadnezzars' son Evil-Merodach. And again more punctually (according to the prophet's meaning) in Zorobabel, and others of David's line, after Solomon's line was either extinguished or deposed; but more fully afterwards in the blessed Virgin, as she expresses her thankfulness for it in her sweet song, Luke 1. 52. He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble and the meek. Whether the blessed Virgin in her own right, or joseph her husband's while he lived, were the next heir unto the Crown of David, is disputed by others, unto whose determinations I have nothing to say in this place. Whatsoever right either or both of them had, was (I take it) derived from David by Nathan, not by Solomon or his successors. joseph and Mary were heirs to the kingdom which Solomon did enjoy, though not of his seed: and so were Salathiel, and Zorobabel, from whom they directly descended. 7 But whether her son should be the lawful heir of David, was no part of the blessed virgins doubt or question to the Angel. But how she should conceive a son according to the purport of the Angels promise, that she questions, Luke 1. 24. Then said Mary, how shall this be, seeing I know not a man? To omit the idle fancies of some, who would hence collect that the blessed virgin had vowed chastity in single life, as if I know not a man, had been as much, as I am resolved never to know man; The truth is, that however she was at this time espoused unto joseph, yet the marriage was not to be consummated till some competent space after the espousals, within which time she did rightly apprehend the conception foretold her by the Angel was to be accomplished, or rather from the very time of this present dialogue; and hence she demands, how it was possible, that she should instantly conceive, seeing she knew not a man; yet are not these words of distrust, they have no tincture of such incredulity or slow belief, as we find taxed in Sarah, and Zachariah father to john Baptist; yet were both Sarah, and Elizabeth the wife of Zachariah types or shadows of the blessed virgins miraculous conceiving. So were Hannah and Sampsons' mother. The conception of all their sons (and they were respectively their only sons) was wonderful and without the ordinary course of nature; peculiar blessings of him that maketh the barren to be a joyful mother of Children. Sarah and Hannah and john Baptists parents had been petitioners to the Lord of life for children, and had their petitions ratifyed, one by the Priest, and others by the Angel of the Lord. But Samson was promised to Manoahs' wife by the Angel of the Lord, without any petition on her part made to this purpose, and promised withal to be a deliverer of his people from the Philistines. And in this particular, or in the manner of the Angelical Annunciation, the birth of Samson was a most lively type of the birth of our Saviour, albeit this conception of Samson was not so strange as that of Isaac. That Sarah in her decrepit age should conceive a son, was a matter incredible, and unparallelled in any age of the world before or since, yet not properly miraculous. Through faith, (saith the Apostle Heb. 11. 11.) Sarah received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age (either for conceiving seed, or for bringing it forth conceived, yet both she did) because she judged him faithful who had promised. The faith by which she conceived strength was the gift of God, and the strength which she conceived by this faith, was such a wondrous effect, as these gifts which are attributed to the faith of miracles. But Sarah having received this strength by faith, the conception was according to the course of nature, it was with her after the manner of women; not so with the virgin Mary, who became blessed by believing the Angel: She did not receive strength to conceive seed; the performance of those things which were foretold by the Angel were from the Lord himself. * See Esay 7. 9 Unless she had believed, she had not been established; yet her belief did not cooperate with the effect promised. That was the immediate work of the holy Ghost by marrying part of her substance to the person of the Son of God, after a manner unknown to her. There was not first a marriage, and then a conception, nor a conception first and then a marriage, both were accomplished at once. CHAP. 33. S. Mathewes relation of the manner of our Saviour's conception and birth, and of the harmony betwixt it and the prophecies. IT is well observed by diverse good writers, that S. Matthew begins the Genealogy of our Saviour Christ not from Adam, where S. Luke (ordine retrogrado) ends it: but (ordine recto) from Abraham, because the Covenant of the promised seed was first by oath established in Abraham's line, and afterwards more particularly in david's, whose son and heir our Saviour was, though son by adoption, or next heir in reversion unto jeconiah, who was the last (as these Authors think) of Solomon's line: the last at least that could pretend unto the kingdom of David. And though it be said in our Saviour's Genealogy according to S. Matthew, that jeconiah begat Salathiel; yet this cannot be meant of a natural begetting, but of a civil. He was the son of Salathiel in such a sense as the holy Ghost useth in the second Psalm, ver. 7. Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee: to wit, unto the Kingdom of Israel; if this place be literally to be understood of David, (as the most probable opinion is,) though afterwards to be mystically fulfilled only in Christ, who is not only Gods only begotten son from eternity, but his first begotten from the dead, Cap. 33. and so made King of Kings and Lord of Lords. But of these points in their due place. 2 The birth of jesus Christ (saith S. Matthew, chap. 1. ver. 18. etc.) was on this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the holy Ghost. Then joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, joseph thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Marry thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. In this narration some special passages are expressly the same with the former related out of S. Luke, as that our Saviour was conceived by the holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, or in the Virgin Mary. So S. Matthew, to denote that the blessed Virgin was no agent in this conception, saith, that which is conceived in her is of the holy Ghost, Chap. 1. ver. 20. This, I take it, is of the same character with that message of the Angel unto the blessed virgin herself in S. Luke 1. chap. ver. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou shalt be with child and bring forth a son; as the Angel said unto the wife of Manoah (judges 13. 3.) and to others which beyond expectation or course of nature did conceive and bring forth sons of promise. Both Evangelists again expressly tell us, that the virgin Mary was espoused to joseph the son of David, before the Angel Gabriel did bring this message unto her; hereby giving us to understand that the works which the Devil had wrought in our nature should in this particular (as in many others) be undone by God, after the same way and method that they were done by this his enemy. The first woman we know did conceive sin, whilst she was a virgin, at least before she knew her husband Adam, who was the only man then on Earth: for she was a virgin espoused from her first Creation. This first woman conceived death by believing the Serpent, and practising according to his Counsel, before she had consulted her husband. The blessed virgin did conceive the Lord of life by believing the Angel Gabriels' message without consent or advise of her betrothed Husband, who at the first suspected her loyalty, but afterwards (admonished by the holy Ghost) did admit of her as his lawful consort, did permit her to enjoy all the privileges of a wife, and her son the privileges of his only son and heir, without any further knowledge of her as his wife, 3 S. Luke gives us the Chronologie of our Saviour's birth more distinctly then S. Matthew doth; It came to pass (saith he) in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed, or booked. Chap. 2. ver. 1. The exact year from the giving of the law, or from the return of Judah from Captivity, neither of the Evangelists do meddle with in the story of our Saviour's birth; and for this reason. I omit them. The other circumstances concerning the time wherein (according to the Roman account) he was borne, with the place, were more useful for us; because these were, or might have been, known to all other Nations, not to the Jews only, out of the Roman Annals. It is agreed by all, that Jesus was borne in the time of Augustus, and in the days of Herod the King. If any be desirous to know the exact year, wherein he was borne, the best rule for his direction in this search must be to find out the time of that tax or enrolment, mentioned by S. Luke Chap. 2. ver. 1, 2, etc. Now this taxing or inrolling was first made when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria, and that (as all agree) was either in the beginning of the 42, or in the latter end of the 41, of Augustus. Yet whether this taxing or inrollement of every person capable of such inrollement, were not decreed, or intended before by Augustus, though first put in execution whilst Cyrenius was Governor of Syria, may admit some doubt or question: however, we are to calculate the time of our Saviour's birth from the time in which this decree was put in execution throughout Judea, not from the time of the first design, or intention of Augustus to have such a tax or enrolment of all that were Subjects to the Roman Empire. 4 The Spanish Nation as well for their civil, as Ecclesiastic Acts did for a long time after they became Christians, use a Computation of years different from all other Christian States or Kingdoms. For all besides them (as far as I have observed) begin their Computation from our Lord's incarnation or birth, which was at the same time that this decree of Augustus was put in execution through Judea. The Spaniards begun their Aera (so they call their computation) sums 27 years more or less before this time, and as sundry of their ancient writers think from that time wherein Augustus did first resolve upon this taxing and inrolling of all the families under his jurisdiction, and that (as they allege) was first thought on, and engrossed at Tarracone in Spain after he had fully subdued the Cantabrians and others which had revolted from him in Spain. 5 But this most probable opinion of many ancient writers (as others of like nature usually do) suffers some praejudice by impertinent and disprovable allegations sought out for the confirmation of it. First, the writers take it as granted, that the decree set forth by Augustus in Spain, was for raising a general tax or tribute throughout all his Dominions, that this tribute was to be paid in brass, a currant coin amongst the Romans, aswell for the payment of Soldiers, as for the discharge of civil contracts, or mulcts wherein they were condemned. And from this supposition (which will not be granted them) these writers conjecture that the word Aera took its original Hence they call this decree of Augustus, aerea constitutio, as if the word Aera which (in their language) is the computation of times or years, were the plural, (though not warrantable by Priscian) of the Latin Aes, afterwards by common use made a noun singular. But this supposition itself, [that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof S. Luke speaks, should import as much as a general tax or tribute] is confuted by * Vide Sepulvedae Cordubensis de correctione anni mensiumque Romanorum tractatum. Sepulveda a professed Spanish Antiquary, and Chronicler unto Charles the fifth. And if his observations fail not the Romans did not receive their Tribute or Taxes either in brass or gold, but in silver only. And because the imposition of Tribute or Tax is always ungrateful to conquered Provinces or people, it is an opinion in Sepulveda his judgement void of probability, that the Spaniards should begin their computation of time from such a distasteful decree, but rather from the immunities or privileges which Augustus did bestow upon that Nation. For so the Jews begin their Aera, or computation of time from their joyful deliverance out of Egypt, and from the restauration by Cyrus and his Successors; as we Christians do ours from the birth or conception of our Saviour Christ. As for the Latin Aera, that Sepulveda first, and diverse other good writers after him, derive more properly from a mistake of ancient writers not so well acquainted as they might have been, with the abbreviations used in the date of public civil Acts. Now the ancient Spaniards did date such Acts, (as we do) by the reign of our Kings; but they of Augustus especially after this manner A. E. R. A; which stood for as much as Annus erat Augusti, (suppose 20, 30, 40, etc.) But succeeding ages ignorant of this manner of writing, putting the former scattered letters or syllables together, made one entire word of them AERA, or AERA. 6. Yet to grant this learned Critic all that he demands concerning this point, he errs no less (to my apprehension) in his peremptory negative inferences, than those Writers whom he refutes, had done in their affirmative conjectures concerning the original of the word AERA, or the supposed occasion of it. His intended conclusion, is that this AERA or computation of time (which is peculiar to the Spaniards) hath no reference to the decree of Augustus mentioned by S. Luke Chap. 2. whereas Gerundensis, Vide librum decimum Paralipomen●●n Gerundensis Episcopi. besides other good Spanish Writers, brings positive proof that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof S. Luke speaks (were it a tax, or as Sepulveda will have it, an enrolment or booking of several Tribes or Families, or of particular persons in every Family) was projected by Augustus in Spain, immediately after he had subdued his rebellious people there, as presuming that all the world beside, (at least all that did yield obedience to the Roman Empire) had been quiet. But finding opposition in other Countries beyond his expectation, he did defer the execution of the former decree until all were quiet within the Empire; until bordering or neighbour Countries had professed their desire of peace, or were admitted into a league of amity with the Romans. Now this being done, the decree was first put in execution throughout the whole Empire, at the time (mentioned by S. Luke) of our Saviour's birth. In those days (saith S. Luke) there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed or enroled. These words in those days may either punctually refer unto the days between our Saviour's conception and birth, or unto some longer time between the first setting forth of this decree or design of Augustus, and the execution of it. So S. Luke in the 2. verse tells us, that this taxing or inrolling was first made, when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria, and all went to be taxed or enroled every one into his own City. A thing, I take it, neither necessary nor usual among the Romans for gathering of public taxes or tribute, which might be done either at the place of their dwellings, or in some chief Cities wherein they were enjoined to pay them. Other christian Nations begin their AERA or Computation of time from the execution of this decree, which falls upon the time of our Saviour's birth. The Spanish Nation begun theirs from the first setting forth or design of this enrolment, which jumps with the time of Augustus his gracious Reign over them, and their admission into his special favour. 7. The deferring of the execution of this decree, upon the occasions mentioned by Gerundensis and other Spanish Writers, is most agreeable to the admirable course of Gods proceeding in like cases; whose pleasure it is, to dispose and order the projects of greatest Princes, either quite contrary to their intentions, or to divert them from the point at which they level, unto the punctual fulfilling of his will revealed, or the predictions of his Prophets. Had Augustus gone on with his former purpose of inrolling all his Subjects instantly after his victory upon the Cantabrians, there had been no public record that joseph and Mary were of the lineage of David; The blessed Virgin being at that time according to the common calculation of her years, unborn, at least uncapable of the espousals, or of enrolment: For (as I take it) the Romans did not intend to enrol Children or Infants. Or if in any years intercurrent between the beginning of the Spanish AERA, & that point of time which S. Luke mentions, the former decree had taken effect in judea, the son of David had not been brought forth in the City of David. For neither had joseph or Mary any other purpose or occasion to visit Bethleem, besides obedience to the Emperor's decree for their enrolment at the prime seat of their Family, and perhaps for paying some head-silver, or admission money. But God in his unsearchable wisdom devolves the execution of Augustus' intention or purpose upon this very point of time, to the end it might appear upon authentic record, that both joseph the supposed Father, & Mary the undoubted Mother of our Lord and Saviour, (unto both whom he was the true and lawful heir) were of the stock & lineage of David, and that this promised seed of David, and branch of jesse, which had come into his mother's womb in Nazareth, might come into the world in Bethleem, where David was borne, and jesse dwelled. It is not probable that the Romans did register his birth there, yet this the Lord would have authentically notified unto the world by the repairing of the wise men from the East to do their homage unto him there, and that by the direction of the chief. Priests and Scribes being consulted by Herod the King. Of the compass of time in which or of the place from which these wise men came to Bethleem, in its due time and place. But our Saviour was borne before they set forth, and borne at Bethleem upon the occasions mentioned by S. Luke, and as S. Matthew intimates, to the end, that the fulfilling of a Prophecy concerning his birth might be so remarkably recorded, as it might leave both Jew and Gentile without excuse. That Bethleem was the place designed by God for the birth of the promised Messias, was a notion clear and evident to the chief Priests and Scribes, at the time when Herod consulted them. For as then they had conceived no prejudice against the person, birth, or life of our Saviour: Nor had the malice of their heart wrought any Eclipse in their brains or understanding: they had their answer ad ●nguem. When Herod the King (saith S. Matthew heard this thing, he was troubled, etc. And when he had gathered all the chief Priests and Scribes together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he consulted them (as Oracles) where Christ should be borne. And they said unto him, (without distraction, or scattering of suffrages) in Bethleem of judaea. For thus it is written by the Prophet; And thou Bethleem in the land of judah, art not the least among the Princes of judah. For out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. It is not strange if the chief Priests and Scribes were so ready with their answers unto Herod, seeing this prenotion concerning the place of the Messiahs birth, was known unto the vulgar people. Many of the people (saith S. John) when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet: Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said, that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethleem, where David was? 8. But how clear soever the meaning of the Prophet Micah in those days were both to Priest and people: some variation there is in the words of S. Matthew, from the words of the Prophet, as they stand in the original: at which, both later Jews, and some Christians take more offence than the ancient Jews could have done. And if this variation were of any moment, or could minister just offence, either to the Jew, to the Grecian, or to the Church of God, all the blame were to be laid upon these Scribes and Priests, whom Herod in his perplexity did consult. For S. Matthew in this particular was but the Register of their answer, which he did record in the same words that they solemnly made it. The words of the Prophet in the original, as they are now pointed, run thus: And thou Bethleem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of judah; yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting. Micah 5. 2. The answer of the Priests and Scribes, as it stands upon record by S. Matthew, is verbatim thus; And thou Bethleem in the land of judea (in clearer distinction from Bethleem in the Tribe of Zebulon, in which Tribe, or upon whose borders our Saviour was conceived, than the Prophet's words import, for That (it may be) might as truly brook the name of Ephrata) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nequaquam mini●a es inter principat●●, and Chiliadas judeae, Art nothing less than the least of all the Segniories or divisions of judah. For so it seems they did divide their Tribes or Provinces, as we do Shires or Counties into several Hundreds or Liberties. Some good Writers, whom our English followeth, seek to salve this seeming contradiction between the Prophet and Evangelist, or that answer which he relates, made by the chief Priests and Scribes to Herod, thus; But thou, (or as for thee) O Bethleem Ephrata, though thou be little to be reckoned among the Signories or thousands of judea, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be Ruler in Israel, etc. But this squaring of the Prophet's words to our Evangelists relation, is somewhat harsh and rugged to the modern Jew, who seeks to frame his steps according to the plain trodden literal sense. And therefore seeing both Christians and Jews, as well ancient as modern, agree that the promised Messias was to be borne in Bethleem: the variation of the reading in the Prophet, and in the Evangelist should not in reason be too much stood upon by either; yet seeing we are bound to give no offence to the Jew, nor to press any reading, at which they may stumble, being inclined to trip at every scruple; we may (I take it) with the liking and approbation of Drusius (an exquisite Hebrician for point of Grammar) and without the dislike of any learned Jew, read the first words of the Prophet Micah, by way of interrogation, thus, And art thou Bethleem Ephrata little, or too little to be reputed among the principalities of judah? Now this interrogation according to both their rules and ours, is equivalent to the negative used by our Evangelist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nequaquam minima, thou art in no wise little or too little to have place among the Signories or principalities of judaea. This interrogation being presupposed, the words following naturally, admit this paraphrastical supply; little thou art, and for a long time hast been in re, but great in spe: For out of thee shall he come forth to me which shall be the Ruler over Israel, whose going forth hath been of old, from everlasting; foretold and expected before judah was a Kingdom, or David a King, from the beginning of the world, of mankind, and ever since the fall of the first man Adam. CHAP 34. Cap. 34 The manner of our Saviour's conception and birth, as it was foretold by the Prophet Isaiah, exactly fulfilled. The jews exceptions against S. Matthewes allegation of the Prophet Isaiahs' testimony, with the full answer unto them. MICAH foretells the particular place of the son of David's birth in terms plain and literal. jeremiah the place of his conception in general, as Isaiah had done before in particular, but both somewhat enigmatically. The manner of his conception and birth (abstracted from these circumstances of place and time) is most emphatically foretold by Isaiah, and as I take it, some few years before Micah did so punctually describe the place of his birth. Micah (as it is upon sacred record) jerem. 26. 18, 19 prophesied in the days of Hezekiah, and so did Isaias. But whether any prophecy of Micah bear date before the reign of Hezekiah, is to me uncertain: And that prophesy of Micah before mentioned, Chap. 5. ver. 2. And thou Bethleem in the land of judea, &c in all probability, was delivered in the days of Hezekiah, and after that other prophecy, Micah, 3. 12. Zion shall be ploughed like a field, etc. Whereas the prophecy of Isaias concerning the manner of Christ's conception and birth was uttered by him viva voce, in the days of King Ahaz, who was Father to Hezekiah, as appears Isaiah 7. 1. unto the 17. The prophecy was, Hear ye now O House of David, is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a Virgin (or the Virgin) shall conceive and bear▪ a son, and shall call his name Emanuel. This is the first prophecy alleged by S. Matthew, Chap. 1. where having registered the Angel's speech to joseph in a vision by night, ver. 19 [Then joseph her Husband being a just ●an, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold the A●gel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying; Joseph thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Marry thy wife: for that which is conceived in her, is of the holy Ghost] he thus concludeth: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet. 2. junius in his parallel upon this 22 verse, and the forecited testimony of Isaiah, moveth a question, neither so curious nor so dangerous as pertinent [whether these words be the collections or interpretations of S. Matthew, or whether in this historical relation he were only the Register of the Angel's speech to joseph, as in the forecited testimony out of Micah, he was of the chief Priests and Scribes answer unto Herod's demand, concerning the place where the Messias should be born.] This good writer is of opinion that the Angel himself did unfold the true intent and purpose of the holy Ghost in that prophecy unto joseph, as a principal argument to persuade him not to put away Marry his espoused wife, but entertain her, and her son with the same respect and love, as if the child conceived in her had been as well his only begotten son as hers. But however the Angel's presence and manner of speech did afford abundant satisfaction to Joseph's perplexed thoughts for the present; yet to prevent all future regretting, after the Angel's departure from them (when haply the dream or vision might be partly forgotten, or the truth of it suspected) it was convenient to acquaint him with the word of the Lord written long before to the same purpose; for that was permanent and beyond all exception or suspicion. And seeing it was so clearly foretold by the Prophet, that a Virgin should conceive, and bring forth a son, who should be a sign or pledge of comfort to the house of David, it could not seem strange or improbable to joseph, that his espoused wife, who, as he himself also, was of the lineage of David, should be the virgin meant by the holy Ghost in that prophecy. S. Matthew then did learn the true meaning of the Prophet by the Angel, and this meaning of it being avouched by both, there can be no question amongst Christians of the concludent proof and efficacy of the prophecy itself, as it is alleged by S. Matthew. We may not suspect or think that it was fulfilled only by way of accommodation, or allusion, as in the judgement of some modern Divines, diverse other Scriptures are; which yet are said by our Evangelist to be fulfilled, or for the fulfilling of which, many events historically related by them, are said to be done, or come to pass. 3 Yet even this most pregnant testimony of that grand mystery of our faith [that Christ was conceived by the holy Ghost, and borne of the virgin Mary] is shrewdly opposed by the modern Jews; and their oppositions to our usual interpretations of this prophecy, are more fiercely maintained by them, because it is in itself so pregnant. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ First, they object that the original word gnalma doth not always import a virgin, but sometimes a childbearing woman; that in this place it points at the Prophet's present wife, who before this time had brought him forth Children, one at least, and was now to bring him forth another, which was to be the Emmanuel here meant. But this grammatical exception against the original word is the weakest they bring, and is clearly refuted by junius and many others; and were it granted that the original word might sometimes import a childbearing woman, (which is a conceit of theirs, as foolish as impious;) yet could i● not in this place denote the prophet's present wife. It is questioned whether the Prophet at this time had any wife at all, though it be apparent that Isaias had been married before this time from the third verse of the 7 Chapter, [Than said the Lord unto Isaias, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou and Shear-iashub thy son,] a son no doubt lawfully begotten. But if his mother had been then living, or if she had been Hagnalma that virgin or woman, in whom the prophet did mean to instance in particular, there should have been mention of her coming, as well as of her sons Shear-iashub, with Isaiah to meet Ahaz at the place appointed by the Lord himself; for all things contained in his prophecy, the very circumstances of time and place, are particularised most exactly. 4. Secondly, the Jews object, that if our Saviour Christ had been the seed here promised, or if the blessed Virgin, or joseph her husband had known thus much, they would have called him Emmanuel, not Jesus, at his circumcision; at least, this should have been his usual name. For so the prophet expressly saith, And thou shalt call his name Emmanuel, whereas the Angel enjoineth the virgin to call her son jesus. The third and main exception, which they press most fiercely, is, that the child here promised (whosoever were to be his mother) was to be a pledge of that strange deliverance of Ahaz and his people (within some few years after) from the confederacy of Syria and Ephraim, who had then projected the utter extirpation of the house of David. Now every sign, is either of some future event to be exhibited after the sign is given, or an assurance that those things which are said to be foretold in the name of the Lord, were so foretold by God indeed, not pretended only by the prophet. If this Emmanuel were to be a sign and pledge to Ahaz and his people, that the Lord would deliver them beyond their expectation from their present Enemies, he was (according to the literal and historical purport of the Prophet's words) to be borne before this deliverance was accomplished. If he were only to be a sign or assurance that the words which Isaias spoke to Ahaz were spoken by the special command of the Lord, this might be an undoubted sign to us, or to such as lived about the time of his birth; it could be no sign or assurance unto Ahaz, or the people then living, either of their deliverance from their Enemies, or that Isaias had spoken to them in the name of the Lord, if they did otherwise question his authority. Or to say the very truth, unless the Emmanuel there promised, were borne at the time limited by the prophet, his birth could yield no assurance unto us, that Ahaz was delivered from the King of Syria and Ephraim, or that these two Enemies were cut off within the time limited by the prophet. All this we are to believe from the historical narration and literal sense of the Prophet, not from the Evangelicall story concerning the miraculous birth of our Saviour; of which if we have a true historical belief, we must believe the Evangelist from the predication of the Prophet, or from the parallel between the Prophets and the Evangelists words. This inference is good and sufficient to ground true belief [The prophet foretold the virgin should conceive and bear a son; therefore the Evangelists allegation and history is of divine truth] but not è contra, [the Evangelist reports that a virgin did conceive and bring forth a son, ergò that which the prophet had said of Ahaz his deliverance from his enemies, is of like truth and authority.] junius therefore with some others, consequently enough to their own interpretations of this place, deny that the birth of the Emmanuel here prophesied by Isaiah, was any sign at all of Ahaz present delivery, or of the disaster of Rezin and Pekah, but of a greater and stranger deliverance of Judah and Israel from their potent enemies in future ages. And that seeing the Lord from the beginning of that kingdom had promised to give the house of David so admirable a sign, as the conception of a son by a pure virgin, it was either hypocrisy or strange incredulity in Ahaz to refuse a lesser sign of his present deliverance, when God did so freely offer it, as it is ver. 10, 11, 12. Moreover the Lord spoke again unto Ahaz, saying; ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God, ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. This, in the prophet's construction was, to weary and vex God, who had proffered this sign, But what sign? Any that Ahaz would demand for his present security against the confederacy of Syria and Ephraim. And seeing he would not choose a sign, the Lord would give him one, better than he could have chosen for himself, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, etc. But the question still remains of what this should be a sign? junius denyeth it to be any sign of that deliverance or assurance, for which Ahaz was commanded to ask a sign; he adds withal, that of this temporary deliverance Shear-iashub, whom Isaiah was commanded to bring with him, when he went to meet Ahaz, was the sign or pledge. But herein I cannot assent unto him, for Shear-iashub was a pledge of their * See the 10 § of this Chapter. return whom Pekah and Rhesin had lately captivated, no sign or pledge of keeping Ahaz or Hezekiah in possession of the Kingdom. Of all this the Emmanuel here promised was the undoubted sign or pledge, if we would look upon the sacred story, whilst we debate those controversies with the Jew, or with others, that differ in opinion from us in this particular. 5 Not to trouble the Reader with recital of other good Christian writers opinions concerning this point, or of their expositions upon this place of Isaiah: the resultance of their confident contestations pro, and con, is but this. There is more contention than contradiction between them about the true intent and meaning of the holy Ghost, and of the Prophet. The Jew indeed flatly contradicts us in our expositions of this place, and so far as they contradict us in the main point, we are bound to maintain our contradiction to them. But the extending of this contradiction unto them in all their expositions on this place, & of some others, declare the Jew and us Christians to be two sons of one and the same Father. The Jew being the elder brother, is careful to preserve the map or terrar of the inheritance bequeathed unto him, after he hath been disinherited. And, frantic as he is, having the map or terrar, he brags that the inheritance represented in it is wholly his. We Christians one and other being seized and in possession of the inheritance, permit him the liberty of raving: (as losers must have leave to speak) But oftentimes while we laugh at him, we ourselves are careless to take a Copy of the terrar, whose safe custody the Jew makes chief matter of his Religion; although he oftentimes beslurre it with foolish animadversions of his own invention, as unskilful students do good books which they understand not with impertinent ridiculous marginal notes or interlineations. But however we Christians be in possession of the inheritance promised to Abraham, from which Abraham's seed according to the flesh have been ejected, it would be no harm to be beholding unto them for a Copy of the ancient terrars of it, I mean, of the literal sense of diverse Scriptures, of prophecies especially, and of this most admirable prophecy in particular. The blots and stains which the Jew hath made, or suffered to be made, in the literal exposition of this place may easily be taken out without obliteration of that exact proportion, which their other expositions on this place hold with the Evangelicall mysteries as well forepictured, as foretold in this prophecy. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 particularised by note of demonstration or special referance, * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should then be a married or Childbearing woman, is a blot or stain in the literal meaning of this prophecy, which unless it be taken out, will utterly deface the proportion between the historical event here foretold, and the Evangelicall mystery represented by it. A greater blot or stain it is which the Jew hath made, by avouching that the Emmanuel, whose birth was here foretold, should be either Shear-iashub the son of Isaiah, or Hezekiah the son of Ahaz; both of them being borne before this time, as it is evident, the one from the literal meaning of the Prophet, the other from the sacred stories of the books of Kings and Chronicles. As for those Jews, which respectively avouch both parts of this foolish conjecture, they express the same humour to reign in them, which Busbequius observes in the modern Turks; who when the fit comes upon them, will not stick to say, that job was Steward of Solomon's household, and Alexander the great, Master of his Horse. Yet these and some few like stains or blots, which the modern Jew hath made in Isaiah his map or terrar of the Evangelicall mystery, (whose exemplification is fully recorded by S. Matthew) being taken out: their other expositions of the Prophet's words rather preserve then deface the map itself, and may be of good use to discover the proportion between it and our royal inheritance represented in it; or for confirming our belief, as well of the Evangelists, as of the Prophet's relations. First, when the Jews allege that the Emmanuel promised by the Prophet, was to be borne within some few years, or rather within the compass of a year, from the time of his meeting Ahaz, this is most consonant to the literal sense of these words, Chap. 7. 16. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the Land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her Kings. This saith the marginal note upon our former English, is not meant of Christ, but of any Child. For before a Child can come to the years of discretion, the Kings of Samaria, and Syria shall be destroyed. The note is two ways faulty: First, in denying this to be meant at all of Christ; Secondly, in avouching it to be meant of any Child. And I wish the note were extant in our English, or in some other language only, which the Jews for the most part either do not read, or do not understand. Yet if this place may be meant not of every Child, but of any one Child besides our Saviour Christ; and if the word Hagnalma in the 14 verse according to its strict propriety, do signify a virgin, shall we not hence be concluded to grant, that some other virgin besides the virgin Mary (and before her) did conceive and bring forth a son? This in no wi●e may be granted, nor any interpretation of any place admitted from which such impious conclusions as this, may be inferred. To conceive a son whilst she was a virgin, was the incommunicable prerogative of the mother of our Lord. Yet will it not hence follow that the Prophet by the emphatical character of a virgin Hagnalma might not design some virgin then present, not the Prophet's wife, but rather some virgin of Ahaz kindred, or of the house of judah; for whom he astipulates that within the compass of the year following, she should conceive, and bring forth a son, not whilst she was a virgin, but by becoming a lawful wife beyond or before her expectation. 7. But here such as are otherwise minded, or take this passage to be literally meant of the blessed virgin alone, will reply; What wonder was it, or what matter worthy the ushering in with an Ecce, or other like injunction of attention, for her who was now a virgin, to conceive and bring forth a son, after the manner that other women, within a year after they are married, usually do? But they who thus object, facilè pronunciant, quia ad pauca respiciunt, they give sentence upon the view of one circumstance only, when as they should take a great many more into their consideration. The virgin thus particularised, according to the literal sense of the Prophet, whether then present (as is most probable,) or otherwise so famously known, that his words in all men's apprehension then present, had reference to her, might be either for want of years, or for some other defects, as unlikely to bring forth a son within the time limited, as Sarah after 90 years' age was, more unlikely than the wife of Manoah, or Zacharias. However, it far surpassed the skill of Astrologers, Physicians, of men expert in natural Magic, or other kind of divination whatsoever, (besides the divination which proceeds from the Father of lights,) to give such full assurance, as the Prophet there doth, that any woman should conceive within such a compass of time, or that she should conceive a son not a daughter, lest of all that she should conceive and bring forth a Son, who should deservedly brook the name and title of Emmanuel, that is, to be a pledge of God's special presence to the house of David or land of judah, or to protect them against their potent enemies, or to be a demonstrative sign or hostage, that before he could know how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the Land, which Ahaz abhorred, should be forsaken of both their Kings; who were now ready and able (without God's special aid) to devour the Land of judah. Yet for all these and other like consequences of Emmanuels' birth, the Prophet confidently astipulates in the name of his God; which without a special warrant from him had been an intolerable presumption. But as for Ahaz himself, his house, and people, (because they would not believe this prediction, according to the literal tenor,) they were to be plagued by that Nation in whose potency they put their trust; by the same enemy, which the Prophet had foretold, should by God's appointment defeat the present mischievous design of Syria and Samaria against judah. And all this they should have done, without any future harm or danger to the house of David by them, so Ahaz and his people would have relied entirely upon God's promise, or faithfully accepted of the sign promised by his Prophet. But not believing this, they were not established, ver. 9 For so the Prophet immediately after Ahaz refusal of this sign, did threaten Ahaz and his people, ver. 17. The Lord shall bring upon thee, and thy people and upon thy Father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah: even the Kings of Assyria. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall hiss for the Fly that is in the uttermost part of the Rivers of Egypt, and for the Bee that is in the Land of Assyria. And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys; and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns; and upon all bushes. The demerits of Ahaz, and of his people which did deserve the denunciation and execution of the plagues here threatened, were their too much confidence in the King of Assyria, and their distrust (hence occasioned) of what the Lord had promised by his Prophet Isaiah, and would have performed by other means than by the aid of the Assyrian, so they would have relied upon them. We do not read that either Ahaz, or his people did distrust, much less that they were punished for their distrust unto God's promises concerning the coming of the Messias in the appointed time, but for not accepting the sign or pledge as well of his coming, as of their instant deliverance from the danger wherein then they stood. 8. But what probabilities or just presumptions be there, that any woman who was a virgin at the time when Ahaz and Isaiah met, in the high way of the Fuller's field, should, upon the occasion mentioned, become a married woman, and conceive a son, according to the time intimated by the Prophet? All this I take it, is more than probable from the true and literal meaning of the 1, 2, 3, and 4 verses of the 8 Chapter, which are no other than an exegetical exposition of the former prophecy, Chap. 7. vers. 14, 15, 16. or a more legal ratification or new assumption of making good the assurance, which in the former Chapter he had given: Moreover, the Lord said unto me, take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz. And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Vriah the Priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah. And I went unto the Prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son: then said the Lord to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For before the Child shall have knowledge to cry, my father and my mother, the riches of Damascus, and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the King of Assyria. The Child promised, Chap. 7. ver. 14, and in this place, according to the true connexion of the literal sense, is (in my apprehension) one and the same, though described by two names, the one importing comfort to the house of David, and the land of judah; and this was given him before his conception: the later importing the sudden execution of the woes denounced against Syria and Samaria, and was given him after his conception. And lest we should doubt, whether this Maher-shalal-hash-baz were the same with the Emmanuel promised in the former Chapter, he is instyled again by the very same name, Chap. 8. unto ver. 8. The Lord spoke unto me again, saying, Forsomuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin, Remaliahs' son: now therefore behold the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the rivers, strong and many, even the King of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks. Again, that the name Emmanuel did literally import Gods peculiar presence at that time with his people, not only to deliver them from Rezin and Pekah, but from the potency of the Assyrian in future times, is evidently included in the 9 and 10 verses. Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces, and give ear all ye of far Countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces. Take counsel together, and it shall be brought to naught; speak the word and it shall stand, for God is with us. The strange defeat of the confederacy here foretold, was not to be expected in the days of Ahaz, in whose times the Assyrian did attempt no great matters against them, but in the days of Hezekiah. Thus much the Prophet's words in the verses following import, ver. 16. 17. Bind up the testimony, seal my law among my Disciples. And I will wait upon the Lord that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him. This binding up of the Testimony, and sealing of this Law doth argue both the Law and testimony to have been of special moment, yet not to be put in execution, or fully accomplished for the present. Of the accomplishment of both, whether wholly or in part, the Prophet's sons in the interim were signs and pledges, as is imported, ver. 18. Behold I, and the Children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs, and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of Hosts, which dwelleth in Mount Zion. This last passage is alleged by the * Heb. 2. 11. etc. Apostle, amongst others, to prove, that the Lord of Hosts himself, who in the 14. verse of the 8. of Isaiah, had promised to be a Sanctuary to his people, was to participate with them of flesh and blood. He that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified are all of one. For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the Church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the Children which God hath given me. Yet that the 18. verse of Isaiah the 8, to which our Apostle in this place refers us, was literally meant of the Prophet and his Children, is too apparent to be denied, nor will it be safe to stand upon terms of contradiction thus far with the modern Jew. One of the Prophet's sons was called Shear-iashub, which by interpretation is, The remnant shall return: and of this return or restauration he was the sign or pledge. The other was called Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us; a name portending or foretokening Gods special presence with his people at more times than one. The imposition of both names, and their importance were literally fulfilled in the age immediately following, but mystically fulfilled only in Christ, whose coming to visit his people, was prefigured by both of them. The full importance or abode of the name Emmanuel, was fulfilled in our Saviour's conception and birth: the true importance of Shear-iashub, shall be mystically fulfilled, when the fullness of the Gentiles is come, or when the Jew shall be called to be again the seed of Abraham according to promise. 9 Two points only remain. The first how the prophecy concerning Emmanuel, was fulfilled according to the literal sense in the Prophet's time; and our resolution in this point we must take from the sacred records of this theme in the old Testament. The second, how this prophecy was fulfilled according to the mystical sense; and this we must learn from the Evangelists which allege the fulfilling of it, and other unpartial Writers which relate either circumstances or signs of those times in which they wrote: Out of these two points the parallel between the Prophet and Evangelists will of its own accord, without any anxious inquiry, or further discussion, result. 10 The Histories of the old Testament, by which Isaiahs' literal meaning may be best interpreted, are in the 2 of Kings 17, 18. 2 Chron. 28. 16, 17, etc. We have a constat from the prophet Isaiah himself, Chap. 7. 1, 2. That this prophecy concerning Emmanuel was uttered by him in the days of Ahaz King of Judah, and of Pekah the son of Remaliah; but in what certain year of either of these two Kings reigns, this revelation was made to Isaiah, and the matter of it instantly imparted unto King Ahaz, is not so certain. Most certain it is, that Isaiah delivered this message from the Lord to Ahaz before the twelfth year of his reign, for in that year Hoshea the son of Elah begun to reign in Samaria over Israel, 2 Kings 17. 1. and this was after Pekah the son of Remaliah was dead. And though it be not so certain, yet most probable it is, that the former prophecy was uttered about the 8 or 9 year of Ahaz, or about 3 years or somewhat more before Pekah, the son of Remaliah was slain. One year, or somewhat under, we must allow for the conception and birth of the Emmanuel, or Maher-Shalal-hash-baz, and some two years after until he were upon the point or period of time, wherein ordinary Children in those days were enabled to know how to refuse the evil, and choose the good, that is, to distinguish between other meats besides milk, butter, and honey, and between his parents and other persons. Before this Emmanuel, or Maher-Shalal-hash-baz were thus enabled to distinguish between meat and meat, or his parents and other persons, (but how long before this time, it is uncertain) both Pekah son of Remaliah, and Rezin King of Syria, (according to the tenor of Isaiahs' prophecy, and the astipulation made by him upon the sign proffered to Ahaz) were to be deprived of their Kingdoms, or rather their Land and Kingdoms to be quitted of them, Isaiah 7. 16. & Chap. 8. ver. 4. But before their ruin, and before this revelation concerning their ruin was made unto the Prophet Isaiah, they had brought Judah and the house of David exceeding low, 2 Chron. 28. 5, 6, 7, 8. Wherefore the Lord his God delivered him into the hand of the King of Syria, and they smote him, & carried away a great multitude of them Captives, and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the King of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter. For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in judah, an hundred and twenty thousand in one day, which were all valiant men, because they had forsaken the Lord God of their Fathers. And Zichri, a mighty man of Ephraim slew Maaserah the King's son, and Azrikam, the governor of the house, and Elkanah that was next to the King. And the Children of Israel carried away captive of their brethren, two hundred thousand women, sons and daughters, and took also away much spoil from them, and brought the spoil to Samaria. Upon this great disaster, or captivity of the people of Judah by these two Kings, the Prophet Isaiah did name one son of his Shear-iashub, as a pledge or token that these captives should return again unto their own Land, as they did beyond all expectation, from Samaria. The history is very remarkable both for matter and circumstance, and recorded at large by the author of the 2 book of Chronicles in the words immediately following the forecited. But a prophet of the Lord was there, whose name was O ded: and he went out before the host that came to Samaria, and said unto them, Behold, because the Lord God of your Fathers was wroth with judah, he hath delivered them into your hand, and ye have slain them in a rage that reacheth up into Heaven. And now ye purpose to keep under the children of judah and jerusalem for bondmen and bondwomen unto you. But are there not with you, even with you, sins against the Lord your God? Now hear me therefore, and deliver the Captives again which ye have taken captive of your brethren: for the fierce wrath of God is upon you. Then certain of the heads of the children of Ephraim, Azariah the son of johanan, Berechiah the son of Meshillemoth, and jehizkiah the son of Shallum, and Amala the son of Hadlai, stood up against them that came from the war, and said unto them, Ye shall not bring in the Captives hither, for whereas we have offended against the Lord already, ye intent to add more to our sins and to our trespass, for our trespass is great, and there is fierce wrath against Israel. So the armed men left the Captives, and the spoil before the Princes, and all the Congregation. And the men which were expressed by name, rose up, and took the Captives, and with the spoil clothed all that were naked among them, and arrayed them, and shod them, and gave them to eat and to drink, and anointed them, and carried all the feeble of them upon Asses, and brought them to jeriche, the City of palm trees, to their brethren; then they returned to Samaria. And so no doubt, those Captives which Rezin King of Syria had carried to Damascus, were set at liberty after the King of Assyria had slain Rezin, meeting with Ahaz there. But the Edomites, and the Philistines, both ancient Enemies to the house of David, became ungues in ulcere, and kept the wound open with tooth and nail, which Rezin, Pekah, and Zichri had made, as it is registered 2 Chron. 28. 17. etc. For again the Edomites had come and smitten judah, and carried away Captives; the Philistines also had invaded the cities of the low Country, and of the South of judah, and had taken Bethshemesh and Ailon, and Gederoth, and Shocho with the villages thereof, and Timnah with the villages thereof, Gimzo also, and the villages thereof, and they dwelled there. After these wounds which these several enemies had made in the state of Judah, Rezin and Pekah with joint forces besieged Jerusalem, 2 Kings 16. 5, 6, 7, 8. Then Rezin King of Syria, and Pekah son of Remaliah King of Israel came up to jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him. At that time Rezin King of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drove the jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelled there unto this day. So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-Pelezer King of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant, and thy son: come up and save me out of the hand of the King of Syria, and out of the hand of the King of Israel which rise up against me. And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the King's house, and sent it for a present to the King of Assyria. And the King of Assyria harkened unto him: for the King of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it Captive to Kir, and slew Rezin. This unhallowed submission of Ahaz unto the King of Assyria, was the very thing which the Lord by the Prophet Isaiah did dissuade him from, foretelling withal that if he persisted in this purpose of casting out one Devil by another, or by the Prince of Devils; the later would prove worse than the former. On the contrary, if Ahaz and his people would rely upon the sign which God had given them, or accept of his immediate aid, both Rezin and Pekah should within short space be ruinated without either present aid, or future evil from Assyria. But if they would not believe or rely upon him, although God for his part would perform the former part of this Prophecy, as it concerned the death of Rezin and Pekah, and the captivity of Samaria, yet he would bring all the plagues upon Judah, which the Prophet Isaiah had threatened, by the hand of Assyria, whose aid they now sought. And yet this present Emmanuel was to be a pledge of a strange defeat of the Assyrian, after much mischief done by him as well to Judah as to Israel. For Hezekiah (son and successor unto Ahaz) was enforced to buy his peace of Senacherib successor to Tiglah-Peleser at as dear a rate, as Ahaz had purchased the Assyrians aid. Now in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced Cities of judah, and took them. And Hezekiah King of judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended, return from me; that which thou puttest on me, will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah King of judah, three hundred Talents of silver, and thirty Talents of Gold. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver, that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the King's house. At that time did Hezekiah out off the gold from the doors of the Temple of the Lord, and from the pillars which Hezekiah King of judah had over-laid, and gave it to the king of Assyria, 2 King 18. 13, 14, etc. Both this distress, whereunto Judah was now brought, and Hezekiahs' strange deliverance from Sennacherib, or whatsoever the sacred Story, 2 Kings 19 or elsewhere relates concerning both, were foretold by Isaiah the Prophet, Chap. 8, and 9, as consequences o● Ahaz his refusal of the signs which God had offered him, and of the sign which God did give to the house of David, albeit they would not accept it. 11 But to descend unto the parallel between the historical narrations in the Book of Kings, of Chronicles, and Intersertions to the same purpose in the prophecy of Isaiah, & our Evangelists relations how they were fulfilled: In the days of Ahaz the House of David was brought exceeding low by the Syrians, by the King of Samaria, by the Edomites, and by the Philistines. From this extraordinary depression of it, the hopes of Rezin and Pekah for the extirpation of it, were so advanced, that they confidently resolved upon the particular man, whom they meant to make King of judah; that was the son of Tabeol, Isaiah 7. 6. In the height of this their confidence, and the perplexity of Judah, and the House of David, the Lord sends his Prophet Isaiah to give them assurance of their Delivery, by an extraordinary sign. In the days of joseph and Mary his espoused wife, the House of David (whereof they both were branches) was brought much lower, then in the days of Ahaz it had been. And however no mischief were intended against them in particular, (as being obscure and private persons, neither in possession nor competitors for the Kingdom) yet for breaking off the succession of David, or preventing any of his line to be Lord of Judah, the plot was laid with more cunning, than it had been by Rezin, and Pekah. Three of those ancient Fochoods which had sought to wreak themselves against Judah in the days of Ahaz, were now revived and united in one man, in Herod the great; and the Fochood by this union became both greater and stronger. He was by birth a Philistine, and by royal * Post haec Caesar in Galliam fecit expeditionem, turbatam nonnihil: Antonius ad bellum Parthicum profectus est: & S. C. approbatis actis ejus tam fulturis quam praeteritis, rursum duces passim dimi●ie: & alia cuncta ut voliat disposuît. Regès quoque aliquot appe●lavit arbitratu suo, d●●ataxat qui certum tributum pe ●derent. Ponti Darium, Pharnacis filium, M●thridatis nepotem, Idumaeorum Samaritarumque, Heroden. Appian. Alex andrini de bellis civilibus Lib. 5. pag. 715. title (bestowed upon him by the Romans) King of Idumaea and Samaria, unto which he sought to annex Judea, as his inheritance. And although the particulars be not mentioned in the new Testament, yet is it indefinitely evident out of S. Matthew that Herod had his confederates against the house of David, and which (as soon as they knew of his birth) did seek the life of the son of David; When Herod was dead, behold an Angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to joseph in Egypt, saying, Arise, and take the young Child, and his mother, and go into the Land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young Child's life. Math. 2. 19 20. This argues there were some other that died about the same time with Herod, which with him had sought the life of Jesus. In this low estate whereunto the house of David was brought before the death of Herod and his confederates; the Lord did send not a Prophet but an Angel to assure, not the continuance only of David's succession, but the restauration, enlargement, and everlasting establishment of his Kingdom unto Mary the daughter of David, and her husband, by a greater sign than Isaiah had proffered unto Ahaz. The Angel delivers his embassage, mostwhat, in the same words that Isaiah did to Ahaz, Behold, saith the Prophet Isaiah, 7. 14. this virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and she shall call his name Emmanuel. Unto the blessed virgin (than present) saith the Angel, Luke 1. 30, 31. Fear not Mary, for thou hast found favour with God, and behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name jesus. The imposition of this name Jesus is committed to the care of the virgin: so was the name of Emmanuel to the virgin to whom the Prophet Isay directs his speech when he delivered his message unto Ahaz. For in the original, the word which S. Matthew renders impersonally or in the third person plural (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) (that is according to the Hebrew Dialect, He shall be called) is the second person singular, and the feminine, tu vocabis, thou Virgin shalt call him Emmanuel. This variation of the Evangelist from the Prophet's precise word, is such, as breeds no vitiation at all, in the real sense; but such as reason itself, and rules of Grammar require in like cases. The Virgin being (as we suppose) present, when the Prophet exhibited the sign unto Ahaz, he was to speak unto her in the second person. But the Evangelist relating the fulfilling of this prophecy, not in the literal sense only, but in the mystical, was to change the person, or to relate it in the third person plural, which is indeed an impersonal, according to the Hebrew Dialect, Behold a virgin shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name (that is, he shall be called) Emmanuel, which is by interpretation, God with us. 12 But here the Jew demands, first how the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is always emphatical, should denote the blessed Virgin, and should be transferred from one virgin to another. Secondly, why the name given our Saviour at his circumcision, was not Emmanuel according to the Prophet's speech, but Jesus. To the first demand, we answer, that the original letter is always emphatical: sometimes a note of demonstration, or particularity; and according to this importance, it refers unto the Virgin then present, as if the Prophet had said, Ecce, virgo haec, Behold, this virgin shall conceive, etc. Sometime it is a note of Eminency, and according to this importance, it refers unto the Virgin of Virgins, the blessed Mother of our Lord, of whom it is meant not only in the mystical, but in the most exquisite literal sense. To the second we say, the imposition of the name Emmanuel had been requisite at our Saviour's circumcision, if this prophecy had been meant of Him only in the literal sense. But in as much as it was to be fulfilled in Him, according to the most exquisite both literal and mystical sense, it was requisite there should be an improvement, as well in the significancy of the name, as in the thing signified by it. Now the name jesus imports a great deal more than the name Emmanuel, as will appear in the explication of it. The importance of the name Emmanuel, as it refers unto the Child instantly promised by Isaiah, is applied unto the blessed Virgin by the Angel in his preface to the Annunciation, Luk. 1. 28. Hail thou that art in high favour, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women. The Lord was with her in a more peculiar manner, whilst the Angel thus spoke unto her, than he had been with Gideon to whom the like salutation was tendered by an Angel, judg. 6. 12. Or with judah, in the days of Isaiah or Hezekiah. But after the Lord was conceived by her, he was both with her, and with us, after a more admirable manner, than at any time he had been before with God's dearest Saints. This manner of his being with us, could not be fully expressed by any other name, than the name jesus. 13 Ahaz, his distrust unto God's promise being set aside, or rather if we use it as a foil to set forth the blessed Virgins facile assent, and fidelity unto the Revelation made unto her by the Angel: the prophetical and Evangelicall story hold better correspondency both for substance and circumstance, th●● is between the Model and the Edifice. The Emmanuel promised by Isaiah, was an assured pledge that Pekah King of Samaria, and Rezin King of Syria, should die, or be deposed before this Child could distinguish between meats, or cry, My Father, my Mother. The accomplishment of this sign, or of the promise confirmed by it, is registered in the sacred story. For Pekah was slain by Hoshea the son of Elah, within two or three years after the sign was given, and so was Rezin by Tiglath Pileser at Damascus. Within the like compass of years after the Evangelicall promise was made to the blessed Virgin, that her son jesus should sit upon her Father David's throne; Herod the great who had usurped it, did die a miserable death: so did his confederates against the house of judah, as we gather from Matthew 2. 20. Arise (saith the Angel to joseph in a dream) and take the young Child, and his Mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young Child's life. Now joseph returned from Egypt two years after our Saviour was borne. Whom the Evangelist means beside Herod, when he saith they were dead which sought the Child's life, is no where in sacred story expressed: nor is it to me certain whether Syria at that time had a King of their own, but it is probable they had, seeing in S. Paul's time Aretas was King of Damascus, 2. Cor. 11. 32. Some there be which mention the death of one Obedas whom they make King of Syria, who died about the same time with Herod, but from what authority, they express not. The Evangelist might mean the Roman Governor of Syria, by whose favour and potency Herod was emboldened to tyrannize over the Jews Nation, and to work his projects against the house of David. Some have accused Quintilius Varus of this great sin, unto whom and to the Legions under his Government, the right hand of the Lord of Hosts had reached a more terrible blow, than judah had received from him or Herod, within some few years after the butchery of the Infants. 14. The second blessing whereof the Emmanuel was a pledge, whose conception had been foretold by Isaiah, was not exhibited till many years after, and it was this, that Judah and the house of David should be more admirably delivered from the Assyrian, when he should besiege jerusalem more fiercely than Rezin, or Pekah had done. And this was in the days of Hezekiah, for so the Prophet assures the people, that the rod of Ashur should be broken as in the day of Midian, Isaiah 9 4. Which is in effect, as if he had said, [The Lord will be with us after as wonderful a manner as he was with Gideon, when Israel was oppressed by the Midianites.] And so it fell out in the days of Hezekiah, that Senacheribs' mighty Army was destroyed by a more fearful destruction, than the Midianites had been by Gideon. And unto this strange defeat of the Assyrian, the Prophet's words Isaiah 9 4, 5. do refer. Thou hast broken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulders, the rod of his Oppressor: as in the day of Midian. For every battle of the Warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood: but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire. Now of this disaster, which befell Assyria, and the strange deliverance of judah, and the house of David by it, the Emmanuel there promised by Isaiah was the pledge or assurance, as the Prophet in the next word intimates, For unto us a Child is borne, and unto us a little one is given, etc. Isaiah 9 6. That by this Child the Prophet meant the Emmanuel mentioned, Chapter 7. is acknowledged by all, even by such, as admit of no more Emmanuels' then one, to wit, our Saviour Christ. But seeing the Emmanuel there literally meant, was given as a pledge or comfort unto judah in this particular distress, certainly he was borne before him, though not borne only as a pledge of this deliverance, but of a far greater Deliverer or Saviour to come, for whose sake alone this deliverance, and all other of his people from their enemies (both bodily and ghostly) were sent from God. And best Interpreters take those words of Isaiah, 2. Kings 9 34. I will defend this City to save it for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake, to be literally meant not of David, but of David's son, the true Emmanuel. But to return to the 9 of Isaiah; upon that vision of that great overthrow of Senacheribs' Army, the Prophet takes his rise to view a greater victory a more potent Enemy in the same place, where Senacheribs' Army was overthrown, and that was not near jerusalem, but in the borders of Zebulun and Napthali near to Libanus, in that Country whose Inhabitants Senacheribs' predecessor Tiglath-Pileser, had first captivated, and in the same place our Saviour gave his Apostles power over Satan and his Angels, who had his people in greater subjection than the Assyrians had them in the time of Isaiah. For he had possessed many of their bodies after another manner, than any earthly Tyrant could have them in possession. Now when the Prophet foretells as well the victory of the Angel of the Lord over the Assyrian, as the victory of Christ's Apostles over Satan, he gives this one sign of both, For unto us a Child is borne, and unto us a little one is given, etc. These words may refer, both to the type, and to the antitype in the literal sense: but immediately after the light of that great mystery, which all this while had been under the cloud of the literal sense, breaks forth in its proper native lustre: For the words following can be meant of none but Christ: And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace. Of the increase of his government and peace, there shall be no end: upon the throne of David, and upon his Kingdom to order it, and to establish it with judgement, and with justice from henceforth even for ever: the Zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this. As for the former passages concerning the Emmanuel, and Mahar-shalal-hash-baz, they are literally meant of Isaiah his son, and yet are withal proofs no less concludent against the Jew, no less pregnant testimonies of our belief concerning the miraculous birth of our Lord and Saviour Christ, than the testimonies last cited out of Isaiah 9 6, 7. or of his Godhead, or everlasting Kingdom. For however such immediate visions, or unvailed revelations of Christ, as Isaiah in these two verses and in the 53 Chapter, or elsewhere adds, were the most sublime kind of prophecies, such as few other Prophets besides David, could ever attain unto, (these having the like privileges amongst the Prophets, that Peter, james and john had amongst the fellow Apostles, permitted to ascend the Mount with Christ, and see the transfiguration or glory of his Kingdom;) Yet for our instruction, predictions of Christ typically prophetical, or prophetically typical, are most admirably concludent (as was premised * Chap. 11. §. 2, 3. before) especially, when the same words according to the literal sense fit both the pledge and the mystery pledged, or the Evangelicall mystery according to the improvement in a more exquisite sense, than they did the type or historical event. 15. To conclude this parallel between the Evangelist and the Prophet, with the contrary demeanours of Ahaz and the blessed Virgin, upon delivery of the like message from the Lord. The Lord proffers Ahaz a sign wheresoever, or in what kind soever he would ask it: but he will not ask it, nor will he tempt the lord Isay. 7. 11, 12. As if not to rely upon the strength of Assyria, had been to tempt the Lord. Nor will he believe the Prophet when he gives him a sign most suitable to the signs of that present time. For Ahaz and his people had a fair introduction to believe all that the Prophet had assumed to make good, upon the conception and birth of Emmanuel, from the experienced success or happy Omen of Isaiah his former son, whom he named (upon the occasion forementioned) Shear-iashab. The blessed Virgin after she had seen the Angel of the Lord, and talked with him, did think it no tempting of the Lord to accept this sign which the Angel proffered, Behold, thy Cousin Elizabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. Luk. 1. 36. After her acceptance of this sign, and solemn passing of her assent unto whatsoever the Angel said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to thy word, ver. 38. She thought it no tempting of the Lord to be further confirmed in the truth of this sign, For she arose in th●se days, and went into the Hill Country with haste, into a City of juda: and entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elizabeth. And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the Babe leapt in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the holy Ghost. And she spoke out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me? For lo, soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the Babe leapt in my womb for joy. And blessed is she that believed, etc. Luke 1. 39, 40, etc. Upon these lively experiments of the truth of the Angels words unto her, the blessed Virgin immediately conceives that sweet and sacred Hymn, My soul doth magnify the Lord, etc. In her belief and acceptance of this sign, or rather in her conception which did instantly follow upon it, that sign which God had proffered to Ahaz, by Isaiah, was most exactly accomplished. Ahaz was willed to ask a sign either in the depth, or height above, Isai. 7. 1●. Though Ahaz should have requested God that the Moon and Stars might descend out of the Spheres, and become mountains and rocks on earth; or that the stones in the bowels of the earth, or rocks in the sea, might ascend into heaven, and become glorious stars: Neither of these, nor both of them had been so great a wonder, as that which God now wrought upon the blessed Virgin's belief unto his promise. For now he who was higher than the Heavens, who filleth both Heaven and Earth with his presence (the true and only son of God,) comes down from heaven, is enclosed in the Virgin's womb, becomes her son: and the fruit of her womb, whose bodily original was from the earth, becomes the son of God, the King of Heaven, and yet still remains the true Emmanuel, God with us, or more than so, the jesus, the Saviour. CHAP. 35. Of the Circumcision of our Saviour. THE Angelical hymn or testification of the birth of jesus, made unto the Shepherds by the celestial Host, is a subject more fit for Sermons, then for these Comments; at least, the solemnity of that great Festival, would better become the Commemoration of those joyful Ditties, than a plain historical narration of them; specially seeing it would require a long search, and a large discourse to make it clear, where this sacred Hymn sung by Angels upon the birth day of jesus, was either foretold by any Prophet, or foreshadowed by matter of fact. Besides this Hymn, the next Evangelicall narration to his birth was his circumcision, & imposition of the name jesus. Now, albeit his circumcision be not mentioned in the Creed, yet it is a point of belief, not to be omitted in this place. When eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the Child, his name was called Jesus: which was so named of the Angel before he was conceived in the womb. Luk. 2. 21. But was it any where either expressly foretold, Cap. 35 or concludently portended by matter of fact, that the Son of God, (God blessed for ever) should be circumcised? Yes: all this was most concludently fore-signified, and that in such a peculiar manner, as cannot exactly be paralleled with any of the former general ways, according to which the incarnation of the Word, or other articles concerning the Son of God, were either observed to be foreshadowed, or to be fulfilled. Testimony express and direct, there is none, I know, that the Son of God should be circumcised, and yet the circumcision of God in the person of the Son, was more than fore-pictured, literally included in the Covenant between God and Abraham, Gen. 17. 6, 7. I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make Nations of thee, and Kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, etc. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee, in their Generations. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee: Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old, shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, ver. 9, 10, 11, 12. Though Abraham himself, and all his household were presently circumcised; yet the Covenant whereof Circumcision was the pledge or token, was to be established not in Abraham or in Ishmael, but in Isaac. And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed, and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my Covenant with him, for an everlasting Covenant, and with his seed after him, ver. 19 Abraham feared lest God's special favour to this son of promise might exclude Ishmael from blessings ordinary; and hence he prefers this modest petition unto God, ver. 18. O that Ishmael might live before thee. To which he receives this gracious answer, ver. 20. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly: twelve Princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great Nation. Lastly, to show that the prerogative promised to Isaac, was firm, and not subject to contingency; it is further repeated, ver. 21. But my Covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee, at this set time, in the next year. 2. It is very observable, that whereas the Hebrew mentions only the Covenant betwixt God and Abraham, and his seed after him: the * Onkelus Fagio Interpret. Chaldee paraphrase hath it expressly, that God did make this Covenant betwixt his Word and Abraham, as ver. 2. Dabo foedus meum inter verbum meum, et interte. And ver. 10. Hoc est foedus meum quod servabitis inter [verbum meum] et inter vos, atque inter [filios tuos] post te: ut circumcidatur in vobis omnis masculus. What manner of Covenant or rather league this was betwixt God & Abraham, comes to be discussed in the unfolding of God's oath to Abraham, & the consecration of Abraham's seed to his everlasting Priesthood of everlasting blessing. The legal covenant (afterwards confirmed by oath,) was now begun & solemnised on Abraham's part, (as solemn leagues in those Eastern Countries usually were,) by effusion of blood, his own, and his families, and so to be continued in his posterity throughout their generations. And in as much as circumcision was the sign or solemn ceremony of this mutual league between God and Abraham, and Abraham's seed; it is necessarily employed (by the tenor of the same mutual Covenant) that God should subscribe or seal the league after the same manner, and to receive the same sign of circumcision in his flesh, which Abraham and his seed had done. Again, in as much as this league was established with Isaac Abraham's son by promise; this likewise includes▪ that the only son of God who was to be Abraham's seed, should be circumcised in his flesh, as Isaac had been. And this part of the Covenant was performed on God's part in the person of his Son at the circumcision of the child jesus. It was impossible that the Covenant should be fully accomplished so long as Abraham's corruptible seed did only bear the seal or sign. For it was to be an everlasting Covenant: and to seal an everlasting Covenant with an everlasting seal in Abraham's seed or successor according to the flesh, was a matter as difficult, as to imprint a permanent stamp or character upon a stream of running water. This Covenant could not begin to be in esse, or bear a true and solid everlasting date, until it were sealed in the flesh of the promised seed. As was his person in whom this Covenant was to be accomplished, such was the seal; and such did the Covenant thus sealed, become, truly immortal and everlasting, never to be reiterated after it was once accomplished in him, which was not done, but begun upon the eight day after our Saviour's birth. That which was now begun by him, and in part sealed by him, by the seal of circumcision in his flesh; was afterwards to be accomplished, and finally sealed by his bloody sacrifice upon the Cross. The continual practice of circumcision by the Jew (though he be senseless and blind, and perceiveth it not) is unto us a legible character, and an undoubted visible pledge, that God who made this Covenant with Abraham, was to be incarnate, or to assume flesh, by assuming Abraham's seed; to the end he might interchangeably seal this Covenant in his flesh. But seeing as well Abraham's present seed as their Families, were still subject to mortality; it was most fitting & requisite, that circumcision should be continued throughout all their generations, in testification of their hope and expectance of the promised seed, unto whose flesh the seal of circumcision being once put, the Covenant sealed was to stand fast for ever, without reiteration or addition of any other seal. In Him all God's promises are yea, and Amen. Whilst he was circumcised God was circumcised, and man was circumcised; and this Covenant or league between God and man, was mutually sealed by God and man, with one and the same numerical seal. Howbeit, as was intimated before, this glorious Covenant thus jointly sealed up in him, was not to bear its everlasting date, until it were further ratified, and finally sealed by his bloody sacrifice upon the Cross, unto which service he was initiated by his circumcision. The Sacrament of circumcision was not so properly abolished as changed into the Sacrament of Baptism, and so changed by that Commission which this our everlasting Priest gave to his Apostles and Ministers after his resurrection. Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations baptising them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, Math. 28. 19 It was by this new Commission so changed, that he which now seeks to circumcise others, or suffers himself to be circumcised; doth but labour as much as in him lies to dissolve, and dissipate this glorious Covenant betwixt God and man, thus jointly sealed up in one and the same individual person, with one and the same numerical seal, and afterwards authentiquely and finally sealed by the bloody sacrifice of the same person God and man upon the Cross. And however the mahometans, the Saracens, and Persians, with other preposterous imitators of Abraham's faith, have run mad with love of this ceremony of circumcision; sometimes most loathsome and odious to flesh and blood, whilst it was pleasing unto God; yet the practice of it, is now more abominable unto God that gave it for a sign of his everlasting Covenant, than it was pleasing to him, or displeasing to men, whilst the Law of ceremonies was in force. And for this reason, S. Paul wisheth the same curse or punishment unto such as pressed the necessity of circumcision upon Christ's Church, which God himself had threatened unto such as during the time of the Law did neglect, contemn, or omit it. The uncircumcised manchild, (saith God to Abraham, Gen. 17. 14.) whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people. I would (saith S. Paul, Gal. 5. 12.) or as some read, I would to God they were even cut off that trouble you. Such he means, and such alone, as did trouble them by pressing the necessity of circumcision upon them, which had been baptised in Christ. 3 That the Heathens were concluded in this league, the modern Jew cannot deny. For not only Abraham's sons, but every Male in his Family, though bought with money, was to receive the sign of this Covenant in his flesh. But saith the Jew, seeing they came into this league by receiving circumcision, what is this to you Gentiles which will not be circumcised? The Apostle S. Paul hath most divinely dissolved this knot, Rom. 4. 10. His words are so plain that they need no Comment, but only to add this circumstance which is likely S. Paul took for granted, when he made that excellent Comment upon Moses his words Gen. 15. 6. Abraham (saith Moses) believed in God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. Seeing the Scripture as S. james tells us, was fulfilled when Abraham offered up his son Isaac, why was not this testimony of God concerning Abraham reserved to that fact, or at least to Abraham's obedience in circumcising himself and his son Isaac? Both these facts include a greater measure of belief in God's promises, than Abraham gave proof of in the forecited place, and was therefore more capable of that praise or approbation. But, if that approbation of Abraham's faith had been deferred until the Covenant of circumcision had been subscribed unto by Abraham, the Jews might with more probability have conceived, that this righteousness which God imputes to Abraham, had come by the deeds of the Laws, that none but such as are circumcised could be partakers of it; Whereas on the contrary, this testimony being given unto Abraham before he was circumcised, cuts off the Jews title of boasting in circumcision. This is the ground of the Apostles reason Rome 4. 9, 10. For we say that faith was reckoned unto Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed unto them also. And again Gal. 3. 8. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all Nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. 4 Again, God in so disposing of times and seasons that his only son should be circumcised upon the first of January, did signify that interest which the Gentiles or Heathens were to have in this Covenant. For this was the day wherein the Romans, in whose dominions and under whose government he was borne, did consecrate to janus, to them a God of peace and prosperity; the day wherein they did mutually present their solemn salutations or good wishes for a happy year, and for good luck sake, as we say, did send gifts one to another, as honey and other like sweet meats, and coin, ut dulces dies anni à dulcibus rebus auspicarentur, as Emblems of their good wishes for many pleasant and happy days. And whilst they were thus employed in preventing each other with gifts and mutual precations of peace and many happy days; God gives his only Son unto them (and to them all) who was the Prince of that peace; the common fountain of all that happiness, which they could wish one to another. Albeit the Son of God were borne eight days before, yet he was given unto us upon the day of his circumcision. His circumcision was the designment or dedication of him for the salvation of mankind. Behold (saith the Angel, Luke 2. 10) I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. The Prophet Isay foretold this joy, not only with reference to the birth, but to the circumcision also of the true Emmanuel. They joy before thee according to the joy in Harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil, Isa 9 3. For unto us a Child is borne, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, & c, ver. 6. But some there be, who will either deny, or not believe, that our Saviour was circumcised upon the first of January, because we have no better warrant for this opinion, than the tradition of the church. But some of the ancient & learned Fathers did think they had the testimony of Scripture besides the tradition of their Ancients. For so they interpret those words of S. john Baptist, john 3. 30. He must increase, but I must decrease; as if they did contain a secret character of the time wherein john Baptist and our Saviour were borne; the one upon the longest, the other upon the shortest day in the year. And by this account our Saviour was circumcised upon the eighth day of January. For my part I dare not contradict this kind of interpretation of the Fathers, being fully persuaded that the holy Ghost doth ofttimes foresignify greatest mysteries as well by mere character of words, as by words assertive or matter of fact. CHAP. 36. Of the name JESUS, and the title LORD. THE meaning of the name jesus is expounded by the Angel, Math. 1. 11. She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. But this title of Saviour may admit many degrees, partly in respect of the name itself in the original tongue, whence it descends unto the Greek and Latin: but more principally in respect of the matter, that is the distress or danger whence men are saved. In respect of this later at least, jesus the son of Mary, far exceeds all others that have been, or hereafter may be termed Saviour's. But of the danger or misery from which he saved his people, there will be better opportunity to speak at large in the Article of his Cross. The explication of the name itself, is the work of this time and place. Some there be which think this name jesus must necessarily be derived from the essential and proper name of God; a name never rightly pronounced by the Jews or by any other, as some learned Hebricians think before our Saviour's birth, but then made effable or utterable (as the Authors of this opinion would persuade us, who derive this word jesus from jehovah, by intersertion of one Hebrew letter, to wit, Shin, which is as much as Sh.) According to this derivation, Cap. 36 they would make the compound name to be an Emblem or type of the two natures in Christ; jehovah, bearing the type of the divine nature, and the letter Shin interserted into this name, to be an Emblem of the incarnation or humane nature assumed into the unity of the person of the son of God. This Etymology or derivation (as the Authors of it imagine) best agrees with the Angel's interpretation of the name jesus before cited; because jehovah himself saith (Isay 45. 21.) There is no Saviour besides me. If this be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 currant Cabbalisme, we are in special beholding to Osiander for it. If by sager judgements it happen to be censured for a fancy, * Vide Jacobum Naclantum in Medulla scripturae. jacobus Naclantus, a Romish Bishop must share with Osiander in the censure. Whatsoever the opinion be in itself, the allegation for confirmation of it, is not concludent. For that, rightly examined, only infers, that jehovah himself, (he that was essentially God) and none besides him, was to be our Saviour, or the Saviour of the world. This is a truth unquestionable, yet a truth which will not conclude, that whilst he became the Saviour of the world, he was to take no other name or title upon him, besides the proper and essential name of God, only embellished with one letter. But admit the name jesus, (as we take it in our Creed) given to our Saviour by the Angel, must draw its pedigree from the same Hebrew root or primitive, from which the name jesus, given to others, is derived; yet the branches of the same root or primitive, (from any of which the name jesus may be aptly alike immediately derived) differ much. First, we may derive the word jesus from the future tense of the Hebrew jashang [Salvavit] And thus the name in the Hebrew should be jehoshuah, whence he whom in our English we call joshua the son of Nun, and jesus the son of God, should have one and the self same name in the Hebrew, as they have in the Greek and vulgar Latin. According to this derivation all the prerogatives which jesus Christ the son of God can challenge before jesus the son of Nun, or others which have been called jesus, must be deduced only from the matter or manner of the salvation which he bestows, not from any peculiar property or sovereignty of name. The same name in the Hebrew is sometimes read shorter, not jehoshua, but jeshua, and from this later contracted name as well the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Latin jesus is more immediately and with less alteration derived. This later kind of writing (or contraction,) was more familiar among the Jews in our Saviour's time. And for this reason the modern Jews call him jesus, not in despite or mockery (as some great * Vide Drusium de nominibus. Clarks have been persuaded) but out of an ordinary custom of omitting the Hebrew guttur all in this and like words for better facility of pronouncing. And as Drusi●s notes, the omission of this letter in proper names, grew in use amongst later Hebricians (such as lived since or about our Saviour's time) upon the same occasions, that moved the ancient Latin Fathers, to render the Hebrew Hoseang, not as we do now, Hoseas, but Ose. Whether we read jehoshua, or jeshua, or jeshu in the Hebrew, the name in the greek or Latin is all one; and the meaning or signification in the Hebrew the very same. 2 But albeit the name of this our Jesus may rightly be derived from the same branch of the Hebrew jashang, from which the name of jesus as it was given to jesus the son of Nun, and to jesus the son of josedec, took their original, yet I like best of their opinion, which derive the name jesus (as given to the son of God) not from the participle, verb, or adjective, but from the abstract or substantive jeshugnah, which is as much as salus ipsa, or Salvation itself. And this original of the name jesus, Simeon seems to intimate in his divine song Luke 1. ver. 28. 29. He took the child jesus (saith the Evangelist) in his arm, and blessed God and said, Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace according to thy word; for mine eyes have seen, (not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) not salvatorem, but salutem, not the Saviour, but the salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people, a light to lighten the Gentiles, and to be the glory of the people Israel. Now all these attributes [of being a light to lighten the Gentiles, to be the glory of Israel] are properly ascribed unto the person of our Saviour, unto God made man, or unto the man Christ Jesus, in whom the Godhead dwelleth bodily. The Hebrew abstract or substantive, which the greeks express by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, by salvation itself, (not by Saviour) is most frequently used in those places of Scripture wherein Salvation by Christ is promised. As Isay 52. 10. The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the Nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the Salvation of our God. And again Isai 56. 1. Thus saith the Lord, keep ye judgement, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. And Abakuk 3. 18. Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my Salvation, (so our English,) or in God my salvation, or my jesus. And again, Isay 49. 6. It is a light thing that thou shouldst be my servant to raise up the Tribes of jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayst be my Salvation unto the end of the Earth. Instantly after God had saved Israel out of the hand of the Egyptians, and drowned the Egyptians in the Sea, Moses and the Children of Israel sang this song unto the lord Exod 15. 1, 2. He hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the Sea. The Lord is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation, etc. This deliverance of Israel from the Egyptian thraldom and their safe conduct through the red Sea, was but a type or shadow of a greater deliverance to be wrought by the same God for his people, for which they were to take up the same song which Moses and the children of Israel here did; but with some additions or fuller expressions, how the God of their strength should become the God of their Salvation, or their Jesus. And in that day, thou shalt say, O Lord, I will praise thee; though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me. Behold, God is my salvation: I will trust, and not be afraid, for the Lord jehovah is my strength, and my song, he is also my Salvation. Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of Salvation. Isai 12. 1, 2, 3. Though these and many other places of the like observation had their true historical occasions, yet were they not exactly fulfilled according to their prophetical importance, until he fulfilled them, who was Jehovah, both Lord and God from eternity, not by a general title, but by a distinct and proper name given unto him by God's appointment at his circumcision. How the name and office of Christ Jesus, a King and Priest, was both foreprophecied, and respectively foreshadowed, by jesus the son of Nun, and by jesus the son of jehosedec, must be referred unto his consecration, to be the Priest after the order of Melchisedec. 3 If followeth in the Creed, That jesus Christ who is the only son of God is our Lord. Now whether this title [Lord] be interserted into this article by way of anticipation, as the other title Christ apparently is, may be doubted. He did bear the name jesus from his Circumcision, as we do our Christian names from the Font. This was his proper name; the other two were names of office. Know ye, saith the Apostle, Acts 2. 36 that that jesus whom ye have crucified, him hath God made both Christ and Lord, to wit, after they had crucified him. He was anointed to his Prophetical office at his Baptism, but thereby rather initiated to be, then actually made Christ and Lord. Unto these two offices of everlasting Priest, and everlasting King, he was not actually anointed, or fully consecrated until his resurrection from the dead. Was not then the Son of God, Lord before his resurrection? Yes, being God from eternity, he was also Lord from eternity. So we are taught by Athanasius, The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the H. Ghost is Lord. Whosoever is truly God, is also truly Lord. And in this acception of Lord, as there be not three Gods but one God so there be not three Lords, but one Lord in the blessed Trinity. The Father is the only God, the only Lord; the Son is the only God, the only Lord; the holy Ghost is the only God, the only Lord. But whether this title of Lord, as it is here inserted in this article of the Creed, import no more, then that the Son of God, is the true and only Lord, with the Father and the holy Ghost; or whether it were not before his birth in some sort peculiar to the Son, is a point neither clear in itself, nor easy to be cleared; because the ancient Translators, (especially the Greek and Latin) render the three original words, Elohim, Ieh●vah, or the name of four letters (however it be pronounced) and Adonai promiscuously by Lord. And yet these three words in the original have their several significations or importances. To omit the word Elohim. About the name of four letters there is much contention how it should be pronounced, yet all agree that it 〈…〉 and essence of God▪ is his most proper name, and admits no plural. The proper signification of the name Adonai, is as much as Dominus or Lord. 4 The reason, as I take it, why the greeks and Latins have usually but one expression of both names, is because the ancient Hebrews did not pronounce the name of four letters; unless it were in the Sanctuary, or in solemn benedictions. Nor did they write it so as it might be pronounced, that is, with any proper vowels, but either with the vowels of Adonai, or of Elohim. Not the greeks and Latins only, but the Chaldee paraphrase sometimes reads Adonai, where we read jehovah, or the name of four letters. And thus it doth not from mistake of the Hebrew vowels, which in the time of Onkelus the later of the two Chaldee paraphrases, were not expressed. And God said to Moses, I appeared to Abraham, unto Isaac, and jacob, by the name of God Almighty but by my name jehovah was I not known to them. Exod. 6. 3. Or as the Caldee, by the name Adonai, etc. Wherefore say unto the Children of Israel, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, etc. Some good writers in the interpretation of this place observe, that albeit Abraham, Isaac, and jacob were in high favour with God, yet they wrought no miracles as Moses the first among the sons of men did. And hence they infer, that Moses did work all his miracles in the power and virtue of this name, whether jehovah or Adonai, which was first manifested unto to him. 〈…〉 many interpretations of this place * Variae su●t Commentatorum interpretationes in hunc locum: quarum aliquot hic referre volumus. Quidam sic intelligunt; quòd Deus quidem generalem quandam sui cognitionem patribus rev●laverit: sed n● tam claram & perspicuam, quam revelata est per Mosen. Et inter patriarchas obscurè adhuc de Deo pre●●tatum, per Mosen autem manifestiorem praedicationem de Deo vulgatam esse. 〈…〉 quidam & ●●turum faerit patriarchis, secundùm 〈◊〉 sed non secundùm significatum mysterium, aut virtutem ejus. videlicet quòd Patriarcbae sciverint quidim Deum satis f●tem, & potentem esse ad aedendamiratu●a & prodig●a, sed non sciverint nomen ●ei ●●●agrammaton 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nomen illud esse, quo possit homo 〈…〉 modum Mosen putant virtuta hujus nominis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adonai, 〈◊〉 aedidisse. Mihi videtur omnium simplicissima sententia esse eorum▪ 〈◊〉 ad modum explicant; Quasi. Deus hoc sens● 〈◊〉 verb● ad Mosen 〈…〉 quidem ne esse patribus declaravi & mihi abund● esse divitiarum ut 〈◊〉 divites redder●m. At in nomine 〈◊〉 Adonai non fui cogn●●us illis, id est, verum opere non comple●● quod illis sum pollicitus. Quasi dicat promittentem 〈…〉; sed op●re promissae 〈…〉 in nomine meo Adonai cognitus ero, Id est, videbis me id facere quod nomen sonat, nenpe veracemesse etc. 〈…〉 Exodum Chap 6. Fagrus best approves this. Although God were known to Abraham as Omnipotent and All sufficient to perform whatsoever he hath promised: yet was he not known unto Abraham or other of the Patriarches by that name or title, which did import the instant performance of what he had promised unto Abraham. This was immediately imported in the name of four letters or in those descriptions which God there gave to Moses of his nature and essence, or of his present purpose towards Israel in the 3 of Exod. ver. 14. I am, 〈◊〉 I am, etc. 5 And the 〈◊〉 paraphrase, it is probable, did use the name Adonai in stead of the name of four letters, as most pertinent and most significant to this purpose. For it properly pertains to him who is not only in himself Almighty or All sufficient, but Lord of all, to dispose of Kingdoms and inheritances; to depose greatest Lords and advance meanest servants. If the name of four Letters were to the ancient Hebrews as Drusius with some others will have it, ineffable; this was a true character of his incomprehensible nature, which they properly signify. Nor doth the usual substitution of Adonai, for the want of four letters want matter of more than grammatical observation. This practice was a literal Emblem or Character of that which our Evangelist hath expressed in words assertive. john 1. 18. No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. In this declaration or exposition of God (whose incomprehensible nature was charactered by his ineffable name) made by the Son of God incarnate, there was a greater improvement of man's knowledge of God, in respect of that knowledge which Moses and the Prophets had, than there was in Moses his knowledge of God, in respect of Abraham's, isaac's, or Jacob's. Moses and his Successors did see the performance of that, which the name of jehovah, or Adonai, first revealed to Moses did import, to wit, deliverance from their bodily Enemies, and in that deliverance they had a pledge of far greater blessings promised, which yet they did not receive. For as our Apostle testifies Heb. 11. 39 Though Moses amongst others, through faith, obtained a good report; yet he did not receive the promise, that is, the blessing promised, nor was the nature of man capable of this blessing promised, until that God, who was first revealed unto Moses, under the name of jehovah, was made Lord and Christ. 6. It had been a question more worthy of Drusius his pains, than all the questions which he makes concerning the name of four letters, whether the name Adonai were not in some sort peculiar to the Son of God, or to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who was to be made flesh. That this name Adonai is so peculiar to the Son of God as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, I dare not affirm. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth no where to my remembrance denote any other person in the blessed Trinity besides the Son; Whereas the name Adonai is an expression which many times refers unto the Trinity or Divine nature. And in this extent it must be taken, when it is substituted for the ineffable name of God, unless some special circumstances restrain it to the Son. But in many passages of the old Testament, both names are expressed according to their proper consonants. And in all these places the name Adonai refers only to the Son, as the name of four letters denotes the Father. As in that 110 Psalms, where we read, The Lord said unto my Lord, it is in the original jehovah said unto my Lord Adoni, or Adonai.] And in this place the name of four letters refers only to God the Father. But so doth not the name Adoni denote either the Father or the holy Ghost, but the Son alone. I durst not have been so bold as to have gathered this general rule from mine own observation, unless I had found it excellently observed and proved at large by Petru● Faber in his Dod●●camenon, Cham 8. It much affected this learned man, as it will do any that is wise unto sobriety, to see how most of the Ancients, as well in the Greek as in the Latin Church, albeit they took no notice at all of any difference between these two names of God in the original, did yet constantly appropriate the name of Lord to God the Son, when he is named in the same prayer or gratulatory Hymn with God the Father. But this they might learn either from S. Paul, or from the Apostles Creed. For so the blessing is, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, [not of the Lord God] etc. And so in the Apostles Creed the title of Lord is appropriated unto the Son of God, not added either to the Father Almighty, or to the Holy Ghost. 7. But in many places of the old Testament, wherein both names of God are specified, the name of Adonai, is placed before the name of four letters. And thus it happens, so far as I can observe, especially in the serious supplications, or gratulatory expressions of Holy men, as in that speech of Gideon, judges 6. 13. Oh my Lord, if God be with us, why then is all this befallen us? And again, josuah 7. 7. joshua said, Alas O Lord God, wherefore hast thou at all brought this people over jordan & c? The Evangelicall mystery employed in this form of prayer or supplication is excellently deciphered by Masius in his Comments upon this place, with whose words gathered from the tradition or liturgy rather of the ancient Hebrews of the Cabalists I conclude this Treatise. * Compellat Iosua Deum duplici nomine, dum ut Imperator, pro omnibus verba facit. Alterum est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adonai; alterum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: illud ad dominationem pertinet; hoc Dei essent●am, ut alibi dixi, intuetur. Solent autem duo ista nomina saepius in vehementioribus precationibus isto modo conjungi a viris sanctis in sacra historia. Quod eodem illi Spiritu afflati fecere, ut ego certe existimo quo sacrosancta Ecclesia Deum Patrem omnia orat per Filium. Nam cum nomen, Adonai, ut dixi, dominationem intueatur, planè filio congruit, eumque nobis repraesentat, per quem Deus Pater, ut fecit mundum, sic mundum moderatur. Idque adsentiuntur nobis etiam, verbis saltem, diviniores Haebraeorum Philosophi, quos Cabbalistas vocant; cum tradunt, illud nomen, Adonai, esse tanquam clavem, qua patefit aditus ad Deum jehovam: hoc est, ad Deum in sua essentia veluti latentem; esse Thesaurum, in quo ea, quae ab Jehova nobis impartiuntur, omnia sunt recondita, Esse insuper oeconomon illum magnum, qui res omnes dispensat, nutrit, vegetat, per jehovam; Denique neminem ad jehovam penetrare posse, nisi per Adonai: Neque enim ullam aeut viam, aut rationem ad illum perveniend aliam esse prorsus; Atque ideò Ecclesiam pr●ces suas sacras sic auspicari: Adonai, hoc est, Domine, Labia mea aperias: et os meum annuntiabit laudem tuam. Haec enim, et his similia alia, scriptae extant in eo libro, cui titulum illi fecére, Portam Lucis: et in libro quem vocant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est, Nomen explicatum. Masius Comment in josuam, Cap. 7. pag. 124. joshua (saith he) calls God by 2 names, when as chief Commander he speaks in behalf of all the rest. The one is Adonai: the other jehova. The former setteth out God's ruling power: the later hath respect (as else where I have showed) to God's Essence. These 2. names often come together in the most fervent prayers of the Saints in the sacred Story: as here they do. Namely, they inspired with the Holy Ghost do, as (I conceive) the Holy Church doth, praying for all things from the Father for the Son's sake. For seeing Adonai (as I said) hath an eye to Gods ruling power; it agrees manifestly to the Son, and represents him to us by whom as God the Father made the World; so he ruleth it. In this point the Diviner sort of Hebrew Authors called Cabalists, assent to us; when they teach that the name Adonai is as it were the key, by which entrance is opened to God jehova: that is, to God as it were, hid in his own Essence: and that it is the treasure, in which these things bestowed on us by jehova are all deposited; And that moreover it denoteth the great Steward, who disposeth of all, and nourisheth; and quickeneth all things under jehova; And finally, that no man can approach near jehova, but by Adonai: because there is no other way or course at all to come to him; And that therefore the Church thus begins her holy prayers: Adonai, that is, Lord open my lips, and my mouth shall show forth thy praise. These and such like passages are extant in the book entitled Porta lucis: the ●ate of light: and in the book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is, The name explicated. FINIS. A CATALOGVE OF the several Treatises heretofore published by the Author. (* ⁎ *) THe Eternal Truth of Scriptures and Christian belief, in two Books of Commentaries upon the Apostles Creed. The third book of Commentaries upon the Apostles Creed, containing the blasphemous positions of jesuits and other later Romanists, concerning the authority of their Church. justifying Faith, or the faith whereby the just do live, being the fourth book upon the Creed. A Treatise containing the original of unbelief, misbelief, or misperswasions concerning the Verity, Unity, and Attributes of the Deity: with directions for rectifying our belief or knowledge in the forementioned points, being the fifth book upon the Creed. A Treatise of the Divine Essence and Attributes the first and second parts, being the sixth book upon the Creed. The Knowledge of Christ jesus, or the seaventh book of Commentaries upon the Apostles Creed, containing the first and general principles of Christian Theology, with the more immediate principles concerning the knowledge of Christ: divided into four sections. A Treatise of the holy Catholic Faith and Church. Christ's answer to John's question: or an Introduction to the knowledge of jesus Christ, and him crucified: delivered in certain Sermons. Nazareth and Bethlehem, or Israel's portion in the son of Jesse: And mankind's comfort from the weaker sex, in two Sermons preached at S. Mary's in Oxford. Pag. lin. Errata Sic corrige. 5 15 historians belief historical belief 60 31 typical prophetical. 115 26 upon deal. 127 18 his assertion this assertion. 140 16 violencence violence Ibi. 18 that it that is 166 23 its proper his proper 211 22 in on 214 21 exact expect: 258 16 took look 314 1 that but Ibi. 18 did perfectly did not perfectly. Ibi. 19 as true a true 344 2 next annexed 353 8 spoken were spoken 358 29 many as many 365 5 do to