A TREATISE OF THE CONSECRATION OF THE SON OF God to his everlasting PRIESTHOOD.  
AND THE ACCOMPLISHMENT of it by his glorious Resurrection and Ascension.  
BEING THE NINTH BOOK of Commentaries upon the Apostles CREED.  
CONTINUED BY THOMAS JACKSON Doctor in Divinity, Chaplain in ordinary to his MAJESTY, and Precedent of C. C. C. in OXFORD.  
OXFORD, Printed by LEONARD LICHFIELD printer to the Famous University. AN. DOM. 1638.   

TO THE ROYAL Majesty's tie OF OUR MOST GRACIOUS AND PIOUS SOVEREIGN CHARLES' KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, etc.  
Most gracious Sovereign,  
THE only ends or scopes at which my desires, in the first draught of this long work of comments upon the Apostles Creed, did aim, were first and principally the glory of God, which is the supreme Cause of causes, the main End of all other ends, intended by good men or Angels: The second, subordinate to this, was to give satisfaction to my longing desires, of discharging my duty to the Church my Mother, by doing her such service as I was able; in setting forth the true worship of God, and in maintaining the faith professed by her: The third, subordinate to the second, but principally to the first, was to give an account unto my middle age how I had spent my youth, and to leave a Constat unto my old age (at which by God's good providence, beyond my hope or expectation; I am now arrived) that I had not altogether spent my best days in a drowsy sleep, or which is worse, in waking dreams, or wand'ring projects, after pleasure, riches, ambitious hopes, or private ends. But being first called unto Your Majesty's service, in my declining years, I took the boldness upon me, about some five years ago, in supplement of my weak performances in my Ordinary attendance, to dedicate these three Books, concerning the knowledge of jesus Christ, & of him crucified, unto Your Highness, these being, (to mine own apprehension) the best fruits of my best and flourishing years. The matter or subject of them will not (I take it) be denied by any, to be the fittest Theme for the meditations of all good Christians, according to their several capacities. And no subject under heaven can be either more profitable, or more delightful, for contemplative or stronger wits to work upon: unto whom, especially unto such of them, as have better means or abilities, than God hitherto hath blessed me withal, I leave to amend or finish what I have long ago begun, & thus far prosecuted. Full time it is for me, but no time (I hope) as yet overpast to consecrate the rest of my labours, unto death-bed-learning, and devotions, which is the best service that can be expected from me at these years, and which the elder I grow, the better able I trust I shall be to perform; as having by long experience found myself to be then the strongest in this kind of exercise of mind and spirit, when I am in greatest weakness of body. Now of these my devotions and daily prayers unto God, a great part must be consecrated to this end, that he would vouchsafe to continue his gracious favours and mercies towards your Royal person, and that the Crowns of these Kingdoms, whereof you are, next, and immediately under him and his Christ, the supreme Lord and governor, may long flourish upon your own head, & the heads of your Posterity; that after this life ended he may invest you with a Crown of endless glory.  
Your Maᵗⁱᵉˢ humbly devoted Servant and Chaplain THOMAS JACKSON.   

To the Christian Reader.  
IT was in my thoughts when this Copy of my meditations upon the consecration of the Son of God to his everlasting Priesthood, was first licenced for the Press, to have annexed unto it one or two Sermons, or short Treatises of the like argument. But being called from my studies by urgent occasions before the impression of this 9th Book of Commentaries upon the Creed was near finished, I am constrained to publish it in a lesser volume, than I first intended it, though (I take it) in as many lines, or more words then either of the two former Books upon the same argument, to wit, the knowledge of Christ, and of him crucified, do contain. The matter is not great, and so much the less, because I have ready (in adversariis) diverse Sermons, or short Treatises as appendices or appertinences to all these three Books, respectively, & to another entitled Christ's answer to john's disciples, or an Introduction to the knowledge of Christ etc. to be published as soon as God shall be pleased to grant me ability, and opportunity. Other three Books I have in like readiness for the Press, to wit, the 10th Book of Comments upon the Creed, or a treatise of the natural man's servitude to sin, and of that poor remnant of freewill which is left in the Sons of Adam before▪ they be regenerated in Christ by the spirit, together with directions for the right use or employment of freewill, after our Baptism, for the accomplishment, or rather for performance of the conditions on our parts required, that mortification may be accomplished in us by the spirit of God. The next of the three Books promised is the 11th Book of these Commentaries containing a treatise upon the Articles of Christ's coming to judgement, of the Resurrection of the dead, & of the Life everlasting, which is the final setence which at his coming to judgement shall pass upon all men, as well upon them which have been long dead, as those that shall be found alive at his coming. The last Book of these Comments contains the second part of a treatise heretofore begun, and in part published, concerning the Articles of the holy Catholic Church; of the Communion of Saints, and the Forgiveness of sins. What I here promise or may occasion the Readers, especially young students in divinity, to expect, shall by God's assistance be shortly or in good time performed, either by myself or by my Executors: unto whose disposals, I am not likely to leave much; scarce any thing else besides Books and Papers.  
Thine ever in Christ jesus THOMAS JACKSON.   

A TABLE OF THE PRINCIPAL Arguments of the several Sections and Chapters contained in this BOOK.  

SECTION. I. OF Consecration, and of the Qualifications of those that were to be consecrated high Priests.  
CHAP. 1. Of the true value or signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or of being made perfect. Pag. 3.  
2. Of the separation of the high Priest from men, and of the compassionate temper which was the special Qualification of every high Priest. Heb. 5. v. 2. Pag. 7.  
3. What were those strong cries which the Son of God did utter in the days of his flesh, how far his prayers were heard, and from what death and danger he was delivered. Heb. 5. v. 7. Pag. 11.  
4. The Consecration of the Son of God was not finished immediately after his Agony in the Garden, nor was he then or at the time of his sufferings upon the Cross▪ an 〈…〉, or comp●●a● high▪ Priest after the O 〈…〉 of Mel●●i●● d●c●. Pag. 18.  
5. That the So●ne of God by his Consecration being ●nc● accomplished, become the Author's and Fountain of everlasting ●a●v●tion to all such and only such as obey him. In what s●nce he is said to have died for 〈…〉, ●●●● be 〈…〉 of all mankind▪ Pag. 23.   

SECTION. 2. OF the calling of designment of the Son of God to be an high Priest after the order of Melchisedech: of the differences and agreements in some particulars between the Priesthood of A●on and the Priesthood of Melchisedech.  
CHAP. 6. Of the signification or importance of the word calling, used by our Apostle Heb. 5. with the general Heads or Points to be handled and discussed in this 2. 3. 4. Sections. Pag. 29.  
7. In what sense Melchisedech is said to be without Father and Mother Heb. 7. 3. Whether he were a mortal man a● Abraham was, though more ancient▪ wherein the similitude between Melchisedech's person and the person of the Son of God doth specially consist. Pag. 32.  
8. That the omission of Melchisedech's ●●●●●logy did import a special mystery; and what that mystery was. pag. 40.  
9 What manner of blessing it was which Melchisedech bestowed on Abraham. That the manner of the blessing argues Melchisedech to have been Sem the great, as the jewish Rabbins enstile him, the eldest son of Noah, not by birth yet by prerogative of the first borne. pag. 44.  
10. Wherein the priesthood of Melchisedech did differ from the priesthood of Aaron; That Melchisedech did not offer any sacrifice of bread and wine unto God when he blessed Abraham. pag. 50.  
11. In respect of what points especially the priesthood of Melchisedech did fore-picture the priesthood of the Son of God. pag. 56.   

SECTION. 3. OF the call or destination of the Seed of Abraham, and Son of David, by solemn oath to the everlasting Priesthood.  
CHAP. 12. The chief or main principle whereon our Apostle grounds his Treatise or discourse to the Hebrews▪ Containing a Paraphrase upon the most part of the sixth Chapter to the Hebrews pag. 67.  
13 The use of oaths, and their observance is from the Law of Nature Of the manner of taking solemn oaths amongst the Ancients of several Nations. pag. 74.  
14. Of Oaths promissory, specially for Confirmation of leagues, and of the fearful judgements that usually fall upon them who wittingly and willingly violate them. pag. 80.  
15. In what cases solemn oaths were or are to be taken and administered. pag. 90.  
16. God's oath to Abraham was an oath for Confirmation of the league betwixt them. Of the several manner of leagues. pag. 96.  
17. The League between God and Abraham did eminently contain the most accurate solemnities that were used betwixt Prince and Prince, or Nation and Nation. pag. 104.  
18. What the Interposition of God's oath for more a▪ bundant Confirmation of his promise to Abraham did import, over and above all that which was included in the literal or assertive sense of the League betwixt God and Abraham. pag. 113.  
19 Of the two things wherein our Apostle saith it was impossible for God to lie. pag. 122.  
20. The former Importance of God's Oath to Abraham, and the contents of it specified in the two immediately precedent Chapters, morefully confirmed by the menour of God's oath to David and to his seed, described at large by the Author of the 98 Psalms, most concludently by the Apostle. Heb. 7. pag. 127.   

SECTION. 4. BY what Persons and in what manner the Consecration of jesus Christ the Son of God to his Priesthood was prefigured.  
CHAP. 21. That jesus or jehoshua the son of Nun, Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and jesus the son of jehosadeck were special Tips of jesus Christ the Son of God, (respectively) as he was to be made and now is both King and Priest. pag. 145.  
22. Of the harmony between the Prophet jeremy and the Prophet Zachary concerning the man whose name is the Branch: How his growth or springing up was prefigured by Zerubbabel the son of David: His name and title as our high Priest fore-pictured by the name and title of jesus the son of josedech: That he was as truly the Son of God before all time, as the son of David in time. pag. 154.  
23. The objection of the jews against the interpretation of the former Prophecy jerem. 23. answered. In what sense judah is truly said to be saved, and Israel to dwell in safety by jesus the Son of God and son of David. pag. 163.  
24. That our high Priest the Son of God did not only accomplish that which was foreshadowed by the name and title and office of jesus the Son of josedeck, but withal, the legal rites or solemnities; none of which he did destroy or dissolve, as he did the works of the Devil, but change or advance them into better solemnities to be observed by us Christians. That his solemn accomplishment of the feast of Atonement at the feast of the Passover was prefigured in the Law, and fore-signified by God's special command. pag. 167.  
25. In what respects the Consecration of Aaron and of his sons did especially prefigure the Consecration of the Son of God; and in what respects they specially differ. That the Consecration of Aaron did in divers respects serve as a foil to set forth the excellency of the Consecration of the Son of God. pag. 182.  
26. In what respects the Bullock offered at the Consecration of Aaron etc. and the rites of offering it did prefigure the bloody sacrifice of the Son of God, especially the circumstances of the place wherein it was offered. pag. 190.  
27. In what respects the Ram of the Consecration and the Ram which God did provide for a burnt offering instead of Isaac, did prefigure the sacrifice of the Son of God. Of other special rites wherein Aaron at his Consecration and in the function of his Priesthood, did prefigure the Consecration and Priesthood of the Son of God. pag. 196.  
28. A brief recapitulation of what hath been said in this parallel between the Consecration of Aaron and the Consecration of the Son of God the conclusion of the whole Treatise concerning it. pag. 208.   

SECTION. 5. OF the Resurrection of the Son of God. By what Prophets it was foretell. By what persons or legal Rites it was fore-pictured or foreshadowed.  
CHAP. 29. In what high esteem S. Paul did hold the Article of of our Saviour's Resurrection and Ascension etc. That the want of explicit belief to this grand Article of the Resurrection did argue rather a dulness or slowness to believe the Scrip tures then any infidelity, or incredulity, even in such as had seen his miracles, and had heard him foretell his death and rising again, until the event did manifest unto them the truth of his former Doctrine and predictions. pag. 214.  
30. That the Death and Resurrection of the Son of God was enigmatically foretell in the first promise made to our Father Adam, and our Mother Eve. That his Resurrection was exquisitely prefigured by Isaack's escape front death; and the Propagation of his Kingdom after his Resurrection, by the strange increase, or multiplication of Isaack's seed. A parallel betwixt our Saviour and joseph in their affliction and exaltation. pag. 225.  
31. Showing the concludency of the allegations used by the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul to prove the truth of Christ's Resurrection; and in particular of the Testimony Psal. 2. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee. pag. 237.  
32. The concludency of S. Paul's second Argument Act. 13. drawn from the 55. of Isaiah. pag. 255.  
33. That our Saviour's departure, and passing out of this world to his Father, or his entering into his glory through afflictions was exquisitely foreshadowed by diverse solemnities in the legal Passover, and by the Israelites passing through the red Sea. pag. 261.  
34. The Resurrection of the Son of God, and the effects or issues of his birth from the grave were concludently fore-pictured by the Redemption of the firstlings of the flocks, and of the first borne males, and by the offerings of the first fruits of their corn. pag. 269.   

SECTION. 6. HE ascended into Heaven.  
CHAP. 35. How the Ascension of the Son of God was prefigured by the translation of Enoch, and by the taking up of Elias; And foretold by the Psalmist, Psal. 15. and Psal. 24. pag. 277.  
36. At what time, and upon what occasions the 68 Psalm was composed: What reference it hath (in the general) unto our Saviour's Ascension. pag. 286.  
37. Of the concludency of the Apostles Allegation, Ephes. 4. 7. 8. Out of the 18. vers. of the 68 Psal. pag. 292.  
38. That the manner of our Saviour's Ascension was more clearly fore seen by Daniel then by David, and most exactly foreshadowed by matters of fact in Mosaical and other sacred histories: A parallel between Salomon's Consecration of the Temple, and our Saviour's Consecration, or sanctifying of himself, and his heavenly Sanctuary. pag. 301.  
39 Into what place or part of heaven our Saviour did ascend, or in what manner he sitteth at the right hand of God, are points not so fit to be particularly inquired after, nor so apt to be proved or determined by Scripture, as the other Articles of our Creed. pag. 307.  
40. How the time of our Saviour's Ascension into heaven upon the fortieth day after his Resurrection from the grave, was prefigured by the sign of the Prophet jonas, with the exposition of that sign given by our Saviour Mat. 12. 39 40. pag. 313.  
41. A Parallel between the day wherein Adam is thought to have been cast out of Paradise, with the day wherein our Saviour was Crucified: And between the first day of the world's Creation and our Saviour's Resurrection. pag. 325.  
42. That the sentence proclaimed against Nineveh by the Prophet jonas, was in a full measure executed upon the adulterous Generation of the jews; not believing or repenting at our Saviour's preaching. pag. 332.  
43. That place of Zachary Chap. 14. v. 3. expounded, showing that God did fight with the Gentiles against the jews as formerly he had done with the jews against the Gentiles. How the forty days of Christ's abode upon earth after his Resurrection was soretold. pag. 341.    

Errata.  
PAg. 14. Lin. 7 proposition Cor. preposition. p. 19 l. 13. earth c. upon earth. p. 38. l. 15. fants c. Infants. p. 39 l. 24. as c. is. p. 73. l. 27. judaical c. judicial. p. 75. l. 15. own c. own. p. 76. l. 15. tagendo c. tangendo. p. 76. l. 2. deleatur P. p. 79. l. 12. P●idias c. Cydias. p. 115. l. 26. sororom c. sororum. p. 34●. l. 9 wath. c. wrath.   

A TREATISE OF THE CONSECRATION of the Son of God to his everlasting PRIESTHOOD. And THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF it by his Glorious Resurrection and Ascension:  
1. WANT sometimes of skill, sometimes of industry, oftentimes of both, to sound the mysteries, or discuss the general maxims contained in sacred Scriptures aright, hath been one special occasion, as of breeding, so of nursing and continuing endless quarrels amongst the chief professors of peace, Students I mean or Graduates in Theologie. Now for composing the most or greatest Controversies which for these late years have disturbed the peace of Christ's Church militant here on earth, no maxim in the whole Book of God, which is the only Fundamental and complete rule of faith and manners, is or can be of greater or better use than that of our Apostle, Heb. 5. 9 And being made perfect he became the Author of everlasting salvation to all that obey him, being called a Priest etc. The discussion whereof in a fuller measure, and (as I hope) in a more distinct manner, than I have found it discussed by others, is the main end or scope of these present undertake. The maxim itself though brief is the true scale or diametral line or rule, without whose knowledge or distinct survey first taken, neither the full distance or disproportion, nor the parallel approaches, or symmetrall vicinities, which many different opinions yet still in debate respectively hold or bear unto the infallible doctrine of salvation and life, will ever be fully discovered, much less clearly determined.  
Besides this great and general use, if we could hit the punctual meaning of this place, or take a true value of the very first word in this text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we might with more facility clear that obscure and difficult place. Heb. 11. 40. and inform ourselves, First what better thing it was, which God had provided for the faithful in later ages, in respect of former; and secondly, what the Apostle there means by being made perfect. For in this being made perfect consisteth the betterhood of the faithfuls estate in that time, in respect of Abraham's, the Patriarches, and the Prophets.  

SECT. 1. Of Consecration, and of the Qualifications of those that were to be consecrated high Priests.  

CHAP. 1. Of the true value or signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of being made perfect.  
WHatsoever good thing or perfection it was which the Apostles, or Disciples of our Lord did obtain in this life, over and above all that which the Patriarches in their Pilgrimages here on earth did attain unto, this was wholly from the perfection here mentioned in my Text. Neither the Patriarches nor Apostles were made perfect until the Son of God was made perfect. Their best perfection is but an effct, or branch of his perfection, or of his being made perfect. That the Patriarches and Apostles should be made perfect, is not a thing strange, because they were but men, and therefore subject to many imperfections: but that the Son of God who is perfection itself should be made perfect, this may seem more than strange, a thing impossible; and we were bound to admit a solecism in the Apostles expression, if we were to weigh it only according to the grammatical signification of the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which word for word is neither more nor less than to be made perfect.  
2 But many words there are in all the learned tongues, whose prime signification every ordinary Grammar Scholar may know whilst he reads them only in Historians or Rhetoricians. And yet the best Grammarian living (so he be no more than a Grammarian) may be altogether ignorant of their true meaning o● importance, whilst they are used in legal or solemn Instruments, or as terms of some special art or faculty. Every schoolboy knows the ordinary signification of Possum whilst he reads it in his Grammar rules, or in such Authors as he is acquainted with: and yet his master (how good a Grammarian soever) unless he be a Philosopher withal, shall hardly be able to render the true notion or expression of Potentia in natural Philosophy: And a natural Philosopher may be sometimes as far to seek in the use of the same word Potentia or Potestas in the faculty of the Civil Law. Lastly, he that hath his senses exercised in all these Faculties or Sciences mentioned, would be a mere stranger to the notion of the same word in the Mathematics: as unable to express what Posse or Aequiposse imports in the Science of Geometry, as a mere rustic is to understand the terms of Law. Such a word or term is this first word in my text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For it is more than a word of art, verbum Jolenne, used by the LXX. Interpreters to express the legal and formal consecration of Aaron his sons and their successors to their Priestly function. And in this sense it is to be taken in this place, and is so rendered in our former English, [And being consecrated he was made the Author of salvation.] And so is the very same word rendered by our later English. Heb. 7. and the last. [The word of the oath which was since the law maketh the Son Priest,] who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, consecrated for evermore.] The Authors of both Translations, (if so it had pleased them) might have given better content and satisfaction to their readers, if they had constantly so expressed the same word with its allies in most places of this Epistle. That in this place the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports as much as we have said, that is, the formal and solemn consecration of the Son of God unto his everlasting Priesthood, needs no farther proof or declaration, than the matter or subject of his discourse from the 14th v. of the 4th Chap. unto the 11. v. of this 5. Now the only subject of his discourse aswell in these places now cited, as through the whole 7. Chap. is the Consecration of the Son of God to his everlasting Priesthood: and the super-excellency of the Priesthood, aswell as of the Consecration to it, in respect of legal Priesthoods or consecrations.  
3. This is the profoundest mystery in Divinity, or rather the main foundation of all Evangelicall mysteries treated off by our Apostle unto the end of this Epistle. But this profound mystery itself hath the same hap which other deep foundations have, that is, to be least seen or sought into by such as are otherwise exact surveyors of superstructures or buildings raised above ground.  
The sum of my present search or survey after this great mystery is this; How the everlasting Priesthood of the Son of God, and his consecration to it were prefigured, foreshadowed, or foretold either in the law or before the law!  
Of the eternity of this our high Priests person, (that is the person of the Son of God) Melchizedech long before the law, was the most illustrious type or picture. So was his order, or Sacerdotal function, the most exact shadow of the Son of God's everlasting Priesthood.  
Of the qualification of the Son of God for this everlasting Priesthood, and of the manner of his Consecration to it, Aaron and other legal Priests his lawful Successors, and the legal rites or manner of their Consecration, were the most lively pictures.  
First of the parallel between Aaron and his Successors lawfully ordained, and the high Priest of our souls, for their qualifications required by the Law of God, and by the Law of nature.  
Secondly of the parallel between Melchisedech and the Son of God, aswell for their persons, as for sacerdotal functions or exercises of them.  
The parallel between Aaron and other Priests of the Law, and the Son of God, for their qualification to their different Priesthoods, is (as was but now intimated) the subject of our Apostles discourse from the beginning of the fifth Chapter unto the tenth verse. We are then in the first place to search out the true sense and meaning of our Apostle, by tracing his steps from the first verse unto the ninth verse. Secondly, to show in what sense the Son of God, by his Consecration became the Author of everlasting salvation to all that obey him, and to them only. For so our Apostle saith, being consecrated he became the Author or cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of everlasting salvation to all that obey him.   

CHAP. 2. Of the Separation of the high Priest from men, and of the compassionate temper which was the special Qualification of every high Priest. Heb, 5. v. 2.  
EVery high Priest is taken from among men, so that every high Priest must be a man so separate or set apart from ordinary men for offering gifts or sacrifices unto God, as that which we call consecrated, or hallowed ground, is from common soil or places of secular use or commerce. But albeit the Priests of the Law were by Consecration separated from ordinary men: yet could they not be separated from their own sins, so long as they carried this body of death about them. But such an high Priest (saith our Apostle Chap. 7. v. 27. it behoved us to have, as is harmless, holy, and separated from sinners. He was so separated from sinners, that he could take no infection from them or their sins, whilst he lived and conversed amongst them. Another special Qualification, required in such as were appointed to the legal Priesthood, we have verse the second of this fi●ft Chapter: And that was, to be able sufficiently to have compassion on them that were ignorant and out of the way; and for this reason, though God be not the Author of sin in any, yet he made an especial use of the sins whereunto legal Priests were subject; to teach them thereby▪ to be compassionate towards others: more compassionate than they would or could have been, if they had not been conscious of their own infirmites', and grievous offences against God; for which they were to offer sacrifices, aswell as for the sins of the people. And the more deeply they were touched with the consciousness of their own sins, or with God's displeasure which they had incurred by them; the more devoutly they prayed for the people, the more diligent and careful they were in their office of Atonement for them. Every godly or considerate high Priest did in every respect for the people, as they desired God should do for them.  
2 This compassionate temper in every high Priest or chief spiritual Governor required by the Law of God, is so agreeable to the common notions of the law of nature, that the consonancy betwixt them did (if not first occasion) yet strengthen the world's opinion of Peter's supremacy over Christ's Catholic Church. A memorable instance to this purpose we have recorded by a late ingenious writer of the life and facts of Mathias Corvinus King of Hungary, into whose presence an ambitious School-man had long desired to be admitted; who because he had learned to play fast and loose with Aquinas or Scotus distinctions, presumed he was able to dissolve any knot in Divinity, and desired nothing more than to play his prizes before that witty King: Being after long importunate suit admitted into his presence, the first problem the generous King proposed unto him was this; [Seeing S. Peter had thrice denied his Lord and Master, whereas S. john who had never offended him, was never tainted with any crime, but continued still the Disciple whom he loved; What was the reason why our Saviour Christ should make S. Peter head of his Church rather then S. john] 
* Tunc Gattus iratus inquit, nol●te mihi prefinire modum theology, quem teneo: Nemo enim est tam temerarius, qui in Theologicis semecum conferre auderet Nam nibil in hac Divinâ scientiâ mihi est (ut puto) incognitum. Omnes enim Bibliothecas percurri, & nun qu●m huius dubitationis occurrit declaratio. Tunc. Rex Mathias alt ad Gatt●m: Non multos in Theologia libros legi nec etiam in aliis facultatibus; A puero enim ●d Regiam dignitatem evectus, pauca è multis didici, & militarem quodammodò literaturam arriput Sed tamen huius rei declaratio, ut opinor, sacile inveni●tur▪ Gattus impatiens, sermonem Regium interrumpens, inquit, Deponite hanc mentem, quoniam ut dixi nusquam est etc. Si virgo johannes & in side firmus Pontifex fuisset, cum ligandi solvendi● potestate, nusquam libidinis blanditias uneque expertus, & qui nullo tumultu a Christo potuit dimoveri, ad sum similatadinem humanum genus confirmare per cubuisset, & Christi, fideique desertores, libidineque corruptos summâ austeritate depulisset Non enim ex fragilitate peccantes, sed ex anuni ne ●uitia homines putasset, qui fletibus dolorem fingerent. summa igitur ratione factum est ut Petras johanni in Pontificatu preferretur; quod tu johannes Gat inter illa dei iudicia inscrutabili● connumerabas Galeotus Martius de dictis & factis Matthiae inter alios scriptor rerum Hungaricarum elegans. Cap. 30. pag. 386. etc.  The juggler perceiving that he had brought the wrong box with him, requested the King not to meddle with God's secrets, but to propose some other controversed Question to him: upon the issue the King resolved him that this was none of God's secrets, alleging the Authority of S. Hierome as an introduction to his own collections, and this reason withal, That if our Saviour had made S. john head of the Church, he would have been more severe and rigorous than those, or other corrupt times would suffer; as being not conscious to himself of any grosie enormity. The same reason had been avouched long before by Eulogius, but censured by 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he gaves a good reason for this sentence in the 〈◊〉 following. Et si enim Petro dictum est, veruntamen in person● Coryphaei & caeteris apostolis talis potestas data. Quandoquidem & sequentibus illos sacerdotibus eandem da●an esse solvendi ligandique petestatem credimus Photius ex 2. lib bibliotheca. Columno. 1599  Photius as relishing more of plausible fancy, then of sound judgement. Yet in this fancy there was a spice of truth and reason; * for S. Peter became more powerful in preaching the Gospel to his brethren the jews, than any of Christ's other Apostles, because he sympathized better with them, and was (no question) more compassionate and kind unto them, than any of the other Apostles were or could have been.  
3 But in offering gifts and sacrifices out of true compassion towards his people, in making Intercession and Atonement for them, our high Priest did and doth far exceed all legal Priests, all other inferiors spiritual Governors. In all things (saith our Apostle) it became him to be made like unto his Brethren, that he might be a merciful and a faithful high Priest in things concerning God, that he might make reconciliation for the sins of his people. For in that he suffered and was tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. Heb. 2. 17. All his sufferings and temptations were requisite for his Qualification 
Of this point see more at large in the 3 book of these commentaries upon the creed Sect. 2. cap. 6.  to his Priestly function, which was to be merciful and compassionate towards sinners: more compassionate towards all sorts of sinners, than any one sinner could be either towards himself or others; Because he had more full and deeper experience of the wages due to sin, than any sinners in this life can have. Hence saith our Apostle in the words immediately preceding to these now in handling, Though he were the Son yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. As he was the Son of God he knew all things, could learn nothing; yet as the son of man, or as man designed for our high Priest, he had a sensible experience of the pains and punishments due to sin, and of the unknown terrors of the second death, which as he was God he could not have, and which as man, unless he had been the Son of God withal, he could not have borne. The obedience which he learned by suffering (as was observed before) was passive not active. And his unspeakable patience (even while he suffered these grievous and unknown pains and terrors) is mentioned by our Apostle as a part of his Qualification. v. 7. In the days of his flesh he offered up prayers and supplications by strong cries and tears unto him that was able to save him from death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   

CHAP. 3. What were those strong cries which the Son of God did utter in the days of his flesh, how far his prayers were heard, and from what death and danger he was delivered. Heb. 5. v. 7.  
MAldonate with some other good Interpreters refer these strong cries or loud exclamations unto that strong cry upon the cross, my God my God why hast thou for saken me? But thus they teach (with due respect unto their worth and learning I speak it,) very impertinently and inconsiderately. For first, that ejaculation of our Saviour upon the Cross, though uttered with a loud voice or cry, bears rather the character of a complaint or expostulation, then of a humble Prayer or supplication, (if we take it in the literal sense) as if it had been extorted from the extremity of pain which he then suffered. The truth is, it was neither a Prayer nor complaint, but meratessera, a signal or watchword to his Auditors or Spectators to rally their tumultuous disordered thoughts. And if they had taken their former indignities done unto him on the Cross, and his admirable patience in suffering them without murmur or complaint, into serious consideration, they might have diseerned that this was the man or promised Messias, whose sufferings the Psalmist did describe, and by his own sufferings in part represent. For our Saviour uttered not these words of the 22 Psalm until all the other passages in the same Psalm were ocularly exemplified and fulfilled in him.  
2 Secondly, we never read, nor have we any occasion to suspect, but reasons pregnant to deny that our Saviour did ever deprecate the death of the Cross; or could be daunted with any indignities which the jews could do unto him, either by word or fact: either by themselves or their Associates. And for this reason (as hath been observed before,) when 
In the 8 book of these Comments. Cap. 12. par. 3.  Peter had advised him to be good to himself, not to expose his person to the malice of the jews, he was dismissed with this severe check, Get thee behind me Satan, for thou art an offence unto me etc. Now Peter had been the more provident of the two, if his Master had uttered the former words either by way of Prayer or complaint. Again if our Saviour had been at any time daunted with the death of the Cross, or had prayed for deliverance from this death, or any pains that did accompany it, his prayers or supplications had not been heard by him, who was able to save him from death; seeing from this death, he did not save him, but suffered or rather required him to taste of it to the full for all men. But it is evident that these strong cries and exclamations uttered with tears mentioned by our Apostle Chap. 5. 7. were heard to the full. For so it is said, He was heard in that which he feared. So both our English translations read it: The later with this variation in the margin, He was heard for his piety. Neither expression is altogether untrue●; yet neither of them full; or both put together not much ad appositum, little pertinent to our Apostles intent or meaning. How then are they to be amended? By a more full explication of the several acceptions of the words in the original.  
3 This latter word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered by fear, or piety, imports in its prime or proper signification as much as a wary or cautelous fear. And (if good Interpreters do not fail us,) it is always taken in the better sense, that is (as we say) for a filial or pious, not for a base or servile fear. Whence seeing he only is pious or godly, who is wary or circumspect not to offend God, nor to wound his own conscience, the same word in the secondary or consequential sense doth signify piety, or godliness. But whether in one or both of these two compatible senses we take this word in this place, the construction which either the vulgar Latin or our English makes of the whole original clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exanditus est ob reverentiam, he was heard in that he feared, or for his piety or reverence, will be very harsh. For the Greek proposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot by analogy either to the Greek or Hebrew be rendered by the Latin ob or propter; or as our English doth in or for; or in that he feared or for his piety, or reverend fear. We are therefore to consider a twofold Hebraisme in this passage. The one in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is a general rule in the Hebrew Dialect, that not only Participles but Noun Substanstives, or abstract forms are aswell passive as active. According to this analogy unto the Hebrew, the word Hope aswell in the Greek as in the Latin, and many other like, are sometimes to be construed actively, sometimes passively. Spes quâ speramus & spes quae speratur. And so likewise promissio qua Deus promittit & promissio quae promittitur. This is the promise which he hath promised, even eternal life. And so is the word, fear, whether we take it in the worse or better sense, as for a natural or servile fear, or for a pious and religious fear, there is timor quo timemus a fear by which we seek to eschew evil, and timor qui timetur which is no other than the evil feared. Now the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must in this place of necessity be taken in the passive signification, not in the active, that is, for the evil which our Saviour so much or so piously feared. Again in as much as God always delivered them from danger or dread, whose prayers he hears, hence it is that to be exauditus, truly heard of God in prayers and supplications, is as much as to be delivered from the dread or danger which we pray against. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in true English all one, as if he had said, And he was delivered from that which he so piously or mightily feared.  
4 The Apostles words contain a full expression of the Psalmists speech, or rather a record of the fulfilling of his prophecy. Psalm. 22. 21. Save me from the Lion's mouth, for thou hast heard, that is, thou hast delivered me from the horns of the Unicorn. God had delivered his Son (whose part in all his sufferings this Psalmist did respectively act, or represent) from the first temptation in the wilderness; and now he prays he would deliver him from this far greater temptation in the Garden, (when the whole host of darkness had environed him) with strong cries and tears, Father if it be ' possible let this Cup pass from me! And so S. Luke instructs us, He was heard and delivered from that hour of temptation which he did so much dread. For in the second pang of that bitter agony an Angel was sent to comfort him, and within the space of an ordinary hour this Cup which was ten thousand times more bitter than the death of the Cross, or any pains which he suffered upon it, was ●ttely removed from him. And after this hour was ended we do not read, nor is there any circumstance in holy writ to induce so much as a conjecture that he stood in fear of any evil that could befall him by the jews or Roman Soldiers, but most patiently (as our Apostle speaks) endured the Cross and despised the shame. Of what kind soever the pains which he suffered in the Garden were (a point in the former Book discussed at large) the suffering of them was neither necessary, or requisite, for making satisfaction to God the Father for the sins of the world. For such satisfaction was abundantly made by the mere death of the Cross. Yet were these his unknown, or unexperienced sufferings in the Garden, either necessary, or most expedient for his Qualification and Consecration to his everlasting Priesthood, that he might be a merciful and faithful high Priest able to compassionate and succour all such as are in any kind tempted. Briefly, seeing one special part of his Priesthood is to make intercession and supplication for us in all our distresses, it was in the wisdom of God expedient that he should have just occasion to offer up prayers and supplications with strong cries for himself. And in as much as these his supplications were heard of his Father, we have assurance that he will not cease to make intercession for us, until God grant us deliverance from temptations, so we pray unto him in such fear and reverence as he in his agony did unto his Father. He will in this case do for us as he desired his Father to do for him.  
5 It seemeth the Consecration of legal high Priests, so long as they accurately observed the rites and manner prescribed by Moses, did one way or other cost them so dear that no man which duly weighed the charge laid upon them would be very ambitious of the office. Hence saith our Apostle, Heb. 5. 4. No man taketh this honour unto himself but he that is called of God as Aaron was: So likewise Christ took not to himself this honour to be made an high Priest, but he that said unto him, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee, put this charge or honour upon him; against his will questionless, as man, albeit he most obediently submitted himself to his Father's will, because he had taken the form of a Servant upon him. His Consecration we may safely avouch cost him dearer than the Consecration of all the legal Priests that had been before him; or of all the Christian Bishops, or Prelates which have lived since did or doth them, whether severally or jointly. Never did any man utter those words so truly and sincerely, Episcopari nolo, as he did, or pray so earnestly, that the charge of his Consecration might be mitigated whilst he was in his agony. But how dear soever his Consecration cost him, the costs and charges of it though altogether unknown to us, were recompensed by the purchase which he gained by it: For, as it followeth, being thus consecrated, he became the Author of everlasting salvation to all that obey him, and their salvation was and is as pleasant to him; as his sufferings whereby he was consecrated, were for the present distasteful.   

CHAP. 4. The Consecration of the Son of God was not finished immediately after his Agony in the Garden, nor was he then or at the time of his sufferings upon the Cross, an actual, or complete high Priest after the Order of Melchisedech.  
But was his Consecration finished immediately after he had been anointed with his own blood in the Garden, or as soon as his prayers and supplications which he offered up with strong cries and tears were heard? No; whatsoever else was required for his Qualification, there could be no true and perfect Consecration to his Priesthood without a Sacrifice, without a bloody Sacrifice. This was one principal part of Aaron's Consecration to his legal Priesthood, and so of his Successors. But here the jew, who is for the most part less learned than perverse and captious, will in this particular shrewdly object, if not thus insult over the negligence of many Christian teachers: When your crucified God was convented by the high Priests and Elders, when he was arraigned before Pontius Pilate; when he was sentenced to the death of the Cross, tell us plainly whether in any of these points of time mentioned, he were truly a Priest, or no Priest? If no Priest at all, what had he to do to offer any Sacrifice, especially a bloody one? For this was a service so peculiar to the legal Priests which were the sons of Aaron, that it was sacrilege for the sons of David, For the greatest Kings of judah to attempt it. If you will say then he was a Priest, you must acknowledge him either to have been a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, or after the order of Aaron: If you say he was a Priest after the order of Aaron, you plainly contradict this Apostle whom you acknowledge to be the great Teacher of you Gentiles; for he saith Chap. 7. v. 14. of this Epistle, It is evident that our Lord sprang out of judah, concerning which Tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning the Priesthood. And again Chap. 8. v. 4. he saith▪ He were not a Priest if he were earth, seeing there are Priests which according to the Law offer gifts. Now if he could be no Priest were he now on earth, then certainly he could be no Priest after the order of Aaron, nor did he offer any legal, or bloody sacrifice whilst he lived (as sometimes he did) here on earth.  
2 Was he than whilst he lived here on earth, a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, and by this title authorized to offer sacrifice? This I presume you dare not avouch. For Melchisedech was a Priest according to endless life; his Priesthood was an immortal everlasting Priesthood. Now although every man be not an high Priest, yet every high Priest must be a man, and a man taken from amongst ordinary men, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sin. The Priesthood is an accident; the humanity or manhood is the subject or substance which supports it. Dare you then say that a mortal man whilst he was such, could possibly be an everlasting Priest, or a Priest according to an endless life, when he was to dye a miserable and ignominious death the very same day? Durum esset hoc affirmare! This indeed is a hard saying, a point of Doctrine whose intimation did cause the jews, such as were in part our Saviour's Disciples, or very inclinable to his service, to question the truth of his calling and of his sayings, john 12. v. 32. etc. And I, if I were lift up from the earth will draw all men unto me. Now this he said (saith S. john) signifying what death he should dye, to wit, the death of the Cross. And so his Auditors conceived his meaning; and for this reason the people answered him, We have heard out of the Law, that the Christ abideth for ever, and how sayest thou the son of man must be lift up? Who is that son of man? v. 34. This people at that time had a clear prenotion, or received opinion that their promised Messias, or the Christ should be a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, that is, a Priest to endure for ever; for the Lord had confirmed thus much by oath. Psalm 110. And out of this common prenotion, whether first conceived out of that place of David, The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech; or from some other Scripture, the people in the forecited place, questioned whether it were possible he should be the Christ, seeing by his own confession he was shortly after to dye the death of the Cross.  
3 These objections I confess could hardly be answered, if we should grant what many modern Divines out of incogitancy have taught, or taken upon trust without further examination, to wit, that the eternal Son of God our Lord and Saviour was an high Priest from eternity, or an high Priest from his birth as man, or from his Baptism when he was anointed by the holy Ghost unto his Prophetical function, or whilst he was upon the Cross. But not granting this, (as we have no reason to admit any branch of it,) the answer to the former objection is clear and easy: Betwixt a Priest complete, or actually consecrated, and no Priest at all, datur medium participationis; there is a mean or third estate or condition, to wit, a Priest in fieri, though not in facto, or a Priest inter consecrandum, that is, in the interims of his Consecration before he be actually and completely consecrated. Such a man, or rather such a Priest was Aaron during the first six or seven days of his Consecration, yet dare no jew avouch that after the first or second day of his separation from common men, he was no more than an ordinary man, no Priest at all; nor that on the seaventh day he was a Priest actually consecrated, but as yet in his Consecration. He was not till the eight day qualified to offer up Sacrifices unto God, but had peculiar Sacrifices offered for his Consecration by Moses.  
4 Briefly then, the Sacrifice of the Son of God upon the Cross, whether we consider it as of feared by himself, or by his Father, (as it is sometimes said in Scripture to be offered by both,) was the absolute accomplishment of all legal Sacrifices or services aaronical. And yet but an intermediate (though an especial) part of his Consecration to the Priesthood after the order of Melchisedech, not the ultimum esse or accomplishment of it. It was not terminated till the day of his Resurrection from the dead. But of this argument more at large Sect. 5. in the Article of the Resurrection of the Son of God. That this eternal Son of God was not actually consecrated or made an high Priest, until his Resurrection from the dead, our Apostle in the fifth verse of this Chapter before cited to another purpose, fully instructs us. Christ took not to himself this honour to be made the high Priest, but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee, put it upon him. And this day, or this Ego hodiè genuite (as this our. Apostle elsewhere instructs us) refers unto the day of his Resurrection or begetting from the dead. After which day death hath no more dominion over him, but He such an absolute power over death and the powers of darkness, that neither can annoy, or assault him. And from this day, and not before doth his endless everlasting Priesthood commence. And being thus actually consecrated by his Resurrection from the dead, that is, made both Lord and Christ, he is become the Author of everlasting salvation, which was the second Point.   

CHAP. 5. That the Son of God by his Consecration being once accomplished, became the Author and Fountain of everlasting salvation to all such and only such as obey him. In what sense he is said to have died for all men, or to be the redeemer of all mankind.  
He became Author of Salvation to all that obey him.  
THe signification of the single terms in this proposition is so plain that it needs no paraphrase or explication, and the connexion of them so firm as requires no distinction. All the difficulty is about the limitation of the entire proposition itself, as whether he be the Author or cause of everlasting salvation only to them which obey him, or unto all, to the end that they may obey him: or whether this proposition be equivalent, and but equivalent unto this proposition [whosoever believeth in him shall be saved,] or a restraint of it! Surely if in all these places of the old and new Testament wherein salvation is ascribed to faith, or unto faith alone, the Apostles or Prophets had substituted obedience instead of faith, there could have been no dangerous misnomure, for as the faith is, such is the obedience, and è contra. Both terms equally imply two (the same) things necessary to salvation: First a submission of our wills to Gods will, or a readiness to do his will revealed. Secondly, when we have done as well as we can, to deny ourselves and renounce all confidence in our best works, whether of faith or obedience. But however the terms be fully equivalent, yet the word obedience better befits this place than if he had said, He became the Author of everlasting salvation to all that believe in him, because obedience is the very formal effect of true faith or belief, as they are set upon this particular truth or mystery here taught by our Apostle; the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or impression, or the ingrossment of the pattern here commended to our imitation. For if we sincerely and steadfastly believe that the Son of God became obedient to his Father even unto the death of the Cross; that for our sakes he was consecrated through grievous afflictions, through unknown pains and terrors, to the end he might be our faithful and compassionate high Priest: This Doctrine itself being laid to our hearts will bring forth the like affection or obedience towards him, specially if our faith be seconded by hope of being consecrated through obedience to be Kings and Priests with him, unto our God, which is the full paraphrase of our everlasting salvation here meant; the true expression of that perfection mentioned by our Apostle. Heb. 11. v. the last.  
But if the Apostles punctual meaning be, that the Son of God is the Author of everlasting salvation only to such as obey him, shall we not hence be concluded to grant that he died only for such as finally shall be saved, or that he redeemed none but the Elect, because the Author of salvation to none but these? Thus, many in our days and (which is more to be lamented, some of this Church of England have from the former premises collected and peremptorily taught, that Christ died for none but the Elect, without vouchsafing any mannerly answer to the Church their Mother, who expressly maintains the contradictony, as that he died for all men: that he redeemed not only every one of us in particular, but all mankind: Others have been so courteous as to vouchsafe their Mother and brethren some distinctions or limitations of that universal assertion, as thus, That he died for all sufficientèr not efficientèr, sufficiently not efficiently for all; that he redeemed all mankind with this limitation, that is, singula generum, some o● all mankind, some rich, some poor, some jews, some Gentiles  
The later distinction is very dangerous; the former impertinently unnecessary: for if by all mankind we once come to understand some of all sorts of men, we shall commit no new error, but only extend the same; if by the whole world which God the Father is said to have created, we understand only some portion of every principal part of this universe, as some portion of the heavens, some of the stars, some part of the earth, some of the water, some part of theayre, some of every sort of vegetable or living things, but not absolutely all. The other distiction of sufficientèr and efficientèr, falls under the common error of most modern Catechists or 
a If they had said Christ was the meritorious cause of salvation to all men, or had merited salvation for all, not the efficient working cause of salvation to all, but only to such as obey him faithfully, they had come nearer the truth.  Divines, which is, to take upon them to divide things which in their nature are indivisible, (as the Will of God, the Death of Christ, or the Value of his sufferings,) & to leave other terms which import matter divisible, undistinguished. Such is the term or word Redemption passively taken, not as it is an act of God, or as it in his prescience. For however the will of God, or the value of Christ's sufferings be altogether indivisible because absolutely infinite, yet of Redemption purchased for us by Christ's bloody death and passion, there are (as you please to call them) several parts or degrees. Now that may be absolutely true of some one, or more parts of degrees which is not true of all: The first degree of our Redemption purchased by Christ, was the payment of the ransom for our sins unto his Father, and our freedom from slavery by his conquest over Satan. This part or these degrees of Redemption are alike common to all mankind: Christ whether in his death upon the Cross, or in his conflict with the powers of darkness in the Garden did suffer as much for any one as for all. God was in him reconciling all men unto himself. All were set free de iure from Satan's servitude.  
The second part or degree of Redemption is our actual admission into the Catholic Church: or (which is all one) our solemn calling to be the Sons of God. And this part of redemption is common to all who are baptised according to Christ's commission given to his Apostles and their Successors to this purpose. Another part of our Redemption, whether that be altogether distinct from the former, or but a consequent to it, is our actual exemption from the rage or tyranny of sin within ourselves whilst we live here in the flesh. And this degree of redemption is proper only to those, who though they live in the flesh do not live according to the flesh, or the fashions of the world; as having their hearts purified by a lively faith in Christ's death. The last part or final accomplishment of our Redemption is the exemption of both body and soul from the powers of hell and death by Resurrection unto endless glory, which is the everlasting salvation here meant: And this is proper only unto such as finally shall be said by continuance in faith and obedience. But let us not deceive ourselves, for God will not be mocked; and we shall but mock him if we presume to go to heaven by curious Distinctions, or nice Doctrines, without a constant progress in sincere unpartial obedience. Nor will external conformity to orthodox all rites, or Religion, or eye-service, suffice to obtain the salvation here promised to such as obey him: or if we be addicted to eye-service or obedience, let us perform our obedience, not in our own eyes, or as in the eyes of sinful men, but as in the eyes and view of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by our Apostle, Chap. 4. of this Epistle, ver. the 9 In whose sight every Creature is manifest, all things are open and naked. This is that eternal word, who is now made our high Priest, and shall hereafter come to be our judge. Let us then account it a principal part of our present and future obedience, to pour out our souls in prayers and supplications to this our high Priest for the remission of all our sins past; and seeing he was consecrated once for all, through afflictions or sufferings (for so the current of our Apostles discourse implies,) to be a compassionate and merciful high Priest to his Father for us, let us all publicly and privately, daily and hourly beseech him by his agony and bloody sweat, by his Or●sse and bitter passion, not only to make intercession for us, but to pour out the spirit of prayer upon us; ●o strengthen us with supplies of grace for subduing the body of sin which is within us, unto the spirit, and to quicken our spi●ies unto newness of life, that so we may be able to stand before him in that great day of judgement!    

SECT. 2. Of the calling or designment of the Son of God to be an high Priest after the order of Melchisedech: Of the differences and agreements in some particulars between the priesthood of Aaron and the Priesthood of Melchisedech.  

CHAP. 6. Of the Signification or Importance of the word calling, used by our Apostle Heb. 5. with the general Heads or Points to be handled and discussed in this 2. 3. 4. Sections.  
THat the making of the Son of God perfect, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] v. 9 implies a solemn Calling or Consecration to his high Priesthood▪ is yet more apparent from the words following, v. 10. Calledan high Priest after the order of Melchisedech. This word Called, imports somewhat more than a name imposed upon him, though at his Circumcision, or at his Baptism, more than a mere title of dignity. But what more than so? A solemn Calling or Designment unto this high Office or Prelacy? Such a calling, but more solemn, then Aaron had unto the legal high Priesthood. Unto this Priesthood Aaron is said Chap. 5. v. 4. that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is by special Designment or destination advanced to the office of the high Driest during the Law. But when the same Apostle speaks of the calling of the Son of God unto the high Priesthood after the order of Melchisedech v. 10. The word in the original is more significant and more solemn than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it refers to Aaron; for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, solemnly declared or pronounced by God to be an high Priest after the order of Mechisedech.  
2 The method of our present inquiry or search into this grand mystery must be this:  
First, who this Melchisedech was, according to whose order the Son of God was called to be a Priest? or how Melchisedech, whosoever he were, did represent or shadow out the person of the Son of God?  
Secondly, wherein the Priesthood of Melchisedech did consist? or wherein it differred from the Priesthood of Aaron? and what calling he had to such a Priesthood?  
Thirdly, what divine Designment, or calling the Son of God had to his everlasting Priesthood?  
Fourthly, a parallel between the Consecration of Aaron or other of his Successors to this legal Priesthood, and the Consecration of the Son of God to his everlasting Priesthood prefigured or foreshadowed, not by Aaron or his Successors, but by Melchisedech before the Law was given.  
Fiftly, the peculiar acts or exercises of the Son of God's everlasting Priesthood. This fifth or last Point must be referred as an appendix unto the Articles of the Son of God's Ascension, and his sitting at the right hand of God the Father. All these are Points of good use, and worthy of deeper and better consideration than they usually are taken into, by most Interpreters of sacred Writ, or Controversywriters.  
The first Question only may seem to be too curious: And so perhaps it is indeed, if we should take upon us to determine the individualitie of Melchisedech's person, after whose order the Son of God was consecrated or made a Priest. But on the other side it would be presumptuous, absolutely to deny this Melchisedech to have been the same individual person whom the later jews generally, and many late learned Christian writers take him for. The greatest difficulty in this Point ariseth from the Apostles description of Melchisedech, Chap. 7. v. 3. Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like▪ unto the Son of God, abideth a Priest continually.  
3 From this place some would peremptorily conclude that Melchisedech could be no mortal man, no son of Adam; but either the holy Ghost or the son of God then appearing to Abraham in the similitude or likeness of man. For of this Melchisedech, save only in the history of Abraham, Gen. 14. and 110. Psalm there is no mention at all in the old Testament.  
To wave or rather dismiss their opinion, who think Melchisedech was the holy Ghost the third person in Trinity, seeing it is but a conjecture of some few, who rather wave then prosecute it; Let us see what probability there is, that this Melchisedech should be the eternal Word or Son of God appearing to Abraham in the likeness of man, and exercising the function and Priesthood of the most high God.   

CHAP. 7. In what sense Melchisedech is said to be without Father & Mother Heb. 7. 3. Whether he were a mortal man a● Abraham was, though more 〈…〉: where in the similitude between Melchisedech's Person and the Person of the Son of God doth specially consist.  
THis later opinion is broached and 〈…〉 ptorily maintained by a late learned and 
P. C. lib. 3. c. de repub. judaeorum.  smartly elegant writer; who though he he (as I conceive as yet) no Divine or Priest by profession, yet he takes upon him to censure the most Divines or Interpreters of sacred Writ, whether ancient or modern, more sharply than I dare censure him. From whom notwithstanding I descent as freely, and (as I hope) upon better grounds than he doth from them; specially if the grounds of his exceptions against them, be not better than the grounds of the opinions, which he takes upon him to refute. The main ground of his exception, against such Divines (ancient or modern) as think that Melchisedech who blessed Abraham, was either some petty King amongst the Canaanites or other Inhabitants of the land promised to Abraham, and actually possessed by his feed; or Sem the Son of Noah, is this; no Inhabitant of Canaan, not Sem himself the Son of Noah was without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning or end of days. These titles this good writer conceives are peculiar to the Son of God, though more peculiar in the time of Abraham, then at this day. But was our high Priest, or could he have been at that time the true Son of God, and the God whose Son he was, not as truly than his Father as now he is? Again, if that Melchisedech who apreared to Abraham at least in the likeness of man, and in the reality of an high Priest, were no other person beside the Son of God, it will concludently follow, that the Son of God was then an high Priest after the order of Melchisedech; or more than so, that Melchisedech was the Son of God. How then saith our Apostle that the Son of God was made an high Priest by the word of the oath which was since the Law, and by virtue of this oath consecrated for evermore, being (as the Author of this opinion supposeth) the Priest of the most high God long before the Law was given: or if Melchisedech was then the true and only Son of God, how is it said by our Apostle, Ch. 7. v. 3. that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, made like unto the Son of God? Was the Son of God made like unto himself by taking the likeness of man upon him? Or rather was the manhood or likeness in which he appeared to Abraham made like unto the Son of God? The former part or division of this dilemma is improbable; The later altogether impossible. For that man, or that likeness of man, who blessed Abraham, Gen. 14. had a beginning and an end of days; unless the Author of this opinion will maintain that the manhood or likeness of man, wherein the Son of God appeared to Abraham, was coeternal to his person; was begotten of God, (not made) before all Worlds, and to continue united to him world without end. Both parts of this assertion respectively contradict two fundamental Articles of our Creed: The one, that all things numerable, whether visible or invisible were created of God by his Son, they had no being from eternity: The other, that the Son of God was made man of a woman in time, having no permanent body, or likeness of man when he was so conceived: whence it is clear that the Meichisedech who blessed Abraham was not the eternal Son of God; nor made like unto him for his eternity by the body of man which he assumed or appeared in.  
5 But it is not all one to refel other men's opinions or interpretations of Divine oracles, and to maintain our own assertions, or (as the present occasion requireth) to clear the forecited place. Heb. 7. He (to wit, Melchisedech) was made like unto the Son of God, being without father, without mother, without genealogy, without beginning or end of days. For there is an opinion or presumed Doctrine which hath gotten so long possession of many public Chairs, as will hardly brook any opposition, either from the Pulpit, or from private writers: The opinion is, that Melchisedech being without father, without mother etc. was herein like unto the Son of God; or the Son of God like to him in that he hath no Father in earth, nor a mother in heaven. But be the Authors of this opinion how great soever, their followers how many soever, both most acute; all the strength which the wit of one can add unto the authority of the other, is but as if they should join hands or forces to take fast hold on the sheath or scabbard, having given the hilts of the sword of the spirit into the hands of the jew, who may at his pleasure turn the points of our own weapons upon us, unless we learn to keep them more warily, and handle them more skilfully than these men have done. For he that hath a Father in Heaven, may truly and absolutely be said to have a Father: For God is more truly our Father, than those whom we call Fathers on earth. Hence saith our Saviour, Call no man father opon earth, for there is but one your Father which in Heaven. Math. 23. 9 Yet is this God more truly Christ's Father, than he is ours. Again he that hath a true Mother on earth, may truly and absolutely be said to have a Mother; otherwise all of us should be mother less children from our birth; For none of us had an heavenly Mother, none of our Mothers were brought to bed in Heaven.  
6 It being then granted that our Saviour had a true Father in Heaven, and a true Mother on earth, he must needs in both respects be more unlike unto Melchisedech, who (as our Apostle faith) was without father or mother, then like unto him, in that he had no Mother in Heaven, no father on earth. Whence if we should maintain this similitude intended by our Apostle, to consist either in whole, or part in Christ's being in this sort without father or mother; the jew might thus retort, argumento ad homines efficaci, That we Christians were a brood of monsters, and not the natural offspring of men and women, because none of us have a man for his mother, none of us a woman for his father. Besides, one of the two Propositions whereon they labour to build our faith by this cross device, is no sound pillar, but a broken or crazed prop. For if Christ be truly styled the Son of Abraham, the Son of David, he had fathers on earth according to the flesh, though not begotten by a carnal generation: nor was he the Son of Mary by carnal conception, yet truly her Son, and she truly his Mother, and by consequence Abraham as truly his Father. Again to be without father, without mother, are but branches of that general negative [without genealogy.] Now whether we consider him as God, or as man, he cannot without wrong to the sacred character or sense of the holy spirit, be thought or said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without genealogy, as Melchisedech is; for one generation or descent makes a genealogy: Otherwise Cain and Abel should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without genealogy, which titles notwithstanding cannot in the Evangelists meaning be applied unto Adam; for he derives all others genealogies from Adam's, and Adam's from God. Luk. 3. Now look in what sense Abel, Cain, or Adam may be said to have a genealogy, Christ may in the same sense have two. One as he is the Son of God, another as he is the Son of Abraham, David, and of Marie. But so it is, that even the wisest and 
Paragr. 7.  most judicious Writers of times swallow such fallacies in historical narrations, or discourses (of matters spiritual especially) without any sensible disgust, or dislike, as would be rejected no less than poison unallayed, were they exhibited to them in the simplicity of language, or logistick form. To instance in an notorious one much like unto this late mentioned:  
7 The most ancient Editions of Macrobius mention a jest of Augustus, broken upon Herod for killing his Son at the same time that he butchered the Hebrew Infants; Mallem Herodis esse percum quam filium. Some ancient Christians to salve the truth of this narration, being somewhat suspicious, (because Herod at that time had no known Son that was a child) have made the old Tyrant father of a young son (supposed to be borne unto him by a second wife of jewish, if not of David's progeny) which the age wherein he lived, never laid unto his charge. Some later critics better able to disprove this supposititious brood, then apt to reform that error in themselves, which unreformed in others did beget it, have not spared to charge their brethren (in time their fathers) with falsification of Macrobius his Text, as if the forecited passage had been inserted by some ancient Christians, as many verses in Sibylla's oracles have been, unless these and the like Aristarchusses fail in their criticisms. But for Macrobius his text, it is without question uncorrupt, and the Christian Fathers free from that falsification of it, whereof late Critics have accused them. The zeal of the ancient Fathers, and the censorious sauciness of later Critics did alike overreach their judgements. But this, as I said, is a fault common to us, and to those that are far our betters. We maintain our own posittions, as if we were waking: We peruse good Authors, as if we had never looked upon them but in a slumber; yet what puny Logician but would scorn to swallow this fallacy in a dream, Chaerilus fuit vir bonus, Chaerilus fuit poeta, ergo Chaerilus fuit bonus poeta: Chaerilus was a good man, and a Poet; therefore a good Poet. The forementioned critical collection is in regard of its form a like false and disjointed: only the matter of it is not so vulgar or palpable. The root of the Critics erroneous censure was this; Herod killed the Syrian or Hebrew Infants; amongst these Infants he killed his own son, ergo, this son of Herod when he killed him was an Infant. That Herod about the same time wherein the fants of judah and Bethleem were by his appointment slain, did out of his jealous fear command Antipater his turbulent son to be put to death, no modern Critic shall be ever able to disprove. That the kill of his own son (being come to maturity of age) with these Infants, doth better sort with the analogy of God's justice usually manifested in the infatuation of Politicians, and with the literal sense and character of Augustus' jest, (taking it as Macrobius hath expressed it) then if he had slain the same party in his Infancy, shall 
* In a diquisition (by way of Homily or sermon upon the Epiphany) at what time & from what place the Magis or Wise men of the East came to jerusalem to adore our Saviour Christ, whom they rightly believed to be the King of the jews by birth.  elsewhere (by God's assistance) be declared.  
8 The fallacy for whose discovery these two former have been produced, is in my opinion of all three the most gross; the best form that can be put upon it, is this; Melchisedech was without father or 
Par●.  mother, Melchisedech is like unto the Son of God, ergo Melchisedech is herein like unto the Son of God, in that he is without father or mother. The premises are most true, but the conclusion (if I may so speak) more than most false; for of all the persons that are or have been in heaven or earth, none are so unlike as the Son of God and Melchisedech; if we state the comparison betwixt them according to the natural tenor or importance of these terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What shall we say then? that these titles expressly given to Melchisedech by our Apostle, are altogether superfluous, needless, or impertinent to the conclusion intended by him? Rather most necessary, and most apposite. As how? Briefly thus. This descrip●tion of him by these titles, is a condition or Qualification necessarily supposed, or prerequired to the similitude intended betwixt Christ and him. It is no proper part or formal term of the similitude itself. That formally consists only in being without beginning or end of days; and herein they are as like one another, as any body and its proper shadow can be.  
9 Every man that hath a father, even Adam himself, who was without father or mother, had a beginning of days: Every man that hath a Son to succeed him as like wise supposed to have an end of days. Whence it is that no King of judah or Israel, not Solomon himself in all his glory, could be any true model of the Son of God in respect of his eternity: No Priest, or Son of Levi, not Eleazar, Phinehas or Aaron himself, though pictured in their pontifical ornaments could bear any colour or resemblance of his everlasting Priesthood. For all these are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: their Parents, their Sons and Successors are exactly registered in the sacred Volume; & the same Page, or Table which expresseth their genealogy, doth represent withal their mortality, that they had a beginning or end of days: And whosoever hath a beginning or end of days can be no true shadow of eternity, or of the Son of God as he is eternal.   

CHAP. 8. That the omission of Melchisedech's Genealogy did import a special mystery; and what that mystery was:  
MAy we hence aver, that every man mentioned in Scripture, whose birth, whose death or genealogy is not expressed, may be a true shadow or picture of the Son God, as he is eternal? We do not, we need not say so. The day is oftimes mentioned in the Scripture without any mention of the night. Yet to seek after a mystical sense in all such places, were to set our wits a wand'ring in a waking dream. But seeing in the Story of the world's creation, we find such accurate and constant mention of the evening and morning making one day, until all the works of the six days were accomplished, and no mention of any evening in the seaventh day which God did sanctify for a day of rest; we may with the Ancients safely admit the first six days to be as a Map, or Calendar of the six ages of this transitory world, wherein there is a continual vicissitude of light and darkness, no joy or pleasure without sorrow and grief, for their Successors and companions; and the Mosaical description of the seventh, to be an emblem or shadow of the everlasting Sabbath in the heavens, which shall be a day of joy and gladness, without mixture of darkness or succession of night, without any medley of pains or grief.  
2 By perfect analogy to this and the like, not more mystical than orthodoxal interpretation of Scripture, not merely authorised by the Greek or Latin Fathers, but presupposed by our Apostle as unquestionable among the ancient jews, we may infer our intended conclusion: What was that? That the omission of every man's Genealogy, whose name or deeds are specified in the sacred Story, is always a sign or token of some latent mystery? No, but rather thus; Seeing no King or Priest of Abraham's lineage were he good or bad; seeing no Patriarch from whom God's blessings did lineally descend, but hath a Genealogy upon sacred record, the omission of so great a man's Genealogy as was Melchisedech, who was a King and Priest of the most high God; a Priest which solemnly and really blessed him in whose seed all the Nations of the earth were to be blessed, unto whom Abraham paid Tithes of all that he had, The omission of such a man's genealogy doubtlesie includes some great and weighty mystery. And if we stand not (as in many like cases we ought not) upon the logical inference which the assertive letter affords, but follow the emblematical, or characteristical sense of the story, we may behold this man to be (as the Apostle speaks) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, one transformed or turned out of his proper shape or likeness, that he might be like the Son of God. The absimilation of this man (whosoever he were) from himself, that he might be li●e the Son of God, consists especially in the abandoning or putting off all references to father or mother, to wife or children: For these references in man necessarily represent a beginning and end of days, and by consequency a dissimilitude to the person of the Son of God, who is eternal, and to his endless Priesthood.  
3 It was the speech of one man but is universally true of all, Mortalis mortalem genui, and it is as necessarily and essentially true of God, Immortalis immortalem gignit. For seeing God is more essentially and more immutably immortal, more truly eternal than we are mortal; Then he which is as truly the Son of God, as we are the Sons of men or Adam, must needs be as absolutely eternal as the Deity or divine nature, or as God the Father himself: Otherwise the generation should be equivocal and imperfect, not univocal; as contrary to nature itself, and as prodigious, as for a mortal man to beget an immortal Son; as for a woman to conceive a God. And if there were no other places of Scripture (as God be praised there are plenty) to infer the absolute eternity or eternal generation of the Son of God against the Arrian or other heretic, the very foundation of our Apostles similitude between Melchisedech and Christ in the Chapter following, doth clearly represent thus much to all that look not on it with jewish spectacles. To conclude then, as the greatness and height of Melchisedech's calling serves as a map to represent the high Majesty of the everlasting Priesthood: So the omission of his genealogy is an emblem or shadow of the infinite duration, or eternity of the Son of God. Howbeit if we should take off this borrowed shape, or wipe out the artificial colours wherewith it hath pleased the spirit to set forth this lively picture of Christ, yet the very table itself whereon the picture is drawn, is more apt than any other tree in all the garden of God beside, to be made an heavenly Mercury. The fitness of it for this purpose will more easily be apprehended, if we suppose what the ancient jews (whose traditions where they are no parties are in no wise to be rejected) take as granted viz. That he, whom Moses in the fourteenth of Genesis calls Melchisedech, was Shem the great, the son of Noah. This Shem was a man begotten of his father before the world that then was; our high Priest our heavenly Mercury is the Son of God begotten of his Father before all worlds, before any period or instant of imaginary time, even from eternity itself.   

CHAP. 9 What manner of blessing it was which Melchisedech bestowed on Abraham. That the manner of the blessing argues Melchisedech to have been Sem the great, as the jewish Rabbins enstile him, the eldest son of Noah, not by birth yet by prerogative of the first borne.  
IDare not obtrude this tradition of the ancient jews as a point of our belief, yet the matter of it is as probable as any Doctrine whatsoever, that is grounded only upon the analogy of faith, not upon express testimonies of Scripture, or conclusions deduced from such testimonies by demonstrative consequences. The allegations for this opinion, were they exactly calculated or put together, amount so high as no assertion contained within the sphere of probability can overtop them. The exceptions of Pererius and Maldonate against them are too weak, albeit they touch not half so many as are diligently and accurately gathered by Dr Willet; unto whose labours I refer such as desire further satisfaction in this point neither absolutely necessary, nor altogether needless. One or two reasons not alleged by him come now to be discussed.  
The first, what manner of blessing it was which Melchisedech bestowed on Abraham. Heb. 7.  
The second, how the matter and manner of this blessing proves this Melchisedech to be Sem.  
2 But what kind of blessing did our Apostle mean? Verbal only or by way of salutation? So the people may bless their Priests; the worst of men their godliest Prelates, and wretched'st beggars greatest Kings; of such kind of blessing the maxim undoubtedly affirmed by our Apostle, cannot be true. Of what blessing then is it most undoubtedly true: Of real and solemn blessings authentiquely imparted ex officio, as when a Bishop confirmeth children; or by way of bequest, as when the father bestows an heritage with his blessing upon the Son; As Abraham blessed Isaac, Isaac jacob, jacob juda and his brethren.  
3 Whom then may we imagine this man should be, which in this sort blesled Abraham, who was a man, than whom, there was none greater amongst the Sons of men: none in his time (Melchisedech only excepted) so great in the Church of God? No analogy either of sacred rule, or of tenets jointly maintained by the English and Romish Church (concerning the never interrupted Succession of the true Church, or the ministers in it) will suffer us to think this Melchisedech should be a Canaanite. For although we ought (perhaps) to be as far from denying as from affirming that God had many chosen vessels amongst the sons of Cham, yet is it no way probable, or to be affirmed that he had any visible Church amongst them at that time whereof we speak; much less any such orthodoxal authentic high Priest as was ex officio to bless him, with whom the everlasting Covenant was to be established: within whose family and posterity the true and visible Church was to be confined almost two thousand years after. Nor do we in saying thus, tie the Almighty (as some haply will accuse us) to use no means but ordinary, in bestowing his extraordinary blessings. But this we say, that where the manner of his calling is most extraordinary and miraculous, it is his pleasure to use the ordinary means of lawful ministers for the ratification or declaring of his calling; at least for the admission of the parties called unto the emoluments or prerogatives of their calling. Paul was plucked away from the Synagogue (as a sappy branch from a dying tree) by the immediate and strong hand of God; but to be engrafted, or inoculated into the true Church, which is the body of Christ by means ordinary and ministerial, by the hands of Ananias a civil and visible member of Christ's mystical body.  
4 In like manner we do not deny that the manner of Gods calling Abraham out of Haran, and the matter of the blessings then promised to him, to have been both extraordinary; in which blessing notwithstanding he is to be installed by Melchisedech, appointed as God's Deputy, or Vicegerent (so the hebrew Cohen properly signifieth) to ratify or seal the former promises unto him. The manner of the conveyance is formal and legal, such as God ordinarily useth in like cases. And by probable consequence this Melchisedech, whosoever he were, was a true principal member of the visible Church, which at that time was no where on earth, but in Sem & his posterity. Of those Sons of Sem which are mentioned in Abraham's genealogy most were dead; others (for aught we read, or by analogy can gather from what we have read) no way so fitly qualified for this service as Sem himself, who was then alive. For Sem had been solemnly blessed by his father: And although he be represented unto us in the fourth of Genesis, under another name and shape than he received the blessing in, yet the holy spirit seems to point him speaking in his own native language, and solemnly bestowing that blessing upon Abraham his son which his father Noah had bestowed on him. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant! Gen. 4. The implication or importance is, as if he had said, Shem shall have cause to bless the Lord his God for making him Lord of Canaan. This blessing or bequest we know was to bear date aswell in Shem's posterity as in himself, but principally in his posterity. Now we no where read of any conveyance or bequest of this blessing made by Shem unto his Successors, besides that solemn blessing which Melchisedech (whom for this reason we suppose to have been Shem) bestowed on Abraham. The tenor of his bequest, or conveyance is more express Gen. 14. 19 Blessed be Abraham of God most high possessor of Heaven and earth! This prophetical benediction implies that Abraham and his posterity should have cause to bless the Lord their God, for giving them possession of that earth or land which was the type or pledge of their heavenly inheritance and possessions. This was the gain of godliness, that merces valde magna, to have the promise of this life, and of that which is to come. And as the land of promise or Kingdom of Canaan once possessed, was a true pledge or earnest of their title to the heavenly kingdom; so Abraham at the very time when Melchisedech blessed him, received the pledges of his posterities hopes unto that temporal kingdom.  
5 For albeit we utterly deny all sacrifice of bread and wine, yet may we not in opposition to the Papist affirm or maintain that Melchisedech entertained Abraham and his followers, only with a vulgar or common refection. These elements of bread and wine being considered with the solemnity of the blessing, have beside the literal sense, a symbolical or mystical importance and are thus far; at least sacramental, that they served for earnests to secure Abraham, that his posterity should quietly enjoy and eat the good things of that pleasant land wherein he was now a Sojourner. Briefly, Abraham in that sacred banquet which the King of Salem exhibited unto him, did (as we say) take levery de seisin of the promised land & (as it is probable) in that very place which God had destinated for the Metropolis of the kingdom, or at least in that place where john did baptise. And albeit Melchisedech did (no doubt) derive the blessing bestowed on Shem, or on himself by Noah in more express terms unto Abraham, by inspiration extraordinary and divine; yet Abraham at this time had afforded him a fit text or theme to make these extemporary expositions or declarations upon: Of all that had proceeded out of the loins of Shem, none as yet had ever given the like proof of his likely hood to become Lord of Canaan as Abraham now had done, whom God had enabled to right the King of Sodom and other Cananitish Kings not being able to right themselves against foreign usurpers.  
6 For any man of ordinary understanding that had been an Actor in the late war (so happily managed by Abraham) and a by-stander at Melchisedech's blessing of him to have conjectured to this purpose, had been as easy and as warrantable as it was for the Israelites to divine that Moses should be their Deliverer by the manner of his killing the Egyptian which had contended with an Israelite. Now the holy Spirit seems to tax their dulness for not apprehending this mystery from the manner of Moses fact. Thus we may derive God's blessings upon mankind since the flood, from Noah to Shem, from Shem, whom we take to be Melchisedech, unto Abraham, in whose seed all the Nations of the earth were to be blessed. This argues Abraham's promised seed to be greater than Melchisedech, for Abraham was blessed by Melchisedech, not in Melchisedech's name, but in the name of the most high God, whose Priest he was. Howbeit this promised seed of Abraham was not greater than Melchisedech, in external beauty or prerogative royal, till after his Resurrection or second birth. During the time of his humiliation he was rather destinated than consecrated to be the Author or fountain of blessedness unto us. For as the Apostle argues. Heb. 5. 8. Though he were the Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being consecrated (to wit) by his sufferings, became the Author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him: And is called of God (from the time of his Resurrection or exaltation) an high Priest after the order of Melchisedech.   

CHAP. 10. Wherein the Priesthood of Melchisedech did differ from the Priesthood of Aaron; That Melchisedech did not offer any sacrifice of bread and wine unto God when he blessed Abraham.  
THe office of Aaron and of his Sons we have described Deuteron. 10. 8. At that time the Lord separated the Tribe of Levi to bear the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord, to minister unto him, and to bless in his name unto this day. And again Deut. 18. 3. This shall be the Priest's duty etc. For the Lord thy God hath chosen him out of all thy Tribes to stand and minister in the name of the Lord, him and his Sons for ever. ver. 5. Could Melchisedech's office be greater, or his patent ampler, especially for duration? For sacrifice, prayer and blessing are the trinall dimensions of the Priesthood howsoever taken. This difficulty perhaps did occasion a foul error in the Romish Church or encourage her followers to maintain this error brought forth (it may be) upon other occasions, to wit, that the office of Melchisedech should properly consist & herein especially differ from the Priesthood of Aaron: For that when he met Abraham, he offered up bread & wine by way of proper sacrifice unto God, as a type or pledge of the unbloody sacrifice of the mass, unto which the Romanists for the most part restrain the exercise of Christ's Priesthood after the order of Melchisedech.  
2 To omit their chemical conceits, who labour in vain to extract some act of sacrificing out of the original word hotsi; Maldonate (the most zealous and 
In his Commentar. upon the 110 Psalm.  laborious pleader in this argument, because Calvin had held the monkish allegorizars to the literal and gramaticall sense of Scriptures) holds it no sin to put a trick of Grammar (so they would admit it) upon Calvin's followers; upon the very text itself. For whereas the Romish Interpreters who went before him admit the vulgar edition, Et erat Sacerdos Dei altissimi, This Critic to despite Calvin, will correct Magnificat, and renders it thus, Et erat sacrificans Deo altissimo. His reason for this innovation is because the hebrew Cohen is for its form a participle of the present tense; but surely he was better read in his Gramar then in his Lexicon, although better read in that then in the Hebrew Text; for although the Hebbrew Cohen be usually taken for a Priest, yet to sacrifice is no part of the proper & formal signification of the radical verb Cahan: That directly imports no more than ministravit, or Sacerdotem egit. Whence though it be most true, that every Sacrificer is a Cohen, is a Priest, or Minister of God; yet is not this truth simply convertible, that is, [Every Cohen, Priest, or Minister of God is a Sacrificer] specially if we speak of times before the Law was given, or since it expired; much less will it follow that every act or function which the Minister of God performs, should be a sacrifice. So that albeit we should give the Critical jesuit leave to degrade the Hebrew Cohen, and turn it out of a noun, (in which form and habit it was taken by all his Predecessors) into the nature and value of a Participle, the Grammatical sense will amount to no more than this, Et erat Ministrans, or Sacerdotio fungens Deo altissimo; and all this Melchisedech might do, and this he verily did in blessing Abraham, not in bringing forth, or offering bread and wine. The letter of the Text runs thus, And Melchisedech King of Salem brought forth bread and wine, and he was a Priest of the most high God. Suppose a man should here interrupt the Reader, or relater of this History thus; What if he were a Priest of the most high God? To what purpose is this clause inserted? The holy Ghost in the next words clears the doubt, or rather prevents the Question, [And he blessed Abraham.] In what form or sort? Blessed be Abraham of the most high God So then Melchisedech is instiled a Priest of the most high God, to show his warrant to bless in the name of the most high God. And for this interpretation I have the warrant, or confirmation from 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. lib. 1. glaphyr. in titul. de Abraham & Melchisedech  Cyril of Alexandria.  
3 As for his bread and wine he offered these to Abraham, and not to God, as 
Lib 2. sacrae legis allegoriarum. pag. 106.  Philo judaeus, a competent witness in this Controversy, hath informed us: For this good Author opposeth Melchisedech's hospitality towards Abraham, unto Amalech's niggardly and uncharitable disposition towards Israel coming out of the house of affliction. Amalech (saith he) was excluded from the congregation of the Lord, because he met not Israel with bread and water, whereas Melchisedech had met our father Abraham (laden with the spo●●es of his enemies) with bread and wine. He hath not (in my opinion) erred much in taking the symbols or elements of bread and wine for emblems of that true pabulum animae, which consists in contemplation of heavenly things. And yet I am persuaded he had no express knowledge of the true object of such contemplation, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, or of the benefit conveyed to us from them (since they were offered in sacrifice unto God) by the elements of bread and wine, not as mere signs but as undoubted pledges of his body and blood to be communicated to us.  
4 And although Suidas in his second Paragraph on the word Melchisedech, will have our Saviour's Priesthood after the order of Melchisedech to take beginning from the night before his passion, wherein he took bread and wine and blessed them; yet in his third Paragraph upon the same word, he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine unto Abraham. But let us suppose what the Text will not support, that Melchisedech did offer up a sacrifice of bread and wine to the most high God; thus much being granted we may draw that net which the Romanist sets for others upon himself; for our next interrogatory should be this; Of what sacrifice may we by any analogy of faith imagine this supposed sacrifice of Melchisedech to be the type? of the daily reiterated sacrifice of the mass, or of the one only sacrifice of the Son of God? Surely if Melchisedech be a true type of the everlasting Priest, his sacrifice must be a type of this Priest's everlasting sacrifice. Now as we read not (though Maldonate's reading of the former p●●●e were true) that Melchisedech did offer any sacrifice besides this supposed sacrifice of bread and wine: so we must undoubtedly believe that the Son of God did offer no more sacrifices than one, and that one never to be reiterated, because the value of it being truly infinite, the efficacy of it must needs be absolutely everlasting; If otherwise, we should with the Romanists admit of a sacrifice by succession, or multiplication as everlasting as this transitory world, which shall not last for ever: Besides the inconveniences which they multiply by this vain apology for their wicked practices, we must of necessity acknowledge Melchisedech to have been a type of figure, not of Christ, or not of Christ only, or not so properly of him, as of the whole generation of Mass Priests; and his sacrifice to have been a truer type of the unbloody sacrifice which they daily offer, then of Christ's bloody everlasting sacrifice upon the Cross. Yea the meanest, most illiterate and lewdest mass. Priest should be as true a Successor of Melchisedech, of Christ himself, as Phineas or Eleazar were of Aaron.  
5 Mariana in his brief comment, or large notes upon the 14th of Genesis, boldly avoucheth the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass to have been prefigured by Melchisedech's sacrifice of bread and wine. But the point itself he toucheth so gently, as if he had desired to have balked it, as indeed he doth but wave it; and questionless he would have omitted it as he doth many other tenets maintained by the Church of Rome, when he comes to interpret those Scriptures whereon ancient Schoolmen or vulgar Commentators have laboured to ground them. But unto the forecited history of Melchisedech, because it is held such a principal fort of the Romish Religion, he durst not but do his wont homage, intimating withal that he had somewhat more to say to this point when he should come to interpret the Epistle to the Hebrews. But albeit he lived to finish his intended work or learned Scholia upon the Bible; yet when he came to the seaventh Chapter to the Hebrews, 
I wonder that in this chapter amongst so many similitudes wherein Christ is shadowed and represented by Melchisedech, there is no mention at all of the sacrifice of bread and wine, which Melchisedech offered (as before was in timated) Gen. 14. 18. being as a symbol or token of our sacrifice and Eucharist; concerning which point that I had rather hear other men speak then declare mine own opinion etc.  all he had to say was to refer us to what he had said upon the fourteenth of Genesis: And to this reference he adds such a caveat, or an appendix, as if he would give us to understand, that he had said more upon the fourteenth of Genesis than he could tell how to make good out of S. Paul's parallel between Melchisedech & our Saviour Christ. Miror in hoc Capite inter tot similitudines, quibus Melchisedech Christum representat nihil dixisse de sacrificio Panis, & Vini quod Melchisedech obtulit (ut diximus) Gen. 14. 18. Symbolum nostri sacrificii & Eucharistiae, de qua malo alios audire quam ipse pronuntiare; indicasse sit satis. Mariana in 20 septimi Cap. ad Hebraeos.  
6 The youngest this day living whether in the English or Romish Church, though he dye for very age shall not live to read or hear any jesuit or other Advocate of the Romish Church, give any satisfactory answer to this brief demand. The answer on our part is very easy, because the Question on their part is foolish. Our answer is, that the Apostle was not to meddle with more comparisons between Christ and Melchisedech then were true in themselves, and intended by the holy Ghost, of which number this fiction of the Romish Church concerning Melchisedech's sacrifice of bread and wine, is no part or appurtinance, neither doth the letter of the Text, or any circumstance of the history, unpartial Antiquity, or any orthodoxal rule of interpretation, favour it.   

CHAP. II. In respect of what points especially the Priesthood of Melchisedech did fore-picture the Priesthood of the Son of God.  
But if the Priesthood of Melchisedech did not herein specially differ from the Priesthood of Aaron, [in that Melchisedech did offer an unbloody sacrifice, whereas the offerings of Aaron were for the most part bloody sacrifices,] what other difference can we with probability conceive betwixt them? or wherein did Melchisedech's sacerdotal function more excellently fore-picture our Saviour's Priesthood, than the Priesthood of Aaron did? For as Aaron and his Successors did offer bloody sacrifices aswell daily as anniversary, so the Son of God did offer up himself in bloody sacrifice upon the Cross; and by this offering up of himself once for all did accomplish whatsoever was fore-pictured by all manner of bloody sacrifices which Aaron and his posterity were authorized to of far. To this Quare the answer 
* Sect. 1 cap. 4.  hath been premised, and it was this, That when the Son of God did offer up himself upon the Cross, he was neither a Priest after the order of Aaron, nor of Melchisedech but a Priest in fieri, or in his Consecration fore shadowed by Melchisedech. And after the Consecration was accomplished, he was not to offer any sacrifice at all, either bloody or unbloody. Though we dare not say Melchisedech did never offer any bloody, or other sacrifice, yet we do not read of any which he offered. This part of his function▪ (if at any time he ever exercised it) is omitted of purpose by the holy Ghost as his genealogy is, that by this representation of him he might more exactly foreshadow the Priesthood of the Son of God, who after his Consecration was not to offer any sacrifice at all. All the similitudes intended by the Apostle between Melchisedech and our high Priest, consist especially in these three. First in the identity of their titles: In the greatness of their persons; and in the authoritative manner of bestowing their blessings. For the identity or analogy of their titles is a point which hath been discussed before. Some scruple is cast by an Author before mentioned, that this title of King of Salem should be as nominal a title, as Melchisedech or King of righteousness was. But if this conjecture were trne, our Apostle had instiled him, when he interprets the importance of his titles, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he did the former title Melchisedech King of righteousness or the righteous King. Heb. 7. 1. Melchisedech was his praenomen, or a name given unto him by such as had been sensible of his righteous dealing with his subjects or neighbourhoods. But when the Apostle saith he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this denotes the place, or territory where of he was not by name only, but by just inheritance, King.  
2 For the greatness of his person or place in those times, that we must learn from our Apostle, Heb. 7. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Now consider how great this man (or this Priest) was, unto whom even the Patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the Priesthood have a commandment to take ●●●●s of the people according to the Law that is of their brethren, though they came out of the loins of Abraham. But he whose descent is not counted from them (for he lived and died some centuries of years before them) received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises, and without contradiction the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes, but there he receiveth them of whom it is witnessed, That he liveth, & as I may so say, Levi also who received, tithes paid tithes in Abraham, [or was tithed in Abraham] for he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedech met him.  
3 About the manner how Levi was tithed in Abraham some Questions have been made by the Schoolmen, or if haply made by others, not so handsomely or happily resolved by them: For they draw this point, How Levi should be tithed in Abraham unto Physical or Philosophical disputes; whereas our Apostle argues the case between the Priesthood of Aaron and of Melchisedech with such men as were too much addicted unto the levitical and Mosaical law, appealing not to the rules of that Law, but to the rules of the Civil, Moral Law, or Law of Nations. The extract of our Apostles meaning (if I mistake not) is this; That if Levi, Moses, or Aaron had been in full possession of their inheritance unto tithes from their brethren at that time when Melchisedech met Abraham; Or if Melchisedech had lived in Canaan unto their days they ought to have done as their father Abraham did, that is, to have solemnly acknowledged this Melchisedeth to have been their better, by paying the tribute of tithes unto him. Our Apostle takes it as unquestionable that Melchisedech was Abraham's better, and being either better or a greater man than Abraham was, then certainly a greater or better man than Moses or Aaron were, than any Son of Abraham, besides the promised Seed or Messias, whom the jewish Nation expected, had been. And of this promised Seed alone Melchisedech for the greatness of his person was the only type.  
4 For albeit Abraham were a Prophet, and did exercise the function of a Priest within his own family, or for some others, upon special occasions: albeit some of Abraham's seed were both Kings and Prophets; others both Priests and Prophets, yet none of them were both Kings and Priests; none of them anointed to these two functions. Melchisedech (though perhaps never solemnly anointed to either function) was the only man which was by divine providence or heavenly calling, both a true King & a Priest of the most high God. By both these titles the tithes of all the spoils which Abraha had got by conquest were due, nor are any other tithes predial or personal due to any this day, save only to the King or supreme Majesty, or to Bishops and Priests within the regions wherein they accrue. And for this reason (as I conjecture) the 
* Tortius est status Ecclesiasticus, in quo fuerunt Episcopi septem, ad quem caeteri etiam Canonici refe runtur. High ha bent decimas in regno: quae tamen in provinciis diversis diverso modo dividuntur, dimidiam partem dec●marum percipiunt Episcopi, dimidiam Rex, aliquam Canonici pastors, pars etiam ad aedificandas Ecclesias contribuitur. Et quantum ad pontificium ius attinet, semper in hoc regno, quem admodum etiam in Gallia, nominationes & ordinationes praelaturarum Episcopatuumque, regibus, ad hoc usque tempus, collatae fuerunt, ut etiam ex responso Waldemariquar●i regis Daniae ut arbitror, quod bic annectere libuit, constat. Cum Pontifex Romanus a Rege haec & similia postularet, fertur rescripsisse Rex, Regnum habe●●us a subditis vitam a parentibus, religionem a Romana Ecclesia, quam si repetis, remitto per praesentes Mercator. pag. 82. in descriptione Daniae.  Danish Nation after they had embraced the Gospel, and were become of a heathenish a Christian Commomweale or Kingdom, did allot the tithes of their labours or increase of vegetables or profitable living creatures unto their King and to their Bishops, excluding then the great Bishop of Rome. For when he demanded his portion in them, he was rejected by that sharp and witty answer of Woldmarus. We have our Kingdom from our subjects our life from our parents, our religion from the Church of Rome, which if your holiness redemand, we remit it by these presents.  
Whether his meaning was that he would abandon Christian Religion simply, or the Religion of the than Romish Church only, rather than forgo his portion of rithes allotted to him as King, I leave it with all Submission to the Searcher of all our hearts, and judge of all our actions. I have no warrant or just presumption out of any history to accuse this King, either of Atheism or irreligion.  
5 But Melchisedech was both King and Priest, a more Sovereign King then Woldmarus was, and a greater high Priest then the Bishop of Rome, or any other that have lived on earth, besides the Son of God himself, whose picture of shadoww he was. That this Son of God or Seed of Abraham which he assumed should be much greater than Melchisedech King of Salem, is employed in the manner of God's promised blessing unto Abraham being compared with the manner of Melchisedech's blessing Abraham. For Abraham was blessed by Melchisedech not in Melchisedech's name, but in the name of the most high God whose Priest he was; for he was blessed by him not in him; whereas in Abraham's seed all the Nations of the earth, Melchisedech as well as Abraham were to be blessed. Howbeit this promised seed of Abraham was no greater than Melchisedech in external beauty, or prerogative royal till after his Resurrection or second birth. During the time of his humiliation He was rather destinated than consecrated to be the Author or fountain of blessedness unto us. For as the Apostle argues Heb. 5. 8. Though he were the Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. And being consecrated (to wit by his sufferings) became the Author of eternal salvation unto all that obey him. And is called of God (from the time of his Resurrection or exhalation) an high Priest after the order of Melchisedech. For from this time and not before, his royal Priesthood did commence. So he saith to his Disciples immediately after his Resurrection, All power is given to me in heaven and earth; power to bless with the blessings of this life, and of the life to come. And being now after his Consecration to be enthronised in his Kingdom & royal Priesthood, he lift up his hands and blessed his Disciples, And it came to pass that as he blessed them be departed from them and was carried up into heaven, Lu. 24. 50. 51. Yet being there in body he continues with his Church here on earth by continuation of his blessings unto the world's end. That this part of his Priestly function to wit, his Authoritative, or Authentic blessing doth follow his Resurrection, our Apostle intimates Acts▪ 3. 26. Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God hath made unto our father, saying to Abraham; Even in thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed. First, unto you hath God raised up his Son jesus, and him he hath sent to bless you in turning every one of you from your iniquities. And again, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, Galat. 3. 14. So that the jews were the first, but not the only parties interessed in the blessing wherewith God by Melchisedech blessed Abraham. For in as much as that blessing was the same blessing (though further spread, and better branched) wherewith God by Noah blessed Sem, we Gentiles the Sons of japheth were heirs of it in reversion. For though Shem be the first, japhet was in the scond place blessed with his Brother Shem. Gen. 9 27. God persuade japhet, that he may dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant. So that Melchisedech doth prefigure Christ's Priesthood by his Authority to bless in God's name. Blessing as it was applied unto Melchisedech, is but a shadow or surface only. Abraham indeed was blessed by him, but in the name of the most high God. But blessing as appliable to Christ is a solid, and hath its trinall dimension. We are blessed for him; we are blessed through him, we are blessed by him; And which is the full issue or product of all three dimensions, we shall be everlastingly blessed in him. For the first; we may not so much as beg any blessing or good thing at God's hand, but for his sake. Hence it is, that all our prayers are conceived in this form, either expressly or implicitly, propter merita jesu Christi. Secondly of those blessings which it pleaseth God to grant for his sake, we may not entreat, no not expect their conveyance should be made unto us by any other person or means then by him, and the virtue of his sufferings. And for this reason it is, that we usually conclude our prayers, Per jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, through jesus Christ our Lord; not propter jesum Christum: That is always expressed or employed in the body or beginning of the prayer. It was the intention of the Ancients to instruct us by those two usual clauses of our solemn prayers, that whatsoever we ask for Christ's sake, we cannot otherwise obtain then through him. And though the Father be the first granter, yet the Son immediately bestows all blessings upon us, as the places of Scripture late alleged, testify. God's blessings descend to us, only by him, that they may draw us unto him in whom only we are blessed. For that everlasting happiness of the life to come formally consists in our union with him, and cannot be manifested or imparted to us but by the participation of his blessed presence.  
6 Will ye have a more particular map in what manner the blessing of Abraham descends upon us by this our high Priest? Then call to mind in what terms Melchisedech blessed Abraham. They were these, Blessed be Abraham of the most high God Possessor of heaven and earth, Melchisedech (if the same be Shem) had by virtue of his Father Noah's blessings, a manifest right unto the land of Canaan, and had some part of it in possession; and this right and title he be queaths to Abraham. The chief matter of his blessing is, that Abraham's posterity should be Kings and Priests in that land; And albeit he were a Priest of the most high God, yet his Kingdom was of this world and in this world, though a type of the heavenly Kingdom. But our Saviour's Kingdom was not of this world, for since his Resurrection he hath taken possession of heaven as he is man, but in the right and title of the eternal Son of God. God the Father made all things by God the Son, whom he hath made Heir of all things as man, which were made by him as God; not as an heir in his nonage, but as joint Lord with his Father at whose right hand he is placed; so that as man he hath more full and more immediate authority to dispose of heaven than Melchisedech had to dispose of Canaan, for he bestowed that upon Abraham by way of prayer, as became a Priest of the most high God. But this our high Priest, who is also the most high God shall dispose of heaven to his servants by royal sentence and authority as King. Then shall the King say unto them that sit on his right hand. Venite benedicti patris mei possidete vobis paratum regnum à constitutione mundi, Come ye blessed of my Father possess ye the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundations of the world! This is the accomplishment of that blessing which Melchisedech bestowed upon Abraham; and the second part of his benediction must be the everlasting song of such as are blessed in Abraham's seed. Blessed be the most high God, who hath delivered our enemies into our hands: who hath enabled us to overcome the world, the Devil, and the flesh! And though Christ our high Priest were the Son of David, and of Abraham as man according to the flesh; yet as man he is the first begotten from the dead, and Father of the world to come. Melchisedech himself in respect of the everlasting blessing is his Son, and must have his portion in it at the last day. For if all Nations, if every one of any Nation that is truly blessed, be blessed in Abraham's seed, Melchisedech himself must be blessed in him, not only by him: And therefore he is that most high God, Possessor of heaven and earth, in whose name Melchisedech blessed Abraham.  
7 But to return to our Apostles next passage, Herald 7. 11. etc. If therefore perfection were by the levitical Priesthood (for under it the people received the Law,) what further need was there that another Priest should arise after the order of Melchisedech, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law. The full discussion of this twelfth verse, because it contains matter of Controversy amongst us Christians and between several professed members of reformed Churches; as whether Christ were a Law giver, or wherein the Law which he gave did differ from, or excel the Law of Moses, whether levitical or Moral, must be referred to another Treatise. The Law (saith our Apostle) made no thing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did. 
Vide Cyri●lum lib 1. glaphyrorum intitulo de Abraham & Melchisedech.  So our later English reads the Text, yet proffers to us another reading in the margin, which (in mine opinion) is more consonant to our Apostle's meaning, to wit, That the Law was an introduction of a better hope by which we draw near to God. And this drawing near to God is that perfection which the Law could not effect. But the principal point, whereon our Apostle pitcheth forevincing the priesthood of Christ to be far more excellent than the levitical Priesthood was, was reserved to the last place, and pathetically though briefly avouched v. 20. [And in as much as not without an oath] for those Priests to wit, after the order of Aaron were made without an oath, but this, to wit, Christ, with an oath, by him that said unto him, The Lord swore and will not repent, thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech; By so much was jesus made the surety of a better Covenant: And they truly were many Priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. But this man because he continueth for ever, hath an unchangeable Priesthood: Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. And again v. 28. For the Law maketh men high Priests which have infirmities, but the word of the oath which was since the Law maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. These two last passages require a fuller discussion of a Point often touched upon in some printed Treatises, and divers Sermons: A point much neglected by many good Divines, and carped at by others through their ignorance in true antiquity, videlicet, What the interposition of God's special oath doth import more than his largest promises without an oath.    

SECT. 3. Of the calling or destination of the Seed of Abraham, and Son of David by solemn oath to the everlasting Priesthood.  

CHAP. 12. The chief or main principle whereon our Apostle grounds his Treatise or discourse to the Hebrews; Containing a Paraphrase upon the most part of the sixth Chapter to the Hebr ●●  
SEeing every rational writer that writes to any good end or purpose, hath always some one or more principles, on which his discourse doth revolve, or settle, as a sphere or body orbicular doth upon its Axis or Centre; the advice which Cardanus somewhere gives to every one, who would take upon him to comment upon any good Author is very useful. And his advice is this, First, to seek out the main principles (be they few or more) whereon the Author doth especially rely or ground his discourse or project. There is a rule given long 
Grego. magnus.  ago by a better Author for interpreting sacred writ no way dissonant unto this advice of his, Finis dicendorum optima ratio dictorum, the end or scope at which sacred writers (in their disputes especially) do aim, is the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or standard by which their particular sentences or discourses must be measured, the only right way for finding out the true and literal meaning of what they say. The non observance or want of taking these rules into consideration, hath been the special occasion why S. Paul's Epistle to the Romans hath been of all other portions of Scriptures the worst interpreted by most that have undertaken to comment upon it. But of the main principle or scope of that Epistle I have 
* In a treatise upon Rom. 9 v. 18. lately published by another without my consent or knowledge. My purpose was to have published another of the same subject upon the 16 v. of the same Chapter delivered by me in a Sermon about 26 years ago, some few months before I wrote the other.  elsewhere written, and shall as God shall give opportunity write or speak a great deal more.  
2. The principal end or scope of S. Paul, (or whosoever were the Author of this divine Epistle to the Hebrews,) was to prove that Christ jesus, whom the jews did crucify, was designed or destinated by God to be a Priest not after the order of Aaron, but of Melchisedech, and declared to be so, designed by God's oath to Abraham, which was the first oath that God did vouchsafe to make, that is extant upon any sacred record; though the contents of this first oath were more fully expressed in his oath unto David. The tenor or impotance of both oaths, especially of that unto David, are not any where mentioned or pressed upon the jews in any part of the New Testament beside in this Epistle; but in this Epistle very frequently: first in the place before cited Heb. 5. 10 He was called of God an high Priest after the order of Melchisedech. But the pressing of it further upon these Hebrews our Apostle for the present, forbears for their dulness of hearing. v. 1. But though they were for the present unfit Auditors of such an high mystery yet were they not such perpetually. The true reason why our Apostle saith the things he had to say of Melchisedech were hard to be uttered or conceived by these hearers standing thus affected, was not (as a late writer, before mentioned, conjectures) because this Melchisedech who met Abraham was the Son of God, then appearing in the likeness of man; For this was a point easy to be uttered, and easy to be conceived, if it had been any part of our Apostles meaning: But of what he had to say, and hath spoken at large in the 7 Chapter of this Epistle, these his Scholars were not capable, at least (he saw) would not be attentive to his lesson, until he had given them a sharp though moderate correction, which he doth from the 12. v of the 5. Chapter, unto the 9 v. of the 6. Ready they were, as is evident from our Apostles admonition to revolt from the Christian faith unto judaism, and to fall into that irremissible sin which he there describes. Now to recall men prone to vice or sin there are but two ways: The one by manifesting the danger of the relapse; the other by ministering comfort or assurance of happy success in that course of life which hath been commended by the Physicians of their souls unto them. The dreadful estate into which they were without his directions ready to fall, is discovered to them in most pathetical expressions from the 4. v. of the 6. Chapter to the 9 For it is impossible for those, who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away to renew them again unto repentance: seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God a fresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain which cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God; But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing, whose end is to be burned. These passages show the dangerousness of their disease to whom he wrote his Epistle, and that they stood in need of extraordinary physic. The comfortable preparative for the making of them capable of a most sovereign receipt followeth. v. 9 But Beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak: For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love which ye have showed towards his name, in that ye have ministered to his Saints and do minister. Here were a text of excellent use (were it warily handled) for restoring such men, as after their recovery from Atheism, infidelity or heresy fall into a relapse as bad as these, as into an apostasy, from the faith (sometimes sincerely professed by them) into libertinism or profaneness: As fit a theme as any I have observed in sacred Writ to encourage all men of what sort or condition soever professing Christianity, to the constant practice of good works, especially of Charity.  
3 For albeit the works of charity which the Hebrews had done could not, albeit the best works which we now living can do, can no ways merit any degree of grace, or make us worthy of the gift of repentance: yet by good works we become more capable of God's mercies, of his long suffering, or forbearance to punish us after the same manner or measure, that he doth presumptuous sinners. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is as if he had said, The God whom ye Hebrews (now converted to Christianity) serve, non est dominus adeo durus, is not so 
* Or inequitable for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to iustitia universalis which comprehends ●lemency, or benignity aswell as legal justice.  rigorous a judge, but that whilst he weighs your later or present Transgressions in the legal scale of justice, he will put your former deeds of charity into the scale of mercy. But leaving the full discussion of this passage to professed Commentators, or Controversywriters, although we shall prise good works, or deeds of charity at the lowest rate which our Apostle in this place sets upon them, That will amount unto as much, as some learned Fathers have said, Sunt via ad regnum non causa regnandi, They are the way to heaven, or means to obtain full assurance of hope here on earth, for so our Apostle presseth his exhortation to them v. 11. 12. And we desire that every one of you do show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end; That ye be not slothful, but followers of them, who through faith and patience inherit the promises. For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he swore by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee, And so after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. So that patience in doing good works to our loss, or in suffering wrongs from others, are good works or qualifications prerequired to our firm apprehension of God's most free and gracious promises.  
4 There is first an assurance given by God unto Abraham, and in him to the heirs of promise. Secondly there is an assurance of hope in some, and aught to be in all men▪ and this consists first in the right apprehension of the assurance given by God, and in a well grounded belief or persuasion of our interest in the promise conveyed unto us from God by Abraham. The right apprehension of the assurance given by God must be in the understanding or brain: The true belief or persuasion of our interest in this promise is but the ingrossment of our former apprehension in our hearts. How this belief or assurance of hope must be wrought, or confirmed, comes after to be discussed: Of this only we are in this place to forewarn the Reader that he must not begin his belief or persuasion backwards, or the wrong way, that is, not to make that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (where of the Apostle speaks) the first part of his Creed. For to arrive at this point of belief or degree of hope, is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or perfection, unto which our Apostle sought by degrees to conduct these Hebrews, who had been truly converted to the Christian faith, and had continued till this time true believers in their kind; men better catechised in the first principles of belief, than any man now living is; for they had an Apostle for their Catechist, as appears from the first v. of the 6. Chapter. The only way to attain unto this perfection or assurance of hope, is to follow the footsteps of such as inherit the promise, or had a firm and true apprehension of their interest in it whilst they lived here on earth. Thus much is employed in the forementioned exhortation of our Apostle, v. 11. & 12.  
5 The assurance given to Abraham, and in him to all that follow his footsteps, is on God's part as full and absolute as almighty power could make it; for it is a promise confirmed by oath, and by the most solemn oath that could be administered or made: for God swore by himself, who is the greatest of all that either God or man can swear by. There could not be either a greater power, or any other so great besides; yet even amongst men who always swear by some divine power or revenger of false oaths greater than themselves, an oath puts an end to all strife or Controversy in Law, as our Apostle teacheth us v. 16. But in what times, or in what cases this maxim is, or was most true (for most true it is with the allowances of the circumstances for time and place or in matters determinable by oath,) are Questions proper to interpreters of Law, whether judaical in the jewish Nation, or of Laws established in other Nations at of before the time wherein the Author of this Epistle did write; who as I should presume from this very allegation besides many other reasons, was S. Paul: For I know no other of our Saviour's Apostles or Disciples (though most potent in Scriptures) which had so much skill, either in the Laws of the jewish or other Nations as S. Paul had, being brought up at the feet of Gamaliel. For the better understanding of this our Apostle in the last fore▪ cited verses, or at least for occasioning others to search deeper into his meaning then many Interpreters or plausible Preachers usually do, it will not be amiss to premise somewhat concerning the nature of oaths, or their ancient use amongst men before we come to explicate the tenor of God's oath, and the Covenant made by it unto Abraham.   

CHAP. 13. The use of oaths, a●d their observance is from the Law of Nature. Of the manner of taking solemn oaths amongst the Ancients of several Nations.  
THough all men in former ages were not acquainted with the true God by whom all aught to have swo●●e; though some transformed the Deity into the similitude of beasts; though some directly acknowledhed no God at all, no divine power; yet even in the very worst of these, the smothered seeds of Religion did give some crisis of their inherence in matter of oath or imprecation. The ingraffed notion of the Deity upon provocation or occasion of swearing, found always some, though often a preposterious or sinister vent. Even such stupid Tyrants as thought no power so great as their own; such as did pick deadly quarrels with their vassals for not swearing by their Genius, did use to swear not (as God here doth) by themselves, or by their own power, but by such creatures as did command their desires or affections; for their consciences secretly suggested to them that these were greater than themselves. And it is no marvel if this honour of Invocation, which is due only to the true God, were by godless persons oftimes tendered to those things, which they loved or admitted most, because these were in truth and deed to them as Gods. Caligula used to swear by Drusilla; sometimes by that horse, which he caused to be fed in as Lordly a plate as any that came unto his own table, and which he had destinated to be his fellow Consul. It seems this was a bonny beast, whereas he himself was an ugly Monster amongst men. The Emperor Claudius (as Suetonius tells us) conversus in officia pietatis ius jurandum neque sanctius neque crebrius instituit quam per Augustum, did not swear so often, nor hold anyoath so strict as to swear by his Predecessor Augustus. And junius Brutus as a good Author tells me, did use to swear solemnly by the blood of Lucretia. The most solemn oath among the Pythagoreans, a devout and religious Sect of Philosophers, was per ternarium, ●he number of three. The reason I take it was, because this number was to them as the mystery of the blessed Trinity is to us. Some heathens (as the Egyptians) did swear by herbs, by beasts or liveless elements, because they misconceived some divine power to have peculiar residence in them or about them. And some no evil Princes did swear or authorise others to swear by their sceptres, because they took these as emblems of divine power. Others swear by the parts of their own bodies, as by their hearts etc. Yet these were directly & formally rather imprecations than oaths, yet obliquè or implicit è iuramenta, (as the Lawyers speak) collateral or connotative imprecations of divine power to whom the execution of vengeance upon themselves, or upon the parts of their bodies) if they swore falsely did in their opinion properly belong. But whatsoever was the direct and formal object of judicial oaths, their outward form of solemnity was always, or for the most part accomplished tagendo altaria or elevatis manibus, or both ways:  

Praesentitibi maturos largimur honores,  
jurandasque tuum per nomen ponimus are as,   
saith the Poet of Augustus. And the Grecian which gave first occasion to the Pproverbe Amicus usque ad are as, employed his readiness to tell some such smooth tale or officious lie for his friend's good as he durst not avouch, if he were called to touch the Altar. This was the custom (it seems) in those ancient times wherein Moses lived. Moses built an Altar, and called the name of it jehova Nissi, for he said because the Lord hath sworn; or (as some read it) because he hath lift up his hand he will have war with Amalech from generation to generation. To lift up the hand or touch the Altar (one or both of them at least) was as much as the kissing of the Book is to us; the principal formality, or external character of a solemn oath; Ergo is, qui si aram tenens juraret crederet nemo, per Epistolam, quod volet, iniuratus 
●icero in orat pro Flacco.  probabit? Shall we then take his testimony by a letter without an oath for a just proof, whose oath though he laid hold upon the Altar no man would trust? To swear by the name or power of God, as a profound Civilian instructs us, is de essentia iuramenti, 
Duarenut.  the essence or form of an oath, but to kiss the Book etc. is de consuetudine a matter of custom. 
See the fifth Book of these Comments upon the Cree●d. Sect. 1  Intrepidos altaria tangere, in Juvenal's construction is, all one as to make no conscience of an oath; the essential property of Epicurean Atheism.  
2 We must not think our Apostles rule [that an oath is to make an end of all strife] to be defective or less universal, than it makes show of, although it comprehend not Epicures, nor take fast hold of Atheists, because these are but equivocally men, or at the best they can be no better parts of any civil body, or humane society, than a broken link is of a chain. He that makes no conscience of an oath may make better assurance of his lands and estate then of his internal thoughts or affections, without which assurance there can be no true society amongst the sons of men. Nullum vinculum ad astringendum fidem Maiores nostri iureiurando arctius esse voluerunt, saith Tully. But an oath assertory, not by Roman constitutions only, but by divine Law is a kind of civil rack to constrain men to confess the truth concerning matters present or past in cases expedient for the maintenance of humane society. And an oath promissory, or de futuro is God's wrest to fasten our souls unto the truth professed by us for the performance of good duties. With this later use the usual etymology of the word oath in Greek, hath some affinity: For they would have the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be of the same progeny with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because he that sweareth is tied or bound to those points which he acknowledgeth or confesseth. Yet many of the ancient Etymologers would have the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (in the Grecian language) derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 terminus, unto which derivation our Apostle (as some Divines conjecture) doth allude, when he saith that an oath is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an end or term of all Controversies. This as I dare not deny, so I would not, nor perhaps would the Authors or Abettors of this opinion, ground the strength of our Apostles argument so much upon the the grammatical signification, or etymology of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as upon the real exposition or civil use of it in legal customs and constitutions of most Nations concerning like cases to that mentioned by him; as in matters of trust or contract betwixt man and man, without any other witness then themselves. For so the Lord (by whom we ought to swear) had enacted it, Exod. 22. 10. If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast to keep, & it die or be hurt or driven away no man seeing it, then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he hath not put his hands unto his Neighbour's goods: and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Primum ideo, ut iurisjurandi religionem magnifacientes, Deum revereantur. Cum enim manifestum sit, quod saepius deierans fidei iact●ram faciat, ne emolument● illo privetur, maximoperè cave●it ●nusquisque ne ad iuramentum deveniatur. Deindè & hoc cogitavit legislator fi fidem in vitae integritate constituat totam, cunctos ad morum probitatem iavitatum iri, ne tanquam fide indign● infamentur. Iniquum praeterea iudicabat, quibus citra iuramentum fides habita esset, his de eodem contractu iuratis fidem denegari▪ biblioth lib 1. de Egypt. legibus.  good. The like Law or constitution was sometimes of like force in Egypt. Bochoridis leges, saith Diodorus mandabant ut si quis pecuniis mutuò acceptis absque syngraphe se debere neget, interposito juramento a debito absolvatur. That if money's committed to trust without specialty or mutual writings should be denied, the Controversy should be ended by the Defendant's oath, And he gives this reason for the equity of this Law: [Why should not the judge or Law give as much credit to any man's oath, for as much as another commits to his trust without any assurance at all, or without any better assurance than the Creditors' oath?] The like esteem did the Grecians make of the pretended debtor's oath in like Controversies. When Psidias' an host of Tenedos denied the charge of money delivered unto him by Archetimus of Erythraea his ancient friend and guest, the matter after some altercation of words was referred to oath: Now albeit Psidias' his conscience did serve him to deal unjustly, yet it grudged to swear directly a gross untruth; and to stay the muttering of it with some shadow of truth, that is, with plain equivocation, he feigns himself so sick and crazy against the day of final hearing, as if he stood in need of a staff, into which (being made hollow on purpose) he cunningly stuffed up the gold about which the Controversy grew: Being called to his oath which was to be elevat is manibus with hands lifted up, he committed his staff to the custody of Archetimus, the plaintiff, and thus proceeds; It is true (saith he) that my friend Ahchetimus delivered so much gold unto me, but by the oath which I have taken, I have delivered the same sum unto him again. This oath (though to Archetimus his knowledge altogether false) had by the customs of that time and place made a full end of the Controversy to his loss, which he perceiving threw down the staff with such indignation to the ground that the handle bursting, the gold which he trusted unto him fell out. And thus the providence of God (saith mine 
a Stobaeus de periurio. pag. 198.  Author) saved Archetimus harmless; but Psidias' (as men say) came to a fearful end.   

CHAP. 14. Of Oaths promissory specially for Confirmation of of leagues, and of the fearful judgements that usually fall upon them, who wittingly and willingly violate them.  
THe use of oaths amongst the Romans was somewhat more ample than all these instances imply, though how far it did extend, I leave it to the determination of Civilians. A very good Civil Lawyer tells me, (and his testimony is most consonant to our Apostles mind in this place) Vetus fuit regula iuris causam iureiurando decisam non retractari, that a cause or case of Controversy decided by oath, might not be traversed or recalled. Iustinian's restraint of this ancient rule in some special & rare cases, rather corroborates then impairs the indefinite truth, or general validity of it: Yet were not oaths assertory more authentic, or of more validity in ancient times for ending Controversies betwixt man and man, than oaths promissory (such as God's oath in this place is) were for maintaining public peace or confirming leagues betwixt Nation and Nation. The examples of heathen aswell as of sacred Princes or Generals (so we would follow them) teach us not to retract any thing that we have sworn unto, nor to delay performance of any thing which we have promised by oath, albeit the conditions in some cases prove such in the issue, as we would not have subscribed unto them at any hand, had we known them; in others, such as we ought not to have subscribed unto. When Alexander the great, (a Prince otherwise too rash and furious in executing his rigorous designs) perceived that the Lampsaceni (open Rebels in his interpretation) had entertained Anaximenes his father's old acquaintance to plead for their pardon, fearing that this smooth-tongued Orator (if he should permit him to speak his mind at large,) might somewhat mitigate the rigorous sentence pronounced against them, upon the Orator's first approach into his presence takes a solemn oath by the Gods of Greece, that he would do quite contrary to whatsoever he would request on the behalf of the Lampsaceni. Then said Anaximenes' it will little boot me to be long in my petition which in brief shall be this; That you would captivate their wives and children, destroy their City, and set the Temples of their Gods on fire. Now albeit this boisterous King had steadfastly purposed to do as much as the Orator's words imply; and had interposed a solemn oath to confirm his purpose, yet his oath being by the Orators cunning retorted, his former resolution did relent and yield unto the Orator's first intended serious request. And in memory of this great Controversy between this great Prince and his Rebellious Subjects or revolted Confederates, thus happily ended by a retorted or inverted oath, the Orator had an Olympic statue erected to him by his Clients. 
Pausanias' lib 6. hoc est Eliacor. 2.   
2 Thus to save this City with its Inhabitants could not be more prejudicial to Alexander's former oath, or resolution, than it was to joshua to make peace or league with any Cananite; for God whose General he was had given him express command to the contrary: Yet in as much as that strict commandment given by God, was only particular to this purpose, the neglect of it, especially upon ignorance of circumstances was evil only because forbidden, and only so far evil as it was forbidden. But in as much as an oath is the most sacred bond in humane society, the breach of it is not only evil because forbidden, but therefore forbidden because in itself so evil. Whence though it were unlawful for joshua to make any league with the Gibeonites being by Nation and Progeny Canaanites, yet in as much as they were men, the league once made with them being confirmed by oath might not be violated by him, or any of his Successors. The legal maxim in this case holds most firmly, fieri non debuit factum valet. Although joshua had formerly sworn to have continual war with the Canaanites, yet the interposition of this oath, upon a mistake that they were not Canaanites, must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an end of hostile quarrel between Israel and the Gibeonites: or if any haply should here reply that this league did valere de facto was made valid more through Ioshuah's courtesy or scrupulosity of conscience, then by the Law of nature, Nations, or by any strict rule of equity; the severity of God's judgements upon the house of Saul for violating this league which joshua had made by oath more than four hundred years after he had made it, will convince him of error. Saul sought to slay the Gibeonites in his zeal to the children of Israel and judah, 2. Sam. 21. 2. but as if Israel had forfeited their estate in the promised land by breach of their former Covenant, the earth for three years denied her increase, as it is verse the first: Nor could this famine be satisfied otherwise then by the flesh and blood of those men for whose sake the Gibeonites blood had been unjustly spilt. For when David (being instructed of the Lord that the famine was sent to revenge their wrongs) demanded of the Gibeonites (to whom the Lord now had given power of binding and losing Israel,) What shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I make the atonement that ye may bless the Inheritance of the Lord? They said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house, neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel; But the man that consumed us, that devised evil against us, that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel, let seven men of his Sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, whom the Lord did choose. v. 3. 4. 5. 6. But David (as it follows) spared Mephibosheth (at whose life the Gibeonites did specially aim) because of the Lord's oath that was between them, between David and jonathan the Son of Saul.  
3 But here lest such malevolent eyes or ears as Machiavel's or Machiavilian Politicians, should by looking upon or hearing this story read, let in suspicion into their unhallowed hearts, of some secret complot betwixt the Gibeonites and David for planting the Sceptre of Israel in David's stock by rooting out the whole stock of Saul besides this impotent forlorn branch Mephibosheth; we may parallel this prodigious calamity with others like unto it, which in the observation of heathen writers have by the providence of God befallen other royal families for the perjury of their Progenitors, albeit executed upon them by the hands of men. The difference will be only this, that David in the execution of God's fierce wrath upon the house of Saul did understand his Commission much better than other Executioners of Gods like wrath did, who did nothing but what God would have done, but without just warrant.  
4 Could Kingdoms be surely founded upon their present strength and greatness, or states be made stand upright and firm by rule of secular policy, the likelihood was greater that the Macedonian Kingdom should have continued in Philip's race then the Kingdom of Israel in the house of Saul. Every man (saith 
* In lib. ●. hoc est de Arcadic.  Pausanias') will easily grant that this Philip for his achievements was the greatest King which Macedon had either before or after him: Of Princely virtues he had so many and so well mixed, as few Princes in any ages have enjoyed the like. What then did he want why he might not be reputed in wisemen's censure a good Governor or Commander? Only this, that he had his own oath at too great command. His perjury did spoil his politic projects whilst they seemed most to prosper, and ruinated the foundations of his intended Monarchy as fast as he laid them; and which is worst of all, his soul being infected with this foul sin did propagate the rot unto the fruit of his body: As he had often deluded his Gods, so the Oracle to revenge this quarrel deluded him. The sentence of death which he expected the Oracle should at his instance award upon the King of Persia, did seize upon himself in his best years and amidst his triumphant jollities. Immediately upon his death his infant Son by Cleopatra was with his mother scorched to death in a vessel of brass by the appointment of Olympias, unto whose cruelty another of his sons by a former wife within few years after was sacrificed. And as if their complaints and outcries against this unjust execution of a womanish wrath had been appointed, or authorised to bring down God's more immediate judgements upon the remnant of Philip's seed or his grandchildren, (which had more potent guardians in humane possibility to shield them from humane violence,) these were cut down by fates, or (as my Author's words will bear it) by the destroying power.  
5 And as for Alexander's untimely death it is remarkable amongst children. It is an excellent Epiphonema wherewith Pausanias concludes his discourse concerning Philip's perjury: If Philip (saith he) when he laid his plots for erecting the Macedonian Empire had said the Delphic Oracle, given to Glaucus the Spartan, to his heart [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the posterity of men which make conscience of oath shall far the better] we should have no reason to suspect that any of the Gods would have extinguished Alexander and the Macedonian glory, as it had been with one and the same breath of their displeasure. Now the Oracle pronounced the sentence of untimely death upon the posterity of Glaucus the Spartan because he consulted it, whether he might with safety for swear the pawn or deposition which the Milesians had committed to his fidelity: And when knowing his doom he sought the revocation of the sencence upon promise of full restitution, he only obtained this answer for his own and others instruction [to solicit or tempt God to abett, or countenance perjury, and to be actually perjured come both to one reckoning.] If the Reader suspect the authority of the Oracle upon presumption that all oraculous answers were inspired by Devils, or discredit the story itself because related by Herodotus; as I may not join with him in raising needless suspicions, or too large imputations against one or other, so I will not request him to admit the relation upon any other terms then as an Emblem of divine truth.  
6 That which this Emblem represents as vero simile, was remarkablely fulfilled in jehoiakim and Zedechias: Both of them had deserved death and deposition for their other sins; but that which moved the Lord to write these two principal stems of David childless among the families of judah, was falsification of their oaths to Nehuchadnezar. Zedekiah had God's special promise that he and his house should live, upon condition he would submit himself (as by oath he was bound) unto the King of Babel; but slighting his oath till time was past, and not submitting himself to Nebuchadnezar till he was caught, his sons were slain before his eyes. And no sooner had this tragical spectacle found entrance into his troubled soul, but the windows by which it entered were shut up; that so having no possibility of vent for grief, it might reflect more vehemently upon his pensive heart, and be such a perpetual torment to his restless fancy, as an earwig is to the brain into which she hath crept. I will conclude these instances concerning oaths promissory with his verdict, who was able to make the induction good. Si quis omnem antiquitatem & bellorum memoriam ab ultimo principio repetat, profecto reperiet eorum qui pactas violarunt inducias, miserrimos exitus & civitatibus ac populis calamitosissimos extitisse. Bodinus lib. 5. pag. 964. He that would take pains to search records of Antiquity or memorials of war from the first beginning of histories extant, shall clearly find that the violation of leagues or solemn truces hath brought a miserable end upon truce-breakers, whether private persons or publeque States.  
7. One part of his instance or induction he took from the league betwixt Henry the second French King, the Landgrave of Hassia, Maurice of Saxony, and Albert of Brandeburg, violated first by Maurice, and afterward more shamefully by Albert of Brandeburg. The noble historian and great Antiquary of France, who had the Articles of the 
Thuanus.  league betwixt Philip of Spain and (I take it) this Henry the second King of France, derives all the miseries and calamities which befell France in their intestine broils, and civil wars, from the violation of this league on the French King's part, whereunto he was tempted by the pretended infallible Roman Oracle upon a dispensation with his oath proffered unto him not sought by him. So much worse was the spirit of this Roman Oracle then the spirit which guided the Delphic Oracle in the answer to Glaucus the Spartan before mentioned. The like dispensation of the Pope with an oath of Contract did set the rebellion in the North on foot, and was the cause of the calamity or misery which 
About the 10 of Queen Elizabeth.  befell him and his family, who sought for it and others of his Associates.  
8 And no marvel if God in this case be severe to visit the sins of fathers upon the children, aswel as in the case of idolatry▪. For of these two sins, perjury or wilful breach of solemn oath is the more abominable, though I know not whether I should account them two sins, or several branches of one sin; or whether were worse utterly to deny the truth of God's being, or his omnipotency; or to produce him as a witness or Countenancer of that which is untrue. The truth of God's Being and his justice being presupposed or believed, it stands with reason what Bodin hath observed, That perjury should bring forth destruction and calamity, whether to public states or private families in greater plenty than any sin whatsoever. Other enormities always deserve God's wrath and in the issue bring it upon offenders, but perjury only is conceived and brought forth by soliciting or imploring God's wrath or vengeance upon such as commit it. But some will here demand, What is all this which hath been said concerning the sacred use of oaths amongst men, and the plagues executed upon such as violate those sacred oaths, to the oath which God interposed to Abraham, or to their assurance which rely upon him? Much every way. For; the special, if not the only reason why God's hand hath light so heavy upon all perjured persons is, because God himself, who vouchsafed to swear to Abraham for our comfort, is so true in all his promises, and so unpartial in awarding justice that he would not punish men's neglects or contempt of solemn oaths so severely as usually he doth, were he not beyond comparison or comprehension more observant of his oath when he swears by himself, than we are of our oaths which we take in his name. Briefly, albeit some in this age among the most zealous Professors of Christianity escape his visible punishments, or sometimes prosper better in worldly estate for their perjury then many amongst the heathen did: yet by this practice they forfeit their interest in the assurance which God made by oath unto the heirs of promise. Every one that hopes to be blessed with faithful Abraham, or to be partaker of the blessing promised by oath unto him must in this particular be perfect as his heavenly Father is perfect. Every one that hath been tainted with this foul fin how great a gainer soever he be by it in worldly courses must purge himself from it by the solemn proper acts of faith, that is, by true Repentance, Alms deeds, and full Restitution of accursed gains to the parties whom he hath wronged: For (as our Apostle tells us) every one that hath this hope, that is, to be the Son of God with faithful Abraham, must purify himself, as he is pure. 1. joh. 3. 3.   

CHAP. 15. In what cases solemn oaths were or are to be taken and administered.  
AMongst others truly instiled golden verses of Pythagoras, every verse containing some one or other moral rule of good life, this was a principal one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
1 The Comment or Paraphrase of an heathenish Writer, though a professed enemy to us Christians, at least to such as lived in his age, is very Christian, as many other parts of his Commentations upon Pythagora's moral rules are (to use the words of that learned French Civilian Tiraquel) most Divine.  
2 Whilst I revise these and the former observations of the heathen, concerning oaths, and consider how exactly parallel they are to the sacred rules of God's written Laws and Cases determined by divine justice, I cannot but resume the Prophet Ieremiah's wish or prayer, Oh that my head were turned into a well or fountain, that I might weep day and night for the sins of this people! And of this age wherein a man may more safely believe a Turk swearing by Mahomet, or a canting Beggar by his Solomon, or a rude pit-man, or coale-worker by spitting upon a coal, than many witnesses, who bear the name of Gentlemen and good Christians, whilst they swear in Courts of justice by the Lord God of their salvation, kissing the Book wherein their interest in the promises made to Abraham, and their hopes of the life to come, are contained. Nor is this the fault of false witnesses only, but of Lawmakers or Interpreters, or of men in Authority, that a man may be sworn out of his inheritance, out of his lively hood and good name by one uncatechized Clown or Atheist, who neither knows by whom, nor unto what he swears; ready at all times to lend that which he hears called an oath, unto his friend or brother in mischief. An oath being a special part of Religion, it were to be wished it were never to be administered or exacted by such as give more proof to show their authority and power in being enabled by humane Law to give it, then either of their desire or ability to instruct the party swearing unto what he ought, unto what he ought not to swear, or in any other principal point of Religion. Many cases are often determined by one man's oath which are not possible to be proved by the oaths of any ten men living, though men of life and manners unsuspected. And yet in case the person swearing to his neighbour's utter undoing might be convicted of wilful perjury, the best remedy that the Law or Custom affords him will prove much worse than the disease itself; that is, beget a tedious suit in some costly Court. But neither did the primevall Church of God, nor the ancient Laws of heathen Nations admit of any such Custom. Exceptions against lewd persons or suspected witnesses were admitted before they were permitted to swear: Or in case any were detected to swear falsely, the detection was without any great cost; and the punishment severe and speedy. In case a man had sworn falsely against his neighbour in matter of 
Vide Duarenum in tractatu de juramento.  debt, he was, besides other punishments, to pay as much as his neighbour should have been damnified by his oath. In case of infamy and slander he was adjudged to undergo the same punishment which his oath, had it been admitted, would have brought upon the party accused. If he had sworn against another in a matter capital, his perjury was punished with death, and so were false accusers, albeit they did swear or accuse on the behalf of the Prince or Emperor. One of the best Catechisms that I dare commend unto such as have power to minister solemn oaths, or unto such as are bound to answer upon oath, or ready when occasions require to interpose oaths voluntary, is the Comment of the forecited Philosopher upon that golden verse of Pythagoras.  
JUSIURANDUM COLE.  
Fuerit autem cultus ejus servandi optima ratio & cura, si eo nec frequentèr utaris, nec temerè, nec quibuslibet in rebus 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  nec ad sermonis amplificationem, nec ad narrationis confirmationem atque fidem, sed quantum fieri potest, rebus tantum necessariis simul atque honori●icis adhibeatur, ●oque tempore cum nulla salus alia quam ex sola iurisjurandi veritate expectatur. Invenient verò fidem isthaec apud eos qui audiunt, si congruum jurijurand● modum adhibuerimus, sique suspicionem omnem non iis solum qui juramento abstinent, sed qui utuntur etiam sustulerimus, quicquid in mortaliumrebus veritate maius nobis haberi.  Hierocles in 2 'em aurèum carmen Pythagorae. 
God's oath at all time when it pleased him to swear, was a voluntary oath; no Authority could exact it of him. But how free or voluntary soever his oath to Abraham was, it was not gratis dictum, but interposed to some good use or purpose. The special uses or purposes of this first oath of God (which is upon record) comes in the next place to be discussed.  
3 It is on all Sides agreed that the Article or matter unto which God did swear, was of great consequence and weight: For men ought not to make solemn oaths or protestations, but in such cases; because they are commanded to be holy as he is holy. But can there be any case or business betwixt God and man of so great consequence, that his sole word or mere promise might not suffice to determine it? His word in itself no doubt is more firm and sure, than all the oaths of men and Angels. It is therefore in the second place presumed or granted by all good Writers, that our Gracious God confirmed this promise by oath ex abundanti, for the support of men's infirmities, which too often measure the goodness of God and the fidelity of his promises by their own notions of goodness, or by their experience of such fidelity as is found in promises amongst good men. But albeit we may take surer hold of any man's word or promise, then of his indefinite overtures or inclinations to do us good, yet a very honest man's word is no sheateanchor for a wise man to rely upon in a violent storm. The fest sometimes may be sure and firm when the cable is slender and weak: Or the cable very strong, when the fest or Anchorhold is slippery. Hence ordinary promises or professions of real kindnesses by a tacit or implicit consent of most men, admit divers exceptions or dispensations, whereof solemn oaths are uncapable. In what terms soever ordinary promises or professions of kindnesses be expressed, their tenor is to be understood or construed with this Proviso, Rebus sic stantibus. Unexpected disaster, or rare mischance, is in common equity a sufficient release for non performance of that which was sincerely promised upon probable hopes of better means or abilities; or at least of the continuances of such means as the party had when he made promise. Many men who will hardly strain their oaths for their life, will dispense with their honest words, or good intentions, rather than subject themselves to any incompensable worldly mischief, or remediless inconvenience, which may certainly follow upon the performances of what they promised. For this reason every wise man must be more wary to what he swears, then to what he promiseth. For matter of promise concerns things temporal only, whereas he that takes a solemn oath, doth sequester his immortal soul and estate in the life to come, into the hands of the Almighty judge and Revenger of perjury. Hence was it that the noble Roman Regulus did choose rather to return to the Carthaginians, resolving to endure all the tortures and pains that they could inflict upon him, then to violate the solemn oath which they administered unto him. And albeit the Carthaginians knew him to be a man for his fidelity and due observances of his promises, as just and righteous as Rome had any; a man more faithful and true (if we believe ancient histories) than the Carthaginians ordinarily were: yet out of discretion and politic observance, they held it more safe to trust to Regulus upon his oath, then upon his mere promise. No wise man or prudent Statist unto this day, will trust the best man living (over whose person or estate he hath no command or jurisdiction) in matter of greater consequence, without 
Waremundus in meditamentis pro foederibus.  a solemn oath. A grave * Civilian observes absque iureiur ando alicui in foederibus contrahendis confidere, est piscari in aere & venari in medi● maris.   

CHAP. 16. God's oath to Abraham was an oath for Confirmation of the league betwixt them. Of the several manner of leagues.  
NOw God's oath to Abraham was an oath of league; a solemn confirmation of that Covenant which God had entered with Abraham at the Circumcision of his Son Isaac▪ We may observe in the sacred story, that Abraham had first God's mere promise, and on that he faithfully relied Gen. 12. 13. 14. etc. Afterwards, this promise grew into a solemn everlasting Covenant, signed on Abraham's part by the Circumcision of himself, and his son Isaac; and afterwards confirmed on God's part by solemn oath; and lastly signed and sealed by the bloody death of the only Son of God. For the Readers better conduct in the passages which follow, it will be requisite first to entreat briefly of the nature of Covenants and Leagues. Secondly to display the Evangelicall importances of the oath, by which this League was first confirmed and afterwards renewed. The word Covenant in our English, is sometimes equivalent to that which the Latins call pactum, or conventum, to wit, any contract or bargain, wherein there is quid pro quo, somewhat given and somewhat taken. And in this sense every Covenant or bargain is an act of commutative justice, wherein there is ratio dati & accepti, a mutual bond between the parties contracting upon some valuable considerations. A Covenant of this rank there cannot any be properly said or imagined betwixt God and mere man as Abraham was; for who can give any thing unto God which was not his own before, by a more sovereign right and more peculiar title than it is, or can be his that would take upon him to make God his Debtor by deed of gift. And for this very reason the acutest Schoolmen resolve us, that commutative justice cannot be formally in God. But when we read that justice is one of God's essential Attributes, or when we say that God is truly and formally Just; this must be meant of distributive justice, the balance of whose scales are poena and praemium, matter of punishment and matter of reward. For God as a just judge doth truly and accurately render unto every man according unto all his ways without any respect of any advantage gain or profit that can redound unto him by man's doing good; but merely out of his unspeakable love unto mercy itself, unto bounty itself, or unto justice itself. But though there cannot be such a Pactum or Covenant between God and man, between God and Abraham himself; as is a proper act of commutative justice wherein there is ratio dati & accepti, (For Abraham had nothing to give unto God from whom he had received all that he had, and from whom he did expect to receive his son Isaac, in whom the very Covenant was to be establed:) yet there may be between God and man, and there was between God and Abraham a true and proper Covenant in another sense, that is, as much as the Latins call foedus, a true or proper league of amity or association. And thus the word in the original, especially in Genesis 17. 7. is to be taken.  
2 This kind of League or Covenant may be of two sorts, foedera iniqua quae victores victis dabant: 
* Inter alios commentatores in justinus vide victorinum Strigelium in annum nonum belli Peloponnefiaci. p. 134.  Such as the Conquerors would give unto the Conquered, which was always upon unequal terms or conditions; and yet better for the conquered and weaker part to admit of, then to be altogether without league or security for their safety or protection. Or they were foedera aequa, leagues entered upon equal terms or condition; such as usually are the leagues between neighbour-Kingdomes, free-States; or Sovereignty's independent each on other, especially if such leagues be made when the one hath the other at no advantage: And these leagues were of two sorts; either mutually defensive only, or offensive aswell as defensive, as the greeks say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as the Latins more fully express the nature of them, 
* Vide Balthasar. Agal lib. 1. de iure & officiis belli. cap. 7. parag. 1. etc.  ut eosdem haberent & hosts & socios, that he which was a friend to one party should likewise be held a friend unto the other party included in the league: that he that should declare himself an enemy to the one party, should forthwith and for so doing be taken and reputed for an enemy unto the other party. Besides this mutual aid or assistance in times of war, one special end of leagues or association was, that one Country might be relieved in their want, or pleasured in their prosperity with those blessings wherewith others abounded. This mutual intercours or exchange of commodities between Nation and Nation, is always cut off, or much impaired in time of hostility or war: Neither party can with security enjoy the good things which their own land affords; much less can they with safety be partakers of those commodities wherewith God hath blessed their enemies. And in case it so fell out, that a people rich in money or merchandise, but destitute of corn or wine, or other such necessaries, should fall at variance with those who were accustomed to supply their wants; their estate in the midst of their wealth was but miserable and would enforce them to seek peace upon terms unequal. So we read Acts 12. 20. When Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon (a people for wealth inferior to none) they came to him with one accord and having made Blastus the King's Chamberlain their friend, they desired peace. What reason had they to become suitors for peace with him, against whom they had been able to have waged war, whom perhaps they were able to outmatch with number of men and weight of money? S. Luke gives the reason in the next verse; Because their Country was nourished by Herod's Country.  
3 But infinitely more miserable than the forlorn estate of any one people can be in respect of the most potent and cruel Adversary was the estate of all mankind, whilst heaven and earth were at enimity. For albeit God in mercy suffered his Sun to rise aswell upon the unjust sons of Adam, as upon Adam in his integrity, yet were all utterly deprived of all commerce with the Inhabitants of heaven: All were excluded from the tree of life without whose fruit, this bodily life which we lead here on earth, even whilst we live in greatest pleasure or prosperity, is but as a short walk or progress from the womb unto the grave; as it were from a prison to a place of torment or execution: Reason we had to desire peace of heaven, and to become humble Supplicants for the League or Covenant whereof God here preventeth Abraham: Reason we had to have sought this league, upon what terms or conditions soever. In respect of the parties which enter this league or association, it was a league of the former kind, quod victores victis dabant. God was our Lord by a higher title than the right of conquest, & we were worse than his meanest vassals, not his servants, but his condemned Prisoners. It was in his power to have cut us off from all possibility of any league or amity, save only with hell and death, which we and our Fathers had chosen for our confederates. And yet the conditions of this league wherewith God preventeth Abraham (for he sought it at Abraham's hands, when Abraham did not seek it at his,) are conditions aequi faederis. It is made upon as good terms or conditions, as any league between free-states and Kingdoms independent was ever proffered or performed. It is more than a league offensive and defensive: More than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this league is but a ratification of that promise which God had made to Abraham Gen. 12. 2. 3. And I will make of thee a great Nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: And in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And yet it is said Chap. 17. ver. 19 that God would establish his league with Isaac, but with Isaac only as in the type, or as he was the pledge only on Abraham's part: For it is a thing not to be imagined that the Lord in giving sentence of blessing and cursing would tie himself unto such strict conformity (as this promise imports) with the parties to be judged by him, as that he would bless all whosoever blessed Abraham, or that he would curse them that cursed Abraham or, Isaac, or their seed in their own persons, or for their own actions. How then doth God perform this promise unto Abraham? Not in Abraham or Isaac's person, but in another seed of Abraham of whom that is expressly avouched Chap. 22. 16. 17. 18. which in the 12. Chap. was implicitly, or avouched of him as he was indefinitely comprehended in Abraham's seed, or potentially contained in Abraham's person. In thee (saith God to Abraham Gen. 22. 18.) shall all the families of the earth be blessed. By myself have I sworn saith the same Lord God Chap. 22. 16. For because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy Son, thine only Son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy Seed as the stars in heaven, and as the sand which is upon the Sea shore, etc. Thy Seed shall possess the gates of his enemies: And in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice. By Abraham's seed in this place he meant not Isaac with whom this Covenant was established, but another seed of Abraham, and another son of promise in whom this Covenant was to be accomplished. So our Apostle interprets this place. Galat. 3. 16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made: He saith not and to his seeds as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed which is Christ, that is as truly the Son of God as the seed of Abraham, who is as truly and properly God as he is man. This interpretation of our Apostle is grounded upon the matter or subject of the promise. For it is impossible that all the families of the earth, even Abraham himself, and Melchisedech who blessed Abraham should be blessed either in Isaac, or in Abraham's seed, either indefinitely or universally taken; or in any seed of Abraham, who was not as truly God as man; or who was not that most high God, in whose name Melchisedech blessed Abraham. In this seed, and by this seed, all the Nations are blessed that shall be blessed. And whatsoever blessings any man or people receive from God in him as he is the Son of God, or for his merits; they shall receive them by him, & through him, as he is the seed of Abraham and son of man. And in this seed of Abraham, this Covenant here established with Isaac shall be performed according to the strict propriety or utmost improvement of the words or clause of the confederacy, or league offensive and and defensive between God and Abraham. Whosoever shall bless this seed, shall be blessed of God Whosoever shall curse this seed, shall be accursed by God; and not so only, but whomesoever this seed shall bless, them likewise God the Father shall bless: Whomsoever this seed shall pronounce accursed, they shall stand accursed (without revocation or appeal,) by God the Father: For God the Father hath tied himself to conformity of sentence with this seed of Abraham. Unto whom this seed (now made King and Priest, and placed at the right hand of God) shall award this sentence (which he will award as judge to all that shall be placed on hisright hand,) Come ye blessessed of my Father inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the Foundation of the World, they shall be blessed by God the Father with everlasting and immortal bliss. And unto whom he shall pronounce that other sentence, Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels, they shall stand accursed likewise by God the Father, by an irrevocable and everlasting curse.   

CHAP. 17. The League between God and Abraham did eminently contain the most accurate solemnities that were used betwixt Prince and Prince, or Nation and Nation.  
AS this League here mentioned betwixt God and Abraham, ●●s for its conditions of the highest rank of League, ut eosdem haberent & hosts & socios: So it was as solemnly concluded and subscribed unto by both parties, as any League betwixt man and man was ever concluded and solemnised. Albeit the manner of concluding or making Leagues of amity betwixt man and man, or people and people, was in ancient times (specially amongst the Eastern Nations) most formal and remarkablely solemn; and the manner or solemnity did vary or differ according to the variety of customs usual amongst divers Nations. The Macedonians for confirmations of Leagues with others, did divide a quantity of bread between the party's consociating, giving the one half to the one party, and the other to the other. So Xenophon describes the solemn league of amity between Alexander the great and Cohortanus. And though Xenophon expresseth it not, it is very probable that they used such solemn imprecations as were usually made in other Leagues concluded with the like solemnity or sacrifice; And that was, that so God would divide or smite him or them, that should break the League, or violate the conditions agreed upon, as they did divide the bread, or smite the sacrifice by which the League was concluded. Other Leagues of amity or association (as the same 
* Interrogante illo, respondent se Macrones esse, quaere igitur inquit Xenophon, cur aciem adversus nos instruxerint, & cur hosts nostri esse velint? respondent illi, quia vos etiam nostrum solum ingressiestis. Et responderi duces iubent, id non e● factum, ut vos ullo dam●o afficiamus, sed posteaquam adversus regem bellum gessimus, redire iam in Graeciam cupim●s, & ad mare pergere quaerunt illi num de eo fide datâ sibi cavere velint▪ velle se Graeci & dare fidem & accipere in●uiunt: post haec Macrones hastam barbaricam Gaecis tradant, & ipsis Graeci vic●ss●n Graecam▪ quod hoc pacto fidem dari apud se dicerent. Lib. 4. de expeditione Cry p. 267  Xenophon tells us) were concluded between party and party which had formerly been at variance and hostility, by mutual delivery of the same weapons, as of lances, pikes, or other offensive weapons now consecrated by this solemn delivery to be instruments or pledges of peace, or not to be used save in their mutual defence, or in offence to them who should prove enemies to their mutual peace. But those Leagues were more solemn which were concluded with Blood, either of the parties which entered League, or with the blood of beasts sacrificed for making peace between men. So 
* Qua necessitate Mithradates diem locumque foederi accepit castelloque e●reditur. Ac primo R●damistus in amplexus eius effusus simulare obsequium, & socerum a● parentem appeilare, ad●icit ius●urandu●, non ferro non veneno vim allaturum: simul in locum propinquum trahit, provisum illic sacrificium imperatum dictitans ut diis testibus pax firmaretur. Mos est regibus quoties in societatem coeant, implicare dextras, pollicesque inter se vincere, ●odoque praestringere▪ mox ubi sanguis in extremos artus se effuderit, levi ictu ●ruorem eliciuntatque i● v●●em lambunt ●d foedus arcanum habetur, quasi mutuo cruore sacratum. Lib. 12. Annal.  Tacitus tells, it was the custom amongst some Eastern Kings, when they entered a League, to clutch their hands and fingers, and to tie their thumbs so hard, until the blood did rise in the pulp or fleshypart, and afterwards to let them both so much blood by a gentle touch, that each party might suck others blood. Id foedus arcanum habetur quasi mutuo cruore sacratum. This kind of League (saith Tacitus) was accounted sacred, as being confirmed by mutual blood. But how sacred or secret soever this League was, (for the word Arcanum importeth both) it was pro illa vice, for that turn, both openly and shamefully violated by Radamistus. 
* Quumque armatorum acies instructa esset, Graecorum imperatores, & serierum Ductores apud Ariaeum conveniunt, & quum Graeci, Ariaeus, cum aliis apud ipsum dignitate praestantissimâ viris iuramento cofirmant, non prodituros se mutuo, sed in societate constanter permansuros, addentibus hoc sacramentum barbaris, fine fraud se itineris duces fore. Haec sacramenta quum praestarent, a▪ prum, taurum, lupum, arietem mactabant, Graecis gladium, barbaris hastam in scutum tingentibus. Lib. 2. de expeditione Cyri p. 217.  Xenophon likewise describes another League between the Grecians and the people of Asia concluded by the blood of sacrifices which they mutually killed. The Grecians dipped their swords, and the Asiatickes their lances in the blood of the Sacrifices, (which were a bull, a bear, a wolf and a ram) being first mingled together in a shield or target; as if they had sought to have made peace between these offensive weapons of war by making them pledge each other in a common cup. For so the most solemn manner of plighting faith betwixt some Nations was, for the one to take up the same cup from the others hand, and to pledge him in it; or in case no cup or wine could be presently had, they were to lick the dust of the earth at each others hands.  
2 The manner of solemnising this present League betwixt God and Abraham, at the first draught of it, was much what the same with that which Tacitus reports of the Eastern Kings. It was solemnised on Abraham's part by the effusion of his own and his son Isaac's blood, and so continued throughout the generations of their posterity by cutting off the foreskin of their flesh. And inasmuch 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 receive the same sign of Circumcision in his flesh which Abraham and his seed hath done.  
3 This Covenant which was first entered by Circumcision, was afterwards renewed on God's part, as on Abraham's part by mutual and solemn sacrifice. The manner of God's treaty or process with Abraham in this Covenant is worthy of serious observation: And Abraham's demeanour in all this business is the most lively pattern, and most exquisite rule for all our imitation who desire the assurance of faith or hope concerning our present or future estate in this gracious League or Covenant. Though it be most true, (which hath been often intimated before,) that no man can deserve any thing at God's hand, because no man can give him any thing which he hath not received from him; seeing no man can bestow upon God, or convey unto him any title, or right of propriety which he hath received from him, which God had not, before man received it from him, or enjoyed it by him: Yet if we be content sincerely to renounce our own title or interest in the Creatures which we have received from him, or in ourselves, (who are likewise his, whose very being is the free gift of his goodness,) he still rewards us for every such service, or act of our bounden duty, with a larger measure of his bounty, than any deservings of man from man can pretend unto. And thus he rewarded Abraham always in kind; always according to the quality or specifical nature of his work or service; but for quantity far beyond all proportion of any gift or service which Abraham could present unto his God; though it had been the sacrifice of himself, or of his son. The first remarkable service which God expressed or required of Abraham, was to forsake his kindred and his Father's house. Gen. 12. 1. And in lieu of that interest which Abraham renounced in these, (those being not the ten thousand part of the Country wherein he lived) God gives him a just title or interest to the whole land of Canaan, and promiseth to make a mighty Nation of his seed; to erect more than one or two Kingdoms out of it. And yet all this is but the pledge or earnest of a far better patrimony prefigured by it, and bequeathed with it as an inheritance conveyed by delivery of the terrar. The spiritual blessing envailed under this great temporal blessing, was, that God would be a God unto Abraham and to his seed, and that they should be unto him a people. And to be God's peculiar people was so much greater than to be Lords and Kings over the whole earth, as the temporal inheritance which God here promised Abraham (that was the whole Kingdom of Canaan) was greater than the private temporal patrimony which Abraham for God's service had left in Caldaea, or Mesopotamia.  
4 The next service which God requires of Abraham and his seed that they might become more capable of his promise, and that this promise might transire in pactum, pass (as we say) into a League or Covenant, was that Abraham and his seed should circumcise the foreskin of their flesh; and by this ceremony or service, they were consecrated to be God's people, his peculiar people. The reward which God astipulateth or promiseth to this service or ceremony by them performed, was that he would consecrate himself by the same ceremony of circumcision to be their God, their gracious Protector and Redeemer. But Abraham and his son Isaac being by this ceremony of Circumcision once consecrated to God's service, they might not after they had once received this badge or cogni●ance, withdraw themselves from any service unto which their Lord God should afterwards call them, how harsh and unpleasant soever it might seem to flesh and blood. The next remarkable service whereunto God called Abraham was to offer up his only son Isaac whom he loved, for a burnt offering: And this service Abraham for his part is as willing to undertake to be an Actor in it, & Isaac as willing to undergo or be a patient in it, as they had been in the former service of Circumcision. The reward which God appointed to this second service of Abraham and Isaac, was the final ratification of the former promise, or Covenant, by solemn oath. By myself have I sworn, that in thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed. The contents of his oath is, that God would make his only Son such a sacrifice as Abraham was willing to have made his only Son Isaac, that in him, and by him all the Nations of the earth, that is all of every Nation that would so rely upon God's promises as Abraham and Isaac did, should be made heirs with them of the Kingdom which God had promised; and that was the Kingdom of everlasting bliss. But of this particular the Reader may see more in the eighth 
* Chap. 30. Parag. 3. etc.  Book of these Comments  
5 In this sacrifice of the Son of God and seed of Abraham, the League first solemnised by Circumcision, was for the external rite or manner more exquisitely solemnised than any League ever had been: The solemnity of all other Leagues were eminently contained in it. For besides the rites before mentioned in solemnising Leagues concluded by sacrifice, each party had a Priest or vates, or else made choice of some indifferent Priest for both. Each party likewise had their proper sacrifice, or (which would give better satisfaction to curiosity) they had one common sacrifice in which both parties had equal interest, as being provided at their joint costs and charges; or the one brought a Priest and the other a sacrifice. Sometimes again they had one 
* Isocrates in oratione de pa●e aitse spectatorem fuisse plurimorum bellorum in Graecia; confecit enim annos aetatis suae paenè centum; sedre atque usu comperisse, omnium bellorum exitus tandem ad norman iustitiae congruere. Quanquam enim eventas qui antecedunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tanta in varietate sunt, ut saepe ●cogant homines dubitare, utra causa sit melior, tamen finis declarat iustitiam causae victricem esse, deum opppressos iniustis modis vindicare in veterem libertatem. Huius regulae duo exempla evidentissima in hoc tertio libro extant, atque eminent: un●● de bello inter Lacedaemonios' & Messenios', alterum de incendio universae Graeciae, quod Peloponne siacum vocatur. Vetus consuetudo fuit aedificare communia templa, atque in iis vesci rebus consecratis, quoties foedera inter vicinos fiebant. Quare cum Lacedaemonii in Peloponneso vicine essent, communi templo extructo pacem inter se ●oedusque exstruxerunt. Sed quodam tempore adolescentes Messeni●▪ iura divina & humana violantes regem Laconicum Teleclum ad communia sacra profectum interfecerunt & virgins Laconicas nobiles ad turpitadinem rapuerunt. ●taque Lacedaemonii iuramento fese obstrinxêre, non ●●tè domum se reversuros quam Messenam solo aequassent, aut omnes certe occumbere velle morti: Et ●i autem diu anceps Mars fuit, & dubia belli fortuna, (name Aristomenes dux Messeniorum, qui habuit corhirsutum, sua manu trecentes Lacedaemonios' trucidavit,) tamen Messena anno 19 a Lacedaemoniis capta & servitutis iugo tristissimo oppressa est. Victorinus Strigelius in tertium librum historiarum Justini.  common Temple, either built of purpose at their joint costs (as some think janus' Temple in Rome was built by Romulus and Titus Tatius for ratifying the peace between the Latins and the Sabines) or else made choice of some Temple most indifferently seated for both to meet in. All these circumstances were good emblems of the wished-for peace; good emblems likewise of the equal conditions in such Leagues agreed upon; and yet imperfect emblems, scarce good shadows of the admirable manner how this League of peace betwixt God and man was concluded. We cannot say that God had one Priest, and man another; but both had one Priest more indifferent than any two Nations ever could have, though his Father had been of the one Nation, and his Mother of the other, and himself born upon the Sea betwixt them, or upon the bounds of their borders. The Priest between God and man was but one, and yet truly God and truly man; so truly one that we cannot say the seed of Abraham or son of man did provide the sacrifice, and the Son of God did offer it, but (which is more admirable and more indifferent) the flesh of this sacrifice was humane, or man's flesh as truly and properly as ours is; and yet as truly and properly the flesh of God, as ours is the flesh of man. The blood of the sacrifice likewise was sanguis humanus, 
See the seventh book of Comments upon the Creed. Chap. 30. Parag. 10  man's blood as truly and properly as any blood in our veins is, and yet as truly and properly the blood of God, as our blood is the blood of man. It was (as hath been heretofore observed) humane blood or man's blood by nature, that is, of the same substance with our blood, and yet the blood of God by personal Union, or Property, by a more peculiar title, than the blood in our bodies can be said ours. For the Godhead is more nearly united to the manhood of Christ then our souls are to our bodies. And by this personal or bodily habitation of the Godhead in his body, he who was our sacrifice and continues a Priest for confirming this League, is also become the Temple. His body is become that Tabernacle wherein God promised to meet the children of Israel. And unto the glory of the Godhead which was before inaccessible, but now dwelling in this Tabernacle, we have daily access through the blood of Christ. We may at all times & in all places present him in this Tabernacle with the sacrifice of prayer, of thanksgiving, and of ourselves; and he from hence (as our God and Father) endues us with the Spirit of Christ, whereby we are made his Sons. For the blood of Christ as it is sanguis humanus, humane blood, of the same nature with ours, doth symbolise with our nature; and as it is the blood of God in which the Godhead dwelleth personally, it is of force and virtue sufficient to purify and cleanse our sinful nature, and to make us partakers of the divine nature.   

CHAP. 18. What the Interposition of God's oath for more abundant Confirmation of his promise to Abraham did import, over and above all that which was included in the literal or assertive sense of the League betwixt God and Abraham.  
LEaving it to the learned Professors of Laws Canonical, Civil, or Municipal what special obligement a solemn oath induceth, more than a mere Covenant or paction without an oath can require; our next inquiry must be, what the Interposition of God's oath first made to Abraham, and afterwards renewed with more express exemplifications unto David, did import, according to the Charactericall or Emblematical sense. This is a point of Divinity often mentioned in this long work of Commentaries upon the Creed, and divers other of my meditations in my younger and better days; and the oftener intimated, because it hath been so seldom handled or thought upon by most Commentators or Controversywriters, although in my opinion (continued ever since I began these Commentaries) it be the very key, without which there can be no Lawful entrance into, no safe retire out of those usual debates concerning Election, Predestination, or other positive Points of Divinity, whereon the resolution of these doth most depend. Now the resolution of this point we are to learn, not from any practice of humane Courts judicial or Coercive for determining Pleas or Controversies between party and party. For in all Processes of this nature, the determination must be according to the literal, grammatical, and assertive sense of Laws in this case provided, and of Testimonies produced or exhibited according to Law. The Question now in handling with its decision depends much upon Tradition, or received rules (whether of ancient heathen jews, or Christians) What oath made either by the true and only God, or by the imaginary Gods of the heathen did import more than ameere promise or threatening. To begin first with the ancient heathen:  
2 Albeit that which the Apostle saith of the God and Father of our Lord jesus Christ [that he had no greater by whom he could swear] could have no place, at least suitable to the estimation of the Gods, by which the heathens did swear or call to witness; yet when jupiter the greatest God amongst them was either provoked or voluntarily pleased to swear by such parts of this universe as were conceived to be his coequals, his full peers if not his betters, it was generally presumed or believed that the doom or sentence so pronounced (were it bliffull or dismal) was irreversible. For this reason the oath by Styx is called by Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grand or greatest oath. But so called [I take it] by a Synecdoche: For if jupiter had sworn by Phlegeton or by the Elysian fields it had been all one as if he had sworn by Styx or other parts of the infernal Region; all or every one of which were in heathenish Divinity more venerable than this middle visible region wherein we live.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Hom. Olyss. l. 5.   
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.   
Not jupiter only but juno, in Homer's Divinity, did hold the oath By Styx to be inviolable.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Libro 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
Such doom or sentences as the heathens accounted fatal, even the awards of the weyred sister's themselves (the conceived Spinsters of fates and fortune) did derive the necessity of their execution from interposition of some oath or other. And in case the fates or weyred sisters had sworn the destruction of any Nation or people, jupiter had no authority to release the parties thus designed, from destruction; but a power only to punish ultra condignum or beyond the measure of punishment decreed by the weyred sisters or fates. A memorable speech to this effect a stately Roman Poet hath put into Jupiter's mouth,  

— Vos, o superi, meus ordine sanguis,  
Ne pugnate odiis, new me tentare precando  
Certetis; sic sat a mihi nigraeque sororem  
juravere colus. Manet haec aborigine mundi  
Fix a dies bello populique in praelia nati:  
Quod nisi me veterum poenas sancire malorum  
Gentibus, & diros sinitis punire nepotes  
Arcem hanc aternam, mentisque sacraria nostrae  
Testor, & Elysios, etiam mihi numina, Fontes,  
Ipse manu Thebas correptaque moenia fundo  
Excutiam, versasque solo super Inacha tecta  
Effundam turres, ac stagna in caerula vertam  
Imbre superjecto; licet ipsa in turbine rerum  
juno su●s colles templumque amplexa laboret.   
The last clause of this pathetical oath bears a counterfeit or adulterate character of that solemn oath of the true and only God, 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 whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nebuchadnezar King of Babylon, and into the hands 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 die. jerem. 22. 24. 25. 26. etc. But unto the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return. Is this man Coniah a despised broken I dol? 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, 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.  
3 With the Hebrew Rabbins this tradition or received rule concerning the importance of God's oath, is so authentic, as it makes them more peremptory in their resolution for the expiration of Soloman's Line in jeconiah, then most Christian Interpreters upon that place have been; unless it be such as in this point follow them. Yet can I not persuade myself, nor conceive any suspicion that either the jewish Rabbins should take their hints for thus interpreting the forecited or any other place of Scripture, wherein God's oath is interposed, from the Divinity of the heathen: Much less did the ancient Poets or Philosophers (who were the best Divines the heathens had) borrow their fancies or conjectures from the jewish Rabbins who were their punies; nor were the Fathers of the Greek and Latin Church the Fathers or first Authors of this Catholic rule or tradition. All of them rather were beholding to the ancient Hebrews or to Mosaical or Prophetical writings for such prenotions or confused apprehensions, as in this subject they had. The consent of the ancient Christian Writers or Fathers, the diligent Reader may find in their Comments upon those places of Scriptures, wherein God's oath is mentioned; but especially in their Comments upon the 110 Psalm, from which place and the like, not they only, but our Apostle (to my apprehension) in the sixth and seventh Chapters to the Hebrews took his directions. The Lord (saith David) Psalm 110. v. 4. hath sworn and will not repent, thou art a Priest for ever etc. This, in the language of Canaan, and by consent of many fathers, is as much as if he had said, The Lord will not repent or reverse his promise to me and my seed, because he hath sworn that he should be a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedech.  
4 That God doth repent him, either of the evil which he denounceth, or of the good which he promiseth, is a phrase most usual in Scripture; the true and punctual meaning of which phrase is, that God did change or revoke either his sentences of calamity, or of good which he in both cases truly intended, and irresistibly meant to put in execution. And all this he might do, and often did without any change or alteration in his will or intention; but always upon some change or alteration in the parties either truly interessed in his promises, or liable to his heavy judgements: when the one party did change from good courses to evil, he was immutably free to reverse his promise, (as he himself somewhere speaketh) to break his Covenant. And when wicked men did turn from their wicked ways, he was as free and more willing to reverse sentences of woe, not only threatened, but decreed against them. This freedom in God is perpetually presumed or taken as granted by his Prophets, whensoever the promise, decree, or Covenant is not revealed unto them with the seal of an Oath. But the sentence whether for good or evil being revealed under Oath, was in their judgement fully declared to be irreversible. For this reason the Prophet sometimes wished the speedy execution of plagues threatened by God unto their own Nation or kindred; as knowing it bootless either to entreat God's favour, after his wrath against them was denounced by oath, or to solicit the fulfilling of his gracious promises towards their posterity, until his wrathful sentences confirmed by oath were put in execution. In one and the same Chapter, it is said oftener than once, that God did repent him of making Saul King of Israel: What is the reason? He was made King without an oath, yet with sincere promise of continuing the Kingdom to himself and to his seed, with this condition, in the Prophet's construction employed though not expressed, Si bene se gereret; But when the Prophet Samuel denounceth the sentence of deposition upon him. 1. Sam. 15. 29. The strength of Israel will not lie, nor repent, for he is not a man that he should repent: The meaning is that the strength of Israel will not revoke his sentence 
* Balaam had heard or known by vision that the Lord had sworn to give the land of Canaan to the seed of jacob, and hence he took up his parable in the same words that Samuel used to Saul: Rise up Baalak and hear, harken unto me thou son of Zippor, God is not a man that he should he, neither the son of man that he should repent, hath he said and shall he not do it, or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good etc. Numb. 32. 18. 19  denounced by oath against Amaleck and his Associates; and Saul by sparing Amaleck, incidit in hanc sententiam, doth fall under this sentence, though not as principal, yet as an accessary.  
5 A true parallel to the history concerning the anointing and deposition of Saul, had been exhibited before by the same Prophet in the election and deposition of Eli, who was possessed of the Priesthood by legal title, under divine promise to himself and to his house. The promise we have 1. Sam. 2. 30. and the reversing of the promise or blessing promised in the same verse and verses following. Wherefare the Lord God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy Father should walk before me for ever, but now the Lord saith, be it far from me: For them that honour me, I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. Behold the days come, that I will cut off thine arm and the arm of thy Father's house, that there shall not be an old man in thy house, etc. This lamentable message was sent unto him by the Man of God mentioned, v. the 27. The same sentence or curse upon him & his house is afterwards denounced by Samuel under oath, And the Lord said to Samuel, behold I will do a thing in Israel, at which, both the ears of every one that hear it, shall tingle. And in that day I will perform against Eli, all things which I have spoken against his house; when I begin, I will also make and end. For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity that he knoweth, because his sons made themselves vile, and he restraied them not: And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Elie, that the iniquity of Elie's house shall not be purged with sacrifice, nor offering for ever. verses 13. 14. 15. etc. Now when Samuel had imparted this fearful sentence unto Eli, being thereunto adjured, he replied no more than this, It is the Lord, let him do what seemeth him good. v. 18. Had this message been delivered by that man of God which brought the former, not ratified by oath, unto this good old man though an impotent Governor, haply he would have slighted it, as 'tis probable he did the former, or have called the messenger's Commission in question. But this later and more terrible doom being delivered to him by a child, who for his maintenance and being, did depend upon him as upon his foster-Father; by a child so far from secular cunning, or sophisms of corrupt Priests or Levites, that he knew not the voice of the Lord from the voice of his Tutor, until he was instructed by him; his Commission was to Eli more authentic, and his message both for matter and tenor more free from all suspicion of imposture. The ananswer of Eli is of the same alloy with Iob's reply unto the sad news which his servants brought to him. The Lord (saith job) hath given, and the Lord hath taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord job. 1. 21. Thus he spoke after he had seen himself and his family utterly undone for worldly substance, deprived of all earthly contentment. Eli knew this sentence against him being denounced by oath, as certain, and impossible to be reversed, as if it had been already put in execution. For this reason (I take it) the old man did think upon a more submissive answer unto Samuel, than he had vouchsafed unto the Man of God, who was sent unto him upon the same errand. The humility and modesty of his answer persuades me that the fearful sentence denounced against him, did extend no further then to the irreversible deposition of him and his family from the legal or temporary Priesthood, unto the poor and mean estate wherein his posterity after the disaster of his two sons, were to live here on the earth. Nor have I (nor any man for aught I know) any warrant from God's word to say, and Christian charity forbids me to think, or from this place to conjecture, that either Eli himself, his two lewd sons, or his posterity were absolutely, that is, irreversibly decreed from this time to everlasting damnation. Many decrees or sentences denounced by divine oath, may be, and are absolutely irreversible, when as the plague or matter of the curse denounced, is only temporary, not everlasting; But to determine with the life of the party against whom 'tis denounced, or at the worst to his Successors here on earth, it no way reacheth the state of the one or of the other in the life to come.   

CHAP. 19 Of the two things wherein our Apostle saith it was impossible for God to lie.  
THis is our comfort; there is no curse, nor woe denounced by oath throughout the whole Scripture, which either in the assertive or charactericall sense can be extended so far as the blessing sealed by oath to Abraham, and to all the heirs of promise. So God willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the stableness of his counsel, bound himself by an oath; So our former English reads. The later thus; wherein God willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath; or (as the margin) interposed himself by an oath; but with submission of my verdict in this caseto competent judges, there is somewhat more employed in the original, then either our English, or Latin translations (which I have read) do express. Three or four words there are in this passage which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or solennia; words of form, or peculiar to the faculty of Theology. First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is somewhat more than to show; as much as authentiquely or solemnly to declare. Secondly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports a great deal more, than the stableness or immutability of his counsel. For, that God's will or counsel is, as he is most absolutely immutable, was a point so well known to Abraham, and to the Sages of the heathen, which lived after him, as it needed no solemn avouchment or declaration by oath: That God most immutably wills mutability in the works of nature, and in the government of this inferior world, as sometimes (though seldom) in the course of stars, and often in the erection or extirpation of greatest Kingdoms, or of royal or sacerdotal succession, was a point not doubted of by any that acknowledged there was a God. The mysteries in this place declared by solemn oath were these; That the blessing before promised, and now first ratified by oath unto Abraham & his seed, not according to the flesh but the spirit, should not be only irreversible, but unchangeable: That the promised woman's seed should be one of Abraham's seed: That this seed after his Consecration to the office of blessing should not be subject to any change or chance: That his Kingdom and Priesthood should be everlasting: This last clause may be made more clear from the renewing and restraining of his glorious promise unto the seed of David 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Our former English hath 
* The one that God did interpose his oath, because of man's wickedness which will not believe God except he swear. a The other that the two immutable things mentioned here by our Apostle were his Word and Oath.  two animadversions upon this place, which are rather imperfect then erroneous. Again what those two things were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; or what the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in this place, is a point not so fully determined by most Interpreters, but that it is free for every later Interpreter to conjecture or demur upon the point. Our English marginal note implies, that the two things in which it was impossible for God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were his word and his oath. I should rather think his promise made to Abraham▪ and his solemn oath made for the ratification of his promise. But whether we understand his word or promise, and his oath for ratification of either; they must be taken coniunctim, not divisim, not severally but conjunctively. For God's mere promise without an oath, though most sure in itself, is not so firm an Anchor for poor men to rely upon in temptations, as his promise confirmed by oath, nor doth the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place imply any possibility or impossibility of lying, or unsincere dealing in God himself, but refers to the stability or unstabilitie of the blessing promised. A blessing whether of this life or the life to come, under mere promise, may be subject to contingency or change; because the promise itself (by reason of causes best known to divine wisdom) may be reversed, but a blessing promised by oath is exempted from all possibility of reversion, if it concern this life; or if it refer to the life to come, it must be, as that life is; not only irreversible, but also unchangeable, either for quality or degree of joy.  
2 By the two things our Apostle saith it was impossible for God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, to suffer his blessing promised to Abraham, and to the heirs of promise to fail; we may understand without violence to the text or incongruity of sense, the oath itself, and the object of the oath which was God himself. He swore by himself, saith the original, Genesis 21. v. the 1. The true meaning of which place is most elegantly expressed by our Apostle, Hebr. 6. v. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he interposed himself▪ as our English noteth, or, word by word, ●e mediated by an oath, thereby binding as well the person of the son, who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the only Mediator between God and man, as his own Almighty Person. And this merces magna promised by God himself by oath, in the Person of the Father, and the Son, is most suitable to the obedience, not of Abraham only, but of Isaac, whom God (as it hath been observed before) did still reward in kind. But whatsoever the two immutable things in this place meant by our Apostle, were; it is evident that his oath was interposed for the consolation and comfort of Abraham and his posterity; so the Apostle tells us expressly, v. 18. and 19 That by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us. The sheet Anchor of this strong hope or consolation is first the irreversibilitie of the promise: Secondly, the immutability of the blessing promised; of which it is impossible that any such heir of promise as Abraham was when God vouchsafed thus to swear unto him, should either fail or come short. This I take to be the true meaning of that uncouth phrase [wherein it is impossible for God to lie] that is, to suffer the blessing promised to fail or change, or them to perish who are possessed of it by virtue of this Covenant sealed by oath. Every thing in sacred dialect is called a LIE which is subject to mutability, hazard or change; or on which one too much relying may be deceived or fall into danger: So saith the Psalmist, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an horse is a lie unto salvation. The elegancy of which word in the original, is well 
Psal. 33. v. 17.  expressed by our vulgar 
* And by the vulgar Latin as well fallax equus ad salutem.  English, an horse is but a vain thing to save a man. But why alley, or vanity? Because he that relies upon it too much, or more than upon God, may come to sudden destruction; according to the same dialect that fest or Anchorhold unto which the jews in storms of war or calamity, did too much trust, to wit, Templum Domini, Templum Domini, were (as the Prophet calls them) lying words. And no better are many men's persuasions of the absolute certainty of their own salvation, only because they believe in Christ alone, and seek unto no other Meditators or Intercessors. Indeed, if they believe in Christ as Abraham and Isaac, and joshua did in God; that is, if they follow the footsteps of these men, or rather the ways of God, wherein these walked with a faithful and unfeigned heart, than their Election is sure and firm in itself, although in many cases to them uncertain. But the principal meaning of our Apostle is, that the blessing promised by oath unto Abraham, is immutable and everlasting in the life to come; and this we are bound to believe certitudine fidei, by assurance of faith without doubt. But whether we ourselves in particular shall be undoubtedly actual partakers of such salvation, we have no better assurance from this place, than the assurance of hope and strong consolation; for so it followeth; this hope or (as Oecolampadius would have it) this consolation we have as an anchor of the soul both firm and steadfast; and which entereth into that within the veil. The implication is, that this hope is not of temporary blessings, but of everlasting life through jesus Christ our Lord, now King and Priest in our nature of the celestial Sanctuary.   

CHAP. 20. The former Importance of God's Oath to Abraham, and the contents of it specified in the two immediately precedent Chapters, more fully confirmed by the tenor of God's oath to David and to his seed, described at large by the author of 98 Psalm, most concludently by the Apostle. Heb. 7.  
ALL that which hath been observed out of the tenor of God's Oath to Abraham, is employed in the Psalmist's paraphrase upon the same Covenant renewed by special Oath unto David, Psalm 89. That the Author of this Psalm should be David himself, no Interpreter which I have read doth affirm besides some few, and those of no great skill for interpreting Scriptures, who think that all these Psalms were written by David himself. But this opinion may be clearly convinced both from the matter and form of this Psalm, besides the inscription. For if we should acknowledge David to be the Author of this Psalm, there will be no affinity betwixt the matter of subject of it, and the character or expression. Evident it is that the house and lineage of David were in great distress and subject to grievous temptations of distrusting God's promises, at the time wherein this Psalm was written. And he that will diligently pervie the sacred history from David's Election or nomination to the Kingdom of Israel until the return of God's people from Babylonish Captivity, or the death of Zerubbabel, will hardly find more periods of time then two, wherein the occasion or matter of this Psalmist's complaint can have any cognation with his character or expression; which is a fundamental rule for all Intelligent Writers to follow; and most exactly observed by such as wrote by divine inspiration. The two periods of time wherein this Psalm can with probability be imagined to be written, are either from the death of good josiah unto the Babylonish Captivity, or (as my conjecture leads me) shortly after the foraging of judah and ransacking of jerusalem by Sesac King of Egypt in the days of Rehoboam after the departure of the ten Tribes from judah. The best determination of this doubt or Quaerie depends upon Chronologies or certain discoveries of the time wherein 
* This Ethan the Ezrahite, as is most probable, did flourish in the later end of Salomon's reign, and in the days of Rehoboam, and was eesteemed in his age one of the wisest men after Solomon. 1. King 4. 30. 31. and Salomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the East-country. and all the wisdom of Egypt, for he was wiser then all men, than Ethan the Ezrahite etc.  Ethan the Ezrahite did live. The Psalm itself (as the title showeth) is a Psalm of instruction, and begins with praise and thanksgiving, and ends with prayers and benedictions. As for the intermediate complaints or seeming expostulations with God; as if he had forgotten his Covenant made to David; these (I take it) are rather lively representations of the murmuring and discontentments of the people in that age, then true expressions of the Psalmist's own apprehensions concerning the true tenor of God's promise unto David. For this is usual to most Psalmists in times of calamity; a point, which if the Spanish jew or Rabbin (mentioned by many good 
* Bucer, Calvin, Coppen, etc.  Authors) had considered, he would not have interdicted his Countrymen or Scholars to read this Psalm.  
2 But to come to the explication of this Psalm itself, or the meaning of the holy Ghost in it; After many ejaculations of prayers and thanksgiving, or recitations of God's mercy, The Lord is our defence, and the holy one of Israel is our King. Then, Thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty, I have exalted one chosen from among the people: I have found David my servant, with my holy Oil have I anointed him etc. The text upon which he made this sublime and long paraphrase following, is recorded 2. Sam. 7. 11. And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies: Also the Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house; 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. v. 13. 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 from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy Kingdom shall be established for ever before thee, thy throne shall be established for ever. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David. Divers passages aswell in this Text, as in the forecited paraphrase in the Psalm upon it, have been literally verified; so me in David, others in Solomon; but exactly fulfilled according to the mystical sense in David's seed by promise, unto whose person, and to no other, some few special passages according to the literal sense do refer. The next labour is so to distinguish betwixt these several passages, as that David and his son Solomon may have their due without derogation to the prerogative of David's seed by promise, who was to be, and now is both Salomon's and David's Lord. The 12th and 13th verses according to the most exquisite literal sense refer to David's seed, not by carnal generation, but by promise, or birth spiritual; and yet truly verified of Solomon according to a lower degree of the literal sense; who was David's seed by carnal generation. The establishing of Salomon's Kingdom is here indefinitely expressed without any note of Universality in respect of time; nor was his Line de facto perpetuated, until the promised seed was spiritually conceived and made of our flesh and substance. If Salomon's Line (as is probable) did determine in jeconiah; yet this no way excludes it from being part of the literal object, verse 13. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his Kingdom for ever; that is, so long as that material temple should stand, which was until the captivity of Babylon. The first words likewise of the 14th v. I will be his father and he shall be my son, were literally and in the historical sense meant of Solomon; albeit exactly fulfilled in David's seed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the mystical sense; that is, Solomon, as his Father David before him, was instiled the Son of God, or God's first borne amongst the Princes of the earth; and so instiled not by Court-complement, or in the adulatory style, but by the Spirit of God. Both their Royalties and prerogatives did bear the same proportion to all the praeeminencies of earthly Kings, which lived before them, or in their times (especially for the perpetuity of the Kingdom) which the portion of the first borne did bear, by the Law of God, or custom of Nations unto younger Brothers. But the later part of the 14th verse and the whole 15th verse, If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men, are to be understood of Solomon, and the heirs of his body only; they are not appliable to the Son of God made man, or to the son of David made King and Priest, either according to the literal or mystical sense. The 16th verse refers to David, and to Solomon, and their sons in the literal, but to Christ and his Kingdom only, in the mystical sense, as to the true body and substance; of which these two great Kings of Israel and judah and their Kingdoms, were but as brief Maps or Terrars. The Kingdom of David's seed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of Solomon his Successor in the Kingdoms of Israel and judah, do differ more in substance, than the map of Germany doth from that sometimes goodly Country, now wasted with war and famine.  
3 But in all these passages before cited, there is no intimation of God's Oath for the confirmation of his promise unto David and his Seeds, but to his Seed. Yet this assurance unto his SEED we have in the 132 Psalm, which was composed by David himself, toward the later end of his reign, or after he had brought the Ark of the Covenant unto Mount Zion, the place dedicated by this pious King for its perpetual residence. It is a point to me very considerable, that as God did not confirm his promise of blessing to Abraham by Oath, until Abraham had yielded up by faith his only son Isaac; so did he not give David assurance by Oath that the seed promised to Abraham should be his seed; or that this his seed should be the high Priest of the heavenly Sanctuary, until David had first bound himself by sacred Oath to prepare a place for the Ark of the Covenant, an habitation for the Almighty God of jacob: Lord remember David and all his afflictions, Psalm 132. v. 1! How he swore unto the Lord, and vowed unto the mighty God of jacob; Surely I will not come into the Tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; I will not give sleep unto mine eyes, or slumber unto mine eyelids, until I find out a place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of jacob, etc. This great service thus consecrated, and devoted by the royal Prophet: the mighty Lord (who will not suffer a cup of cold water given to a Prophet in the name of a Prophet to pass unrewarded,) doth abundantly recompense, not in general only, or by equivalency, but as before he had done Abraham's and Isaac's obedience, in kind. Thus much is implied ver. the 11. The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David, he will not turn from it, etc. As if he had said, he will not reverse his promise, nor suffer the blessing promised to fail; because both were confirmed by Oath. What was the Blessing promised and confirmed by oath? Of the fruit of thy body (or of thy belly, as the original hath it) will I set upon thy throne. The object of this Oath reacheth to none of David's seed, save only to him who was the promised woman's seed, the fruit of the Virgin's womb; yet were not David's sons, or the rest of his seed excluded by oath from reigning in judah and jerusalem, until time should be no more; so it followeth ver. the 12. If thy children will keep my Covenant and my Testimony that I shall teach them, their children also shall sit upon thy throne for ever. But these (we must consider) are words of Promise, not of Oath; and for this reason are expressed not in an absolute form or tenor. And so must other promises not confirmed by oath, be interpreted: although the condition be not always expressed, they always imply more than a mere possibility; a true title to the blessing promised, though not a title undefeasable.  
4 But it is time to review the Paraphrase of the Psalmist, Psalm 89. upon this last and other promises made respectively unto David himself, & to his seed or sons. The original occasion, whether of that Psalmist's tentations to question the truth of God's promises to David, or (which I rather think) of the general distrust in the discontented multitude of those times, which he did rather seek to represent then approve, was this; Either they did not distinguish at all, or else not so well as they should, between the Articles unto which God did swear, and the Articles unto which he tied himself by promise only. The later were always conditional or subject to a forfeiture or revocation upon the misdemeanour of the parties whose good it did concern. I have found David my servant, with my holy oil have I anointed him, with whom mine hand shall be established, mine arm also shall strengthen him: The enemy shall not exact upon him, nor the son of wickedness afflict him. v. 20. 21. 22. etc. All this, no good Christian can doubt, was literally and punctually meant of the son of jesse. As little question there is of the 25. v. I will set his hand in the Sea, and his right hand also in the Rivers. This, according to the literal meaning, expresseth the extents or bounds of David's or Salomon's Kingdom here on earth: For that extended from the Sidonian sea on the West, unto the division of Euphrates (on the East) into divers channels.  
5 But this promise with the blessing promised, whereof David and Solomon were fully possessed, was mystically (as hath been observed before) to be fulfilled in the seed of David promised by oath, whose Dominion over this inferior world reacheth from sea to sea, over all the rivers and corners of the earth. The 26. 27. 28. verses fall under the same rule or line. But although it were a part and a principal part of the blessing promised to David, that the Messiah should be his Seed or Son, yet were neither David or Solomon, nor any other of David's sons any part of that promise. v. 29. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven. Thus the holy Ghost speaketh as the Apostle interpreteth the like promise (or rather the same promise made before to Abraham) not of David's Seed as of many, but as of one Seed, which is Christ. The Apostles Interpretation of God's promise to Abraham, (I am not ignorant) hath much perplexed some learned Interpreters; but (as was observed before) men better versed in rules of Grammar then in mysteries of Divinity. And many impertinent discourses for salving the truth, or supporting the strength of the Apostles inferences we may oftimes read, and sometimes hear. But the old maxim, Ex nihilo nihil fit, holds more true in this case, then in the point whereto the Philosopher applies it: A groundless doubt can never produce a pertinent answer, or be capable of a firm and solid resolution. Now the men which have questioned the force of the Apostles inference, did only or specially consider the grammatical use of the word Seed; which although it be of the singular number, yet denotes a multiplicity of persons. But the ground of our Apostles inference was from the matter or blessing promised, not from the grammatical form of words wherein it was expressed. He could not be ignorant, nor was he incogitant that most promises made to Abraham and his seed, did literally refer to all his posterity, especially to Isaac; yet he very well knew and considered that the promise of that seed, wherein all the Nations of the earth should be blessed, could be extended to no more than one seed, who was the promised seed of the woman. And unto this seed alone (promised by oath unto David) the 29. ver. before rehearsed must be confined, as is clear from the 30. ver. where, after he had said, That his seed should endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven, he there adds, If his children for sake my Law, and walk not in my judgements: If they break my Statutes and keep not my Commandments, then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquities with stripes. v. 30. 31. 32. This the holy Ghost speaketh not of David's seed as of one, but of his seeds as of many. Nor is it any where said, that any or all of their thrones should endure as the days of heaven: For all David's children, besides that one seed, were by the Psalmist's own acknowledgement, liable to such visitations or censures as the Lord of Lords doth pass on other Kings and Potentates, according to their demerits at his pleasure. Nor are the visitations here mentioned to be universally taken for Fatherly corrections only, (a slumber wherewith some, otherwise good Interpreters, have been overtaken;) but for true and real punishments.  
6 What then, had David and his sons no prerogative above other Kings or Princes? Did God make promise of no more favour and grace to David and to his ordinary seed than he had done to Saul? If we should thus conclude, the tenor as well of prophecies as of God's promises to David would convince us of error, and the historical events would determine against us. For neither Salomon's Idolatry, nor Rehoboam's Oppression (which was equivalent to Idolatry) a foolish son of a wise Father, did utterly extinguish the promises made to David and his Successors, though Rehoboam foolishly intending the oppression of his Subjects, did impair the blessing promised. For after both these had been gathered to their Fathers, the Lord in mercy and in memory of his Covenant with David did often repair the ruins which such unwise Kings, as Rehoboam, and some of his Successors were, had made in judah and jerusalem; by raising up such lights unto David as Asa, jehosaphat, Hezekiah, and josias were. This preeminence or precedency in God's promises, all David's lawful Successors had over all the Nations under heaven; that they were as God's first borne amongst the Kings of the earth; but with this limitation or condition, quamdiu bene, aut saltem mediocriter se gesserint. Now in later generations the Kings and Princes of judah (who had been the first in God's favour) by multiplying their own, and making up the number of their forefathers transgressions, become the very last; as remarkable objects of God's fearful visitations threatened, (Psal. 89. verses 30. and 31.) as their godly Forefathers had been of his blessings. And yet the forfeiture of their present estate, or of their interest in the Covenant made to David and his seed, did reach no further then to their own persons, or to their seed according to carnal generations, as is most elegantly and punctually expressed in the verse immediately following. Nevertheless my loving kindness will I not take from him (that is, 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. v. 34. The true expression of the mystery in these words, amounts to thus much at least, and to what more, I leave it to such as have leisure and judgement to examine. However David's posterity in future times may make a desperate for feiture of their possession in the land of Ganaan; be excluded from all claim or title to the Kingdoms of judah or Israel; though the whole race which shall issue from David or Solomon by ordinary right or Succession may be utterly extinguished or put out; yet one thread shall be reserved inviolable from the force of the enemy's sword, famine, fire, or death itself. This (to my apprehension) is the true meaning of that passasge, I will not break my Covenant.  
7 The impossibility here implied for disinheriting the seed of David 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or (as we English speak) of cutting of the entail in remainder to this singular seed of David, after all the residue of his posterity either were or might have been deprived of their crowns and dignities, or of all title to the sceptre of judah, doth depend upon the often mentioned confirmation of David's throne and Kingdom by oath unto the seed of David by promise: So the holy spirit by whose inspiration this Psalm was penned, (whatsoever the Psalmist intended) most punctually expresseth v. 35. Once have I sworn by mine holiness, that I will not lie unto David. His Seed 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.  
8 The emphasis of the word once in the original (whether Hebrew or Greek,) is as well expressed by our English Proverb or Apophthegm, Once done and aye done, that is, so well done as it needs no correction, no amendment, or reiteration. Nor do we read that God after the interposition of this oath first made to Abraham, and afterward renewed to David, did ever resume the like solemn Oath; or make fuller declaration of it; until the seed promised was exhibited. This is that which the Psalmist means I have sworn once by my holiness, that I will not 
Psal. 89. 35.  fail David. The true expression of which phrase is equivalent to that before mentioned upon the 18 vers of the 6th to the Hebrews. And the word in the original is the very same with that which the Septuagint useth in the translation of this 89. Psalm. The true meaning of both places is, that not only the promise itself was irreversible, but that the blessing promised after it was once exhibited, should be exempted from all possibility of expiration or diminution. The true reason whereof was, because this promise was confirmed by Oath & the declaration of his Oath reiterated in this Psalm, verses the 36. and 37. being before avouched. v. 3. And such reiterations in Scripture are not tautologies ●ut true characters (as from the Scripture it hath been afore 
* In the seventh Book of these Comments. Chap. 13 parag 3. etc.  observed) of the stability of the thing promised or signified.  
10 The expressions in the beginning of this Psalm, and in the close, are Indices optimè moratae orationis▪ true characters of pious humility and reverend devotion towards God: The intermediate passages are full of expostulatory passions. This difference in the character persuades me that the Psalmist did pen his own part from the first v. to the 38. and represent the murmurings of male contents from the beginning of that verse unto 52. which is the last. Two points more there be which require a further review before we leave this Psalm; as, first unto what former promises made to David in his life time, the oath twice mentioned by the Psalmist, doth literally refer. Our later English in the margin upon v. the 3. sends the Reader an errand, (I must confess not impertinent) unto the forementioned place of Samuel. 2. Chap. 7. 11. Yet an errand which that place cannot fully dispatch; for in that place there is no mention of an Oath. Both the places cited out of the 89 Psalm literally refer unto the promise mentioned by Samuel; but as it is confirmed by Oath upon record Psalm 132. which, it is evident was composed by David himself a long time after the promise avouched by Nathan in the 2. Sam. 7. and longer before the 89 Psalm was penned. The next query worthy the judicious Readers consideration, is; what God's Oath by his holiness, or as the LXX Interpreters have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or by my holy one doth directly signify or collaterally import. That God swearing by his holiness did directly and immediately swear by himself is not controversed; for the Oath for its substance and essential object is the very same with that Oath which he made to Abraham Genesis 22. where it is said, by myself have I sworn; for God's holiness is himself. But for the collateral object of this one and the same Oath I refer the judicious and moderate Reader to Calvin's exposition or resolution of this doubt thus related by Coppen in his ingenuous and learned annotations upon the 36. v. of the 89 Psalm. Per sanctitatem, id est per meipsum. Calvinus putat Deum jurasse per Templum tanquam praesentiae suae symbolum, & quoddam habitaculum. Ita Calvinus in harmonia Evangelistarum v. 17. Ch. 23. Math. Vbi principium hoc ponit & figit, non esse fas nisi per unius Dei nomen jurare; unde sequitur, quascunque ad jurandum formulas homines adhibeant, uni Deo servandum esse suum honorem; unde colligitur, quomodo & quatenus per Templum jurare liceat, videlicet quia sedes est & Sanctuarium Dei, sicuti per coelum, quia illic refulget Dei gloria. Deus enim se in talibus praesentiae suae Symbolis in testem & judicem advocari patitur, modo jus suum salvum retineat.  
11 If this annotation be true and othodoxall, that when God did swear by his holiness, he did by way of attestation call his Temple his holy place to witness, I should not understand the material Temple as then not founded in jerusalem, but that heavenly Sanctuary, or most holy place whereinto God's holy one, whom he would not suffer to see or feel corruption in the grave, was, after his Resurrection from the dead, to enter; and there to remain as our immortal Mediator and Intercessor. For so the Son of God, God blessed for ever should be as true and essential an object of this oath as the Father himself was. And this interpretation doth well accord with our Apostles expression or exposition of God's Oath to Abraham 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he did interpose himself, or intermediated by Oath.  
12 If the allegations hitherto mentioned cannot persuade, I hope the authority and arguments of our Apostle will enforce the ingenuous Chtistian Reader to grant the main conclusion in this discourse intended. The Conclusion is briefly this [However God's Promise made without an Oath be in the assertive sense the very same with promises confirmed by Oath; yet in the charactericall sense they much differ.] Mere promises are conditional and reversible; the blessings so promised, mutable or determinable by time; but God's Oath annexed to his Promises, is always a character of irreversibility, and of everlasting immutability after the blessing promised be possessed, so far as it concerns the life to come. Two places there are in the seventh Chapter to the Hebrews very pregnant to this purpose, and which do sufficiently authorise the forementioned prenotion or received rule for interpreting all the former places of Scripture alleged, as we have done. For after many forcible reasons to convince his Auditors that there was no such perfection in the Law or legal Priesthood, as the Patriarches and their godly forefathers did hope and wait for: And that there was a necessity that both the Law and Priesthood should be changed (which is the Subject of his discourse from verse the 10) he pitcheth specially upon this verse, And in as much as not without an Oath he was made Priest; for those Priests were made without an Oath, but this with an Oath, by him that said unto him, The Lord swore and will not repent, thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, by so much was jesus made a surety of a better Testament. Aaron and his sons had the promise, 
See Chap. 10. of this Book.  & were authorized by express charter to offer sacrifice and to bless in God's name for ever. And what more could be said (in the assertive sense) of our high Priest? Or what argument can there be drawn from sacred authority that the Priesthood of Aaron should not be, that the Priesthood of the son of David should be everlasting and unchangeable? The only sure ground of this inference is that mentioned by our Apostle [because Aaron and his sons were made Priests; were destinated and authorized to their function without an Oath, whereas the son of David was destinated and assigned to his Priesthood after the order of Melchisedech by solemn Oath interposed by him that said, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech; which words are three or four times reiterated in this Chapter. The contents or importances of the Oath are most divinely expressed by the Apostle from v. 23. to the end of the Chapter. And they truly were many Priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death, but this man (or rather this Priest) because he continueth for ever, hath an unchangeable Priesthood, wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them, for such an high Priest became us who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sins and higher than the heavens, who needeth not daily as those high Priests to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins, and then for the peoples; for this he did once when he offered up himself. For the Law maketh men high Priests which have infirmity, but the word of the Oath which was since the Law 
* This punctually refers unto God's Oath made to David, Psal. 110 not to God's Oath made to Abraham which was long before the Law.  maketh the Son who is Consecrated for evermore. Christ the son of David was a mortal man before he was consecrated to be an immortal Priest; for his very death was a part of his Consecration. And after the accomplishment of his Consecration, the Priesthood of Aaron became void, as being never confirmed by Oath. For all things not so confirmed, are at the best but commensurable to time or succession; and time itself shall be abolished by oath, Rev. 10. 6.  
juravit per viventem tempus non fore amplius.  
That opinion of some heathen Philosophers as of 
Legem quidem superius Dei actionem existere docuimus, eodem modo semper se habente per petua● & immutabilirati. one res omnes producentem. Ius iurandum deinceps ipsi causam esse dixerimus, que omnia is eodem statu ita conservet at● retineat; ut quae iuramenti fide can firmata sunt, & legis ordinem tuentur, tanquam certus legu effectus, in eorum recto ordine, quae condita sunt, existant. Quod enim eadem lege stant onmia, sicuti disposita sunt, pr● marium fuerit hoc divini iuri siurandi opus: quod quidem inter eos, qui Deum semper in telligunt, maxim at● perpetuo servatur. pag. 28.  Hierocles concerning the endless succession of time or perpetual continuance of all things according to the course of nature (which now they hold) is probable, did take its original from a mistake, or misapplication of the tradition or prenotion concerning the stability or everlasting condition of things confirmed by Oath. He with some others apply this undoubted rule unto things temporal or to this present world; which holds true only of the world to come.    

SECT. 4. By what Persons and in what manner the Consecration of jesus Christ the Son of God to his Priesthood was prefigured.  

CHAP. 21. That jesus or jehoshua the son of Nun, Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and jesus the son of jehosadeck were special Types of jesus Christ the Son of God, (respectively) as he was to be made and now is both King and Priest.  
SOme good Historians have observed that many famous Kingdoms have been ruinated or extinguished under Princes of the same name with those that first did erect or advance them. Darius' the first King of that name in Persia made his Country famous, and the Persians Lords of the best part of the inhabited world. Another Darius makes Alexander famous by his mighty overthrow, and raiseth up the Monarchy of Macedon by the fall of the Persian. Augustus was the second great Caesar and the first perpetual Roman Emperor; and in Augustulus the very ●●le of Emperor did die; not so much as a shadow of the Roman Empire remained after him Constantine the great did first erect the Eastern Empire, and founded the City of Constantinople; the first of all Emperors that did publicly defend the Christian faith: Another Constantine was the last Emperor of Constantinople, leaving the Empire to the disposal of the Turk. Baldwin Compeer of Godfrey of Boulogne in the conquest of the Holy land and after his death created King of jerusalem, established this new King doom in peace which he had won by war: Another of the same name and race leaves the Holy land itself for a prey unto the superstitious Mahometan, not repossessed since his death by any Christian Prince.  
2 Nor do humane stories only (though many besides these alleged might be produced) afford us instances or observations in this rank: The visible Kingdom or Commonwealth of Israel (taking Israel for the whole race of jacob) was first established and settled in peace by 
* Numb. 13. 8.  Hosea the son of Nun, whom Moses (upon foresight of this his good success in planting the people of God in the land of their promised rest.) 
* Numb. 13. 16.  named jehoshua, that is to say a Saviour. In the days of Hosea the son of Elah did Israel (as opposed unto the Kingdom of David, that is ten Tribes of twelve) utterly cease to be a Nation. Both King and people were led captives by Shalmanezar. King of Assyria. The Kingdom likewise or Commonwealth of judah did finally expire and determine under jesus the son of David, but altogether through this people's fault; he never ceased to be a Saviour, a greater Saviour of his people then jesus the son of Nun had been, for he was Salus ipsa, Salvation itself. But his people was become so wicked, that salvation itself could not save them, or preserve their commonwealth from ruin. Howbeit to speak the truth, this jesus our Lord and Saviour did rather translate the Kingdom of judah and David from earth to heaven, then suffer it utterly to perish. He still remains a King, and of his Kingdom there shall be no end; though his Kingdom be not of this world, nor over Israel or jacob according to the flesh, yet he still ruleth in jacob unto the ends of the world, and so shall rule world without end. This translation of the Kingdom of judah and David from earth to heaven, or this new erection of this heavenly Kingdom by jesus Christ our Saviour, was prefigured by another jesus, as lively a Type or shadow of Christ as jesus the son of Nun had been.  
3 For after judah through her riot and intemperancy had procured her bane, as her sister Samaria had done, and was carried for dead out of the dwellings wherein jesus the son of Nun had first seated her; the Lord in his all-foreseeing providence, and in sign what was after to be accomplished and fulfilled concerning the Kingdom of David, would have another jesus, the son of jehosedeck, to let judah after her recovery from captivity or civil death on her feet again. So it is specified 2. Esdras. 3. Zach. 3. Haggai. 2. that at this people's return from Babylon into their land, jeshua or jesus the son of jehosedeck was their high Priest, and herein a Type of Christ as he is our high Priest and Saviour. Zerubbabel a Prince of the Tribe of judah, and one of David's Line (under whose conduct this people returned safe from Babylon) was the type of Christ as King. In respect of their deliverance from Babel, or safe conduct in the way Zerubbabel had the precedency of jesus the high Priest, as Moses had the precedency of jesus the son of Nun in respect of the people's deliverance from Egypt. But as jesus the son of Nun was God's principal instrument in planting this people in the land of promise, so jesus the high Priest the son of jehosadeck is the principal Saviour of this people after their safe return from Babel, into their native land; the principal type or shadow of jesus Christ our Saviour as he is consecrated by God to be the Author of everlasting salvation. Zerubbabel the chief Prince of judah, and jesus the son of jehosadech the high Priest (and for his time the sole successor of Aaron in his office,) join both together, the one a lively type of Christ jesus the son of David as he was King, the other a lively Type of Christ jesus as he was ordained to be our high Priest in the building of the material Altar, which was to be erected unto the Lord in the City of jerusalem after their return from Babylon. But whether of these two, to wit, Zerubbabel the son of David, or jesus the son of jehosedech Aaron's successor, had precedency in this great work of erecting the Altar unto God (the first work of difficulty or moment to be undertaken by God's Servants upon their return unto jerusalem the City of God,) were hard to determine by any rule of sacred heraldry. Ezra the scribe and sacred historian of this business gives jesus the Son of jehosedeck the precedency in style, Ezra. 3. 2. Then stood up leshua the son of jozadak and his brethren the Priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and his brethren and builded the Altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings thereon, as it is written in the Law of Moses the man of God. But in the second of Haggai verse 4. Zerubbabel the son of David hath the like precedency of style. Now be strong o Zerubbabel saith the Lord, and be strong o jeshua the son of josedech the high Priest, and be strong all ye people of the land, saith the Lord, and work, for I am with you saith the Lord of hosts.  
4 Yet that jesus the Son of josedech was the more illustrious and principal▪ Type of jesus Christ our Saviour and Redeemer as he is the builder and founder of God's spiritual Temple, (Gods holy Catholic Church) is most apparent from the prophecies of Zachary, a Prophet in those times extraordinarily raised up by God to encourage lesus the high Priest and his fellow-Priests to go forward in building the material Temple in jerusalem, specially if we compare Zachary the third, and part of Zachary the sixth with the Prophecies of jeremy, Chap. 23. verse 33. To begin with Zachary Chap. 3. jesus the Son of josedesk, by progeny the son of Aaron is solemnly enthronised as deputy or Proxy for the son of David the promised and long-expected high Priest after the order of Melchisedech. This story or true legend of the instalment or enthronization of jesus the Son of josedech as in the right and interest of jesus Christ the Sole Founder and Builder of the holy Catholic Church whereof the visible and material Temple of jerusalem was but a type or shadow, is very remarkably set out unto us as in a Map. Zach. 3. The whole Chapter, as also the 2. Chap. from the 6. verse unto the end is worth our perusal as most pertinent to this argument. First Satan, that is the adversary of jesus the high Priest, waxed bold to resist him in the building of the material Temple, being encouraged thereunto partly because the remnant of ludah then returning from captivity was but as a brand plucked out of the fire, the light whereof in the eyes of Satan their adversary might easily have been extinguished unless the Lord had rebuked Satan, as the Lord there by his Angel doth; and his rebuke was an Authentic prohibition. Secondly Satan was the bolder to resist this work, because jesus the high Priest appointed by God and encouraged by his Prophets for accomplishing of it, was for his bodily presence but weak, and would quickly have been daunted by his potent adversary, unless the Lord by his Angel had rebuked and prohibited him. Thus Satan himself in person resisted our Lord and Saviour after his baptism, when he first begun to lay the foundation of his Church and to erect the Kingdom of God, being thereto emboldened by the weakness of his bodily presence and appearance in the fashion of man and form of a servant, until the Lord himself rebuked him (as the Angel in the name of the Lord did the adversary of of jeshua) saying, avoid Satan, for 'tis written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; And upon this rebuke Satan immediately left him, and the Angels came and ministered unto him▪ Math. 4. This is the Evangelicall accomplishment of the vision which Zachary saw as in the type or map. Zach. 3. v. 1. 2. But here it will be demanded, whether the verses following. v. 3. 4. which were literally & historically meant of jesus the Son of jehosedech can be applied to jesus our high Priest, either according to the literal or mystical sense? jesus (saith the Text) was clothed with filthy garments and stood before the Angel, and he answered and spoke unto those that stood before him saying, take away the filthy garments from him, and unto him he said, Behold I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment v. 4. jesus his outward habit or raiment, was sordid and unsightly, Qualem decet exulis esse, Such as well became a man as yet retainer to the house of mourning, not fully absolved from the house of his prison, or not yet admitted unto the house of his freedom.  
5 This jesus in this habit was a true picture of jesus our high Priest whilst he continued in the form and conditiion of a servant, or whilst arraigned before the high Priests, or Pontius Pilate; and although in this estate he knew no sin, yet as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. Chap. 5. v. last. He was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. He is said to be made sin for us, because he bore the punishment due to our sins. And this sin or iniquity God did truly cause to pass from him, because our sins were never inherent in him, but made his by imputation only. The punishment likewise due unto our sins did pass from him at his departure out of this world unto his Father. The new raiments wherewith jesus the high Priest was clothed, are emblems, or shadows of that glory and immortality wherewith jesus our high Priest since his Resurrection is invested. The fair Mitre, which was put upon jesus the Son of Iehozadeck's head, was the model of the Crown of David which was to flourish upon jesus the Son of David's head, as it is Psalm 132. v. 18. But upon himself shall his Crown flourish.  
6 Briefly, the protestation which the Angel in the verses following makes to jesus the Son of josedech is but a renewing or repetition of the promise which God had made unto Abraham and David concerning their seed. The tenor of God's promise here renewed or repeated unto jesus the high Priest is the same: And the Angel of the Lord protested unto jeshua, saying, thus saith the Lord of boasts, if thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, than thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my Courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by. These words contain as ample a patent for the temporal or legal Priesthood unto jesus the Son of josedech and his posterity, as David had for continuation of the temporal Kingdom in his race or progeny; both the promises and patents were conditional. But that there should arise an everlasting Priest, as well as an everlasting King, one in whom God's promises should not be conditional but yea and amen, that is, absolute and irrefragable, the Prophet Zachary adds, Hear now O jeshua the high Priest, thou and thy fellows that sit before thee, for they are, what are they? monstrous persons, saith our former English, or men wondered at saith the later; Viri portendentes saith the vulgar. The Prophet's meaning is that they are men set for types or signs of great matters to come. The word in the original is the same. Ezech. 12. 11. Say I am your sign, like as I have done, so shall it be done unto them, that is, to the Princes of jerusalem, and house of Israel; they shall remove and go into captivity. As Ezechiel his digging through the wall in the people's sight, and carrying forth his stuff upon his shoulders in twilight, with his face covered, that he should not see the ground, was a sign or prognostication of Zedechiah's stealth or flight from the Chaldeans army which besieged him: So jeshua the high Priest, and all his fellows in all this action or solemnity (specially in laying the foundation of the Altar and Temple) were prognosticke signs or prefigurations of jesus the everlasting high Priest, and of the spiritual Temple, (the holy Catholic Church) which he was to build by the ministry of the Apostles. So it followeth, for behold I will bring forth my servant the branch. For behold the stone that I have laid before jeshua, upon one stone shall be seven eyes, behold I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.   

CHAP. 22. Of the harmony between the Prophet jeremy and the Prophet Zachary concerning the man whose name is the branch: How his growth or springing up was prefigured by Zerubbabel the son of David: His name and title as our high Priest fore-pictured by the name and title of jesus the Son of josedech: That he was as truly the Son of God before all time, as the son of David in time.  
THat this man whose name was the Branch was to build the Temple of the Lord; that he was to take his investiture unto his priestly dignity by jesus the Son of jehosadech as by his proxy is apparent from the sixth Chapter of the Prophet Zachary 11. Take silver and gold and make Crowns, and set them upon the head of jeshua, the Son of josedech the high Priest, and speak unto him saying, thus speaketh the Lord of hastes saying, Behold the man whose name is the Branch, and he shall grow up out of his 
* This is as junius interpreteth, out of Nazareth.  place, he shall build the Temple of the Lord, even he shall build the Temple of the Lord, and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne, and he shall be a Priest upon his Throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.  
2 This place and the former are pregnant that the Servant of the Lord whose name was Zemah the Branch, whose office was to build up the Temple of God, should be a Priest, and should sit upon his Throne as Priest. But it cannot from either place be gathered; it is not so much as intimated that he should either be a Priest after the order of Aaron, or of Melchisedech, or of the seed of Aaron as jesus, or joshua the Son of jehosedech was. But as the Prophet affirmeth not, that he was to be Priest after the order of Aaron or Melchisedech, so neither in plain terms doth he deny it: true, but as every Prophet of God speaks nothing but the truth, so neither doth one of them speak all the truth, or all that is requisite for us to believe concerning jesus our Saviour. That the man whose name was the Branch, (the same party of whom Zachary here speaks) should not be of the seed of Aaron, or a Priest after the order of Aaron is evident from the prophecy of jeremiah. jer. 23. 5. uttered more than seventy years before Zachary began to prophecy. Behold the days 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 upon the earth. In his days judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called, the Lord our righteousness. It is plain then out of the fore cited prophecy of Zachary, that God's servant the righteous Branch was to be a Priest: It is evident again out of jeremiah that he was to spring out of the seed of David, and to reign as King over judah and Israel, as David had done. And these two put together will directly conclude, that this Branch of David was to be that son of David, concerning whom the Lord had sworn and would not repent, that he should be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, who was both King and Priest, and by interpretation the King of righteousness, and King of peace: both which titles are expressly given to this Servant of God and Branch of David, the one by the Prophet Zachary, the other by the Prophet jeremiah.  
3 But is it intimated or foretell by either of them, that he should be as truly David's Lord, as David's Son? Yes, jeremy implies this in fuller terms than David himself doth Psalm. 110. for David saith, the Lord said unto my Lord Adonai, not jehovah, whereas the Prophet jeremy tells us that the supreme style or title of this Branch of David should be not Adonai Tzadkenu, but jehova Tzadkenu, jehovah our righteousness: So that he whom David in spirit calleth his Lord, was to be as essentially Lord and God; as he that said unto him, sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy foot stool. But was he according unto this name or title prefigured or foreshadowed either by Zerubbabel the Prince of judah, or by his associate jesus the high Priest in conducting God's people from the land of their captivity into the land of promise? Yes there is not one title or attribute mentioned in either prophecy but it is foreshadowed, either jointly both by Zerubbabel & jesus the high Priest, or severally by one of them.  
4 As he is the Branch of David fore-prophecied by Esaiah. Chap. 11. 1. (where to both these prophecies of jeremiah and Zachary have reference,) he is more exquisitely prefigured by Zerubbabel then by David himself, or any other Prince of David's Line. The Branch which God had promised to raise up unto David almost an 110 years before jeremiah had uttered his prophecies, was to grow up out of the stem or root of jesse, as it is, Esay 11. 1. that is, he was to be a man of meaner parentage, than jesse the Father of David was; a man more unlikely to become a Prince or Ruler of God's people than David was, when he kept his Father's sheep: Of David's lineage many after the captivity were poor, and of as mean ability as jesse David's Father was. Zerubbabel was borne unto Salathiel in captivity and Salathiel himself the son of jeconiah a poor captive Prince: but wh●-Salathiel was the son of Ieconiah's body or rather his son by adoption, I have no more to say then was said before. Whether this way or that way he were his son, if we consider the potency of the Chaldean Empire when he was borne, or the Chaldeans general averseness from the jews or their jealousy of the royal race, it was more unlikely that any of David's line should be released from captivity, or be suffered to return from Babylon unto their native land, then that Israel should be delivered from the Egyptian thraldom by Moses. But the same God which had showed his mighty power in the overthrow of Pharaoh and his powerful host, did as miraculously show both his power and wisdom in the sudden surprisal of Babylon, and overthrowing the Babylonian Empire by Cyrus. Of these two wonderful deliverances of his people; the later in the Prophet jeremy his esteem, is the greater, therefore he saith jerem. 16. 14. 15. Behold the days come saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, the Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; but the Lord liveth that brought up the Children of Israel from the land of the North, and from all the lands whither he had driven them, and I will bring them again into their land, that I gave unto their Fathers. The like you may read jerem. 23. 7. 8. Cyrus' after his strange conquest of Babylon, sets God's people free, and authorizeth Zerubbabel the next heir then left unto the Crown of judah, to conduct them unto jerusalem; there to serve their God as he in his Laws had prescribed. But after their safe arrival there, they are molested by their malicious enemies: the building of the City and Temple is after Cyrus his death for diverse years hindered, until Zerubbabel by his favour and potency with Cyrus his successors procures the revival of the charter which Cyrus granted, and frees himself and God's people from further molestation by their enemies, as you may read it at large in the Book of Ezra. So that part of Ieremiah's prophecy is verified of him, for in his days and by his means (under God) judah was saved, and Israel did dwell securely. Though he were not in name or title a Saviour, yet is he indeed the Saviour of his people from present distress and danger. And thus far this poor revived Branch of David is a true and lively Type of that Branch of David, in whom all the promises of God made unto Abraham and David were fulfilled, who was to be a Saviour not in realty only but in name or title, and called especially jesus because he was to save his people not from bodily distress or captivity but from their sins. And as he is in this sensea Saviour, jesus the Son of jehosadech is the lively Type or shadow of him as well in office or function as in express name or title; for he being their high Priest and Aaron's successor, did make legal atonement for their sins, did sanctify the Temple, Altar, and their offerings, and performed all legal righteousness for the● insigne of greater righteousness, and salvation by that high Priest which was to come, whose supreme title was the Lord our righteousness.  
5 But did either Zerubbabel or this jesus the high Priest and his associates prefigure or fore▪ shadow our high Priest in this royal name or title of being the Lord our righteousness? Certain it is that Zerubbabel did not, for neither his own name, nor his Fathers, nor any of his Progenitors names since Iehosaphat's days had any reference to this title, nor import the thing signified by it in their grammatical significations. But the Father of this I●shua, or jesus the high Priest was named jehosadech which signifies as much as the righteousness of the Lord, or the righteous Lord.  
6 But here we must consider that names are of two sorts. Some names agree to the things named substantially and directly. Others accidentally or in obliqne. The former fort express the condition and nature of the thing named. As the name of Adam which God imposed upon the first man did express his nature or substance; to wit, the red earth out of the which he was framed. So the name which Adam gave unto the first woman did truly express the nature and condition of the Sex, to wit, that she was made of man; that she was of his flesh and of his bones, so likewise is the name of Eveh a true expression of her nature, for she was the Mother and Fonntaine of life unto all posterity.  
7 Names otherwhiles though solemnly given express or import some circumstance or relation unto the nature or thing itself which they primarily and properly signify. So Gideon was called jerub-baal, not that ever he did plead for Baal, but in remembrance of his father's answer unto them which had expostulated with him for cutting down Baal's grove.  
8 So Moses called the Altar which he erected. Exod. 17. 14. jehovah-nissi the Lord my banner. Not, thereby intending to occasion us to think, that the Altar so named was either jehovah, or his defence, but only to import or signify that in that place wherein he built the Altar and at the time of this inscription, jehovah his God had been the defender and protector of Israel in miraculous manner against the Amalekites. So likewise when our Saviour called Simon, Cephas or Petros, the name imports not that he was either the rock itself, or Cornerstone whereon Christ's Church is founded; 
See the third Book of these Comments Sect. 2. Chap. 7.  But only that he had some special reference or relation unto the rock or foundation Stone which God had laid in Zion, or which is all one that he was the first which did solemnly confess and acknowledge Christ jesus to be as truly God as man. The matter or object directly signified by these words is the only true and real Foundation of faith 
See this point handled at large in the third Book of these Comments.  as Christian; of the Catholic Church itself. Of this rank or sort of names is the name jehosadech as it was given unto the Father of jesus the high Priest, but this doth no way import that he was either jehovah, or a man more righteous than other high Priests had been; and yet so called not by chance or out of vain ostentation of his parents, but by divine instinct or appointment of God: Or whatsoever intent his parents might have in giving him this name, God did so direct their intentions, as he did Caiphas his speech to be a kind of prophecy of what was to come. We may say of jehosadech as the Angel said of jesus and his fellow-Priests, that he was vir portendens, his very name and office did portend or bode that jehovah himself the righseous Lord should become our high Priest. And in as much as the Son of jehosadech was the first high Priest, the first of all the sons of Aaron that was called jesus, that is, a Saviour, this likewise did portend or fore-shadow that the Saviour of God's people, the high Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, should be the son not of David only but of jebovah the righteous Lord, or Lord of righteousness. And if he were to be as truly the Son of jehovah the righteous Lord, as he was to be the son of David, then questionless he was to be as truly jehovah, that is, as truly and essentially God, as he is truly and essentially man. For the relation betwixt the Father and the Son is much more strict in the Divine nature, than it can be amongst men.  
9 Amongst men it will follow that if the Father be a man, the Son must be a man; if the Father be mortal the Son must be mortal: but it will not follow that if the Father be a righteous or potent man, the Son likewise must be a righteous or potent man. The reason is because they are divided in substance. But in as much as the Son of God is of the same substance or essence with his Father, it will directly follow not only, that if the Father be God, the Son is God, but also that if the Father be Lord of righteousness, the Son also must be Lord of righteousness. Yet in as much as not jehosadech the Father but jesus the Son became legal righteousness or a temporal Saviour to God's people in captivity, this truly fore-shadoweth this truth unto us; that although God the Father be as truly the Lord of righteousness as God the Son, both being of one substance, yet is jehovah become our righteousness and our salvation, not in the person of the Father, but in the person of the Son.   

CHAP. 23. The objection of the jews against the interpretation of the former Prophecy jerem. 23. answered. In what sense judah is truly said to be saved, and Israel to dwell in safety by jesus the Son of God and Son of David.  
YEt here the jew will object that this prophecy is not yet fulfilled because judah is not fully saved, nor Israel planted in their own land. But the Apostle hath fully answered this objection, if we could as rightly apply his solution. All (saith he) are not Israel that are called Israel. Rom. 9 6. Yet many are true Israelites indeed which are not so in name; Nor is he a jew that is one outwardly, but that is one inwardly. The Apostle in the same place gives us to understand, that many are jews or of judah inwardly, which are not of judah outwardly, or so called by name. Whosoever is inwardly or in heart that which the name of judah importeth, he is truly of judah, though not the seed of judah or of Abraham concerning the flesh. Now the name of judah or jew importeth as much as a confessor or true professor of Abraham's faith, and every one is a true Israelite, that is so qualified as Nathaniel was, one in whose spirit there is no guile: unto all such and only unto such the Lord imputeth no sin: and all they unto whom the Lord imputeth no sin; all such as truly confess Christ to be the Son of God and promised Branch of David are saved by him, whether they be the sums of jacob or of Abraham, or Gentiles according to the flesh. So that in conclusion all ludah and all Israel according to the full extent of this prophecy are saved by this jesus: for all of them dwell in safety, they are not become afraid of themselves, but possess their souls with patience. To become jews or Israelites in this sense is the first degree of salvation, and this degree they likewise have from jesus, through whom and in whom they are to expect the accomplishment of their salvation. Christ than first saves us from our sins that are inherent in us, or (as the Apostle speaks) he first sets us free from the Law of sin by the spirit of life which is in him, and finally exempts us from the wages of sin which is everlasting death. And thus much is contained in that forecited promise, jerem. 16. and in the close and conclusion of that prophecy, jerem. 23. concerning the saving of judah and Israel by the branch of David whose name or title is, The Lord our righteousness. Behold the days come saith the Lord that they shall no more say the Lord liveth which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; but the Lord liveth which brought up, and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the North country: The Hebrew phrase Meeretz zaponah, according to the usual and ordinary rate of that language, signifies indeed from the Northland; yet the original of this signification or importance of these words, was from a conceit which the jews, or such as had their habitation near unto the Equinoctial line, had; That those parts of the world which were more remote from the Equinoctial or Southern climes were hidden from the sun, and were at least in respect of their Country, lands of obscurity and darkness. The very prime and native signification of the original words in the Prophet, rendered by our English from the North land or Country, is verbatim from the land of obscurity or darkness. And whatsoever the land of Chaldea (whereof Babylon was the chief City or Metropolis) was unto others, it was unto the captive jews a country of darkness, a land of obscurity; the very shadow of death. And their deliverance from it was a true type or shadow of our deliverance from the region or land of darkness itself. The full importance of the evangellical mystery included in the forecited passage of the Prophet jeremy according to the most proper and most exquisite literal sense is expounded unto us by our Apostle S. Paul. Coloss. 1. 12. 13. God the Father (saith the Apostle) hath made us meet to be partakers of the Saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into the Kingdom of his dearly beloved Son.  
2 So that this part of jeremy's prophecy. 23. 6. In his days judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell in safety, must be fulfilled in every one of us more exquisitely than it was in the whole remnant of judab and Israel which returned in safety from Babylon the land of their captivity unto jerusalem, the place of their peace and rest. Every one of us must be saved from the land of darkness, and translated into the Kingdom of light, before we can be sure of our salvation; before our election and salvation can be made certain unto us. For every one of us is by nature the child of wrath; every one of as as he is the son of Adam carries a Babel or mass of confusion about with him, or rather lives in it as in a walking prison. Every one of us is subject to morethen Baby lonish, to more than Egyptian slavery. Our very souls which are the light unto our bodies; our very minds which have the same place in our souls which Goshen had in Egypt, are darkened or (as the Apostle speaks) are darkness itself. Now to extract or draw us out of ourselves, or out of that servitude unto fin in which we were borne, or to bring us out of that darkness which is within us, is a greater miracle a more remarkable document of God's infinite power & wisdom then the bringing of Israel out of Egypt, than the rescuing of judah from the captivity of Babylon were. God did make the wind and waters his instruments to overthrow Pharaoh and his host in the red sea: he made his Angel's ministering spirits to conduct Israel in their departure thence; but to draw us out of ourselves, to extract our minds and spirits from the dreggs of the flesh, to translate them from the powers of darkness to the Kingdom of light, the ministry or service of Angels or other creatures did not suffice. For accomplishing this great work the Son of God himself became a Servant. He that was essentially jehovah, God himself did clothe himself with salvation as with a garment, and became a Saviour not in the appearance of an Angel; not in our mere shape and likeness nor in the mere form or shape of any other creature, but in our flesh and substance.   

CHAP. 24. That our high Priest the Son of God did not only accomplish that which was fore shadowed by the name and title & office of jesus the Son of josedech, but withal the legal rites or solemnities; now of which ho did destroy or dissolve as he did the works of the Devil, but change or advance them into better solemnities to be observed by us Christians. That his solemn accomplishment of the feast of atonement at the feast of the Passeover was prefigured in the Law, and fore-fignified by God's special command.  
THe Son of God saith S. john was manifested to the end that he might destroy or dissolve the works of the Devil. Not only the works which he had wrought in the nature of Adam and all his sons, (the manner of whose destruction or dissolution the Reader may find discussed at large in the eighth Book of these Commentaries;) but besides these all the solemn rites or ceremonies, whether sacrifices or other services by which the subtle enemy of mankind had enticed men unto, or retained them in obedience to his service. All these the Son of God came into the world not to change or accomplish, but utterly to abolish or destroy them. As for the aaronical Priesthood or legal ri●es dependant on it, these he came not utterly to abolish or destroy, but to change or sublimate them into a better kind of service. This orthodoxal form of words the Apostle hath taught us. Heb. 7. v. 12. The Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law; that is no destruction either of the Law or Priesthood. The false witnesses themselves which were set up to accuse S. Stephan of blasphemous words against the holy place and the Law, though willing, no question, to charge him with more than he said, yet charge him with nothing but this, We have heard him say, that this jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us. Acts 6. v. 14. But these malicious men with their complices and abettors did destroy the material Temple by turning it into a den of thiefs or murderers, by practising these and other like works of the Devil in it. Notwithstanding the utter destruction of this den of thiefs by these means (the house of God; which was the Temple whilst it continued a house of prayer) was not utterly destroyed, but rather changed or translated unto jerusalem which is above, as the Ark of the Covenant had been before, from Shiloh unto Zion. As for any intention utterly to destroy any custom which Moses had given them they had no pretence to accuse either S. Stephan or our Saviour, who had solemnly protested that he came not to destroy or dissolve the Law, but to fulfil it. And none, unless perhaps some base Mechanic or meaner metal man, who thinks the matter whereon he works to be of all others the best, would accuse an Alchemist or ingenious Artist for wasting or destroying copper, lead, or brass, if he could change or sublimate them into pure gold.  
2 The change or accomplishment of the best equal rites, even such as were appointed by an everlasting covenant, was more admirable than this supposed transmutation of base metals into refined gold, can truly represent; for, as hath been 
* In the first and third Sections of this Book.  observed before, Albeit our Saviour was no Priest after the order of Aaron, either before or after his Consecration, yet he did most exquisitely accomplish the whole aaronical Priesthood, and other legal rites dependent on it by his Consecration to a more excellent, truly everlasting Priesthood. Circumcision was enjoined under this title of an everlasting covenant, and so enjoined under a terrible penalty (before the Law was given by Moses) to all the seed of Abraham throughout their generations. Was this rite or ceremony then destroyed or annihilated by the Circumcision of the Son of God? Neither destroyed then, nor changed before his death, but at his Circumcision designed to be changed into an everlasting Covenant, and after his Resrrection and Ascension, not so properly changed as advanced into a better Sacrament or Seal of God's love unto mankind, under a stricter penalty to the contemners of it, or the undertakers for both sexes, than Circumcision had been to the Hebrew males. The jewish Sabbath or Seventh day likewise was not so truly nullified for the substance of the precept, which was to be a commemoration of God's rest from all his works upon the Seventh day, as clarified or purged from the droffe or dreggs of legal ceremonies; and changed into the Lord's day: And the Lords day besides the representation of God's rest from his works of creation upon the Seventh day, contains a weekly commemoration of our Redemption from the bondage of fin and powers of darkness (represented by the thraldom of Israel in Egypt) through the Resurrection of our Lord and Redeemer. Again, no solemnity in all the sacred Calendar of legal foasts was more peremptorily enjoined, or strictly observed then the feast of Expiation, or Atonement; yet was not this anniveriary feast so properly abolished as accomplished or advanced by that one everlasting atonement made once for all by the Son of God upon the Cross. For albeit that atonement in respect of the sacrifice or offering, was but once made, yet the virtue or efficacy of it is not circumscriptible by time, nor interruptible by any moment or instant of time. Though he died but once to make satisfaction for us, yet he liveth for ever to make intercession for us, and is a perpetual propitiation for the sins which we daily and hourly commit, and for his sake and through his propitiation, all our sins, who truly believe in him, and supplicate unto him for his intercession shall be not in general only but in particular freely pardoned. Not doth the absolute everlasting perfection of this atonement any way prohibit us Christians to keep a solemn commemoration of the day whereon it was made once for all. But whether this commemoration were ordained or observed by the Apostles themselves, or taken up by voluntary tacit consent of the Church after the Apostles had finished their pilgrimage here on earth, I dare not take upon me to determine: But whether from this or that authority or example, most Christians are ready to humble themselves on the Friday before Easter, & acknowledge it to be a good day because it is the Commemoration of our Saviour's Passion and atonement made by it. And albeit this humiliation were much more ritually and severely observed by all of us than it is by some few, we should not transgress any Law of God, nor swerve from the analogy of Christian faith, but rather accomplish the true intent and purport of the Law given by Moses for the strict observation of the day of legal Atonement. The humbling of ourselves upon that day by fasting and Prayer is a like common and lawful both to the jew and Christian, and the representation or Commemoration of Christ's bloody Death upon that day by Communication of his Body and Blood under the sacramental signs and pledges, is rather an accomplishment than an abolishment of the legal sacrifices, or other ceremonies of the Priest's entering into the Sanctum Sanctorum upon the tenth day of the month Tisri. A commemoration of which day the modern jews to this day celebrate with foolish and fantastic ceremonies, as by tormenting of a 
* Vide. Buxdorf. Synagogâ judaica▪ cap. 20.  cock; especially a white one: Yet these fantastic practices serve as an imprese or emblem of that sacred truth which we Christians believe and acknowledge, as hath been observed at large in the fifth Book of Commentaries upon the Creed. Chap. 4●. Parag. 2. & 3.  
4 May we Christians than call the Friday be fore Easter our day of Atonement, or the Dominical next after it the great Sabbath? For assoiling this or the like Querie about the use of words, especially such as are legal, I know no fitter distinction than that plain maxim of the Schools, Omne maius continet in se suum minus non formaliter tamen sed eminenter: Every greater containeth the less of the same kind, not formally but by way of eminency. It were no branch of untruth to say that a quadrangle is two, and that a five-angled figure is three triangles; yet would it be a solecism to say the one were three triangles, and the other two triangles. If we should be directly demanded what manner of figure this or that were; the only true and punctual answer must be that the one is formally a quadrangle, the other a quinqangle. To deny any King of England for the time being to be Duke of Lancaster, would be censured for more than an error or Logical untruth; for since the annexion of that great Dukedom to the Crown, every King of England hath had as just and full a Title to it, as to the Kingdom it self, or ancient Crown-lands. And yet if a Lawyer or other skilful in drawing legal instruments should in those very Charters or donations which the royal power grants, not as King of England, but as he is Duke of Lancaster, enstile him only thus, H. by the grace of God, Duke of Lancaster etc. do give and grant to N. omitting his royal Titles, it would be a dangerous solecism in Law. Now the legal titles or names of feasts or of the services are so contained in the Evangelicall services and solemnities, as two triangles are in a quadrangle, or as Duke of Lancaster is in the royal Title of King of England. It is no sin to say that the Friday before Easter is the day of our Atonement, or that the first day of the week on which Christ rose from the dead is the Christian Sabbath: but the more Evangelicall or royal Style is to nominate the one the Lords day rather than the Sabbath; and the other rather Good-Friday, or feria quinta in hebdomade sancta (that is, the fifth day besides the precedent dominical in the holy week) than the day of our Atonement. The like may be said of all other Christian festivals instituted as solemn commemorations in testimony of the accomplishment of the legal rites or services by the sufferings, Resurrection, and other glorious actions of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ.  
To conclude this short digression with Erasmus his resolution of a question less needful than the former, yet agitated by some as it seems in his days or before him, Non hic agitab● quaestionem, An in Christum competat servi vocabulum: qui favent ejus dignitati, malunt filium dici quam servum; quirespiciunt ejus humilitatem, & ad mortem usque obedientiam, non horrent servi vocabulum: Filii nomine magis gaudent sacrae literae, & ipse dominus patrem saepius appellat quam Dominum aut Deum suum, & tamen Paulus scribit illi susceptam formam servi, hoc est, hominis ut interpretantur quidam, nec servi modo verùm etiam servi mali & verberibus digni, quemadmodum dictus est eidem, venisse in similitudine carnis peccati. Sed absit hac de re inter conservos contentio, qui servum appellare gaudent, imitentur illius obedientiam; quibus magis arridet filii nomen, imitentur illius charitatem; qui utrolibet nomine agnoscunt Dominum jesum, utrumque pro viribus exprimant. In rebus enim spiritualibus nihil vetat eundem nunc servum, nunc filium appellari. Erasmus in Psal. 85. ver. 2.  
5 But seeing we Christians affirm that our high Priest did accomplish the legal priesthood and sacrifices by his bloody sacrifice upon the Cross, the jew may object that however his satisfaction might be full for substance, yet it failed in congruity of circumstances, and in particular for the circumstance of time. [O pus diei decenter fit in die suo;] Every work is then well done, then better done then otherwise it could be, when it is done in its own time or proper day: If then Christ made full atonement for all our sins by his own sacrifice upon the Cross, this sacrifice had been offered in better season upon the day of atonement which was the tenth day of the seventh month or September, then on that day wherein he offered it, which was the fourteenth day of the first month, a day as far different in time from the day of atonement, as one festival day or solemnity can be from another. The answer first in general is that seeing our high priest was to offer but one bloody sacrifice, and that one not oftener than once (for as his death so his sacrifice was never to be reiterated) it was impossible he should offer this one sacrifice (by which all legal sacrifices and services were to be accomplished) upon the same day, wherein all the sacrifices which did fore, shadow it were offered or performed. As impossible it was that this his only sacrifice should be offered at several times, as in several places. Although most in the Romish Church seem to avouch both parts of this impossibility, yet they avouch it with this distinction or limitation that his bloody sacrifice was but once offered, and that but in one place, at one and the same time. But of this (if God permit) hereafter. His bloody sacrifice that Church doth grant was to be offered but once, and therefore but upon a special day or solemn feast, which did fore-shadow it by the proper sacrifice of that day. Now not only the annual but all the daily sacrifices did fore-shadow this his bloody `` sacrifice once offered for all: and all of them were `` accomplished by it. Reason, from these premises `` may instruct us, how requisite it was that he should offer this sacrifice at that time, or upon that day on which the principal sacrifices of the Law, which most exquisitely or most lively foreshadowed it, were offered. The services or sacrifices of other feasts were to attend or conjoin themselves to this. Now as jerusalem was the Metropolis of the jewish Nation, the place wherein all the seed of jacob wheresoever they dwelled were to present themselves, and to perform the solemnities and services of their principal feasts; so the Passeover was the Metropolis of their solemn feasts: all other feasts had special reference unto it; It did point out the time as jerusalem did the place wherein all other legal solemnities were to be accomplished. Seeing then our high Priest was to accomplish as well the sacrifices of the paschal Lamb, as the services of the atonement, it was more requisite that the services usual upon that day of atonement should yield unto the feast of the Passeover for circumstance of time, than the feast of the Passeover should yield unto it; specially seeing our high Priest had already punctually accomplished the principal solemnity used in the feast of atonement, in die suo upon the very feast day of attonnement, which (
* In Christ's answer to John's Disciples.  as is before said) was the day of our Saviour's Baptism, the day of his consecration to his prophetical function. Albeit diverse bloody sacrifices were offered upon the feast of atonement, yet the principal and most public solemnity was the leading of the scape-goat into the wilderness. Levit. 16. v. 20. 21. And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation and the Al●ar, he shall bring the live goat, and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send them away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness. To accomplish the mystery of this service our Saviour was led by the Spirit into the wilderness immediately after his Baptism, bearing the iniquity of this people, even all the sins which had been confessed by jerusalem and judah at John's baptism. And though he himself needed not to be washed and baptised as being all clean; yet, as heesaith himself, it became him to be consecrated by baptism to this service to fulfil all righteousness; and by fulfilling this part of righteousness in bearing the sins, which this people had confessed, into the wilderness he made a fuller atonement for jerusalem & judah then any high Priest before had made. That curse wherewith Malachy had threatened the Lord would smite the earth or land of jewry was for this time averted, by this his bloody service.  
6 But as our Saviour at the time of his baptism which was upon the day of atonement had fulfilled the mystery of the scape-goat; so he was to accomplish the mystery foreshadowed by the bloody sacrifice of the paschal Lamb. To this purpose john the Baptist upon his return from the wilderness had prophesied behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world. john. 1. 29. He had borne the iniquity of jerusalem and judah by his journey unto, by his fasting and watching in the wilderness, and from this john foresaw he was to take away or bear (for so the original may import) the iniquities or sins of the world. He is called by john and others the Lamb of God, for his innocent and spotless life; yet not so much (if at all) with reference to the Lambs offered in the daily sacrifices (which were altogether without spot or blemish) as with reference to the paschal Lamb, which was to be the choicest and fairest of the flock: and for this reason God in his wisdom would have him sacrificed at that feast or very time wherein the paschal Lamb was slain, id est, upon the fourteenth of the first month inter duas vesperas betwixt the two evenings. Some think betwixt three of the clock, and the day-going or starre-rising. Out Saviour died a little after three, and was brought in peace into his grave about the sunset, and by rest or reposall in it hath hallowed the houses of death as the paschal Lamb did the houses of the Israelites wherein it was slain, and purchased our safety from the destroying Angel, even whilst our bodies lodge within the land of darkness or region of death. The congruity of time and other circumstances between the sacrifice of the paschal Lamb and the sacrifice of our high Priest are so manifest and so well known as they need no further comment.  
7 The mystery foreshadowed by Israel's deliverance out of Egypt (which first occasioned the institution of the Passeover) was so great that the Lord in memory of it did give the month wherein that deliverance was wrought, the pre-eminence of all the months in the year, whereas before that time the month of September, in which the feast of Atonement was celebrated, was for order of time or account the first, as being the season according to the tradition of the Hebrews, and in all probability of reason, wherein the world was first created. And after the month of Abib had by God's appointment got the preeminence of all other months; yet the month Tisri, or September still retains the precedency in the civil account of the Hebrews for matters temporal or secular. The account of their years in matters of contract or bargain, as of mortgage or purchase was always to be taken from jubilee to jubilee, or from one sabbatical or seventh year to another. And the year of jubilee or sabbatical year did always begin and end in the month of September. And as we of this land have two accounts, the one from the year of the Lord, the other from the reign of the King; so had the Hebrews two accounts of the year more distinct and certain than ours are. The one for matters civil or secular, according to which account September was the first month, and March the seventh month. The other for matters Ecclesiastical or spiritual, and according to this account the month of Abib or March was the first month, and September the seventh month. And because matters spiritual, or belonging to the service of God, or state of his Church were the matters which God did principally respect in the institution of his Law, therefore the month Abib or March after this people's deliverance from Egypt, though not before, was to be accounted the prime and principal month.  
8 So then albeit the feast of Atonement, and the feast of the Passeover differ as much in respect of the distance of time as any two feasts in the year can do, as having just half a year betwixt them; yet for identity of season, or congruity of other circumstances they agree the best. Both of them are in their kinds the first months, light and darkness hold the same proportion in both. Both of them distribute day and night by equal balance to all the inhabitants of the earth. john Baptist's conception fell upon the feast of Atonement, and the solemnity of this feast was in divers respects accomplished by our Saviour at his Baptism or Consecration to his prophetical function. Our Saviour's own conception was about the feast of the Passeover, and fitting it was for congruity of time that he should finish the course of his mortal life, and accomplish all the legal sacrifices by the bloody sacrifice of himself upon that day, at that time wherein he had received the first beginning of life as man; fitting it was that he should be conceived to life immortal in the womb of the earth upon the same day, or at that time wherein he had first been conceived in the Virgin's womb to the miseries and frail estate of mortality. Briefly then in the alienation of pre-eminence, or precedency from September to March the translation of the Atonement or Expiation from the one month or the other was included and foreshadowed. The month Abib was by God's appointment made the first and principal month of the whole year with reference to this great work of final Atonement or Expiation which was to be wrought in it by the bloody sacrifice of the high Priest, in which all other sacrifices and solemnities had their end and final accomplishment. There was no legal feast of Atonement to be celebrated after it.  
9 Again for circumstance of time it was most fitting and congivous that the second tabernacle should be erected at the same time and season wherein the first tabernacle was erected, that the high Priest of the new testament or everlasting tabernacle should be consecrated at the same season wherein the high Priest of the Old Testament or earthly tabernacle was consecrated. Now the first tabernacle was erected and Aaron the high Priest thereof consecrated in the first month Abib, as is apparent from Exod. 40. v. 2. The tabernacle was begun to be set up upon the first day of that month, and was twelve days in erection. Aaron was seven days in his Consecration, but whether he was consecrated in the first seven days of the month, or whether his Consecration begun from the eighth day and lasted to the fifteenth, is all one for congruity of circumstance between the Consecration of Aaron, and the Consecration of our high Priest. Sometimes it so falls out that the Evangelicall mysteries begin where the legal shadows do end, and are as it were ushered in by them; sometimes again the mysteries fulfilled upon the same day wherein the legal services or solemnities, which foreshadowed them, were, or aught to have been celebrated. But it is more than probable from many circumstances, Levit. 8. that Aaron's Consecration did not begin till the seventh or eighth day of the month Abide, and ended the fourteenth or fifteenth.   

CHAP. 25. In what respects the Consecration of Aaron and of his sons did especially prefigure the Consecration of the Son of God; and in what respects they specially differ. That the Consecration of Aaron did in divers respects serve as a foil to set forth the excellency of the Consecration of the Son of God.  
COncerning the Consecration of Aaron and his sons you may read at large. Exod 29. Levit. 8. Their Consecration consisted partly in the sacrifices offered by Moses for them partly in other services or solemnities, either performed by them or done unto them. The Priests of the Law, even Aaron the first high Priest himself was to be consecrated by Moses the man of God. The high Priest of the New Testament was to be consecrated by God the Father, by him that had sworn to make him a Priest after the order of Melchisedech. We are not to parallel the Son of God and Aaron according to every part or solemnity of their Consecration, at least we are not to compare every part or particular in kind. For in Aaron's Consecration there be many circumstances which necessarily imply, presuppose, or argue such imperfections and defects either in Aaron's person, or in the sacrifices or rites by which he was consecrated, as may not so much as be imagined in our high Priest, in his sacrifice or any part of his service: But rather these imperfections in Aaron's person, in his sacrifice or Priesthood, do serve as foils to set forth the excellent and absolute perfection of our high Priests person, of his sacrifice, and of his Priesthood. First it was a defect or imperfection in Aaron's person, that he should stand in need of a sin-offering, or of an offering of Atonement to make him capable of the dignity of legal Priesthood, or of his Consecration to it. This dissimilitude between the Person of the high Priest of the Old Testament and the high Priest of the New is expressed by our Apostle. Hebr. 7. 26. 27. For such an high Priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, who needeth not daily as those high Priests to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the people's: For this he did once when he offered up himself.  
2 So far was our high Priest from standing in need of any sin-offering or sacrifice for himself, that he himself became the full and perfect atonement for the sins of the whole world, even the sin-offering for the high Priests themselves which yearly made atonement for the people. Again 'twas a defect or imperfection in the sacrifices by which Aaron was consecrated in that they were more than one or of divers kinds; for of bloody sacrifices there were three; a bullock for a sin-offering, and two Rams, the one for a fire-offring or sacrifice of rest, the other the Ram of Consecration or of filling the hand. It argues again a greater defect in all these sacrifices, whether you take them coniunctim or divisim, in that they were to be often offered. And this defect or imperfection in the substance of these sacrifices, or in the sacrificer, or his service, the Lord sought to recompense or supply by the perfection of the number of several times or solemnities in which they were offered. For these sacrifices were to be offered seven times. Aaron and his sons were to fill their hands seven days together before their Consecration was accomplished. Our high Priest as he had no sacrifice but one, to wit, the sacrifice of himself; so was he to offer this sacrifice, or this sacrifice was to be offered but once, either for his own or for our Consecration. And by this once offering of this one sacrifice he did fully and absolutely accomplish whatsoever was foreshadowed by the full number of the legal sacrifices or solemnities which were used at the Consecration of Aaron. For the number of seven is a full number, yea a number full of mysteries, and wherein the Spirit of God seems to delight. Herein then as hath been intimated before, the high Priest of the New Testament, and the high Priest of the Old exactly agree; that as the Consecration of the one, so the Consecration of the other was to last seven days. Aaron and his sons as you may read Exod. 29. were commanded to attend at the door of the tabernacle seven days together. Our Saviour after his entrance into jerusalem did attend the Temple five days together teaching and instructing the people, and in curing the blind and lame which were brought unto him. He was more frequent and diligent in performing those and the like acts of mercy, than Aaron and his sons were in offering sacrifices or performing other legal services. And having purged the material Temple from brothery and merchandizing, restoring it to the use of prayer, which the high Priests of the Law had turned or suffered to be turned into a den of thiefs; having thus purged the Temple on the first or second day of his Consecration, and afterwards hallowed it by his Doctrine, by his presence and exercise of holiness in it, he went the sixth day into his heavenly Sanctuary, into Paradise itself to purify and sanctify it with his own blood, to consecrate it for us, as Moses at Aaron's Consecration did purify and consecrate the material Sanctuary and the Altar with the blood of Bullocks and of Rams. Yet was not this Consecration as yet fully accomplished: the period or accomplishing of it is from the moment of his Resurrection or Reunition of his soul and body. As Aaron first, so every high Priest of the Law after him was to continue seven days in his Consecration, that the seventh day or Sabbath might pass over him; because no man, as they conceive, can be a complete Priest until a Sabbath have gone over his head. But the Sabbath of the Lord did never so exactly pass over any high Priest in his Consecratton as it did over the high Priest of the New Testament. However it were of Aaron's it was the last day of his Consecration: it was to him indeed a Day of rest, after six days of labour, of watching, praying, fasting, and after he had accomplished the works which his Father had sent him to doe●, by the torments of his bloody sactifice, and whatsoever pains he suffered upon the Cross. But after he had said consummatum est, which was in the end of the sixth day, in that day whereon God first had made man, and the Son of God had now redeemed man; his Consecration was not yet consummate, his body was to rest the Seventh day in the grave: And his soul in bliss all the Sabbath or Seventh day, and after the heavenly Sanctuary had been thus hallowed by the rest and presence of his blessed soul in it on the Seventh day, his soul and body were reunited upon the first day in the morning, at that time when the light begun to be distinguished from darkness. And this was the time of the accomplishment of his▪ Consecration or of his admission to the Priesthood after the order of Melchisedech.  
3 So then to be seven days in Consecration was no imperfection in Aaron and his Priesthood, but rather a mystery to be accomplished in the Consecration of the Son of God. That Aaron should have his hands filled seven days together by Moses with the sacrifices which were offered for him, was an argument as well of his own personal imperfections as of the imperfections of his sacrifices. Howbe it the mystery or moral employed by the filling of the hand, was no point of imperfection; and for this reason was as exactly fulfilled in the Consecration of ou● high Priest as in the Consecration of Aaron. The moral implied by the filling of the hand, was to signify that Aaron did not usurp the dignity of Priesthood, or take it up (as we say) at his own hand, but was hereunto lawfully and solemnly called by God, from whom he had received whatsoever he had. The inference hence made by our Apostle is this, Heb. 5. 4. 5. No man taketh this honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron: So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high Priest, but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son to day have I begotten thee. He that had thus said unto him did likewise prepare or fit a body to him for his sacrifice, he did not fill his hand with sacrifices or burnt offerings.  
4. It was an imperfection likewise in Aaron's person or his sacrifices or in both; his Consecration itself was imperfect in that his Consecration did not serve for the Consecration of his sons, or his Successors: all of them were to have their several sacrifices or other solemn rites of Consecration. The perfection which this foil▪ sets forth in our high Priest and his Consecration is this▪, that we are sanctified through the offering of the body of jesus Christ once for all. Hebr. 10. 10. Every Priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftimes the same sacrifices which can never take away sins; but this man (or rather this Priest) after he had once offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God, and henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath consecrated for ever them that are sanctified. ver. 11. 12. 13.  
5 As many as have reaped or hereafter shall reap any benefit, either from Gods' Oath to Abraham concerning his seed in whom all the Nations of the earth were to be blessed, or from the Renewing of this Oath to David concerning his son which was to be the Dispenser of this blessing and to be made a Priest after the order of Melchisedech who blessed Abraham; all, and every one of them are consecrated to the patticipation of this blessing by the Consecration of this our high Priest the Son of God. The Law (saith the Apostle) makes men high Priests which have infirmity, but the word of the Oath which was since the Law maketh the Son high Priest, who is consecrated for evermore; and by this his Consecration we, even all the Israel of God are consecrated by an everlasting Consecration. So saith the Apostle Revel. 1. 5. jesus Christ the first begotten of the dead, and Prince of the Kings of the earth hath washed us from our sins in his own Blood, and hath made us Kings and Priests (that is Priests after the order of Melchisedech) unto God and his Father. By this his Consecration likewise to his everlasting Priesthood we are hallowed and consecrated as Temples to our God, so saith S. Peter. 1. Pet. 2. v. 4. 5. To whom coming as to a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious, ye also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy Priesthood, to offer up a spiritual sacrifice, acceptable to God by jesus Christ.  
5 But to take the several bloody sacrifices which were offered at the Consecration of Aaron and his sons, into more particular consideration; Albeit these sacrifices were all imperfect, not only absolutely, or in respect of our high Priest's everlasting sacrifice, but even in respect of these spiritual sacrifices mentioned by S. Peter which we are to offer unto God; yet were they all in their kind most perfect The best and chiefest in the whole rank of legal or aaronical sacrifices; they are as so many lineaments pourtraying in part, or fore-shadowing that body or accomplishment not of them only, but of all other sacrifices. All meet in it as so many lines in their Centre. The first bloody sacrifice that was offered at the Consecration of Aaron was a Bullock. The Priests might offer no other sacrifice then this for their own sinne-offering, because this was of all other the best, and yet in comparison of this, saith the Psalmist in the Person of this our high Priest in his affliction, I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving, this al●o shall please the Lord better than a bullock which hath horns and hooves, that is, beginning to spread the horn and hoof, for at that time they were most fit for sacrifice. Psal. 69. ver. 30. 31. His meaning was that this sacrifice of thanksgiving should be more acceptable unto God than the very best sacrifice of the Law; and so it was, especially whilst offered by our high Priest, even when he offered his bloody sacrifice upon the Cross, and after his enemies had given him vinegar in his thirst to drink. For after he had uttered that pitiful Song of the Psalmist. Psal. 22. (whether only out of his grief or anguish, or upon other respects and intentions) My God my God why hast Thou for saken Me, he finally commends his soul, his spirit, unto his Father in the words of the Psalmists Song. Ps. 35. Father into thy hands I commend my spirit! The uttering of both these Songs in this anguish of soul argues he loved his God and our God, his Father and our Father, with all his soul, with all his heart, with all his strength; and his performance of this great Commandment, (as the Scribe which approved his answer to the Pharisees, to the Herodians, and the Sadduces had a little before confessed, upon his answer to his Question) was more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices Mat. 12. from v. 12. to 34.   

CHAP. 26. In what respects the Bullock offered at the Consecration of Aaron etc. and the rites of offering ●● did prefigure the bloody sacrifice of the Son of God, especially the circumstances of the place wherein it was offered.  
But you will ask wherein did the Sacrifice of the Bullock, which was offered for a sinne-offering or Atonement at Aaron's Consecration, or the circumstances in offering it, punctually fore-shadow the bloody Sacrifice which our high Priest offered at his Consecration, or the manner or circumstance of his offering it? It did in circumstance at least prefigure the Sacrifice of our high Priest after the same manner or in respect of the same circumstance that the annual sacrifices of Atonement did prefiure it; of which hereafter. Inasmuch as the head and flesh etc. of the Bullock for sinne-offering or Atonement for Aaron at his Consecation, was to be offered or burnt without the camp, not to be burnt upon the Altar; It fell under the same Law, and undergoes the same considerations which the annuall-Sacrifices in the feast of Atonement did. For so it is expressly commanded, Exod. 29. 14. That the flesh of the Bullock and his skin should be burnt without the Camp, because it was a sin-offering. Now it was an universal and peremptory Law that no flesh of any Sacrifice, whose Blood was brought into the Sanctuary to make Atonement, should be eaten by the Priests in the Sanctuary.  
2 It was again a Law as peremptory, that the Priests, especially the high Priests might, (that is, had power to) eat the flesh of any Sacrifice whose Blood was not brought into the Sanctuary. For to this purpose Moses Levit. 10. 17. expostulateth with Aaron's sons which were left after the death of Nadab and Abihu. Wherefore have ye not eaten the sinne-offering in the holy place, for it is the holy of holies, and it, (uz. the flesh of the sin-offering) he hath given to you to bear the iniquity of the Congregation, to make Atonement for them before the Lord: Behold the Blood of it was not brought in, behold indeed you should have eaten it in the holy place as I commanded you. Aaron in his Apology for his sons against this accusation of Moses, in no case questions the truth or extent of this commandment, but rather excuseth himself and his sons for not observing the purport of the Law as the case stood with them; his two sons Nadab and Abihu being lately consumed with fire issuing out from before the Lord, for offering strange fire, (which he had not commanded them) upon his Altar. And seeing that although they had put off all the respect of the obedience of his sons, yet could he not put off the affection of a loving Father towards them, or suddenly cease to mourn for their untimely death; whereas to have eaten the Sacrifices in the holy place with a sad countenance or heavy hair had been to pollute it. So that this sad and ivofull accident made the eating of the sin-offering in the holy place unlawful or unexpedient to him and his sons, which ordinarily or in case no such accident had befallen them, had not only been lawful but necessary. But seeing the blood of the Bullock offered for Aaron's sinne-offering at his Consecration had not been brought into the Sanctuary, and seeing no such woeful accident or legal impediment had at this time befallen Aaron and his sons, it may justly be questioned what was the reason they did not eat the flesh of this their sin-offering or Atonement? It was a sufficient warrant unto them not to eat it because the Lord had forbidden it. Exod. 29. 14. But if it be demanded what was the reason or intent of this Law; or rather of this particular exception from the general Law by which they were commanded to eat it? Some make answer that Aaron and his sons were not as yet complete Priests, or Priests already consecrated, but in their Consecration only, and therefore were not comprehended under the general Law which commanded the Priest, forbidding all others, to eat the flesh of the sinne-offering whose blood was not brought into the Sanctuary. But this reason concludes only in probability against Aaron and his sons, who did now attend their Consecration; it no ways concludes against Moses who did consecrate them, who was not only permitted but commanded by God to eat of all the Sacrifices or offerings which Aaron's sons or Successors might lawfully eat; yet did not Moses eat any part of the Bullock offered at Aaron's Consecration for a sin-offering or Atonement, for God had expressly commanded it to be burnt without the Campe. Their answer therefore to that former demand, is more pertinent, who say that no high Priest, whether ordinarily called or extraordinarily, (as Moses was for the Consecration of Aaron and his sons) might eat of any sacrifice which was offered for a sin-offering or Atonement for the Priests themselves, although the Blood of it were not brought into the Sanctuary. Of the Sinne-offrings for the people whose Blood was not brought into the Sanctuary the Priests might eat, they were to eat.  
2. This commandment for them to eat of the people's sin-offering, argues the sins of the people were to be borne or taken away by the Priest. The prohibition for the Priests to eat the Sinne-offrings made for themselves, argues the sins of the Priest could not be borne or taken away by the Priests of the Law or their sacrifices, but were to expect a better sacrifice of a better high Priest: The legal sacrifices in the mean time were to be offered in a place prefiguring the place wherein this better Sacrifice was to be offered, a place without the gates of jerusalem. Whiles the people wandered in the wilderness without any settled habitation, or City to dwell in, the Sacrifice or substance of the Sin-offering was to be consumed with fire without the trenches, or bounds wheresoever they did encamp, as Soldiers do in the open field, near unto the Ark of the Testament. But after the Ark had found a settled habitation or resting place in the Temple which Solomon built, the City of jerusalem in which the Temple stood, became the Camp of Israel. And this and other like sodei●●ties and services which were commanded to be performed without the Camp whiles the people wandered in the wilderness, were to be performed without the gates of jerusalem, albeit the Sacrifice was to be offered in the Temple; whence seeing our Saviour's Body was the offering for sin or the Sacrifice of Atonement, by which the mysteries imported by all other Sacrifices, were fulfilled, it was to be consumed or brought into the dust of death in Mount Calvary, or Golgotha; or some place without the City. So that the Apostle's argument Heb. 13. drawn from the annual Sacrifices of Atonement, concludes as punctually for this Sacrifice of Atonement or Sin-offering at Aaron's Consecration We have an Altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve at the Tabernacle, for the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary by the high Priest for sin (as also of those beasts which were offered for the Priests Sin-offering at the Consecration, albeit their Blood were not brought into the Sanctuary) are burnt without the Campe. Wherefore jesus also that he might sanctify the people with his own Blood suffered without the gate. Now this sanctification of God's people by Christ's Blood was their Consecration with him to be Kings and Priests, as he was now made King and Priest, that is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, and as he himself saith john 17. 29. For their sakes I sanctify myself, (that is, I undergo the rites of Consecration prefigured by the Law) that they also may be sanctified through the truth, or truly sanctified, that is after a better manner than they could be sanctified or consecrated by the legal Sacrifices, ceremonies, or services of the Law.  
3 The second sort of bloody Sacrifices offered by Moses at the Consecration of. Aaron and his sons were two Rams, the one for a burnt offering to the Lord for a sweet Savour and offering made by fire unto the Lord. Exod. 29. 18. The mystery hereby fore-signified at our Saviour's Confecration is expressed by the Apostle. Ephes. 5. 1. 2. Be ye therefore followers of God as dear Children, and walk in love as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a Sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour. The other Ram was to be offered as a peace offering and is called by Moses Exod. 29. the Ram of Aaron's Consecration ver. 26. because Aaron and his sons were to be anointed with the Blood of it.   

CHAP. 27. In what respects the Ram of the Consecration and the Ram which God did provide for a burnt offering instead of Isanck, did prefigure the sacrifice of the Son of God. Of other special rites wherein Aaron at his Consecration and in the function of his Priesthood, did prefigure the Consecration and Priest hood of the Son of God.  
NOw if we consider the special references of the aaronical Priesthood, there could no fitter Sacrifice be offered for Aaron and his sons at their Consecration then the Sacrifice of Rams; no other Sacrifices used in the Law could be so fit an emblem or representation of our high Priest's Sacrifice at his Consecration. The points whereto the aaronical Priesthood (whether during the time of their Consecration, or after Aaron and his sons were consecrated Priests,) had peculiar reference, were two. The first, the solemn memorial, the commeration or reiteration of God's Covenant made with Abraham and with his seed, or the continual acceptance of it, by performing the obedience which God required at their hands in all their sacrifices. The second was a perpetual representation of the accomplishment of this Covenant on God's part in and by the promised Seed or Messias. God had promised by oath to Abraham that in his seed not only Abraham's seed after the flesh, but all the Nations of the earth that follow the steps of Abraham, should be blessed. And in this promise confirmed by oath it was implied, as hath been often mentioned before, that the Son of God should become Abraham's seed, and that the seed of Abraham thus made the Son of God should be offered up to God in such a manner as God required Abraham to offer up his son Isaac, that is in a true and bloody sacrifice. Isaac's approach to death was a type, a figure, or representation of our Saviour's bloody death. Isaac's strange deliverance from this bloody death menaced by his Father's outstretehed hand armed with a bloody knife, was a type or shadow of our Saviour's Resurrection from death, which God his Father had not only threatened but inflicted upon him. Now as that which Abraham intended to have done to his son Isaac was accomplished by God upon his only son, so Abraham's words to Isaac when he intended to offer him up in bloody sacrifice became a true prophecy of our Saviour's bloody sacrifice. Isaac bearing the wood of the burnt offering upon his back, and observing his Father to carry fire in the one hand, and a knife in the other, no creature in the world besides themselves being present, moved this question, [Behold the fire & the wood, but where is the Lamb for the burnt offering?] And Abraham answers, God will provide himself a Lamb for a burnt offering, my Son. Gen. 22. 7. 8. Whatsoever the natural construction of Abraham's answer in these words might import, Abraham at this time had no other intention then to offer up his son Isaac for a burnt offering. Howbeit his words without wrong to their grammatical construction in the original might imply as much, and as the Hebrews conceive, they did to Isaac's apprehension imply as much as if he had said, [God will provide himself a Lamb for a burnt offering, even thee my Son; or, God will provide the● my Son for a burnt offering.] And from this apprehension or construction of Abraham's words, Isaac (as the Hebrews have a tradition) forthwith became willing to be offered up in sacrifice for a burnt offering, suffering himself to be bound upon the Altar by his Father, being able if he had been so disposed to make resistance, as being now at least 25 years of age.  
2 However it were, Isaac was as willing to be offered as Abraham was to offer him. And yet Abraham's former words are more exactly fulfilled even for the present than if Isaac had been then offered upon the Altar: For though God had commanded Abraham to offer his only begotten son Isaac for a burnt offering, yet he had been a burnt offering of Abraham's providing; but the Ram which was caught by the horns in the thicket was a burnt offering of God's provision merely: It was no part of Abraham's store, of Abraham's provision, forecast or foresight. The Ram questionless came not thither from any neighbour place by chance; God did provide it for a burnt offering by a manner extraordinary and miraculous. For if David would not offer a sacrifice to God of that which cost him nothing, or of that which was another man's by former possession until he had made it his own by a better title then by free donation, or his own by a just price or valuable consideration, Abraham doubtless would not have offered a sacrifice unto the Lord of that which he might justly suspect to be the goods of another man until he had bought it of the known owner. But knowing this Ram to have been of God's own or mere provision by means miraculous or extraordinary, he forthwith offered it for a burnt offering instead of his son. So then the League or Covenant betwixt God and Abraham is concluded and subscribed unto on Abraham's part with the sacrifice of a Ram, and was to be continued or accepted of by Abraham's posterity with continuation of like sacrifices. The high Priests themselves who were in their rank and order, mediators or intercessors for continuing and establishing this Covenant between God and Abraham's seed, were to be solemnly consecrated by the sacrifice of Rams; And in memorial or commemoration of Isaac's deliverance from death, the jews did celebrate that day wherein God provided this sacrifice instead of Isaac, that was (according to their Calendar) the first of September or feast of Trumpets, with the sacrifice of Rams. But they considered not that in the words of God's oath to Abraham it was employed that God would give his Son his only Son for such a bloody sacrifice or burnt offering as Abraham intended to have made of his son Isaac. They considered not that in Abraham's answer to Isaac, The Lord would provide himself of a burnt offering, and in the miraculous provision of the Ram for a burnt offering instead of Isaac, it was employed or fore-signified as well by matter of fact, as by express word of prophecy, that God would provide matter of sacrifice when he should offer his only Son after a more excellent miraculous manner, than he had now done the Ram instead of Isaac. For seeing the Son of God as God could not dye, he therefore provides him a mortal body taken from the seed of Abraham, the substance of the blessed Virgin, and so unites it to his divine person, that whilst this seed of Abraham was offered in sacrifice, the Son of God was likewise offered, that whilst Abraham's seed was thus consecrated by bloody sacrifice, the Son of God was likewise consecrated to be the high Priest after the order of Melchisedech, that is, to be the Author, Donour, and Dispenser of that blessing which Melchisedech in the name of the most high God, whose Priest he was, bestowed on Abraham, and which God upon Abraham's readiness to offer Isaac did by solemn oath bind himself to perform, and to perform it in Abraham's seed. The necessary consequence or abstract of which oath, as it is before manifested was this, that Abraham's seed should be that most high God in whose name Melchisedech had blessed Abraham.  
3 The unusual and unexpected fulfilling of Abraham's words to Isaac. Gen. 22. 8. jehovah lireh, the Lord will see, or the Lord will provide himself a Lamb for a burnt offering, gave Abraham occasion to name that place jehovah ●ireh, as also to a common Proverb taken up from the name of this place, and from the event, In the Mount of the Lord it shall be seen, Gen. 22. 14. or as the original, without straining will more naturally bear, In the mountain the Lord or jehovah will be seen. And this Proverb taken up upon these occasions, in whether sense or construction you list to take it, was more than a Proverb, a true mystery or mystical prophecy exactly fulfilled in the crucifying of our Saviour. The Lord in the Mount did see and was seen by his special providence when he provided the Ram for a sacrifice instead of Isaac. The mountain whereon Abraham purposed to have offered Isaac, as he was commanded by God, for a burnt offering was one of the mountains in the land of Moriah, and that (as all interpreters agree,) was about the place wherein jerusalem was afterwards built; most are of opinion that it was that part of mount Zion wherein the Temple was afterwards built, wherein the threshing-floore of Arauna stood, which David consecrated for the Altar of God. But whether it were this mountain or mount Calvary I will not dispute. Mount Calvary likewise was in the land of Moriah, and in this mountain jehovah did see, and was seen, he did in this mountain provide himself of a Lamb for a burnt offering, he himself became a Lamb or visible sacrifice for our sins, by whose blood he himself, and we in him were consecrated Priests to God the Father. The other circumstances, whether concerning Isaac or the Lamb, were visibly and remarkably accomplished in the sacrifice of the Son of God. Isaac did bear wood for the sacrifice up into the mountain where Abraham intended to sacrifice him: The Son of God did bear the wood of the Cross whereon he was sacrificed, at least part of it, up to mount Calvary. The Ram which God provided instead of Isaac was caught by the horns in the thicket of brambles or thorns; and the Lamb of God the Son of God marched to his Cross with a Crown of thorns and brambles upon his head, as most of the Fathers and best modern interpreters collect from the Evangelists story. For where it is said that they took off the purple robe and other royal ensigns wherewith they had in mockery invested him, it is not mentioned that they took off this Crown of thorns; this was the thicket wherein the murderers caught him: For as ye know he was condemned upon pretence that he affected the Crown of David, and suffered himself to be entitled and saluted the King of the jews, and in derision of this great mystery which they understood not, they put a Crown of thorns upon his head and crucify him in it.  
4 But whilst the Princes of the earth and the Rulers take counsel against him, while the heathen-Souldiers and jewish pepole do rage and make a mock of him, hec that sat in the heavens laughed them to scorn, what they did act in jest or scorn here on earth, he turns into earnest and ratifies by an everlasting decree in heaven. They cloth the Son of God with a purple or royal robe, and bowing their knees thus they salute him, Hail King of the jews, unwittingly fore-prophecying as Caiphas did, as well by matter of fact as by word, that God would now anoint the Son of David to be that King over Zion to whom all knees should bow of things in heaven, of things on the earth, of things under the earth. They in despite and bitter scoffs wreathe a Crown of thorns or brambles about his head, and fastened it on with a reed or mock-scepter, which they had put into his hand, little considering that he which sat in the heavens did consecrate him here by this part of his afflictions to the wearing of that everlasting Crown of glory which David Psal. 132. had foretell should flourish upon him whilst his enemies were clothed with shame. ver. 18. And of this Crown of Glory as well the royal Diadem or Crown of David, wherein his Successors were enthronised, as the Crown of holiness wherein Aaron and his Successors the high Priests were consecrated, were but the shadows or models, and so no question was the Crown upon the Ark or Mercy-seat. And it is a point which I will commend unto the serious reader's observation, specially in the reading of the apocalypse or the Revelation, that in all or most part of the visions made to S. john the Disciple whom he loved, of Christ in his glory, he still appears, and his appearance is still emblazoned by this Disciple, in some one or other of the robes which Aaron used at his Consecration. 
Rev. 1. 13.  Sometimes he appears with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle: Such were the robes and girdle of Aaron the high Priest; and to show that his Saints were consecrated likewise in his Consecration, his Saints or Angels appeared thus clothed unto john. Rev. 15. ver. 5. 6. And after that I looked and behold the Temple of the Tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened; and the seven Angels came out of the Temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen and having their breasts girded with golden girdle●▪ Sometimes he appears with a Crown upon his head.  
5 His Palace or Kingdom likewise, his walk or verge is emblazoned or set forth by the material Temple, the ministry likewise of his glorified Saints and Angels: But of this hereafter.  
6 Those temporary flashes of Royal salutations and greetings which the multitude tendered unto him when he came into jerusalem to be consecrated, were ratified by an everlasting decree in heaven, So 'tis said Revel. 7. 9 10. And after this I beheld, and lo a great multitude which no man could number, of all Nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the Throne, and before the Lamb clothed with white robes and palms in their hands, and cried with a loud voice saying, Salvation unto our God which sitteh upon the throne, and unto the Lamb! This was the accomplishment of the multitude's crying▪ Hosanna to the son of David with palm▪ branches in their hands, and those which thus cried in heaven are they (as the Angel instructs S. john) which came out of great tribulation and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; therefore are they before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his Temple, and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. Revel. 7. 14. 15. etc. This washing of their garments in the blood of the Lamb▪ was likewise prefigured in the Consecration of Aaron. Exod. 29. 21. Thou shalt also take of the blood, that is on the Altar and of the anointing oil and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him, and he shall be hallowed and his garments and his sons, and his son's garments with him. This blood wherewith their garments were sprinkled was the blood of the Ram of the Consecration, whose blood likewise Moses as it is in the 20th verse was commanded to take and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ears of his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot and sprinkle the blood etc. This ceremony or service was literally and punctually fulfilled in the Consecration of our high Priest. The high Priest of the Law was consecrated with foreign blood, with the blood of Rams; The high Priest of the New Testament was consecrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with his own blood, and in this blood, not only his hands, his feet or ears were sprinkled or anointed, but his whole body was anointed or bathed. For though he was always internally sanctified, and though this his internal sanctification was most absolute and perfect from the womb, yet would the Lord have him thus visibly and externally consecrated with his own blood, that we by the same blood might be sanctified and consecrated after a better manner than Aaron was by the blood of the Ram of Consecration. The moral employed in sprinkling of Aaron's right ear, the thumb of his right hand, and the great toe of his right foot is this, Our ears which are the sense of discipline, and the gate by which faith entereth into our hearts, must be consecrated and hallowed by the blood of our high Priest, that we may, know God's will; our hands and feet likewise which are the instruments of service are hallowed and sanctified by his blood, that we may walk in his ways, and do his will. Finally as both our bodies and souls have been redeemed by his blood, so both must be consecrated in it, and enabled by it unto his service.  
7 Another ceremony or service at Aaron's Consecration was the offering up of one loaf of bread, one cake of oiled bread, and one wafer wherewith Aaron's and his son's hands were first to be filled, and afterwards to be burnt upon the Altar for a burnt offering, for a sweet savour unto the Lord. Exod. 29. ver. 23. 25. The mystery signified by this and the other bloody sacrifice may best be gathered from that which hath afore been said concerning the circumcision of Isaac, and of Abraham's seed, or concerning God's demanding Isaac for a burnt offering, which was then observed out of Rupertus an ancient Writer; God did demand at Abraham's hands that he might thereby tie himself to give his own son unto Abraham and his seed. To which may now be added the testimony of S. Chrysostome in his comments upon our Saviour's words to the Woman of Samarin; Da mihi bibore, give me to drink. The Fountain of life sitting besides the Fountain calls for drink, not that he was desirous to take but rather to give drink: Give me to drink, saith he, that I may make thee drink the water of immortality. I thirst after the salvation of men's souls, not that I might drink, but that I may give them salvation to drink. I imitate my Father who said to Abraham offer me up thy Son, thy only Son Isaac whom thou lovest for a burnt offering, this he said, not as if he had desired to accept Abraham's son, but that he determined to give his own Son for the sins of the world, as S. john saith. Chap. 3. ver. 16. In like manner God required the flesh and blood of Bullocks and of Rams, with unleavened bread to be offered up in sacrifice unto him at the Consecration of Aaron, not that he stood in need to eat the flesh of Bulls, or bread of wheat, or drink the blood of Rams, but that he then purposed to consecrate for us and to give unto us his only Son, whose flesh is meat indeed, whose blood is drink indeed, whose body is the bread of life, which cometh down from heaven, which who so eateth shall live for ever, for he that truly eateth is consecrated by it to be a King and Priest for ever unto God the Father.   

CHAP. 28. A brief Recapitulation of what hath been said in this parallel between the Consecration of Aaron and the Consecration of the Son of God; the conclusion of the whole Treatise concerning it.  
TO recapitulate what hath been said before: The beginning of the everlasting Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedch is the determining of the aaronical Priesthood, unless we shall say as perhaps we ought, that this Priesthood with the legal rites and sacrifices did expire with the last mortal breath of him who is now immortal.  
2 The everlasting sacrifice whereby he is consecrated an everlasting Priest was then accomplished, and the cessation of the aaronical Priesthood proclaimed when he said consummatum est, and commended his spirit unto God. Yet is it not probable that his Consecration, or the Consecration of the everlasting Sanctuary were at the same instant accomplished. His sacred soul perfumed with the fresh odour and fragrancy of his sweet smelling sacrifice, anointed with his most precious blood into whatsoever other place it afterwards went, instantly repaired into the Holiest of Holies, into Paradise itself. This is the accomplishment of our Atonement, prefigured by the high Priest's entering into the holy place with blood, and the period of all sacrifices for his own or our Consecration.  
3 That the vale through which the high Priest after the order of Aaron did enter into the most holy place, should rend asunder at the very instant wherein the soul and spirit of this our high Priest did pass through the vale of his flesh rend and torn, into his celestial Sanctuary, was a lively emblem to all observant spectators, that he was no intruder but called by God. And reason they had to observe this sign or accident, in that he had promised to one of them that were crucified with him, Hedie mecum erit in Paradiso.  
4 The public solemnity of Consecration hath ever been a special testimony or adjunct of lawful calling; and Christ's Consecration was more solemn and public than Aaron's was. Such it was as flesh and blood could not affect; such as nothing but filial obedience to his heavenly Father, could have moved this our high Priest to admit, because it was to be accomplished by a lingering and a bloody death. Moses at the Consecration of Aaron is commanded to gather all the congregation together unto the door of the tabernacle. Levit. 8. Ad tria voluit Dominus populum congregart: Primum ut pro eo sacerdos offerret, eumque expearet: Secundum, ad instituendum sacerdotem, ut sciret populus Aaron & filios ejus praefici sibi in sacerdotes & mediatores; & de caeter● commendavit se illi. Tertione esset inter eos aliquis, qui postea sacerdotium ambiret postquam omnes sciebant Aar●nem à Deo sacerdotem institutum▪ Oleaster.  
5 For the like reasons God would have the Consecration of his Son accomplished at the Passeover, that is, as a Father speaks, at the Metropolis of jewish feasts, the most solemn, public and universal mee●ing that any one People or Nation in the world ever had, besides the concourse and confluence of strangers at the time of our Saviour's Passion. The manner of whose death, and the signs and wonders then exhibited, made the heathen Centurion, a man altogether ignorant of these sacred mysteries, to confess that this jesus, whom he had seen crucified, was the Son of God. But the time, the manner, and consequence of his Resurrection most directly proves as well his Priesthood, as his calling to it, to have been from God; both more excellent than Aaron's was.  
6 We see it experienced Numb. 16. 17. that notwithstanding the public solemnity of Aaron's Consecration by Moses, there wanted not such rebellious spirits then, as the world is full of now, which thought themselves altogether as holy, and as ●it to be high Priests as he. After the earth had swallowed up the principals in this conspiracy; the ●ea●●●e●●e multitude, though ●e●●●●ed for a while with the fearful disaster of their ringleaders, conspire afresh against Moses and Aaron, and had utterly perished in this▪ rebellion had not Aaron run into the midst of the congregation, which sought his life, and stood with his centre, as with a shield of defence, betwixt them and death. But seeing neither the fearful examples showed upon Coreh, Dathan and Abiram▪ nor Aaron's late compassion towards them, when wrath was gone out from the Lord against them, and the plague was kindled amongst them, were able to quell their jealousies, or appease their murmurings, the Lord lastly made the Rod of Levy alone inscribed with Aaron's name amongst all the rods of the Tribes of Israel, to bring forth branch, leaf, blossom, and fruit in one night; and thus beautified with flower and fruit, which were not to fade in so many years, as they had been hours inspringing, to be laid up in the Ark of the testimony, to stay the murmurings of the children of Israel, and to be as a witness against them whensoever they should question Aaron's calling.  
7 The Tribes of Israel were never so maliciously and stubbornly bend against Moses and Aaron, as the Tribe of Levi, and Aaron's successors with their complices, were against the son of David; to whom the Lord destinated the Priesthood after the order of Melchisedech by solemn oath. Though the earth did quake, and the rocks rend in sunder; though the graves did open, and give up their dead, more desirous to swallow up these rebellious miscreants quick then to swallow up Coreh, Dathan and Abiram, as doubtless they had done, unless this Priest of the most high God had made an Atonement for them, (saying, Father forgive them for they know not what they do,) yet their murmurings cease not with his life; their malice pursues him into his grave.  
8 The last and peremptory sign reserved by the wisdom of God, either to stay their murmurings, or to condemn them with Coreh, with Dathan and Abiram, unto the everlasting pit, was the causing of this Rod of ●esse, this branch of David whom these cruel and merciless men had quite stripped of flower, of leaf, of branch, bereft of sap, and as it were scorched and beaked in the fire of affliction, to recover sap, and leaf, and flower again, to bring forth the fruit which never shall ●●de now consecrated to be the tree of life to all the Nations, enthronised in the heavenly tabernacle, and planted at the right hand of God, until his enemies by the rod of his power be made his footstool. 
Psal. 110.  We have seen in part how fitly that testimony of the Psalmist, Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee, being understood of Christ raised from the dead, is avouched by our Apostle to prove Christ's calling, his Consecration and advancement to the Priesthood here mentioned, to have been from God; and from the event answering to the Psalmist's prophecy, and from that other testimony of Psalm 110. often mentioned, doth S. Peter cause the murmuring of the people of Israel to cease. For from the two premises Act. 2. ver. 36. he thus concludes; Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made the same jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ; that is as much as if he had said, both King and Priest; by these declarations he gained three thousand souls, which otherwise had perished in their murmurings.  
9 So then the day of his Resurrection is the day wherein the dignity of everlasting Priesthood is actually collated upon him, and as he himself testifieth, All power is given unto me both in heaven and earth. And if all power; then as well the power of Priesthood, as the power royal. And as high Priest he gives Commission to his Disciples to teach and baptise. The day of his Ascension or placing at the right hand of God is the day of his solemn enthronization, and immediately upon this he sent forth the Rod of his strength out of Zion. For by this rod (foretell by the Psalmist, Psal. 110.) we are to understand that power, wherewith his Disciples were to be endued from above, which they were to expect in jerusalem at the feast of Pentecost. The effusion of the holy spirit, and emplanting the Law of the Gospel in their hearts upon that day or the day following wherein the Law of Moses was proclaimed, was as a proclamation to all the world, that the Priesthood was translated, or changed by this manifest translation, or change of the Law.    

SICT. 5. Of the Resurraction of the Son of God. By what Prophets it was foretell. By what Persons or legal Rites it was fore-pictured or foreshadowed.  

CHAP. 29 In what high esteem S. Paul did hold the Article of our Saviour's Resurrection and Ascension etc. That the want of explicit belief to this grand Article of the Resurrection did argue rather a dulness or slowness to believe the Scriptures than any infidelity, or incredulity, even in such as had seen his miracles, and had heard him foretell his death and rising again until the event did manifest unto them the truth of his former Doctrine and predictions.  
WHen the Doctor of the Gentiles saith, 
1. Cor. 22.  He esteemed to know nothing, amongst the great Masters of knowledge, save jesus Christ and him crucified, this exception no way excludes the knowledge of his Resurrection from the dead, or implies that he had not the knowledge of the Article in equal esteem with the knowledge of his Cross. How highly soever he did esteem both mysteries, it doth not argue that he did rate the knowledge of his Ascension into heaven, his session at the right hand of God, or his coming thence to judge the quick and the dead one mite lower. The greatest blessing which he could either praise God for, or pray unto him for, whether for himself, or for his beloved Ephesians, was the knowledge (as he terms it) of these grand mysteries. Wherefore I also after I had heard of your faith in the Lord jesus and love unto all the Saints, cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; that the God of our Lord jesus Christ, the Father of Glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the Glory of his inheritance in his Saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of his Power to us ward, who believe according to the working of his mighty Power, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principalities, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in the world which is to come. Ephes. 1. v. 15. 16. etc. But the high price of the knowledge of these mysteries, and the fervency of his prayers for attaining unto such knowledge, are more pathetically expressed. Phil. 3. v. 7. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ, yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ jesus my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith; that I may know him and the power of his Resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death, if by any means I might attain unto the Resurrection of the dead.  
2 The considerations of these raptures of our Apostles joy and hope, occasion or rather revive the relics of my private sorrow and grief, even in this subject of public joy and comfort. For the bitterest and deepest sting which worldly crosses, or multiplicity of buisinesses, or other vexations past have left in my thoughts, is this, That my portion for many years in all these, (respectively) hath brought a necessity upon me, either not at all, or in my old and decaying days to publish the fruits of my former labours in these great mysteries, which to my apprehension had been well set in my flourishing and vivid years; or (to borrow an expression from a more sacred and more authentic Author) 
* Hezekiah 2. King. 19 3.  that the children (of my desires) should come now to the birth when there is least strength left to bring them forth: yet was the Lord his comfort and strength who was the Author of this complaint; and on the same Lords gracious goodness, my weakness whether of memory, judgement, or expression shall repose itself. As for the Articles of Christ's Resurrection and Ascension, the ingenuous Reader cannot expect, nor can I hope that I should say much which hath not been said before by many others, especially in this ripe age of learning, these being the themes or subjects of anniversary Sermons upon the solemn feasts unto which they properly belong as well in the Court, as in the Universities, and all other well ordered Churches throughout this Kingdom; yet somewhat I must say concerning these two points as being engaged to bring this long treatise concerning the knowledge of Christ and him crucified to some period.  
3 The true or Christian belief of any Article in the Creed includes somewhat more than an opinion, more than a pious opinion or mere probability of its truth; and the knowledge of the mysteries last mentioned, in our Apostle's meaning or expression, imports somewhat more than a mere belief of them; more than such a belief, or the sight, or experiment of greatest miracles could produce or establish in most docile Auditors whether of our Saviour Christ himself, or of his Apostles; for even the best & most docile of the Disciples or Apostles which had been ear-witnesses of his heavenly Doctrine, and eie-witnesses of all his miracles from his baptism or temptation in the wilderness unto his reposall in the grave, did not know half so much concerning the mysteries of his Cross, of his passion, and bloody death, before his Resurrection as they did after it, nor did they so well understand so much of the power and virtue of his Resurrection itself, for many days after their experience of the truth of it, as they did after his Ascension into heaven, and the descension of the holy Ghost upon them; by whose efficacious inspiration or operation in their hearts and souls, the knowledge of all the forementioned Articles was much increased, and their belief of the meanest matters which did concern Christ, much better rooted and strengthened, than it had been before his glorification: His placing at the right hand of God in his throne of majesty did crown their former belief and glorious hopes with fresh joy and comfort.  
4 Wherein the knowledge of Christ, and the knowledge of other subjects, whether philosophical, or mathematical, or in other terms, wherein the faculty of Theology and sciences properly so called agree or differ, hath been discussed at large in the seventh Book of these commentaries and in the fourth. We are then properly said to know any effect, or conclusion in sciences properly so called, or so reputed, when we discern the true cause why it is so, and are assured that it cannot be otherwise. And we are then said to know Christ, and him crucified according to the scale of speculative knowledge, when we can discern the sweet harmony between the evangelical relations, or matters related by the Apostles concerning Christ, & the predictions of the Prophets, or prefigurations by matters of fact in the Law, or legal services, or in sacred histories. Again as in sciences properly so called there is a regress or knowledge of the cause by the effect, of the effect by the cause; So there is a twofold knowledge of Christ, the one speculative (such as hath been described before) the other, which is the better, practical or experimental, which later is better resembled by moral philosophy then by natural experiments, or mathematical conclusions.  
5 This experimental knowledge of Christ, and of the mysteries whereof we treat, consists in that solid impression which the forementioned speculative knowledge being liniamented in our brains doth by the finger of God, that is by his holy spirit, engrave in our hearts, and instampe upon our affections. I must begin with the speculative knowledge of these two Articles concerning the Resurrection and Ascension of the Son of God; and conclude with the practical or experimental.  
6 The conclusions, or declarations of these mysteries are set down by the four Evangelists didistinctly, and accurately both for substance, and historical circumstances, and their several references to former Scriptures avouched not only by them but by other of the Apostles in their canonical writings, especially by S. Paul in his Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Corinthians, and to the Hebrews. The Evangelicall declaration of this great mystery, with the manner how the belief or knowledge of it was improved or enlarged, is most punctually and clearly related by S. john Chap. 20. This blessed Apostle and S. Peter did at the first believe Mary Magdalen's report more distinctly and expressly than they did the prophetical predictions. The first day of the week, cometh Mary Magdalen early when it was yet dark, unto the Sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the Sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other Disciple whom jesus loved, and saith unto them, they have taken away the Lord out of the Sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. Peter therefore went forth, and that other Disciple, and came to the Sepulchre. So they run both together, and the other Disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the Sepulchre. And he stooping down, and looking in saw the linen clothes lying, yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the Sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie. And the Napkin that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other Disciple, which came first to the Sepulchre, and he saw and believed, for as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. Such knowledge or belief of the Scripture as for this time S. john had, was farther improved by Christ's apparition unto them upon the same day in the evening. Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut, where the Disciples were assembled for fear of the jews, came jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had said so, he showed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the Disciples glad when they saw the Lord. Then said jesus unto them again, Peace be unto you: As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them and saith unto them, receive ye the holy Ghost. Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained. But Thomas one of the twelve which was called Didymus was not with them when jesus came. The other Disciples therefore said unto him, we have seen the Lord: But he said unto them except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe, and after eight days his Disciples were within, and Thomas with them: Then came jesus the doors being shut, and stood in the midst and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands, and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side, and be not faithless but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed, blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. Unto some it may seem questionable in what sense, or how far that of S. Paul is true, faith cometh by hearing, seeing S. Thomas professeth that he would not, and S. john in this place of himself confesseth that he did not believe one of the fundamental Articles of Christian faith, to wit, Christ's Resurrection from the dead, until they had seen what they had to believe: Yet if we could accurately sister the internal sense or kernel from the husk or shell of words wherein it is contained, it will infer no more than this, that the sight of the eye or miracles seen may be an inducement or introduction unto true belief; they cannot be the true ground or anchorhold of Christian faith. Such faith must be grounded, and hope truly Christian must be pitched upon the testimony of Moses or the Prophets, or other sacred and Canonical writings. The reason why S. john did not believe our Saviour's Resurrection before he saw his empty tomb, and the linen clothes wherein he had been wrapped, was because before this sight he knew not the Scripture which he had often heard read or avouched. The sight then of this or of other miracles, did but open an entry or passage unto the true knowledge of that which he had formerly heard. But more strange it may seem to all of us, that two so great Apostles as S. Peter and S. john, which had been for three years and a half together perpetual auditors of such a Master as spoke as never man spoke, and often eye-witnesses of such works done by him, as no man besides him could do, should now be ignorant of that fundamental Article of faith whereof at this day to doubt were heresy, which now to deny were infidelity: For if Christ be not risen from the dead, than the dead shall not arise, and if the dead do not arise, than were both preaching and hearing vain; our faith were vain; both Priest and people were in a worse case than infidels; and we Christians should be of all men most miserable.  
6 Yet far be it from us to say or think that either of these two Apostles were at this time in the state of Heretics, or that either of their cases were no better than the cases of Infidels; rather it would be a branch of infidelity in us to think that at this time they had no faith. The root of their belief in Christ (as in their Messias and Redeemer) was entire and incorrupt; the stem of it was ●ound although until this time it had not shut out into this particular branch of faith. This was the time wherein the actual and express belief of Christ's Resurrection from the dead was to blossom and bear fruit even in these two Apostles. That it did now break forth in them and bear fruit was the work of God; that before this time it should keep in and be in some sort snipped, was the ordinance and dispensation of the same God: for if the knowledge of our Saviour's Resurrection had been as express, as explicit, and distinct before his death, as it was after his rising from the dead, neither had their love either been so hearty in itself, or so manifest to themselves, nor their faith so lively and cheerful as in the issue both did prove: The heartiness of their love unto him whilst he lived was manifested even unto themselves, by their sorrow for his death, which doubtless had been much less, if in the interim they had actually and expressly believed to have seen him again within three days. The strength, the livelihood, or cheerfulness of their faith was truly manifested and experienced in their joyful entertainment of the glad tidings which were brought unto them by Mary Magdalen, and whereof their outward senses were in part witnesses. Their joy could not have been so great, nor their embracement of his Resurrection so cheerful and hearty if it had been expressly and confidently expected by them. It was by so much the welcomer, by how much the accomplishment of it was less thought on.  
7 But were these two great Apostles altogether without blame, in that before this time they knew not the Scripture that Christ was to rise from the dead? They might be more capable or worthy of blame, than we to lay any blame upon them▪ wherefore not to pronounce what I think of them, much less to determine any thing concerning them, I must make bold to be the Reader's remembrancer of that which our Saviour himself immediately after his Resurrection said unto two of his Disciples which did doubt of the truth of it, albeit they had heard it in a sort testified, the story is Luk. 24. 22. 23. Gertaine women of our company (say those two Disciples which went with our Saviour to Emmaus) made us astonished, which were early at the Sepulchre. And when they found not his body they came saying, that they had also seen a vision of Angels which said that he was alive; And certain of them which were with us went to the Sepulchre and found it even so as the women had said, but him they saw not. Then he said unto them, O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory. How far S. Peter and S. john were liable to this censure of the supreme judge that I leave for him to determine. S. john from this time did expressly believe Christ's Resurrection. So did not S. Peter till afterwards, if we may believe the collections of cardinal 
* ●●troe●nte Petro intravit etiam alter discipulus, qui primus venerat: Sed ante Petrum ingredi non erat ausus. Hic vidit etiam linteamina & sudarium, sed fecit aliud, quod non fecit Petrus, credidit enim, nempè resurreris se Dominum: Petrus intravit quidem & vidit. johannes vero intravit, vidit, & credidit. Si credidisset tunc Petrus, non utique soli ●ibi Iohannes fidem tribuisset etc. Vide plura in annota. ibid. so. john 20. 8.  Tollet upon this place.  
8 The point, which from our Saviour's words unto these Discipels, Luk. 24. and from our Evangelist's confession of himself in the 9 ver. of the 20. Chap. I would commend unto the Reader's consideration, is this, that our Saviour's Resurrection from the dead was fore-signified and might have been foreknown, not from one or two places of Scripture only, but from many; from the current of that which Moses and the Prophets had written. So it follows Luk. 24. 27. Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. And when S. john saith that the Disciples as yet knew not the Scriptures, this is more than if he had said that they knew not the Scriptures that he must rise again from the dead. The phrase imports as much, as if the whole drift and scope of Scripture was to fore▪ shadow, setforth, or exemplify the power and virtue of Christ's Death, and Resurrection from the Dead.   

CHAP. 30. That the Death and Resurrection of the Son of God was enigmatically foretell in the first promise made to our Father Adam, and our Mother Eve. That his Resurrection was exquisitely prefigured by Isaac's escape from death; and the Propagation of his Kingdom after his Resurrection, by the strange increase, or multiplication of Isaac's seed. A parallel betwixt our Saviour and joseph in their affliction and exaltation.  
THe truth of our Saviour's Resurrection is necessarily though but enigmatically included in the first promise made to mankind. Gen. 3. ver. 15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between her seed and thy seed; it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel. This sacred oracle, as hath been to divers purposes before observed, includes a literal, and an emblematical ormysticall sense. To the present purpose, by the heel of this woman's seed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some of the ancients understand the Humanity of our Saviour, and not amiss, so it do not point out the similitude too precisely. The warrantable punctual meaning of the place is thus; As a bruise in the heel to an ordinary man is not deadly, so neither was death itself unto our Saviour, because he was God as well as man, and by the virtue of his divine power, could as easily recover life again after he had been put to death, as a strong body, whose vital or internal parts are whole and sound, can recover health after some bruise in the heel, or other infirmity in his outward or extreme parts; but so could not Saran recover the blow which our Saviour by his Sufferings gave him in the head; he hath been ever since diminuti capit is deprived of his wont power, and dispossessed of such as were before his captives: So saith our Saviour. joh. 12. ver. 31. Now is the judgement of this world, now shall the Prince of this world be cast out; And I if I be lift up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. And his drawing of men unto him was a drawing of them out of Satan's bondage and dominion. So that Lucifer, as we may hence gather, had a twofold fall, The one from heaven or his sear of Angelical glory, when he sought to be like God his Creator: The other from his power or dominion over this inferior world or moral men; And this befell him by seeking to make the Son of God more miserable than other men, by attempting to have him lifted up upon the Cross, as the brazen Serpent was in the wilderness. The same nails that nailed our Saviour's feet to the Cross did pierce the old Serpent's head. In brief, Christ was to crush the old Serpent's head by conquering death, and death could not be fully conquered but by dying. So that when it offered itself unto our Saviour, he was to meet with it, and to fight with it, not a far off, but hand to hand, yea to close with it, and to receive the utmost force and power of it in every part. Not thus throughly to have tasted it, had been to eschew it, or to have fled from it, not to have conquered it: But thus to abide the extremity of it, to receive the full dint of all the blows that death and hell, or all the powers of darkness could reach mortality; and yet to put all off, or rather to redouble their forces upon themselves was truly to subdue death, and him that had the power of death. This is our Apostle's inference. Heb. 2. ver. 14. For as much then 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.  
2 Our Saviour, as some of the ancients have wittily said, did as it were bait his divinity with his humanity, that he might catch Satan in his own net, or with his own hook. Satan being by nature an immortal spirit, did take upon him the bodily shape of a Serpent to beguile the first woman; and our Saviour being the eternal Spirit and Son of God did take our flesh (that is, the woman's seed) upon him, thereby to deceive or entrap the great Tempter. For unless the Godhead had been invested with the weakness of mortal flesh, the old Serpent would not have so desperately adventured his sting or teeth upon the Godhead as he did. But whilst he sought to swallow the bait of his flesh, he hath lost his sting, he hath broken his teeth, and spoiled his jaws by meddling with the Godhead.  
3▪ But more plainly by much was our Saviour's Resurrection, and victory over death fore-pictured by Isaac's narrowescape from death. Gen. 22. 9 The Altar was built on purpose for him, the wood was couched, and Isaac fast bound upon it; the knife was in his Father's hand, whose arm was stretched forth to strike him: But God by his Angel, and a voice from heaven delivers him from this imminent danger, as it is v. 11. 12. This only Son of Abraham, this child of promise, the only hope, or pledge of that promised seed which was expected from the beginning, was to come thus near unto death, and yet to be delivered from it, that the faith of Abraham concerning the Death and Resurrection of Christ the promised seed, might be tried; or rather that by his trial, our Saviour's Death and Resurrection might be truly represented or fore-pictured by Isaac's danger and delivery: So saith the Apostle Heb. 11. 17. 18. 19 By faith, Abraham when he was tried offered up Isaac, and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten Son; of whom it was said, that in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure; to wit, of the Resurrection of Christ, or the promised seed.  
4 The later part of this promise belongs merely and properly unto Christ, in whom alone it could be fulfilled. For the more in number Abraham's children according to the flesh were, before the promised seed did come; and the greater their temporal prosperity, or happiness were, the worse it must needs go with other Nations or kindreds of the earth. If the Messias, or promised seed should have erected such a temporal Kingdom here on earth, as the jews expected, the Nations of the earth could not have been blessed in him, as God promised by Oath to Abraham: for it is no part of happiness, but rather misery to have the jews, or seed of Abraham according to the flesh for their Lords and Masters.  
5 Notwithstanding the former promise was in part fulfilled in the mighty increase of Abraham's posterity by Sarah, this was a pledge of the later part which was to be fulfilled in Christ. Through faith (saith the Apostle) Sarah received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of ac●ild when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the ●kie in multitude, and as the sand which is by the Sea▪ shore, innumerable. Heb. 11. v. 11. 12.  
6 It was one of the great wonders of the world, that from a woman that had been barrentill after fourscore years of age, there should proceed above six hundred thousand men within less than four hundred years.) Th●miracle notwithstanding had been less, if her children had been more; but she brought forth no more sons than Isaac: and this mighty Nation did spring from jacob, who was but one branch of Isaac ● Sarah was as good as dead when she conceived Isaac, and Isaac himself was at death's door before he gave life to others. So powerful is God to raise strength out of weakness, and to make the barren a fruitful Mother of many children. How beit this wonderful increase of Sarah's or Isaac's posterity was but a shadow, a draught, or map of that great miracle which was to be exhibited in the promised seed. More admirable it was that the blessed Virgin should bear a Son, then that Sarah should conceive. More strange and miraculous that Christ being put to death should become the Father of more people than Isaac had been. Yet this we see hath God performed: For since his Resurrection he hath begotten more sons to God throughout the Nations than all the children of Abraham or Isaac according to the flesh.  
7 This miraculous birth of the Church, and this mighty increase of her children, the Lord did as it were point out to future ages, in the forementioned increase of Sarah's posterity; that the world might know the body or substance when it should appear, by the picture which he had made of it. And that Abraham's posterity according to the flesh might steadfastly believe the spiritual promise by the temporal pledge▪ Of which pledge every one of them was a part.  
8 To this end and purpose saith God himself by his Prophet Esay. Chap. 51. v. 12. He or ken to me ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: Look unto the Rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your Father, and to Sarah that bore you, for I called him alone, and blessed him▪ and in creased him.  
9 It was more remarkably true of us christians, (whether the poor remnant of the sons of Abraham according to the flesh which were converted, or of us Gentiles the seed of japhet,) than it was of the Israelites, which were borne in Egypt. We▪ were not the greatest but the least of all people or Nations. It was not our own wit or strength▪ made us so great a Nation as we are: But the Lord our God which loved Abraham, loved us in Christ, and bestowed the blessing of Isaac in fuller measure upon us. It was his power, his love and wisdom, that did thus multiply and increase us. The Rock whence we were hewn, and the hole of the pit whence we were digged was our Saviour's grave. After his death saith the Evangelist S. Luke Chap. 23. v. 52. 53. joseph of Aright 〈…〉 t to Pilat and begged the body of jesus, and took it down and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a Sepulchre that was hewn in stone wherein man never before was laid.  
10 This Rock was the quarry, out of which the whole Church of God, which is now spread far and wide over the face of the whole earth, was digged. Our Saviour's Resurrection from the dead was the first opening▪ of it: And by virtue▪ of his Resurrection, such as were dead in sins and trespasses▪ such as without it should have consumed to dust in the grave, are become living stones, even Pillars in the house of God; Abraham's children according to pro●●se▪ for out of stones hath God raised up children ante Abraham.  
11 This Application of the Type is warranted by the Prophet Esay. Chap. 53. v. 8. He was taken from prison, and from judgement, and who shall declare his generation? What generation did the Prophet meane● The eternal generation of the son of God? So indeed some of the ancients have interpreted this place, and too many modern interpreters have herein followed them. But this were to runne-counter upon the Text. No print or footstep of the Prophet's progress in this Chapter, no literal circumstance, or meaning doth lead, or direct us this way, but the contrary; to wit, to his generation or offspring; to such a generation, but far more ample, as the Israelites were of Abraham, for so it followeth in the Prophet, He was out off from the land of the living, for the transgression of my people was he stricken; And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, because he had done ●●●●●lence, neither was any deceit in his mouth, and ver. 10. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand▪ He shall see of the travel of his so●le and be satisfied, by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall be are their iniquities. v. 10. 11. They whose iniquities he did bear and whom he justified, are his seed, or that Generation whereof the Prophet doth speak. Unto this purpose our Saviour himself doth speak. joh. 12. ver. 23. 24. When Andrew and Philip came unto him (a little before his Passion) and told him certain greeks desired to see him, he answered them saying, The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified! Verily, verily, I say unto you except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die it abideth alone, but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit.  
12 In respect of this his Resurrection out of the grave, he is called the first begotten from the dead; for the Father of whom he was begotten before all worlds, from all eternities, did now beget him as man unto glory and immortality. According to his first birth as man by the blessed Virgin, he was truly called the seed of Abraham, the son of David. According to the second birth or begetting him from the grave he is called the Father of the world to come; and as man, the Father of Abraham, the Father of David, yea, and of Melchisedech himself who blessed Abraham. For the life of glory and immortality doth descend to all that ever shall be partakers of it, from the man Christ jesus now possessed of glory and immortality, as truly and really, as his mortality or life in the flesh did descend from Abraham, from David, or from his Mother the blessed Virgin.  
13 Isaac (as all have known it) was the true picture, and shadow of our Saviour's death and deliverance from it. The mighty increase likewise of Isaac and Iacob's seed was the emblem or pledge of our Saviour's seed or generation which cannot be numbered or declared.  
14 But the circumstances of our Saviour's selling, of his betraying, of his cruel persecutions by Priests and people, the ungracious offspring of Israel or jacob, the whole legend of his humiliation unto death, and exaltation after his Resurrection, are more exactly foreshadowed by the cruel persecutions of joseph procured by his brethren; by his calamity, and advancement in Egyyt. Their persecutions by the sons of jacob do in a manner parallel themselves. Both of them were sold by a judas more for hope of gain than desire of blood on their parts that sold them.  
15 The pit whereinto Ioseph's brethren cast him, as also the pit or dungeon wherein he lay in fetters after his coming into Egypt, were true pictures of our Saviour's grave, or of the pit whereinto his soul descended: So was Ioseph's deliverance out of them, a true shadow or resemblance of Christ's Resurrection. Ioseph's high advancement by Pharaoh an exquisite Type or map of our Saviour's glorious Kingdom after his Resurrection or birth from the dead; so joseph complains unto Pharaoh's butler. Gen. 40. v. 15. I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews, and here also have I done nothing that they should put me into the dungeon.  
16 The whole story of Ioseph's depression and advancement is set down. Psal. 105. v. 17. 18. 19 20. 21. 22. He sent a man before them even joseph, who was sold for a servant, whose feet they hurt with fetters, 
This cannot be meant of the written Word, but of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by S. john Chap. 1. 1. and by S. Paul, Heb. 1.  He was laid in iron until the time that his WORD came, the WORD of the Lord tried him. The King sent and loosed him, even the Ruler of the people, and let him go free. He made him Lord of his house, and Ruler of all his substance; To bind his Princes at his pleasure, and teach his Senator's wisdom.  
17 A more express draught or map as well of our Saviour's humiliation as of his exaltation is Gen. 39 ver. 20. 21. and Gen. 41. ver. 39 Instead of the prison or dungeon wherein joseph lay, he is raised to the highest place in the Kingdom under Pharaoh: Thou shalt be over my house (saith Pharaoh to joseph) and according to thy word shall all my people be ruled, only in the throne will I be greater than thou. See I have set thee over all the land of Egypt, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt: So was our Saviour after his Resurrection made chief Ruler over the house of God. Every house is builded by some man; But he that built all things is God. And Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; but Christ as a Son over his own house, whose house are we. The amplitude of Christ's Kingdom as man foreshadowed by Ioseph's advancement under Pharaoh over all the land of Egypt, is described. Psal. 2. ver. 10. specially Psal. 8. ver. 5. 6. Thou hast made him a 
* See Heb. 2. 7. and Book seventh of these Comments Chap. 17. Parag. 5.  little while lower than the Angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou mad'st him to have dominion over the works of thy hands, thou hast put all things under his feet. Yet saith the Apostle 1. Cor. 15. 27. It is manifest that he is excepted which put all things under him; And when it is said, that he sits at the right hand of God until his enemies be made his footstool, it is included, that he at whose right hand he sits, is in throne or seat of dignity above him. Again, joseph, instead of the iron wherein he was bound, hath the Kings ring put on his hand: Instead of his ragged or squalid weeds he is arrayed in a vesture of fine linen or silk: Instead of his fetters and bonds he hath a golden chain put about his neck: All these ornaments bestowed on joseph as the ancient and learned well observe, were but resemblances of those glorious endowments wherewith our Saviour's Body or Humanity hath since his Resurrection been invested.  
18 joseph was placed by Pharaoh in the second chariot, and he made them cry before him Abrech, that is as much as to say, Lord or King, to whom bowing of the knee was due. All this and whatsoever more was done to joseph is but a model of that honour which, as our Apostle tells us, God hath commanded to be given to Christ. Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess, that jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philip. 2. verses 9 10. 11. Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Act. 2. 36.   

CHAP. 31. Showing the concludency of the allegations used by the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul to prove the truth of Christ's Resurrection; and in particular of the Testimony Psal. 2. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee.  
NOt to repeat other Types or prophetical testimonies of Christ's entrance into immortal glory by the sufferings of death, of which the Reader may find plenty as well in Postillers as Commentators, nor to dilate upon such general testimonies, whether merely typical or prophetical, or typically prophetical as have been heretofore handled in the seventh and eighth Book of these Comments upon the Creed, as that of Psal. 82. etc. I make no question but those testimonies out of the Psalms or Prophets which are avouched to this purpose by the Apostles themselves, specially by S. Peter and S. Paul were expounded by our Saviour himself unto the two forementioned Disciples which did accompany him unto Emmaus  
2 Now the testimonies most insisted upon by the Apostles, as well for convincing the Gentiles, as the jews, are specially three, that of Psal. the 2. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee, and Psal. the 6. Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thine holy one to see corruption; the third [The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, or which is much what the same, The Lord said unto my Lord sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The extraordinary success of all these allegations abundantly testifies that they were most concludent, for many thousand souls at two several times (besides others) were converted by them. The testimony out of Psal. 2. is pressed home by S. Peter Act. 2. v. 6. to the 37. to the jews specially, and by S. Paul both upon jews and Gentiles. Act. 13. Though with better success upon the Gentiles: The force and strength of this testimony, and likewise how far it was meant of David and fulfilled in Christ hath been at large discussed 
* Seventh Book.  before. The point at which these present endeavours aim, is to declare how these two testimonies [1. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee; and 2. Thou art a Priest after the order of Melchisedech,] do concludently and irrefragably infer the Resurrection of Christ, that jesus whom the jews had crucified being both the Son of God and son of David, and his Consecration to his everlasting Priesthood, for unto this later point both testimonies are drawn by our Apostle Heb. 5. v. 5. and 6. But how close they reach this point whether jointly or severally is not so clearly set forth by most interpreters, as that the Reader, unless his understanding far surpass mine, will easily collect. The general meaning of our Apostle hath been declared in the first Section, and in the close of the fourth of this Book▪ it is punctually thus, Seeing Aaron's calling to the dignity of Priesthood was publicly manifested to be from God, no man after might take upon him to erect a new Priesthood, no not to the temporal prejudice of Aaron and his successors, much less to abolish this Priesthood which God had erected, unless he could manifest to man and Angels that his Commission for thus doing was immediately from God, and authentic, being sealed by oath, and solemnly executed. And seeing no man might, therefore Christ though God and man did not glorify himself (as the Apostle adds) to be made an high Priest, but he that said unto him Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee, did put this dignity upon him. Many Interpreters have stretched their wits to make the literal sense of this Psalmist's words reach home to our Apostle's purpose: Others so slight it as if they would give us to understand or cause to suspect our Apostle himself did not much stand upon it, but only pass by it unto the second testimony, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. Albeit in my opinion the later testimony proves his fiat or Commission, the former his ordination or execution of his Commission. I will not wrong the judicious Reader's patience with proffering variety of such expositors unto his choice as his wisdom cannot approve. Cajetan hath Ribera's approbation, and of all the expositors which went before him draws the Psalmist's Oracle [Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee] nearest to the point in question. So far I am from carping at any thing which those two expositors have said to the point now in question, that I will endeavour to explicate and extend their meaning in the best sort I can. The Priesthood (saith Cajetan, as Ribera expounds him) before the Law given was annexed as a prerogative to the first borne, and descended from Abraham to Isaac and by special dispensation to jacob. Now the whole dignity of the first borne being lost by Reuben was divided amongst three of his Brethren. The Sovereignty or principality fell to judah, the Priesthood to Levi, and the double Portion to Ephraim. And in Aaron the son of Levi was the Priesthood established long before the Kingdom was established in David the son of judah, and to the Priesthood so established David's sons had as little right, as Aaron's sons had to the Crown or Diadem. God's peremptory decree for thus dividing these two prerogatives, Azariah is not afraid to plead unto King Vzziah's face. Chron. 2. 26. And his speech did take impression, for he had no sooner made an end of speaking but the leprosy begun to appear in King Vzziah's face; and for his usurpation of the Priest's office and intrusion into the house of God; he is utterly excluded from his palace, and enforced to resign the government unto his Son. But inasmuch as he, of whom the Psalmist speaks, is solemnly registered and by him declared to be the first borne and Son of God, it is not lawful only, but expedient, but very necessary that all the branches of the first borne's prerogative which Reuben had scattered, should be reunited in his Person. Again, in that he is the promised seed, he is the complete heir of all the blessings bequeathed to Abraham, and out of whatsoever tribe this promised seed was to spring, the honour of Priesthood was as due unto him as the Kingdom. Levi and Aaron were but as foefes in trust for conveying the Priesthood, as judah and David were for making over the Kingdom unto him.  
3 All those suppositions and others (perhaps more than Cajetan or Ribera though of) being granted prove only thus much, that the only begotten Son of God, or first born to Abraham and to David had a just title to the eternal Priesthood. They do not directly prove, that jesus whom the jews have crucified to be that Son of God, and seed of David meant by the Psalmist in the Psalm forecited: Or this being granted, all put together do not manifest his Consecration or actual admission to the high Priesthood, by whose erection the Priesthood of Aaron was changed, which is the conclusion punctually intended by our Apostle.  
4 For a more satisfactory declaration of the strength of this argument, we are to take the words of the Psalmist into a further and more punctual consideration then hitherto we had occasion to take them. As first, of what GENERATION these words, ego hodie genuite, are principally meant, whether meant at all of David, or how of him, and how of Christ the Son of God and Son of David 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Many of the Ancients being seconded by more of the Schoolmen, and middle aged allegorising Commentators, understand this Psalmist's Oracle of that GENERATION of the Son of God which is mentioned in the NICEN Creed, or that 
* That is, the Constantinopolitan Creed.  Creed which is to be publicly read in the second service of our Church, [Begotten of his Father before all worlds.] and in these men's construction by the word HODIE is meant HODIE AETERNITATIS the day of eternity or eternal day wherein there is no succession of parts of hours or minutes. But this interpretation is disliked by Calvin who is always zealous for the literal though sometimes with prejudice to the mystical or principally intended sense. Yet that sense in this place cannot be expressed by HODIE AETERNITATIS, or by the eternal Generation of the Son of God. That it cannot be the literal sense of this Psalmist is apparent because neither the Resurrection of the Son of God, nor his Consecration to the everlasting Priesthood can with any colour of probability be inferred or pretended from it: much less can it be the mystical or true allegorical sense of this Oracle; for these always must be grounded upon the literal, and no Scripture can be said to be fulfilled according to the mystical or true allegorical sense until it hath been first verified according to the literal sense. Now the eternal GENERATION of the Son of God cannot follow either his Resurrection from the dead, or his Consecration to his everlasting Priesthood; nor could ever any Periphrasis or notation of it be either fulfilled, or verified in time seeing it is before all times.  
5 May we say then with good Commentators as with Calvin for one, that these words (this day have I begotten thee,) have no manner of reference to the Son of God's Generation before all worlds? Certain it is that this Generation is no part of the object, no part of the immediate subject, (whether according to the literal or mystical sense of the Psalmist's words) whether we consider them written or intended by him, or as avouched by S. Paul and other Apostles for the further confirmation of Christ's Resurrection from the dead. All that can be said on their parts whom Calvin censures is this, that the eternal GENERATION of the Son of God might be taken as a common notion or presupposed truth, both by the Psalmist when he writ, and by the Apostle when he avouched these words ego hodie genuite. That the Word or Son of God was from Eternity, this was a common prenotion to all the Ancient learned or faithful Hebrews. And that he who was the only begotten Son of God before all worlds should be begotten by him from the dead, that is proved at large by S. Paul. Act. 13. And that the raising of that jesus the Son of David (whom the jews had crucified) from the dead unto immortal endless life was an authentic declaration, that this Son of David was likewise the Son of God their expected Lord and Messias, is most sweetly deduced by our Apostle. Rom. ●. v. 1. 2. 3. 4. Paul a Servant of jesus Christ called to be an Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God. Which he had promised before by the Prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning his Son jesus Christ our Lord which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. And declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by the Resurrection from the dead. This passage rightly infers, that Christ was the Son of God, the uncreated Word by whomall things were created before he was made the Son of David: ●●● he was made so only according to the flesh or humane nature; but this eternity of his uncreated Person or essence was no part of our Apostles divine discourse or most concludent argument▪ Act▪ ●3. Men and Brethren children of the stock of Abraham▪ and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent: For they that dwell at Jerusalem and their Rulers because they know ●●● not, nor yet the voice● of the Prophets which are ●●●● every Sabbath day▪ they have fulfilled them in condemning him. And though they found no cause of death in him▪ yet desired they▪ Pilate that he should be ●●●ine. And when they had fulfilled all that is written of him they took him down from the tree and laid him in a Sepulchre. But God raised him from the dead; and he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galileo ●● jerusalem, who are his witnesses ●●to the people. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the Fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up jesus again as it is also written in the second Psalm. Thou are my Son this day have I begotten the●▪ And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead now no more to return to corruption he said on this wise. I will give you the sure mercies of David▪ from v. 26. to 34. For the clearer & fuller explication of this passage we are to inquire what manner of testimonies or predictions in which the Apostle instances, were; as whether prophetical only or typically prophetical.  
6 To begin with the former; Ego hodie genui te, this day have I begotten thee, that, with submission of my opinion to better judgements, is a prediction typically prophetical, which kind of prediction as hath been observed before is the most concludent; and this one of the highest rank in that kind, that is an Oracle truly meant of David according to the literal sense, and yet fulfilled of Christ the Son of God by his Resurrection from the dead both according to the most exquisite literal and the mystical or principally intended sense. David without all question was the composer of the second Psalm; and the joyful occasions or extraordinary matter of exultation which raised his spirit to that high and majestic strain of divine poesy, whereof this and the eighteenth Psalm with some others bear lively characters, were partly the triumphant victories which he had already gotten over the enemies of Israel's peace and the confederators or conspirators against his Crown and dignity; partly the glorious promises which through patient expectation of deliverance he had obtained for the further establishment and advancement of his throne, and the enlargement of his hereditary Kingdom. Before the composition of the second Psalm he had the glorious and gracious promise of which Ethan the Esrait so curiously descants. Psalm. 89. I will make him my first born higher than the Kings of the earth etc. Now it can be no solecism to say that he who in sacred language is instilled the first borne should have the title of the first begotten among the Princes of the earth. Seeing the title of begetting is oftimes in sacred language to be measured not by the scale of Philophes'● or naturalist's dialect, ●ut of moral or civil language or interpretation. For they that are sons by adoption only, or next heirs in reversion to a Crown or dignity are said to be begotten of those which adopt th●●, or of whom they be the immediate hairs or successors▪ and in this sense in the sacred genealogy jeconiah is said to have begotten Salathiel. 
Mat. 1. 12.  So that David upon his own occasions (whether upon his anointing to the Crown of judah in H●●ron, or of Israel in Zion) might in the literal sense avouch these words Psalm 2. of himself, I will preach the Law whereof the Lord said unto me th●● art my S●●t his day have I begotten thee.  
7▪ For David to call the day of his Coronation, or of his designment unto the Crown of judah, or of all Israel, his birthday or begetting by God, by whose special power and providence he was crowned, is not so harsh a phrase as some haply would deem it, that either know not, or consider not that it was usual in other states or Kingdoms beside judah to celebrate▪ two n●tales dies, two solemn 〈◊〉 or birthdays in honour of their Kings and Emperors▪ the one they called diem natalem imperatoris, the other diem natalem 
* Inter alios Scriptores de Die natali vide Martinun de Roa. Cap. 16. Suet in Calig. decretum autem, ut dies quo caepisset imperium, Palilia vocarentur, velut argumentum rursus conditae urbis. Spartian. in Haedriano. Cor. Tacit. l. 2. Histor. de imperio Augusti. etc.  imperij▪ The one the birthday of the Emperor whereon he was borne of his natural Mother; the other the birthday of him as he was Emperor▪ which we call the Coronation day. The reason might hold more peculiar in David then many other Princes, because he was the first of all the seed of Abraham that took possession of the hill of Zion, and settled the Kingdom of judah fore-phophecied of by his Father jacob, upon himself and his posterity.  
8▪ But whatsoever may be thought of David, or of his son; the day of our Saviour's Resurrection may be as truly and properly called the day of his nativity, as the day wherein he was borne of the blessed Virgin Mary. This was his birthday or nativity to his mortal life as he was the son of man, that was the day of his nativity or begetting to immortality, the birthday of his Kingdom and royal Priesthood. The most concludent testimony though least observed by most Interpreters is that of the Apostle before mentioned 
* See the first Section of this Treatise Chap. 4.  Heb. 5. v. 4. No man taketh this honour, to wit, of Priesthood, but he that is called of God as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high Priest, but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son to day have I begotten thee, (It was he that did glorify him with this title) as he also saith in another place thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedech. The Apostles drift and meaning is, that our Saviour did not intrude himself into the Priesthood, but had as solemn a calling and Consecration ●o it by God his Father as Aaron had to the legal Priesthood by Moses. And he did deprecate his calling or Consecration to this Priesthood more earnestly and fervently then any high Priest or Bishop did their Consecration: Although they say, Episcopari nol●, they have no desire to be consecrated. But sure our Saviour spoke as he meant when he prayed unto his Father, Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me▪ Now thus he prayed after God had begun to anoint and bathe him in his own blood unto the Priesthood after the order of Melchisedech, as Moses had anointed Aaron with the blood of beasts unto his legal Priesthood. And this place of our Apostle concludes the point before handled, to wit, that our Saviour did begin his Priesthood after the order of Melchisedech from the day of his Resurrection, for upon that day was the Psalmist's prophecy fulfilled; Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee.  
9 The fulfilling of this Oracle (meant of David according to the literal) according to the mystical sense in Christ jesus the Son of David, is most divinely expressed by S. Luke Acts 3. & 4. in which two Chapters many passages above all others in this sacred history are worthy of serious and frequent mediations, specially in respect of the circumstances of time and some other occurrences. The holy Ghost as it is at large related Chap. 2. had been first poured out upon Christ's Disciples a little before the ordinary time of the morning's service or devotions at this solemn feast of Pentecost. And upon the same day as 'tis very probable from the first verse of the third Chapter. Peter and john went together unto the Temple at the hour of prayers being the ninth hour, and bestowed a better alms upon a poor cripple then after many years' profession of that poor trade he durst presume to beg at their hands or pray to God for.  
10 The ungainsayable truth of the miracle wrought upon this cripple by Peter and john (who, had they been as ambitiously minded as their examiners, might have challenged the glory of it to themselves) did not so much grieve the Priests and captains of the Temple with the Sadduces, as that upon this occasion they taught the people and preached the Resurrection of the dead through jesus Christ, Chap. 4. ver. 2. 3. Upon this grief conceived at first by some few there present, the next morning the high Priest with the whole host of his assistants and kndred did enjoin these two Apostles, not to teach at all, or speak in the name of jesus; but upon that magnanimous reply, [whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye, ver. 19] made jointly by Peter and john to the high Priest's and Elders peremptory injunction, being let go they made report of the whole business with the success, unto their own company, who, when they heard it, lift up their voice to God with one accord and said, Lord, thou art God which hast made heaven and earth, and the Sea, and all that in them is; who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The Kings of the earth stood up, and the Rulers of the earth were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. Acts. 4. from verse 23. to 28. This joyful news thus brought by Peter and john did raise the spirits of the other Disciples if not to prophecy as David had done, yet to make a more lively expression or interpretation of his prophecy then either he himself or any Prophet before our Saviour's Resurrection could have composed. As indignation sometimes will hammer out verses or rhymes from wits of duller metal: so extraordinary exultation or uncouth matter▪ of spiritual joy will bring forth sacred hymns and poesies, or interpretations of Scripture equivalent to the spirit of prophecy.  
11 I cannot dismiss this testimony without some short paraphrase upon it, for setting the parallel betwixt the Type and the body according to the rules formerly delivered: Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing? The Kings of the earth set themselves, and the Rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed. Psal. 2. v. 12. All these are truly and literally meant of David's affairs, for he had enemies both amongst the people of Israel and among neighbour nations of the heathen, which did oppose the flourishing estate or growth of his Kingdom which they feared would bring their posterity unto subjection, Hence they said let us break their bonds asunder, and cast their cords from us. v. 3. The same words likewise a●e literally fulfilled of the Son of God in a more exquisite sense. For as the Disciples mentioned Act. 4. express the fulfilling of this prophecy, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with other Gentiles, and the people of Israel were gathered together against him. Who was not only the anointed of the Lord as David was but the Christ or Messias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In those words following likewise ver. 4. He that sitteth in the heaven shall laugh, the Lord shall have them in derision, David had a peculiar interest, for they literally refer to the defeats of malicious conspirators against David and his Kingdom, and the good success which, notwithstanding those, he ascribes unto the good providence of his God. v. 6. Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion. Now there was no defeat either wrought or hoped for on David's part, or on Salomon's his son which was not a true shadow and picture, (and no more than so) of those strange defeats which HE, who then sat in the heavens, and now sits there in our nature did bring upon all those which conspired against the anointed of the Lord, the man, or as the Disciples call him, holy child jesus. Which description I take it refers unto him only whilst he was in the form of a servant. By defacing this form they made him Lord. For albeit the malicious and cruel plots of the high Priests to take away his life and fame were so subtly contrived, and so accurately executed as if they had continued the aaronical Priesthood and bloody sacrifices to no other end and purpose save only that they might become more cruel butchers or slaughtermen of the anointed of the Lord, than their Predecessors had been of beasts or reasonless sacrifices: Yet not he only, but the heavenly powers, Saints and Angels had matter enough of joy and gladness to contemplate how the heathens, and this worse than heathenish seed of Abraham could do nothing unto him, save that which he that sat in the heavens would have to be done; albeit they did that only which Satan would have them to do. They had consecrated themselves wholly unto his service, and yet he that sits in the heavens made both their master and them to be his instruments for accomplishing the Consecration of the Son of David to his everlasting Priesthood and Kingdom.   

CHAP. 32. The concludency of S. Paul's second Argument Act. 13. drawn from the 55. of Isaiah.  
THe second testimony avouched by S. Paul. Act. 13. v. 34. borrowed from Isaiah 55. v. 3. is for aught I can observe merely prophetical, or a vision: For however the Prophet might take his rise from former Oracles concerning David, yet his prophecy according to the literal sense could not be meant of any person or party, either in the Prophets own time, or in the intermediate space between his time and the exhibition of the seed promised to Abraham and to David in our flesh, in whom alone, specially from the hour of his Resurrection from the dead it was punctually verified, and once for all fulfilled, that is as we say, begun to bear date, or be in essereali. The whole Chapter contains as clear a prophetical vision of the exercise of Christ's prophetical and sacerdotal function as any other passage of like quantity in all the writings (now extant) of this Evangelical Prophet. The Readers whom the knowledge of this great mystery most nearly concerns, may find more useful observations in many learned Commentators upon that Chapter, than I dare either take upon me to repeat or represent unto them, having resolved to insist upon no more than are pertinent to the point now in hand, nor to touch upon any save only in the passage to the third verse, thus the Chapter begins, Ho, every one that thirsteth come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, come ye buy and eat, yea come buy wine and milk without money, and without price. Unto this sacred Fountain of truth our Saviour often directs his Auditor's, testifying both by words and practices, that all these promises, or rather the blessings here promised were actually exhibited in Him: as first those words of his in the Sermon upon the Mount, Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness for they shall be filled. v. 6. refer as punctually to this place as to Esay. 65. v. 13. Therefore thus saith the Lord God, behold my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry; Behold my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty; though punctually to that. But as the Prophet in this place speaks, they were satisfied without any cost or charges, for he taught the people without fee or reward, and declared himself to be not only the inexhaustible Well & Fountain, but the bread and strength of spiritual life, by his miraculous provision of bodily food for all such as did hunger and thirst after his heavenly Doctrine. It follows in the second verse, Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? And your labour for that which satisfieth not? Harken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself infatnesse. Upon these words our Saviour himself doth paraphrase, john the 6. verse 27. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: For him hath God the Father sealed. And again ver. 32. 33. Then jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. And ver. 35. I am the bread of life, He that cometh to me shall never hunger: And he that believeth on me shall never thirst. In all these and the like passages, whether avouched by our Saviour himself, or by his Apostles after him, we are taught no other Doctrine than the Prophet in his name, and by his spirit had taught the people. verse 3. Incline your ear and come unto me, hear and your soul shall live, and I will make an everlasting Covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Was this Covenant yet to make, being made before first with Abraham, then renewed with David? The Apostle for conclusion tells us. Heb. 11. v. 39 Neither Abraham nor any other of the Patriarches or holy men, though in their generations renowned for their faith, did receive the promise, and if not the promise, than not the everlasting Covenant whereof the Prophet here speaks. What was that? The real object of the Covenant or blessing promised. But if it be demanded what this blessing promised was? It was Christ jesus, not only as he was exhibited in the flesh but raised from the dead; as is more largely declared in a treatise upon v. 40. Chap. 11. to the Heb. to be annexed unto this present Treatise.  
2 All this hath been implied or intimated before in that of our Apostle Heb. 5. And being made perfect, he became the Author of eternal Salvation 
Is 55. 3.  to all them that obey him v. 9 that is (to reflect upon the Prophet Esay's expression of this mystery,) to all that incline their ears unto him and faithfully hear him. THE EVERLASTING COVENANT taken in this sense, that is for the everlasting blessedness, or that degree of blessedness expressed in the Gospel, is not actually made with any, none are real partakers▪ of it but such as are true and lively members of Christ's body; such members of it as Abraham and David were not, before the Son of God & the Son of David was consecrated to his everlasting Priesthood and Kingdom.  
3 According to the most strict and genuine sense of the Prophet and our Apostle's interpretation of it, Christ jesus being raised from the dead is the very Covenant itself. For so the words of the Prophet, and our Apostle's interpretation of them run verbatim, without any interruption or obliquity in construction; I will make an everlasting Covenant, to wit, the sure mercies of David, or as the Latin more fully, misericordias illas stabiles Davidis. That these words directly signify the Person of Christ and his benefits is most clear from v. 4. Behold I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people. So that Christ is called the sare mercies of David, because in him and through him all God's promises or mercies promised to David, are Yea, and Amen, that is, were actually performed, and made everlasting not in promise only but in esse. Betwixt the Hebrew Text and the seventy Interpreters, whose translation S. Paul in the forecited place doth follow, a mere Grammarian, or curious critic might observe some variation in words, yet no difference or diversity in sense worthy the notice of a true Linguist or rational Divine. The Apostle when he avoucheth this prophetical Oracle Esay. 55. 3. as a confirmation of the concludency of the former testimony out of Psal. 2. [Thou art my Son to day have I begotten thee] omits the first part of it [I will make an everlasting Covenant with you], as being fully contained in the later part, which is indeed an authentic exegetical exposition of the former, to wit, God's promise or Oath to give this people and Nation in the time appointed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the holy and faithful things of David, saith our English. But the full and punctual expression of our Apostles meaning will best appear from the manner how he infers that conclusion which he twice in this place avoucheth from the often mentioned place of the Prophet Isaiah: For after that inference * v. 33. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee, he adds 
Act. 13.  for confirmation v. 34. 35. And as concerning that he raised him from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another Psalm, ● Thou shalt not suffer▪ thine holy one 
Psal. 16. 11.  to see corruption. The brief or extract of the Prophet Isaiah's meaning in S. Paul's construction is this, THAT GOD BY RAISING UP CHRIST JESUS from the dead never to die again did really exhibit, or actually perform that Covenant made by Oath to David. Psal. 89. ver. 28. My mercy will I keep for him for evermore; and my Covenant shall stand fast with him, etc. and v. 35. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not fail David, his seed shall endure for ever, and his throne, (that is, not the successive throne of David but the throne of David's SEED) as the Sun before me.  
4 David in the days of his flesh did receive the the promise or Covenant if you take it in the active or formal signification, as for promissio quâ Deus promitit, or pactum quo Deus paciseitur, but if we take this promise or Covenant in the passive sense, id est, for the blessing promised or covenanted, that was not performed till Christ was raised from the dead, and glorified, as it follows Esay. 55. v. 5. In this sense Zacharias calls the exhibition of the promised 
Luk. 1. 71.  seed though yet in the womb, the performance of the Oath which God had sworn to give unto Abraham and his offspring. So that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the faithful things of David is contradistinct not to dissimulation, or any suspicion of feigning in the promiser, but to the reversible or mutable state of the blessing promised. It implies the immortality of the Son of David according to the flesh, or the immutability of his holy Priesthood and Kingdom: Briefly the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is equivalent, and somewhat more than so unto the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 'tis used by S. Peter. Epist. 2. Chap. 1. Give all diligence to make your calling and election sure, or rather firm and strong v. 10. in which place the word election must of necessity be taken not in the formal or active sense, but in the passive material or real sense, not for electio quâ Deus nos eligit, but for the irreversible state in grace which is the effect of God's Election, which estate is possible to be obtained in this life if we seek it as we ought, and as the Apostle in that place doth enjoin us. This distinction betwixt the active and passive signification of the same words, since my first entrance into the ministry, I ever wished heartily might have been, or yet be taken into consideration by many in our days; by many who have skill abundant as well in Logic as in the learned tongues etc. to deceive themselves, and such as take their resolutions upon trust, but little skill to allay the bitterness of contention, or compromise many verbal differences very comprimisible in themselves; and less will to exhort, instruct, reprove their Auditors in the spirit of meekness, in points of necessary and useful Doctrines, to set any Copy, or give any Character of Christian charity, either by their Doctrine or practice.  
5. And here I had set a period to this Chapter had not the discussion of the former Questions Act. 13. called to my remembrance the saying of the same Apostle. He that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of Circumcision, the same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles. Galat. 2. v. 8. Of which observation we have a lively document or experiment in the admirable success of S. Peter's Sermon Act. 2. grounded for the most part upon the same Text and arguments which S. Paul useth Act. 13. Three thousand souls were converted by S. Peter, but all or most of them of the Circumcision or seed of Abraham, his brethren according to the flesh; for unto them he directs his speech v. 29. Men and Brethren etc. But with S. Paul's persuasions, though most powerfully pressed upon them; few of the jews or men of Israel, (unto whom in the first place he tenders the fruits of his ministry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham,) were much taken: but of the proselytes of the gentiles to whom specially in the second place was directed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, and all such as are not the stock of Abraham, yet living amongst you, fear the God of Abraham, scarce one that heard him but was overjoyed with his discourse. Hence saith S. Luke ver. 42. And when the jews were gone out of the Synagogue the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. So many there were which were thus taken, that when the jews saw the multitudes they were filled with envy, and spoke against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold and said, it was necessary that the Word of God should have first been spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles; for so hath the Lord commanded us. Act. 13. ver. 45. 46. 47. It were a point worthy the discussion were it not extravagant from my present argument, How Paul and Barnabas did deduce a necessity of command of preaching to the Gentiles upon themselves from the words of the Prophet Isaiah. 49. 6. I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldst be for salvation unto the end of the earth. The same command they might and no doubt did deduce from Isay 55. v. 4. 5. Behold I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people. Behold thou shalt call a Nation that thou knowest not, and Nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee, because of the Lord thy God, and for the holy one of Israel, for he hath glorified thee. By the manner of the Apostle's inference of deduction of command upon himself and Barnabas, the Reader may easily inform himself that many things are undispensably enjoined the ministers of the Gospel by force and virtue of the Old Testament, which are neither expressed nor repeated in legal form throughout the New Testament. Though not so repeated or expressed they may be concludently inferred by more than analogy, by full equivalency to express legal commands. But this point I shall commend to the serious consideration of some learned Divines who in the just defence of orthodoxal Doctrines, which they are well able to maintain, have engaged themselves to dispute in such matters as come in only upon the by. Thus much we know in general, that we are enjoined to preach Christ crucified and raised from the dead, as Paul and Barnabas did, submitting the success of our labours unto him who hath reserved the appointment of times and seasons, or fitting opportunities to all occurrences unto himself; that Paul himself was not taken at all with that most heavenly Sermon of S. Steven, with part of which, or with some special arguments used by that blessed Martyr, he at the time appointed won many thousand souls unto God.   

CHAP. 33. That our Saviour's departure, and passing out of this world to his Father, or his entering into his Glory through afflictions was exquisitely foreshadowed by diverse solemnities in the legal passover, and by the Israelites passing through the red Sea.  
THough such testimonies of the Old Testament as are typically prophetical be (as hath been intimated in diverstreatises before) most pregnant proofs for points of faith delivered in the Gospel: Yet this rule requires some limitation, or some allowances to make it full current, the comparison betwixt this and other sorts of testimonles must be secundum simpliciter ad simpliciter; that is, The most clear and pregnant testimonies of this kind are more exquisite than the most clear and pregnant of any other rank. But every testimony of this sort is not more concludent and admirable than any testimony of another rank; not more pregnant than some fore-significations of mysteries to come, which are merely typical, or speak to us only in the Old Testament by matter of fact. Of this rank was the type or sign of the Prophet jonah; than which there can be none more pregnant, in respect of the Article of Christ's Resurrection, the force or concludency of it is warranted by our Saviour's own authority, and for this reason (haply) not insisted upon since by the Apostles and Evangelists after his death, to whom it was all sufficient that he himself had avouched it. But seeing this Type or sign implies divers circumstances or references as well to our Saviour's Ascension as to his Resurrection, the discussion of it shall be differed as the binding or coupling of this present edifice. For finishing that part of it which concerns the Article of the Resurrection only; the next inquisition must be how our Saviour's passage to immortal endless life thorough death was prefigured, or fore-typified by the legal rites or solemnities of the passover, or feast of unleavened bread.  
2 The occasion and first institution of the passover I doubt not every ordinary Reader either knows, or will easily call to mind. It is set down Ezod. 12. which is the first lesson appointed by the Church for the feast of the Resurrection. The institution or occasion of it you have set down from ver. 2. unto the 12. The meaning of the word, or quid nominis we have in the 12. v. It is the Lord's Passeover for I will pass through the land of Egypt this night and will smite all the first borne in the land of Egypt both man and beast. And against all the Princes of Egypt I will execute judgement, I am the Lord. And the blood (to wit, of the paschal Lamb) shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are, and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. So than it is called the Passeover because the Lord when he passed through Egypt and visited every house with a fearful visitation he passed over all the houses of the Israelites which lived amongst them, upon whose door-poast the blood of the paschal Lamb was shed. Whether this visitation of the Egyptians were held by some good Angel, or by that spirit or Angel whom S. john calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, as Moses Exod. 12. 23. entitles this visitor the destroyer, I will not dispute; seeing it is certain the visitation or judgement itself was the Lords. And by his appointment the visitor or executioner, whosoever he were, good Angel or bad, one or more, was to pass over the houses of the Israelites, as being exempted from his commission whilst he smote the first borne of man and beast that pertained to any house of the Egyptians. But at this present Passeover wherein the Saviour of the world became a sacrifice, hell as we say, was broken up and let loose; the powers of darkness were become as a raging Sea or swelling tide overflowing her banks, and had wrought a more rueful desolation upon all mankind, upon the face of the whole earth, than the flood of Noah had done, unless by God's providence they had been restrained. The flood in the time of Noah was a flood of waters only, this was a stream of fire and brimstone, which the breath of the Lord had kindled, unless his wrath had been appeased, and the flame quenched by the blood of the paschal Lamb. The commission of the destroying Angel throughout Egypt did extend no further then to the first borne of man and beast, and was to endure but for one night, the powers of darkness did aim at all, and lie in wait till the world's end to devour all, whose hearts are not sprinkled with the blood of this paschal Lamb, which was shed not for a few houses, but for all. Every house in Israel was to have their several Lamb, or two houses at the most could be privileged by the blood of one Lamb; but our paschal Lamb as he was slain by the whole congregation of Israel, cried down to death by the Priests, the Scribes and Pharisees, and the whole multitude; so his blood was sufficient to redeem all the Israel of God from the Destroyer, even as many throughout all ages and Kingdoms as will submit themselves unto his Laws, and acknowledge him for their Redeemer. And for this reason he was slain without the City, as a public sactifice in the open air. The Cross whereto he was nailed was as the doore-posts of that house, of which he is the Builder and Maker, that is, of the whole world itself. Now it is to be presumed that the blood of that sacrifice which was to redeem and sanctify all unto the world's end, which seek Redemption and Sanctification by him, should not be as blood spilt upon the earth which cannot be gathered up. As he was to give life to others by his blood, so he was to give life to himself again.  
3 But is it imported in the institution of the Passeover, or in any solemnity belonging unto it, that the Lamb of God which was to take away the sins of the world by his Death, should himself be restored unto life again? Yes. This word Passeover besides the former signification of passing over the houses of the Israelites, hath another fignification or importance, to wit, That all those families which were privileged from the power of the destroying Angel which smote the Egyptians, should pass out of the land of Egypt or house of bondage through the red sea into the land of their rest and liberty, under the conduct of Moses, who had the great Angel of the Covenant for his guide in this passage. For the Reader's better apprehension how the mysteries of the Gospel concerning our Saviour's Passion and Resurrection were foreshadowed in the solemnity of the Passeover, we are to consider that there is a twofold sense of Scripture, the one literal, the other mystical: The literal sense consists in the immediate or grammatical sense or signification of the words; The mystical sense is that which the Facts or Persons immediately signified by the literal or grammatical sense of the words, do fore-shadow. Thus by Israel in the sacred story, sometimes jacob the Father of the twelve Tribes, sometimes the twelve Tribes themselves are literally meant. And Israel taken in this sense is literally called the Son of God, but by this name Israel Christ jesus is mystically meant: He it is alone qui tanti mensuram nominis implet. He it is which prevailed with God, and is more properly called the Son of God then either jacob or his posterity were. And that which according to the literal sense was meant of Iacob's posterity; [When Israel was a child than I loved him, and called my Son out of Egypt. Hos. 11. 1.] was literally fulfilled of Christin a more full and exquisite sense, as the Evangelist instructs us. Math. 2. 15. For God called this his only Son out of Egypt, literally taken, that is, out of the same land or Kingdom wherein Iacob's seed had been sojourners, into the selfsame land of Canaan into which he had brought them; so that every word in this prophecy is in the literal sense truly verified as well of Christ as of Iacob's seed. But Egypt and Canaan besides this literal sense and signification have a further mystical sense or importance. The state of Israel or the Sons of jacob in Egypt was a map or shadow of our slavery and bondage unto the powers of darkness: Their passage out of Egypt into the land of Canaan through the red sea, was a type of our passage from the bondage of sin into the Kingdom of light, through the region of death itself. Thus the paschal Lamb, literally taken, was a picture of Christ's sacrifice upon the Cross; and so was Moses which instituted the sacrifice, and conducted God's people out of Egypt but a shadow of Christ: joshuah, or jesus the Son of Nun which brought them into the land of Canaan was no more. The great Angel of the Covenant which was with Moses, and with joshuah as their guide and protector in this business was with the man Christ jesus in unity of person; and Christ jesus is with us unto the world's end, as the Ark of the Covenant was with Moses and joshuah, or with the host of Israel, to direct and support us in all our ways.  
4 But is this passage from this vale of misery to a better life any where in Scripture called a Passeover? Or is it any part of the true meaning or importance of this solemn feast? This mystery is unfolded by S. john 13. 1. Now before the feast of the Passeover (and it was but a day before) when jesus knew that his hour was come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That he should depart (as our English renders it) or rather that he should pass out of this world unto his Father having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. Some good Interpreters note an elegancy of speech in the original, or an allusion unto the etymology of the Passeover in Hebrew, as if in Latin he had said, ante diem festum transitus sciens Iesus quia veniet hora ejus ut transeat: But to my observation, wheresoever there is the like elegancy of speech or allusion in the original, the elegancy is not affected for itself, as it usually is by secular artists, but always denotes some mystery, or somewhat in the matter itself, more useful to sober minds then any artificial elegancy of speech can be to curious Artists. Now the mystery charactered unto us in that speech of S. john, of Christ's passing out of this world unto his Father is this, to wit, That the legal Passeover which was instituted in memory of the Lord's passing over the houses of the Israelites, and their passage out of Egypt through the red sea did fore-shadow the passage of the Son of God out of this world wherein he had lived in the state and condition of a servant, unto the land of his rest and liberty; he therefore passed out of this world unto his Father, that in his sight and presence he might obtain the liberty and prerogatives of the only Son of God begotten of his Father before all worlds; but he therefore came into this world that by his death and manner of departing out of it he might open and prepare a passage for us out of this vale of misery. The land or inheritance into which he passed is the inheritance of everlasting pleasure; but the passage was on his part bitter and full of sorrow; yet this notwithstanding he willingly endured for the love of his people: having loved his own which were in the world, saith the Apostle, he loved them to the end, that is, he perfectly loved them which would not suffer him to forget them when the hour of his bitter Passion approached, willing to suffer whatsoever was laid upon him for their sake. And as Moses the night before the Israelites passage out of Egypt did institute the Passeover; so our Saviour before his passage out of this world, did institute this Sacrament or Supper, not only as a memorial of his passage, but as a perpetual pledge of his peculiar presence, for conducting all such as believe on him, and to be a vejand or viaticum to strengthen and comfort all such as resolved to follow him as the Israelites did Moses. Again as Moses instructed the Israelites in the Laws and rites of the Passeover before they eat it; so our Saviour gave instructions by precept and example for our due preparation unto this service. The precepts are generally two; Humility, which he taught by his example in washing his Apostles feet. ver. 13. to the 17. The second, Love, ver. 34. ver. 35. A New Commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another as I have loved you; that ye also love one another, by this shall all men know that ye are my Disciples if ye love one another.   

CHAP. 34. The Resurrection of the Son of God, and the effects or issues of his birth from the grave were concludently fore-pictured by the Redemption of the firstlings of the flocks, and of the first borne males, and by the offerings of the first fruits of their corn.  
But was the legal sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb the only solemn memorial either of the Lord's passage over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt, or of the Israelites passage out of Egypt through the red Sea? Are all the mysteries of the Gospel which immediately concern our Saviour's Resurrection and passage out of this mortal life to an immortal to be referred unto this one legal Type or model? Is this the only scale by which we are to measure it? No, the feast of the Passeover was an anniversary, kept but once a year, whereas the Lord would have as well the deliverance from the destroying Angel in Egypt, as their deliverance from the host of Pharaoh to be often imprinted in their memories; and their impressions to be renewed upon several and frequent occasions. To this purpose was that precept concerning the first borne directed to Moses before their passage out of Egypt. Exod. 13. 1. The Lord spoke unto Moses saying, sanctify unto me all the first borne whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel both of man and beast, it is mine: and again ver. 11. 12. of the same Chap. Every first-ling of their herds or flocks is expressly marked out for the Lord, with the stamp or character of the Passeover. And it shall be that when the Lord shall bring thee to the lands of the Canaanites that thou shalt cause to pass over unto the Lord all that open the matrix, and every first-ling of the beast which thou hast, the male shall be the Lords, and every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a Lamb, and if thou wilt not redeem it, than thou shalt break his neck and a●● the first borne of man amongst thy children thou shalt redeem. The reason of this Law is given ver. 14. & 15. to wit, because the Lord by strength of hand had brought them out of Egypt after he had slain the first borne of Egypt both of man and beast, therefore they were to sacrifice unto the Lord all that opened the matrix being males: But the firstborn of their children they were to redeem; yet these, as all other legal rites and sacrifices, had a double aspect or reference: The one to the first occasion of their institution, which is here literally expressed; the other to fore-shadow somewhat to come by the legal service or institution. The mystery foreshadowed by the legal sanctifying, or sacrificing the firstborn males unto the Lord was the expectation of a firstborn male, by whose Consecration or passing over unto the Lord, all these and the like legal ceremonies should once for all be accomplished, and their children fully sanctified and redeemed. That these legal services taken at the best could be no more than shadows of good things to come, common reason might have taught this people: for seeing the first-lings of the herds though offered in sacrifice unto the Lord, could not sanctify the use of their flocks unto them, but the use of every dumb creature was to be sanctified unto them, by a sacrifice of one of the same kind; (As the use of their Lambs or Sheep was to be hallowed by the sacrifice of a firstling-male Lamb, and so the goats by the firstling-male kid, and their oxen and cattle by the sacrifice of the firstling calves or bullocks;) who could in reason expect that the sacrifice of a Lamb, of a Kid, of a Bullock, or any other dumb creature should be a sufficient price for the Redemption of their first borne males, or able to sanctify or consecrate both male and female in their several families unto the Lord; He that sanctifies 
Heb. 2. 11.  and they that are sanctified are all of one, saith the Apostle. Men were to be redeemed and sanctified by man, and if the first borne male in every family had been sacrificed for the rest, this would have made no satisfaction, no sanctification, seeing the first born was by nature as unclean as the rest, and every dumb creature which was by Law unclean, and could not be sacrificed, was to be redeemed by the sacrifice of a firstling-male which was by its kind clean; as the ass because it was by its kind unclean was to be redeemed, that is, the use of it was to be sanctified or made lawful unto its owner, by the sacrifice of a firstling Lamb.  
2 But who amongst all the first borne of women was in his kind or by nature clean? Not one besides the Son of the blessed Virgin, who was likewise the only Son of God. It is he alone that was to redeem and sanctify the rest of mankind; which were all by nature unclean: And with reference to the former Law our Apostle instiles him primogenitus omnis creatura, the first borne of every creature. Coloss. 1. 15. Now though it be most true that Christ was before all things, that all things were created by him whether visible or invisible, that all things consist by him as he is the only Son of God, begotten of his Father before all Worlds, yet this is not the true and full meaning of that most sacred maxim Est primogenitus omnis creature, he is the first borne of every creature. One part of the Apostle's meaning in that admirable passage. 1. Coloss. 13. to the 20. is, that unless Christ had been the Son of God from eternity, all fullness could not have dwelled in him; nor could he have had pre-eminence in all things which the Apostle there mentions. Another part of the Apostle's meaning there, is, that in the same Christ as man, it pleased God that all fullness should dwell; and that as man he should in all things have the pre-eminence, and in as much as all fullness dwelleth in him as man, and that in all respect he hath pre-eminence, he is likewise as man the firstborn of every creature; that is, all the prerogatives which the firstborn males had before the after-borne or females, are contained in his prerogative and fullness as man. Now as the firstborn males amongst the offsprings of dumb creatures did sanctify all the rest of the same kind: So Christ as man doth sanctify all things, make all things acceptable unto God which are capable of sanctification or acceptance: As man likewise he had all the prerogatives of the firstborn in the families of the Patriarches which were especially two: The Priesthood and the principality or civil dominion over their brethren and posterity. For Christ as man is made both King and Priest; and albeit Abraham, Isaac, and the Patriarches, and Melchisedech who blessed Abraham were both Kings and Priests over their families and children; yet these prerogatives they had by a solemn right derived from him which was to come, who was to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedech▪ Again in respect of the character of the first borne male, or of that which gave it the prerogative of the after-borne he hath the pre-eminence, for he opened the womb or matrix in such a manner as no creature had done or shall do after him; for he was made true man and truly borne of a woman, yet not begotten by any man. And albeit Melchisedech, Abraham and David were dead long before he was conceived by the holy Ghost; long before he was born or made man of a woman though he be truly enstiled the seed of Abraham and the Son of David, which for this reason were of necessity to be before him: Yet this precedency was a precedency only of time, a precedency in respect of this mortal and miserable life. In respect of that better life he hath the precedency even of time; for he is the Father of the World to come, and as our Apostle hath it 1. Coloss. 18. He is the first borne, or first begotten from the dead; that in all things he might have the prehemi, nence.  
3 Christ by his divine Power had raised the widow's son of Naim, and his friend Lazarus; the one some two years, the other but a few days before, from death to life: but neither of them, nor any before them which had been so raised could be truly said to be begotten from the dead, but rather begotten to die again; for to be borne and begotten from the dead includes an everlasting freedom from the power or approach of death, as it is in the hymn for the morning prayer upon Easter day. Christrising again from the dead now dyeth not, death from henceforth hath no power upon him. According to this notion or importance of primogenitus ex mortuis, of being the first borne, or first begotten from the dead, Christ hath the prehe minence every way; he was the first in order of time, and was raised from death to an endless life. He was the only prime in respect of power or causality; whosoever thus hath been, or shall be raised or begotten from death to an immortal life is thus raised and begotten by virtue of Christ's Resurrection. Albeit the souls of Abraham of Moses and David etc. were before this time seated in bliss: Yet were not their bodies so much as capable of dowry o● jointure with them, in the state of bliss before such time as the Son of God was thus begotten from the dead; yea might the souls of those and other righteous men have looked upon their body's o● relics in the dust they would have loathed their company and abhorred cohabiration with them as being things polluted and unclean.  
4 How clean or well winnowed soever the corn were before it was sown; yet the offspring of it after it died in the ground was unclean. The use of green ears was not lawful unto this people, until the first fruits were offered up unto the Lord. In like manner albeit Abraham, Moses, and David were justified whilst they lived in the flesh, even sanctified persons through belief in Christ which was to come: Yet their bodies were to inherit their Father Adam's curse. Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return. Subject they were to to corruption, altogether incapable of incorruption or immortality until their expected Messias became their first fruits for them. Christ saith our Apostle 1. Cor. 15. 20. is risen from the dead and become the first fruits of them that sleep, for since by man came death by man came also the Resurrection of the dead. So generally true is that of the Apostle, that which sanctifieth, and that which is sanctified are both of one, that is both of one kind. Heb. 2. And in this sense that saying of S. Ambrose which some in later ages have much quarrelled, is most true. [When thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death thou didst open the Kingdom of heaven to all believers.] The body of no Saint was capable of entrance into the Kingdom of heaven before this time. None could be consecrated unto this service before the Consecration of the high Priest himself which was not accomplished till he was begotten from the dead, and made the first fruits of them that sleep.  
5 Briefly to mould up the scattered or dispersed notions in this and some other former treatises; how the fullness of all things which were foreshadowed in the feast of the Passeover with its rites did as our Apostle saith dwell in Christ, or how in all things he the pre-eminence: First he is in the literal and most exquisite sense, the Israel of God, the Son of God which was to pass out of this world unto his Father. Secondly he was the true Paschall Lamb which was slain for our deliverance from the destroyer, and for our safety in this our passage from this world into a better. Thirdly he is the real Moses that must conduct us, for he was conductor unto Moses. Fourthly he is the first borne of every creature, which by his sacrifice did sanctify all the rest and make them acceptable unto God. Fiftly he is the firstborn or first begotten from the dead; the first fruits of them that sleep, that is, he by whom such as sleep in death and inhabit darkness, shall be made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light as well in their bodies as in their souls.    

SECT. 6. He Ascended into Heaven.  

CHAP. 35. How the Ascension of the Son of God was presigured by the translation of Enoch, and by the taking up of Elias; And foretold by the Psalmist. Psal. 15. and Psal. 24.  
THE Son of God in the day of his sufferings as he was man did ascend in soul into that Paradise, into which the souls of Patriarches, of Prophets, with the souls of holy and just men that died immediately after him, or at the same time with him, were admitted. And on that day at least before the dawning of the next which was the Sabbath he consecrated the celestial Sanctuary or Paradise with his own blood. But his Ascension into Paradise, what part soever of Heaven that were, on that day, is not the Ascension mentioned in our Creed: For when it is said, HE ASCENDED into Heaven, this must be understood of his Ascension thither in body which was forty days after his Resurrection from the dead. And into Heaven, or that part of Heaven mentioned in our Creed he did not then ascend only as an high Priest, but also as King of Heaven and earth. The Day of his Ascension as was 
* In the fourth Sect. of this Book Chap. last.  mentioned before was the day of his solemn enthronization.  
2 The manner of his Ascension is punctually related, specially by the Evangelist S. Luke in the last Chapter of his Gospel, and in the first of the sacred history of the Acts of the Apostles. The special quaerees concerning his or other Evangelicall or Apostolical avouchments of his Ascension are but two: The first how that which they historically relate or avouch was fore-pictured: The second how or by what Prophets foretell in the sacred Writings of the Old Testament. And these two queries must be discussed not by dichotomy, or by way of opposition, but either severally or promiscuously as the Texts of the Old Testament shall minister occasion.  
3 The Ascension of this just and holy one, of the great Prophet promised by Moses was first prefigured by the translation of Enoch which was long before the Law was given, long before Moses was borne. But of Enoch's translation little can be said upon sure grounds, or by just warrant of Scripture: Only this we know from authentic testimonies that he was an holy man and one that pleased God; A man both in life and in his translation from this life unto a better, who did truly fore-shadow him in whom alone God was, and is, and ever will be best pleased.  
4 The manner of Eliah's Ascension or rather of his being taken up from earth into heaven, or to a far better place than earth, was more visible and more conspicuous, and the time of his taking up more publicly known, than the time or manner of Enoch's translation was: He was taken or carried up out of Elishah's sight who with many others did expect the time and day of his translation, in a fiery Chariot; a fit emblem of Eliah's prophetical spirit always burning with zeal towards the service of God, even to the destruction of the enemies of it, or disturbers of the peace of Israel. Our Saviour did rather ascend in a Cloud then was taken up by it, albeit taken by it out of their sight which saw him ascend from earth to heaven: The cloud itself in which he did ascend being an emblem of his sweet and mild spirit, of those gracious lips which did always distil words of mercy and love, allaying the terrible heat and fervency of Eliah's, and other Prophet's spirits which had foretell his first coming into, and his going out of this world, and his second coming to judge it.  
5 Two illustrious predictions of his Ascension we have Psal. 15. & Psal. 24. but whether the one or both of these Psalms which illustrate or confirm the truth of the Evangelicall story, be merely prophetical, or typically prophetical, or mixed, id est, thus literally verified in the Psalmists themselves, or Penmen of these hymns, and afterward mystically fulfilled in Christ, is more than I dare peremptorily either affirm or deny. Most probable it is that the Author of the 15th Psal. which doubtless was David himself did pen his own part, and exercise his hopes and interest in the future Ascension of his Son and Lord, of which he had a present pledge or token by his late restitution into the tabernacle of the Lord from which he had sometimes been excluded, not for any crime or demerit, nor by any Ecclesiastical censure of excommunication or suspension, but by secular violence of hostile persecution: During the time of his exile from the tabernacle he or the sons of Chorah for him, uttered those pathetical complaints. How amiable are thy tabernacles thou Lord of hosts. My soul longeth, yea even fainteth for the Courts of the Lord: My heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God. Yea the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine Altar O Lord of hosts my King and my God. Blessed are they that dwell in thy House, they will be still praising thee. Psal. 84. ver. 1. 2. etc. and again ver. 9 Behold O God our shield; and look upon the face of thine anointed. After his restitution to his former freedom the kingly Prophet out of his consciousness of his own integrity and righteousness of the cause for which he was persecuted by Saul and by others, frames these divine characters of such as have interest in the blessings prefigured by free resort unto the service of the Tabernacle, or of the Temple (whose erection perhaps was in his project) when he composed this 15th Psal. Who shall abide in thy Tabernacle, or who shall abide in thy holy hill? This Question he proposeth to jehovah the Lord himself desirous to be instructed by him in this great mystery before he took upon him to instruct others in it. And he receives this answer, He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart ver. 2. and thus concludes, he that doth these things shall never be moved. Which last words could not be exactly fulfilled of the Tabernacle, which itself was movable: None but men so qualified as the character of the Psalm imports, had any just title or sure hope to be perpetual partakers or inheritors of the blessings or comforts of this life which did attend the true service of the Tabernacle much less of the eternal blessings of the heavenly sanctuary. The ungodly and profane persons of those times, or men tainted with the contrary vices unto those good qualifications which he there requires, however they might by extraordinary mercies fare de facto, did always the jure, or by the ordinary course of God's justice forfeit their interest in the blessings promised to sincere observants of the Laws of the Tabernacle.  
6 So that this 15th Psalm for its literal sense is a fuller expression of the matter contained in the first Psalm, or a more lively character of the blessings there promised. Now in as much as the Tabernacle whilst it was movable in the wilderness, whilst it was pitched in Shiloh, or in the Temple itself erected by Solomon on Mount Zion, was but a Type or Figure of that heavenly Sanctuary which God by his own immediate hand hath pitched. Whatsoever was literally meant or verified of the first Tabernacle or Temple, and of the visible Founders of them, or sincere resorters to them, was in the mystical sense verified of the heavenly Sanctuary, and of the invisible Founder of it, Christ jesus the Son of God who did consecrate it with his own blood, into this holy Temple. He alone could enter by the sacrifice of himself, he alone had right to dwell in it; but through his mediation and intercession all such as follow the Psalmist's directions in that Psalm, which are indeed the immediate precepts of God himself, are admitted to be partakers of those joys which by right, as we said, belong to the holy one of God alone, as all the faithful people during the Law were partakers of the sacrifices and services of the Temple, though these were to be performed by the high Priest alone; further, in as much as none besides the promised seed of David, or David's Lord, could exactly perform, or solidby express the qualifications in that Psalm required; none but he could have just right or tintle to enter into that most holy Sanctuary whereof the sanctum sanctorum, or holy of holies was but the model, nor ascend into that holy Mount whereof the hill o● Zion was at the best, but the footstool or lowest step to it. Into this Sanctuary the Son of God our high Priest had better right to enter, more absolute authority to ascend the royal throne in what part soever of heaven seated, than the high Priest of the Law had to enter into the sanctum sanctorum, or Sanctuary within the veil; into which he was to enter but once a year; nor might he then admit any 〈…〉 or attendants to go in with him. But into this heavenly Sanctuary, into which our hopes (even in this life) do enter, Christ jesus (as saith the Apostle) is gone before us, being made an high Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, and by verme of this Priesthood he hath full power and authority to consecrate us to be Kings and Priests unto God, even all us that feel●● to express the characters of the Psalmist's blessed man by sanctity of life towards God, and sincerity of conversation amongst men.  
6 That by the Tabernacle or holy hill mentioned Psal. 15th the heavenly Sanctuary whereinto our high Priest is entered, is principally intended according to the mystical sense, besides the conclusion of that Psalm, the close of the 24th Psalm makes it more clear. The Question and Answer proposed and made by this Psalmist, is the same (but more distinct) with that mentioned 15. Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lift up his soul to vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation. ver. 3. 4. 5. Psal. 24. But there follows another remarkable Question twice proposed in words altogether the same; and twice answered in the same words for equivalency of sense, with a preface most majestic; Lift up your heads O ye gates, and be ye lift up ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in. ver. 7. The Question follows ver. 8. Who is this King of Glory? Sure neither David who composed this Psalm, nor Solomon his son, but jehovah potens in bello. jehovah the strong and mighty Lord, puissant in in battle. ver. 8. But lest his posterity should not be so observant of these mysteries as was befitting, immediately after the reiteration of the former preface, Lift up your heads O gates etc. and of the same Question, Who is the King of Glory, he resolves us somewhat more fully than before, ver. 10. jehovah exercituum ipse est rex gloriae, the Lord of hosts he is the King of Glory, and concludes the whole Psalm with Selah, which, as to my remembrance hath been observed before, is not only a musical note or modulation of the tone in singing, but a character of some peculiar matter or mystery in the ditty, deserving attentive meditation.  
7 Upon the matter then, or reckoning rectaratio being admitted judge, this Psalmist by King of Glory and Lord of hosts means the same Lord, and no other than whom in the beginning of this divine hymn he had acknowledged supreme Lord and Creator both of sea and land. The earth is the Lords, and the fullness thereof; the World and they that dwell therein, for he hath founded it upon the seas (that is in such a sense as we say towns and cities are situated upon the rivers on whose banks they stand) and established it upon the flood. ver. 1. 2. Yet may we not deny that this Psalm may literally refer to the bringing in of the Ark into the hill of Zion, and to the exhortation of the Psalmist to admit and entertain it as the feat of the King of Glory, God blessed for ever. But this literal sense doth no way prejudice, but rather strengthen the force of their argument who hence conclude the deity of the Son of God then admitted in triumph into the hill of Zion (or the Tabernacle pitched in it) according to his divine nature only; this triumphant admission being a sure pledge or earnest of his future admission into his heavenly Sanctuary, the place of his everlasting residency as Lord and Christ in our nature. No man who acknowledgeth or rightly esteemeth the authority of the Psalmist, unless abundance of wit hath besplitted his understanding, can imagine that the King of Glory whom the Psalmist here mentioneth should be any other party or person besides the Son of God Christ jesus, whom the jews (when he came to the material Temple or Tabernacle wherein his divine nature did in peculiar manner reside) did not entertain in such manner as David enjoined their forefather's to entertain the Ark of his presence. They would not acknowledge him to be their Messias because they knew him not, nor the Scriptures which did foretell this his coming. For as our 
* 1. Cor. 2. 8.  Apostle with special reference to the words of this Psalmist te●s us, had they known him to be that Lord of Glory unto whose honour David consecrated this hymn, they would not have crucified him. But by crucifying, or rather by his humiliation of himself unto the death of the Cross, he was consecrated as man unto his everlasting Priesthood, and made both Lord and King of Glory.   

CHAP. 36. At what time, and upon what occasions th' 68 Psalm was composed. What reference it hath (in the general) unto our Saviour's Ascension.  
ANother Psalm there is appointed by the wisdom of the ancient and continued by the discretion of the English Church even since the first reformation, to be read or sung as a proper hymn to the festival of our Saviour's Asoension. A Psalm full of mysteries and divine raptures apt to enkindle our hearts with zeal and admiration, could we find out, or rightly seek after either the historical occasions which ministered the matter or ditty of this divine song, or the several parts of Scripture unto which most passages in it according to the literal or historical sense do respectively refer. The occasion of composing the Psalm, to wit, 68 Some jewish Rabbins conjecture to have been that glorious victory which Ezekiah, or rather the Lord of hosts in Ezekiah's days, got over Senacherib and his mighty army. But the most of the more judicious Christian Commentators with greater probability or discretion, refer the occasion of composing this Psalm to that solemn translation of the Ark of God from Kyriath jearim into Mount Zion at large described 2. Sam. 6. David gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. And David arose and went with all the people that were with him from Baal of judah, to bring up from thence the Ark of God whose name is called by the Lord of hosts, that dwelleth between the Cherubbims, or at which the name even the name of the Lord of hosts was called upon.  
2 This later opinion is in itself persuasible, or rather deserves full credanee from the first words of the Psalm, Let God aris●, let his enemies be scattered, let them also that hate him flee before him. ver. 1. These were verba solemnia the accustomed solemn form of prayer used so often as the Ark of the Covenant (which was to this people the most authentic pledge of God's peculiar presence and protection, and for this reason called by his name) did remove from one place to another during their pilgrimage in the wilderness. And they departed from the Mount of the Lord three day's journey: And the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord went before them in the three day's journey to search out a resting place for them: and the Cloud of the Lord was upon them by day when they went out of the Campe. And it came to pass when the Ark set forward that Moses said, rise up Lord and let thine enemies be scattered, and let them that hate thee flee before thee? And when it rested he said Return O Lord unto the many thousands of Israel. Numb. 10. ver. 33. 34. 35. 36. Moses prayed conceptis verbis that God would arise and take part with his people. David out of the fresh experience of God's mighty protection over him, his subjects, and allies so long as they worshipped him in truth and sincerity, in this symbol of his presence, seems to utter Moses song rather by way of congratulation for victories already gotten then by way of instant prayer for present assistance; A great part of this most divine, most sublime ditty, is a recapitulation of the glorious victories which the God of Israel had purchased for his people, and upon their deliverance out of Egypt, and their other peculiar protections, or succours which private men or women in their distress had found, when they were helpless in the sight of men, or oppressed by their neighbours; Sing unto God, sing praises to his name, extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name jah, and rejoice before him. A Father of the fatherless and a judge of the widows is God in his holy Habitation. God setteth the solitary in families, he bringeth out those that are bound in chains, but the rebellious dwell in a dry land. ver. 4. 5. 6. The verses following refer to the public deliverance out of Egypt, and the majestic apparitions about Mount Sinai: O God when thou goest forth before thy people, when thou didst march through the wilderness, the earth shook, the heavens also dropped before the Lord, even Sinai itself was moved at the presence of God the God of Israel etc. 7. 8. Some good Interpreters here observe that the Ark itself is called jehovah, or the Lord God of Israel by the same form of speech that the sacrament all pledges are called, the one the Body, the other the Blood of Christ.  
3 Now the sweet singer of Israel was confident that the God of their Fathers would be as gracious to himself, to his people, and their successors, after he came to dwell in Mount Sinai, as he had been to Moses and joshun in the wilderness, ●or unto Samuel while the Taber nacle was in Shiloh or elsewhere, either in motion or pitched. Hence sprung those encomiasticall expressions throughout the Psalm of the glory of Mount Zion not so much for its native situation, (though that were glorious,) as for that it was now become the pedestal to the Ark wherein jehovah, or jah kept his residence. The hill of God is as the hill of 
* Bashan was a goody hill-Country, and graced with glorious victories over Og the King of that region, unto which and the deliverance from Pharaoh and his host, these passages in this Psalm do literally allude.  Bashan, an high hill as the hill of Bashan, Why leap ye, ye high hills? This is the hill which God desireth to dwell in, yea the Lord will dwell in it for ever. ver. 15. 16. Yet all these glorious hopes or hoped promises prophesied of in this Psalm, are to be interpreted according to the rules before observed upon Psal. 89. Many of the blessings hoped for and foreprophesied were meant according to the literal sense, of David himself and his posterity, yet but conditionally true of them; absolutely, irreversibly, and everlastingly true only of David's son or seed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, of that God and Lord who in the fullness of time was to be enclosed in the Virgin's womb, and to have his everlasting habitation in the fruit of her body, after a more admirable and peculiar manner than he resided in the Ark, when David brought it unto the hill of Zion. He is often said indeed to dwell in the Ark and in the Temple, but never so did dwell in them in such a sense as our Apostle describes his habitation in the man Christ jesus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bodily, or as Chemnitius renders it, by personal residence.  
4 For the encomiasticall part of the 68 Psal. sofarre as it concerns mount Zion, jerusalem, or judah, the Reader may find a paraphrastical exposition to it Psal. 48. which was composed after this, and as it is most probable in the days of jehosaphat. For any paraphrase or Comment upon that Psalm, I leave the learned Reader to his own choice: I would only commend one passage of 
* Haec sunt ipsa Calvini verba: Propheta fitum & pulchritudinem jerosolymae commendat, acsi diceret, 〈…〉 esse optimè munitam & inexpug●abilem: quia aliqua ex parte in his externis not is fulgebat Dei benedictio. Qu●●quam memoria renendum est, quod pri●● dixit, Deum in eius palatiis concpici in arcem: Ne● enim turre● vel murum nunc commemorans, vult pio●um mentes in i●●is 〈…〉, sed pot●●● speculum proponit quod Dei faciem representet: Circundate ergo Sion inquit, hoc est, attentè circumspicite▪ Numerate turres, & studium vestrum applicate ad considerandum murum eius: aestimate pro dignitate palatia eius. Ita facilè constabit urbem esse 〈…〉 electam; quia longe supra alias omnes emine at Nam in hec totos ist ut appareat qualitas illa & persons qud Dominus jerosolymam induerat, eam ●●●i in sacrarium & in domicilium popula suo 〈…〉 Caeterùm Propheta finem notando, ut narretur poster is forma & splendour urbis 〈…〉, tacitè innuere videtur venturum aliquando tempus quo non ampliu● peter it conspici. Quor sum e●im narratio in re manifesta & ante ●●●sos posita? Quanquam e●go 〈…〉 dixit, urhem illam perpetuo stabilitam esse, nune per modum correction ●● admenet qualis futura sit perpetuitas, nempe quae ad renovationem duntaxat E●clesi●●●tet. Nos enim sumus illa posteritas ad quam pertinet ac dirigitur narratio: Quia quac●●● 〈…〉 Deas beneficia contulit, nobis communia sunt: Non quod splendor ille externus, quo admirabilis fuit jerosolyma, hodie inter nos emineat, sed quia spiritualibus donis non minus splendidè ornata fuit Ecclesia post exhibitum Christum, quam oli● 〈…〉 & 〈…〉 instructa lerusalem sub legis 〈…〉 is, Calvinus in 13. ver, Psal. 48.  Calvin's Comments upon it, which an ingenuous censurer of this great Dr when he treads awry or speaks harshly, but a more friendly encomiast of him when he goes aright, hath commended to me, upon the close of that Psalm: Walk about Sionand go● round about her, tell the towers thereof. ver. 12. etc. Argutum simul & solidum est, & diligenter not●ndum, quod hic ●alvinus auguratur & interpretatur de excidio urbis & Templi, ut splendorem Templi narrent posteritati. Non opus erat auditu & narratione ●i visibus humanis semper p●tuisset. Narrantur posteritati qu● non exhibentur, veluti, quotidi●●●●●●cula & spectacula. ●op. in v. 14. This commendable observation upon the 48. Ps. makes a speech of this same Calvi● upon the principal passages of the 68 Psalm. more harsh and distasteful to this inge●●o●s censurer, and to others which have their senses exercised in the interpretation of prophecies, especially such as are alleged by the Apostles or Evangelists. So was the 
* Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive. Coppen, in v. 19  19 v. of this Psalm urged by S. Paul to prove our Saviour's Ascension. Ephes. 4. Calvinus ait: Paulus locum hunc subtilius ad Christum deflectit; mallem dicere, divinius ad Christum transfert & accommodat.  
5 But this ingenious Writer, and accurate Latinist useth this word accommodat in another sense than jansenius, Suarez, or Maldonat, or other literalists do, which oftentimes though not always, oppose the word accommodation, or allusion, to concludent proof: for of all the prophecies which point directly to the Article of Christ's Ascension, this 19 ver. alleged by S. Paul to this purpose, is most concludent, if we could rightly parallel the literal or historical passages which are well deciphered by Calvin with the mystical or principally intended sense or actual accomplishment of David's words. The historical occasion from which the spirit of prophecy in David took its rise to proclaim this grand mystery of the Gospel, was the often mentioned triumphant introduction of the Ark of God (or in equivalent sense, the God of Israel which dwelled in the Ark) into the hill of Zion; which from this time and occasion was instiled the place of God's rest; because the Ark of God (as was presumed) was there to reside (without wand'ring) as in the place which God had chosen for it. To this purpose Psal. 78. He smote his enemies in the hinder parts, he put them to a perpetual repreach. Moreover he refused the Tabernacle of joseph; and chose not the Tribe of Ephraim, but chose the Tribe of judah, the Mount Sian which he loved. And he built his Sanctuary like high palaces; like the earth which he hath est ablished for ever. ver. 66. 67. 68 69. From this designation of the Ark to reside in jerusalem, David (haply) who knew best the tenor of God's promise concerning this business, would not suffer it to go along with him when he fled from jerusalem, as being in danger of suprisall by his son Absalon.   

CHAP. 37. Of the concludency of the Apostle's Allegation, Ephes. 4. 7. 8. Out of the 18. ver. of the 68 Psal.  
But to set forth the parallel betwixt the Prophet and our Apostle, The custom among the Romans and other Nations, was to bestow congiaries or largesses upon their friends or natives, when they led their enemies captive in solemn triumph. Whether David led any enemies, of which he had conquered many, in such triumph; or whether he did merely as a Prophet or sacred Poet, display his former victories gotten over the enemies of God and his Church, by the manner of the Nations triumphs over their enemies, is not in my observation evident. This is certain, he dispersed not painted or poetical, but real largesses unto the people, in grateful memory of the former victories which God had given to him & his Predecessors, the former Champions, for the people of Israel. And more than probable it is, that David in this hymn had special reference to the victories and triumphs of Barach and his associates over Sisera, most divinely expressed by Deborah in her song. judg. 5. My heart is toward the Governors of Israel, that offered themselves willingly among the people. Bless ye the Lord. ver. 9 Awake, awake Deborah, awake, awake, utter a song, Arise Barach and lead captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam. Then he made him that remaineth, have dominion over the Nobles among the people. The Lord made me have dominion over the mighty. v. 12. 13. Whether David when he composed the 68 Psalm. did imitate the triumph of Barach and Deborah over Sisera, General of Iabin's host, by matter of fact, as by leading his captives in triumph, which is most probable; or only seek to exceed Deborah in his song by more full expressions of his thankfulness towards God, who had given him greater victories over greater enemies, is not manifest: But it is more than matter of opinion, or pious credulity, that both the victories of Barach and David over the visible enemies of God's people, or whatsoever other historical occasions, Deborah or Barach, or David had to utter their songs, were but types, or ominous or lucky prenotions of that great victory which the Seed of David the Son of God was to obtain over the old Serpent and his seed, over death itself, and all the powers of darkness. The triumph of the one or other (David I mean or Barach) was but a picture or painted shadow of that triumphant conquest described by our Apostle. Colass. 2. And you being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, 〈…〉 he 〈…〉 together with him, having forgiven you all 〈…〉, blotting out the hand writing of ordinances that was against us, and took it out of the way, and having spoiled principalicies and powers, he made a show of them openly triumphing over them in it, ver. 13. 14. 15.  
2. The harmony between the literal or historical sense of David's words, though we weigh them only according to Calvin's Comments upon them: [Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for men] and the mystical interpretations of them given by S. Paul, is as sweet as plain, such as need no descant besides the bare proposal of the Psalmist's Text, and Apostle's interpretation of it, or conlsiderations of the occasions which David had to speak as in the forecited place he doth. David and Barach with other Conquerors when they led captivity▪ captive gave gifts unto their friends, gifts of divers sorts to several persons, silver and gold, of other guerdons to their well-deserving captains or soldiers, raiments of needlework unto women of better rank, wi●e and cakes, or other like junkets to poor women and children. Assoon as David had made an end of burnt offerings and peace-offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts, and he dealt among all the people, even among the whole multitude of Israel, as well to the women as 〈…〉 to ever●▪ one a cake of bread, and a good piece of flesh, and a flagon of wine, so all the people departed; every one to his house. 2. Sam. 6. ver. 28. 29. And this was the time when he brought the A●ke of God in solemn procession into the hill of Zion. But unto every one of us (saith the the Apostle in the fore▪ cited place, which contains the Evangelicall mystery parallel to this historical relation,) is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith when be ascended up on high he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. Now that he ascended, what is it but that he descended first into the lower parts of the earth. He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things. And he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers; for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ. Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Ephes. 4. v. 7. 8. 9 10. 11. 12. 13.  
3 From this improvement of the Psalmist's literal sense and mystical interpretation of his practice, which no good Christian will deny to be authentic as being made by the Apostle, the diligent Reader may easily find out the mystical or prophetical sense of the verses following in the 68 Psal., so far as they concern the Article of our Saviour's Ascension, or the propagation of the Kingdom of God, which followed upon it. To take the cleareview of the mystical sense of the verses mentioned, the Reader with me must take his rise from the literal sense, which is twofold; the one containing an historical expression of what was to be acted for the present by David and his attendants, when he brought the Ark into Mount Zion; the other a relation or retro-aspect unto the solemnities used by Barach and his attendants, in their triumph over Sisera. So it followeth, They have seen thy goings O God, even the goings of my God, my King in the Sanctuary. These words are characters, or notes of the solemn procession of the Ark, for whilst the Ark, or Sanctuary did go, or march unto Mount Zion, the God and King of Israel did go with it and in it; and in this procession the singers went before, the players on instruments followed after, amongst them were the Damosels playing with Timbrels. v. 25▪ The solemnity of singing in God's service was more complete in David's time, than it had been in the days of Moses, or of the judges; yet songs and music they had then in their solemn processions or gratulations, and Damosels playing upon Timbrels, as it is evident out of Exodus 15. judges 5. and other ancient sacred histories. Though such processions at this day, (such is the alteration of times and seasons) would be as unsightly to us modern Christians whether Protestants or Papists, as it would be to an English Protestant to see the consecrated host or Body of our Lord, whilst carried about in solemn procession, attended with a ma●risk-dance, or other like gambols. But the burden of the song used by David was that, v. 26. Bless ye God in the Congregation, even the Lord from (or ye that are of) the fountain of Israel. For not judah only but the rest had their portion in the son of jesse, for there is little Benjamin with their Ruler, the Princes of judah and their council, the Princes of Zebulun, and the Princes of Nepthali. ver. 27. These Tribes with their governors in all probability did give David best attendance in this great service done to the Ark, or rather to the God of Israel that dwelled in it, as some of them likewise had been principal assistants unto Barak, highly commended for their service by Deborah; Out of Ephraim was their a root of them against Amaleck, after thee Benjamin among thy people. judg. 5. ver. 14. After a sharp tax of some other Tribes for their great backwardness in the service of God, she adds, Zebulun and Nepthali were a people that ieoparded their lives unto the death in the high places of the field. ver. 18. In the first procession of the Ark. Numb. 10. All the Tribes with their Rulers did attend it, so did they not Barak in the battle of the Lord against jabin and Sisera; The excellent services of these Tribes, mentioned by David in this pocession with the Ark to Mount Zion, did prognosticate or portend that when the true Ark was exhibited, that is, when the God of their Fathers should come and dwell and walk among them in the midst of them, as Moses had promised, his chief attendants should be these Tribes commended by Deborah and David. Christ jesus himself the God of Israel whom David and his Fathers worshipped, was of the Tribe of judah, Paul of the Tribe of Benjamin, Peter and Andrew, and most of the other Apostles or prime Disciples, were of the Tribe of Zebulum and Nepthali, and made more than Princes of their families, his witnesses and Ambassadors, not to the end of the earth, but to the ends of the World.  
4 Some of the Ancients, and among the rest S. Austin, if my memory fail not, think they have found out S. Paul charactered in the fore cited prophecy, there was little Benjamin their Ruler etc. And assuredly 'twas not a matter of mere chance or fancy, that this great Apostle of the Gentiles should have his name changed from Saul unto Paul, a name borrowed as some think from Sergius Paulus, and Paulus in the Latin signifies a little one. And this was a name better be fitting this great Apostles disposition after his calling then the name of Saul, which was the name of the first King of Israel, and one of the greatest of his Tribe. That Saul was little in his own eyes before he was King but great after, whereas this Apostle Paul was little in his own eyes, but great in the eyes of the Lord after he was made Ruler of the people; but to wave this conjecture of the Ancients, and not to dispute the reason why Benjamin should be called little by David in that Catalogue, wherein he had the precedency in order of judah; most other passages throughout this 68 Psal. from the 19 ver. are eminently prophetical. Blessed be the Lord who daily loadeth us with benefits, even the God of our salvation. He that is our God is the God of salvation, and unto God the Lord belong the issues of death. ver. 19 20. These are characters of God incarnate or made man, or of the man Christ jesus, made salvation itself, and of this jesus raised from death: for from this title the issues of death or deliverance from it belong to him as his peculiar: More apparently are those passages ver. 31. etc. literally meant, at least exactly fulfilled of jesus Christ after his Resurrection and Ascension to his holy hill or heavenly Sanctuary. Prince's shall come out of Egypt, Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God; Sing unto God O ye Kingdoms of the earth: O sing praises unto the Lord. To him that rideth upon the heaven of heavens, which were of old. Lo, he doth send out his voice, and that a mighty voice. Ascribe ye strength unto God, his excellency is over Israel, and his strength is in the Clouds. O God thou art terrible out of thy places; the God of Israel is he that giveth strength and power unto his people. Bbessed be God. ver. 31. 32. etc.  
5 As for the prayer conceived first by Moses, afterwards assumed by David after the removal of the Ark [Let God arise let his enemies be scattered, let them also that hate him flee before him] and all those menaces of fearful judgements upon God's enemies, pronounced by David in this Psalm as appendices to it; these were never so exactly fulfilled either of the Canaanites, Moabites, Philistines, or other enemies of Israel whiles the material Ark did remove from place to place, or settled in jerusalem, as they have been of the seed of Abraham and of jacob, since their God did arise from death in our nature, which he consecrated to be the true and living Ark of God. Nor can the truth of God's promises unto Abraham, David, or their seed, no not according to the literal sense of the prophecies which concern them, be any way impeached by taking his punishing hand from their heads, and laying it more heavily upon his sometimes-chosen people. For seeing they became the sworn enemies of the God of their Fathers revealed in the Ark of his flesh, the forementioned prayer or imprecation of Moses and David, was more literally and punctually directed against them, then against A●●alek, Moab, Ammon etc. For these, whether we take them jointly or severally, were no greater enemies of God than other heathen Nations were, save only in this, that they were, greater enemies to his Chosen people the seed of jacob, by reason of their vicinity as bordering upon their costs, which always nurseth quarrels between Nations disunited in sovereignty, or form of government; whereas the jewish seed of Abraham which had been sometimes God's Elect people, without occasion given became the immediate enemies of their God, and for his sake more bloody persecutors of the Gentiles, yea of their own brethren according to the flesh, after they with the Gentiles had become his Chosen people. Now Moses his prayer, or David's imprecation did not aim at the persons of men, of what Nation soever, but at their malicious qualifications or enmities against God, whether direct or indirect; so that since the seed of Abraham became the enemies of God and his Christ, they may be more truly said to have dashed against the Psalmists or Moses curse, than it to have falled upon, or overtaken them; and yet for all this as we learn from S. Paul Rom. 11. that other prayer of Moses when the Ark rested, shall bear date again, shall be fulfilled for the good of these yet castawaies. When the Ark rested Moses said, returnè O God to the many thousands of Israel Numb. 10. 36. This strange devolution of God's mercies and judgements from one people to another, making the down-fall of one Nation to be the advancement of another to his free grace and mercy, (not the points of Election and reprobation, as there hath been a mist cast upon them by unskilful Controversers, whereas S. Paul had left them clear enough,) was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whose deeper consideration did extort that pathetical ejaculation from him. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearehable are his judgements and his ways past finding out etc.   

CHAP. 38. That the manner of our Saviour's Ascension was more clearly fore seen by Daniel then by David, and most exactly foreshadowed by matters of fact in Mosaical and other sacred histories: A parallel between Salōmon's Consecration of the Temple, and our Saviour's Consecration, or sanctisying of himself, and his heavenly Sanctuary.  
WHether David did distinctly apprehend the manner of our Saviour's Ascension, and propagation of his dominion over all things in heaven and earth, both which he did foretell and fore-shadow by matter of fact and service done to the Ark; or whether he did at all fore-guesse, or suspect the turning of God's heavy hand upon his seed and Iacob's seed according to the flesh, is a point not altogether out of question, were it fit to be inquired into, But (as hath been 
* In the seventh Book. Sect. 2. Chap. 16.  observed heretofore) our belief or right apprehension of the truth of divine mysteries, doth not depend upon their knowledge or apprehension which did foretell or relate their prefigurations, but on the contrivance of divine, ●inerting, allseeing providence, by whose inspiration and secret instinct both the Prophets and Evangelists did both speak and write. But be the former doubt concerning David's apprehension of these mysteries, waved or determined as it may be; this we know and may resolve, whatsoever in the former Psalm was foretell or foreshadowed by David, concerning the manner of our Saviour's. Ascension or propagation of his Kingdom, was more clearly fore-seen by Daniel, and as punctually foreshadowed by matter of fact in Mosaical histories: To begin with the testimony of Daniel which was merely prophetical, a pure vision. And I beheld invisions by night, behold one like the son of man, came in the clouds of heaven and approached unto the ancient of days, and they brought him before him. And he gave him dominion, and honour, and a Kingdom; that all people, Nations, and languages should serve him, his dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall never be taken away: and his Kingdom shall never be destroyed. In that he saith he was like unto the Son of man, this doth not import that he was not truly man, or only like to man, but that more glory was due unto him then to any mere son of man; and that he was the true son of that ancient of days unto whom he was brought: And as our Apostle saith that being in the form of God, and equal unto God, yet he was found in the likeness and shape of man, that is, as essentially like to man as like to God. The Prophet describes his presentation to his Father, by the Angels and celestial powers attending him, which our Evangelist relateth not, because (haply) this could not be seen by waking and mortal eyes, but only by vision or rapture of spirit. The same Prophet likewise describes the manner of his Ascension, as exactly as if he had been a waking spectator of it with the Apostles and Disciples.  
2 But to resume the Prophet's words: Behold saith the Prophet one like the son of man came in the clouds of heaven and approached unto the ancient of days. he doth not say he was brought up in the clouds of heaven, for the motion was his own: He was the agent or mover, as well as the party moved in this Ascension. So the Evangelist saith. Act. 1. 9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld he was taken up; for a cloud took him out of their sight, and whilst they looked steadfastly towards heaven as he went. Behold two men stood by them in white apparel which also said, ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven: Emphasim habent verba he, videntibus illis: It was remarkably said that he was taken up his Disciples looking on, for this imports, as some of the ancients observe that Christ did ascend by little and little as it were by certain steps that he might feed the eyes and refresh the souls of his Disciples. He was not reached up as Elias was, who had but one witness, nor as S. Paul who had no witness besides himself, scarce himself a witness of his rapture, for whether he were taken up in the body or out of the body God knows (saith he) I cannot tell. But our Saviour went by the power of his omnipotency: he descended when he would, and when he would ascended, appointing what spectators or witnesses it pleased him, with the place, the time, the very day and hour.  
3 As S. Luke's description of our Saviour's Ascension is a complete explanation of Daniel's vision▪ so is that vision, of the mystical sense of Mosaical or other histories, concerning the Ark or Tabernacle. For the unfolding of this point we are to take the forementioned prenotion for our rule, to wit, that the Ark of the Covenant wherein God was said to dwell▪ was but a Type or shadow of the humane nature of Christ, in which the Godhead dwelleth bodily, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The other branch of this prenotion is as clear, that the Tabernacle which Moses erected in the wilderness, in which he placed the Ark, was but a petty model of that celestial Tabernacle into which Christ is entered, of which the Temple built by Solomon was somewhat a fairer draught; yet no more than a little map. Now immediately after▪ Moses had finished the work of the Tabernacle, A cloud covered the Tent of the congregation, and the Glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle Exod. 40. ver. 34. etc. More expressly Numb. 9 v. 15. And on the day that the Tabernacle was reared up, a cloud covered the Tabernacle, namely the tent of the testimony; and at even there was upon the Tabernacle as it were the appearance of fire until the morning. The most memorable history to this purpose is 1. King. 1. v. When Solomon had assembled all the Elders of Israel, and heads of the Tribes, to bring up the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord out of the City of David to the Temple ver. 1. And it came to pass when the Priests were gone out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the Lord; so that the Priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the Glory of the Lord had filled the House of the Lord. v. 11. The Son of God in whose breast as he is the Son of David, the Covenant made with mankind is registered most exactly, and kept safer than the Tables of the first Covenant were in the Ark when it was brought into the Temple, had his Throne and Sanctuary prepared of old, or to use our Apostle's dialect, non erat hujus structurae, they were not thrones or Sanctuaries made with hands; yet to be consecrated by the blood of our high Priest; and being thus prepared, a cloud did cover this living Ark of God and high Priest, upon the day that he was to enter into the holy place: After the cloud took him from his Disciples sight, he filled the everlasting Tabernacle with his Glory, being more reverently adored by all the host of heaven, than he had been either by Solomon, or the Elders of Israel when they brought the Ark of his Covenant into the Temple, or by his Apostles after his Resurrection.  
4 At the same time wherein the Ark was brought by the Priest into the most holy place, Solomon kneeling before the Altar of the Lord first blessed God and consecrated the Temple by that divine prayer never to be forgotten by good Christians. And as soon as he had ended his prayer he rose up, and blessed the congregation of Israel with a loud voice, saying, Blessed be the Lord that hath given rest unto his people Israel according to all that he promised; there hath not failed one word of all his good promises which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant. 1. King. 8. v. 56. etc. His prayers to God and blessing of the people are more than paralleled by our Saviour's prayers for his own Consecration and the spiritual blessings thence to be derived upon his Apostles. joh. 4. 14. etc. One part of Salomon's prayer when he blessed the people was this, Let these my words wherewith I have made supplication before the Lord, be nigh unto the Lord our God day and night, that he maintain the cause of his servant, and the cause of his people Israel at all times, as the matter shall require. v. 49. That all the people of the earth may know that the Lord is God, and that there is none else. ver. 60. This part is rather accomplished then paralleled by our Saviour joh. 17. I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine. ver. 9 And for their sakes I sanctify myself that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one, as thou Father art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: That the world may believe that thou hast sent me. v. 19 20. 21.   

CHAP. 39 Into what place or part of heaven our Saviour did ascend, or in what manner he sitteth at the right hand of God, are points not so fit to be particularly inquired after, nor so apt to be proved or determined by Scripture, as the other Articles of our Creed.  
But however He whose prayers were always heard, did thus pray for his followers a little before his agony and bloody Passion, and bestow his solemn blessing upon them immediately after his Resurrection and before his Ascension: Yet the extraordinary blessings which he prayed for and promised in his Father's name, were not really conferred until he was actually enthronised; but shortly after showered down in abundance upon his Apostles and those that believed through their report. So he foretell them when he was ready to ascend. Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you: But tarry ye in the City of jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high. Luk. 24. 49. The exhibition of the blessings here promised was Act. 2. ver. 32. 33. 34. This jesus hath God raised up whereof we are all witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted and having received of the Father the promise of the holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens; but he saith himself, the Lord said unto my Lord, Sat thou on my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool. When he saith David is not ascended into heaven, this must be understood of his Ascension thither in body, and this negative he had strongproved before, But whether David's soul had ascended or was carried into heaven before this time, this place doth neither warrant us to affirm or deny. David's soul before this was in a place of bliss in heaven itself, not in limb: But whether in that heaven, or that part of heaven, into which our Saviour did now in body, ascend, is more questionable than determinable. Some good Writers with great probability and equal modesty affirm that Christ did now ascend in body far higher than the mansions of bliss appointed for the Saints, Prophets, Apostles, etc. or for Angels of the highest rank. And to this purpose is that of our Apostle alleged by them. Ephes. 4. 10. He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens that he might fill all things▪ & other like places wherein he is said to be▪ exalted above all powers and principalities. Some grave 
* Amongst others Didacus' Yanguas.  Postillers or discreet Preachers would persuade us, that Christ's Throne of Majesty was pitched in luce inaccessâ in that region of light and bliss which is inaccessible to any mere creature man or Angel, as being reserved for the peculiar mansion of the invisible God and Father of lights and for his Son both God and man enthronised as as King, and Priest on his right hand. But whether the exaltation of the Son of God unto the right hand of his Father far above all Powers, Dominions, and Principalities, do include a superiority, not of sovereignty or dominion only but withal of place according to local distance, or a supereminent Throne of Majesty, if the Lutherane will not be too choleric, or Maldonat's associates too censorious, may be in fitter place soberly debated.  
2 But however the one or other of these may be affected, the best is, we need not be too curious in these points, especially with men apt to quarrel about phrases or expressions. Other Articles concerning Christ we are bound to believe distinctly and explicitly according to the plain literal or grammatical sense of the words, wherein the Evangelists and Apostles have expressed them, without the vail of any rhetorical trope or allegory. And strange it is not, if our belief of other Articles, or knowledge of them be literally required; seeing the matter contained in them is sensible and comprehensible to reason sanctified by grace: As his conception; although it were wrought immediately by a supernatural cause; albeit the manner of it were miraculous: yet for substance it was univocally the same with our conception: He was as truly and properly conceived as we are conceived: He was as truly made of the substance of his Mother, as we are made of the substance of our Parents; or as Adam was made of the earth: He was as truly and as properly borne as we are borne: He was really and as properly circumcised as any other child of Abraham was: He suffered truly and as properly as any man can suffer: He was as truly and as properly crucified dead and buried and rose again, as any man ever was crucified dead and buried, or can rise again. But for the place whither he ascended, or for the manner of his sitting at the right hand of God, these cannot be so distinctly conceived by us, because they are not in such proper terms expressed by the holy Ghost, but are wrapped up in a veil of legal shadows or representations. Concerning the place whither he ascended, we know in general that it was a place of joy, of bliss and glory; but which place the Apostle himself could not better represent unto us, then by the sanctum sanctorum, or the most holy place in the Tabernacle or Temple. This hope we have Heb. 6. 19 as an anchor of the soul both sure and steadfast, and which entereth within the veil, whither the forerunner is for us entered, made an high Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. So S. john emblazons the glory of Christ by the Pontifical attire and robes of Aaron, as likewise he doth the beauty of Christ's Kingdom by the feast of Tabernacles.  
3 The best and safest means for conceiving aright, at least for not conceiving amiss, of these two heavenly mysteries, is not by critical scanning the literal sense or importance of the Prophet's words in their descriptions of them, but by sincere practice of those known duties whereto our belief of these unknown mysteries bind us. The most general and necessary duty whereto we are bound by belief of our Saviour's Resurrection and Ascension into heaven, is that of our Apostle. Goll. 3. ver. 1. 2. 3. 4. If ye then be risen with Christ seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affections on things above not on things on earth: For ye are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence and covetousness which is idolatry, for which things sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience. But if these works of the flesh be mortified by the spirit; the spirit of God, having gotten possession of our hearts, doth organize them, and frame a true model of the heavenly Sanctuary within our breasts, albeit we cannot express our affectionate conceits, or experimental representations unto others. Christ is present with us, or in us by this renovation of our mind, or by imprinting these heavenly affections in our souls, by following love, gentleness, meekness, temperance, patience etc. Christ is really fashioned in us not by converting any substance into his substance, or by real converting his substance into ours, but by conversion of our earthly affections into the similitude of his heavenly affections: Our affections being thus converted Christ hath his Throne and Habitation in our hearts, so answering to his heavenly Throne, as the light of the sun gathered in some round body apt to reflect his beams, or to be penetrated by them, doth resemble the sun which really penetrates and enlightens them. For effecting this real conversion of our affections into the similitude of his affections, no other presence of Christ is either necessary or expedient, besides the presence of his spirit, by which ten days after his Ascension he enabled his Disciples to conceive aright of these heavenly mysteries, and to convert others unto the truth of his Gospel.  
4 That Christ's body should descend from heaven unto us or be bodily present by trasubstantiation, or some other manner as some conceive, we have no reason to hope nor warrant to believe; to lift up our bodies unto heaven we have no possibility; but to lift up our hearts and spirits unto our Lord now placed in his heavenly Throne, we have have peremptory precepts many. But how shall we lift them up, or what power have we to lift them up? Not so much I confess as we have to cast ourselves down before his Throne, but casting ourselves down before him, which we cannot perform without his preventing and assisting grace, we have a sure promise that he will lift us up. We are no where to my remembrance commanded to pray to God that he would cast us down, and yet bound to pray that he would give us grace to cast ourselves down. As often then as we meditate upon this Article of Christ's Ascension or sitting at the right hand of God, let us beseech God and him, that the Priests may truly exhort their charge, his people, to lift up their hearts, and that the people may as truly answer we lift them up unto the Lord: And that we may all jointly sing that hymn in reverence and true devotion, With Angels and Arch-Angels, and with all the company of heaven we laud thy glorious name O Christ evermore praising thee and saying, holy, holy, holy, Lord God of host's heaven and earth are full of the Majesty of thy Glory, Glory be to thee O Lord most high. AMEN.   

CHAP. 40. How the time of our Saviour's Ascension into heaven upon the fortieth day after his Resurrection from the grave, was prefigured by the sign of the Prophet jonas, with the exposition of that sign given by our Saviour Mat. 12. 39 40.  
ONe thing more I should have said in the former treatise but now must commend it to the Reader's observation: And 'tis this, that many of those prophetical passages specially in the Psalms of bringing great things to pass by the right hand of the Lord, have been are and sahll be most punctually fulfilled of, and in the Son of God incarnate, since he was placed at the right hand of God the Father. That his placing there includes an extraordinary eminency of power more than hath been formerly manifested, the Lutheran I am sure doth not, and I hope others cannot deny. Two special manifestations of the power of the right hand of God, were exhibited not long after his Ascension. The first spiritual, as the descending of the holy Ghost from which time the holy Catholic Church bare date or began to be in esse. The other was the destruction of jerusalem and the dispersion of the rejected relics of Abraham's seed throughout the Nations.  
2 The circumstance of the time wherein he ascended which is the only point left to be discussed is plainly set down by the Evangelist S. Luke. Act. 13. The Queries upon it are two. The first how it was prefigured: The second what it did portend.  
3 For the resolution of both these Queries there can be no firmer ground than the explication of a sacred text uttered by our Saviour himself. Math. 12. v. 38. 39 etc. Then certain of the Scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said to them, an evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the Prophet jonas. For as jonas was three days and three nights in the whales belly; so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.  
4 But yet for any help we have from most Interpreters, the explication of this Text is in itself more difficult than most of the former alleged for our Saviour's Resurrection and Ascension. Who so will read as many ancient or modern expositors as Maldonat had done, will haply subscribe to his censure of such as he hath read. So far was any of them from clearing this passage that not one besides Hilarius did in his judgement touch the principal difficulty contained in it. And he that shall read this learned Writer's Comments upon this place will perhaps not condemnemy 
* Nunquam ineptè saepius acutè rarius exqui●itè.  opinion of him delivered in former meditations. But my desire is rather to explicate his and other Interpreters meaning, whom he dislikes then contradict them; and to rectify the parallels intended by them between Types or Figures of the Old Testament and their accomplishment in the New.  
5 The principal dissiculties in our Saviour's parallel are first, what manner of sign it was which the adulterous generation sought for. The second to what purpose he gave them such a sign as they did not seek after. Our Saviour before, and his Disciples after this time had given the jews one and other many miraculous signs: How then doth he say that no sign shall be given them besides the sign of the Prophet jonas? Some are of opinion that these Scribes and Pharisees desired some such glorious sign from heaven as Elias and Samuel had showed, & that our Saviour should put them off with such an answer as the Muscovite did a Neighbour Prince, who to pacify his anger had sent him 
Vide Petrum Ramum in scholiis mathematicis. lib. 2.  a curious celestial globe; [Tu mihi coelum mittis redde terras de quibus contendimus] The Scribes and Pharisees as these Writers think, demand a sign from the heavens above, and our Saviour gave them one from the earth or waters below. But if they had demanded a sign to prove his divinity, as these Writers think: The sign of Elia's Ascension had been more illustrious and effectual to this purpose. Maldonat's resolution of this difficulty is, that our Saviour speaks not of a sign to persuade them as they sought, but of a sign to condemn them, and that our Saviour useth (as he doth in many other places quoted by this Author) an elegant ambiguity. That the men of Ninevehs repentance at jonas preaching, was an infallible argument of these jews future condemnation, or a sign which left them altogether unexcusable for not repenting after our Saviour's Resurrection from the dead, no Christian can deny. But whether this sign was given them for their condemnation rather than for confirming their belief, or for provoking them to repentance, we may well doubt; and Maldonate if he had been constant to his positions elsewhere, must acknowledge the later branch of this division to have been more probable. His answer (tho) to speak the truth, brings us out of a blind by path into a fairer way which leads us directly to a labyrinth of disputations, concerning the cause or manner of these jews rejection, into which at this time I will not enter.  
6 The true meaning of our Saviour's words considered with references unto former passages I should conceive to be, as if he had said albeit I have done such works as none but the Son of God could have done amongst you, such as would have cheered Abraham's heart to have seen, yet this adulterous generation or degenerate kind of men which boast themselves to be the seed of Abraham, demand a further sign; but though I should give them all the signs possible in the heavens above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth, there could be no sign like to the sign of the Prophet jonas. Go therefore and see what that means, or expect the fulfilling of it by the event; otherwise the men of Nineveh shall condemn you, for they repented at Ionah's preaching, yet was the sign▪ which God had given them by his deliverance from the Whale, no sign in comparison of that which I give unto you: So that our Saviour's words do not▪ exclude all other signs either given by him, or by his Apostles, but only argues that no sign for their instruction or future safety could be given in comparison of this, so they would diligently inquire after the meaning of it. But seeing they did not whom the meaning of this enigmatical forewarning did most, or in the first place (at least) concern: Let us of this age, whom it much concerns to take instruction from their folly, as far as we are able, redeem their negligence in this particular enquiry.  
7 When our Saviour saith, as jonas was three days and three nights etc. so the Son of man. This note of similitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the ordinary rate of speech implies, that the son of man should be fully as long in the belly of the earth, as jonas had been in the belly of the Whale. Now the time of jonas durance there is so punctually expressed jon. 1 [Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up jonah, and jonah was in the belly of the fish three▪ day's and three nights] that any ordinary Reader will conceive it should contain three natural days, as from friday in the morning until the sunrising or dawning on Monday, or from friday at night till Monday at night, that is, the whole course of three natural days. But thus long it is evident our Saviour did not remain in the Grave: For he was interred on the sixth day towards the sunset, and rose again the first day with the Sun or a little before it; so that the longest time of his imprisonment in the Grave, was but so many hours as he had been weeks in the Womb, 36. or thrice twelve in the one, and 36. or thrice twelve in the other. The difficulty proposed then whether as it concerns the time of jonas his abode in the belly of the Whale, or of our Saviour's in the Womb of the earth, cannot be clearly resolved by that construction which Lawyers sometime make in favorabilibus, that is, for the greater part of three days; nor by that Synecdoche which we allow in ordinary cases; as if a man would prove that his friend had been in the City to attend the Court three days together, it would not be expected that he should make affidavit to prove that he had been three whole days from morning to evening: It would suffice that he had been in the City some part of every one of the three days; or that he had attended the Court at competent hours in every one of the three days instanced in, as suppose▪ Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. The true reason of all such legal allowances of Synechdoches, as Grammarians and Rhetoricians term them, is grounded upon that unquestionable rule of reason or Logic. Ad veritatem indefinitae propositionis adstruendam sufficit verit as unius vel alterius particularis. He that saith the Athenians were learned men is not bound to prove this universal, that all the Athenians were learned; it were enough to give pertinent instance in somefew; for he that covenanteh to pay his day-labourer as his neighbours do, is not bound to pay them as much as any of all his neighbours do, if he make as just payment as any one or two of his good neighbours do to their hirelings, this in legal construction will acquit him from breach of Covenant: Now times and seasons, days, weeks, and hours have theiruniversall or indefinite extense or limitations as well as men, or other things numerable or measurable. That may be truly said to be this days work which is done or wrought upon any part of this day currant. And according to this Synecdoche or just allowance, our Saviour may in legal or logical construction be truly said to be in the womb of the earth three days and three nights; that is, in some part of Friday, all Saturday, and in some part of Sunday. But this Synecdoche will not either by legal or logical allowance reach unto three nights: That he was two entire nights in the Grave is de fide a point of faith, but no point of faith or probability that he should be in the Grave any least part of any third night.  
8 May we not then believe that he was three days and three nights in the belly of the earth? By all means we must. Maldonat acutely discovers the original of others error, or rather of the difficulty which had perplexed so many of the ancients (who made it greater than in his opinion it needed to have been) to be this, that they made their calculations according to the scale of other Nations or languages, not by the Hebrew computation which doth not oppose day unto night, but take day and night for one natural day. His observation is true and helps in part to salve the truth of the literal sense, if he had given the true reason of this their account: But yet under correction the instances which he brings from the Hebrew account of the fasting of Moses and Elias (both which are expressed to have fasted forty days and forty nights) do rather prejudice then clear the true meaning of our Saviour's prediction [That he was to continue three days and three nights in the belly of the earth.] For certainly Moses and Elias, and so our Saviour in the wilderness did fast as well forty nights as forty days, or forty natural days complete without any synecdochical abatement either of one day or night; whereas from the three days and three nights wherein our Saviour foretell he was to continue in the womb of the earth, we must abate the one half of a natural day besides the space of one hour, or one hour and an half at the most. This abatement being fully made he did continue in propriety of sacred dialect in the Grave three days and three nights, if we would measure his divine prediction by the most ancient and original scale of the Hebrew account which Moses used throughout the history of the Creation.  
9 Briefly, the three days and three nights, in the 12 of Matthew are equivalent to three of those evenings and mornings which made up half of the six natural days wherein the World was created. The evening we know was in order of time before the morning, whence it is that the Hebrews begun their natural day from the vespers ortwilight; that which we call Saturday-night was to them the beginning of the first day of the week; our Sunday at night the beginning of their second; Monday at night of their third; Tuesday night of their fourth; Wednesday night of their fifth, Thursday night of their sixth; Friday night of their seventh day or Sabbath. Moses in his description of the six days of the World's Creation, gives the true hint for interpreting our Saviour's words as we have done, when he said, The evening and the morning were the first, second, and the third day etc. For this is all one as if he had said the heaven and the earth were created in six days and six nights, and albeit he made no mention of any evening or morning of the seventh day wherein God did rest from his work. Yet may we not think but that day consisted of the same parts whereof the other six days did, only the vicissitude of the evening and morning is omitted in the description of that day, to represent the everlasting Sabbath whereof it was a Type wherein is no night; as the genealogy of Melchisedech in respect of Predecessors or Successors is not mentioned by the same Moses, because the holy Ghost by whose direction he wrote would have him brought in without genealogy because he might resemble the eternity of our high Priest the Son of God. From these premises we may safely conclude that when our Saviour foretell he should be three days and three nights in the belly of the earth, this is all one as if he had said he should be three evenings and mornings in the womb of the earth. The conclusion being granted, the former Synecdoehe is in this case most allowable; for 'tis evident that our Saviour was interred in the sixth evening and morning, that is on Friday, which was the sixth day of the week according to the Hebrews account, before the setting of the sun, or the evening following which was the beginning of the seventh natural day or Sabbath, during all which as well the whole evening as morning he rested in his Grave at least until the dawning of the first day, during whose evening or night preceding he likewise rested there, So that he was in the womb of the earth in part of the sixth evening and morning or sixth night and day, and all the Sabbath as it consists of night and day, and all the whole night succeeding the Sabbath, and part of the morning following, for he did not arise till after the break of day, or till the sun begun to approach the Horizon.  
9 This form of accounting the wee●ke by day and night, or by evening and morning, doth, more lively character the succession of times or vicissitude of seasons, then if we should measure the same space either by nights alone or by days alone, as when we English describe the space of a complete week by seven nights, or the space of half a month by a fortnight, or of a year by three hundred, threescore, odd days, & minutes. But this by the way, the Reader may find more for his satisfaction in good Commentators upon these words of Daniel. Chap. 8. ver. 26. And the visian of the evening, and the morning, which was told, is true etc.  
11 Bt to return unto my task which is the unfolding of our Saviour's prediction in the 12● of Matthew. That as many other prophecies, hath his peculiar mystical sense whose, explication must be grounded upon the former literal sense, as it hath been now explained. For that he should be interred in the Grave in part of the sixth day, and there remain in the residue of it, and all the Sabbath or Seventh day, and for a great part of the first day, or of the first evening and moraing, wants not a peculiar, yea a triple mystery. For the illustration whereof it will not be amiss to premise the sweet harmony between the six days of the World's Creation; by the Consecration, Death, and Passion of Him by whom it was first made. As there was a week of Creation which could not be foreshadowed by any time precedent. So there was a solemn week appointed for Redemption for-shadowed partly by the week of Creation and God's rest from his works, partly by the week of Aaron's Consecration and his accomplishment of it upon the eighth day. To parallel the acts or works of every day whether of the week of the first Creation, or of the week of Aaron's Consecration, with the like acts or works of heb d●madae sanctae or the week of man's Redemption by our Saviour's Consecration, would be a work more difficult to the undertaker whether by pen or preaching, then profitable to the Auditor or Reader. It shall suffice me to exhibit the Evangelicall Cycle from the first day of our Saviour'e Consecration, which was the first day of the week following, (taking the day as opposed to night or evening) or of the time interjacent betwixt the great Feast of the Passion, and the Pentecost-following.  
12 Upon the first day of that week wherein our Redemption was wrought our Saviour came in triumphant manner into jerusalem not only to fulfil the prophecy of Zachary before 
* In the eight Book of these Comments. Chap. 18.  expounded at large, (for that might have been fulfilled at any other time or day for its substance) but to testify withal that he was the true paschal Lamb appointed pointed for the sacrifice of that great Feast, that Lamb of God which ●ame too take away the sins of the world. For upon that very day of the month Abib, were it the tenth or ninth in which our Saviour came to jerusalem saluted with echoing cries of Hosanna the Son of David, was the legal paschal Lamb according to first institution of the Passeover brought out of the fields unto the place appointed for the public assembly, with greater pomp perhaps and solemnity prescribed by custom, than was expressly required in the Law. Upon the fifth day day of this sacred week, being (as I take it) the fourteenth of the month Abib, our Saviour being to be offered in sacrifice at the time wherein the paschal Lamb▪ was eaten by seterall families, did eat the Passeover with his Disciples and preoccupated the usual day for eating the paschal Lamb, upon necessity. In the night following which was the evening of the sixth day, he was apprehended and arraigned in the morning of the same day condemned by the jews ● and upon their solicitation adjudged by Pilate to be crucified, and executed by the Roman Soldiers. In the sixth day, or which is all one the sixth evening and morning of the first week of times succession, God is said to have finished the works of Creation by making the first man. In the sixth day, or in the sixth evening and morning of the week of our Saviour's Consecration, He by whom the world was made, did solemnly declare the work of our Redemption to be accomplished in respect of any labour, work, or pains to be further undertaken by him▪ For so fairy his solemn proclamation upon the Cross extends consummatum est. And so he went into his rest upon the same day about the same hour wherein God was said to rest from all his works of Creation; that is, in the close of that day a little before the evening of the seventh day or Sabbath.   

CHAP. 41. A Parallel between the day wherein Adam is thought to have been cast out of Paradise, with the day wherein our Saviour was Crucified: And between the first day of the world's Creation and our Saviour's Resurrection.  
THere is a a tradition or rather a received opinion avouched by many good Authors in their several writings, that Adam the first man should fall and forfeit his estate in Paradise upon the same day wherein he was created. The opinion itself we cannot disprove nor justly suspect to be a mere conjecture, because we know not what warrant the first or immediate Authors of this Doctrine had to commend it to posterity. But their language (I take it) is much mistaken by some later schoolmen; the first Author's meaning or expression of it must be limited or rather extended to the same sense or construction as hath been before 
* In the sixth Book upon the Apostles Creed▪  observed in the like words of Daniel. Chap. 7. That Belshazer was slain in the same night wherein (after his carousing in the bowls of the Sanctuary) the hand-writing was seen upon the wall, or that other 2. of Kings. that Senacherib's mighty army 
* Chap. 19 v. 35. And it came to pass that night, that the Angel of the Lord went forth and smote etc.  was discomfitted upon the night immediately following that day, wherein he sent that blasphemous message unto Hezekiah, or the day wherein Isaiah, returned his message to the good King. In both places the same night cannot be understood of the self same natural day and night, but of the same night or day after the revolution of one year or more. In like manner the first man, according to the tenor of the former received opinion, did fall upon the same day wherein he was created, yet not upon the same day numerically, individually, or identically taken, but upon the same day after the revolution of a week at least or more, that is upon the sixth day, and thrust out of Paradise before the Sabbath ensuing, for his stealth or presumptuous usurpation of the forbidden fruit. Upon the same day after revolution of many years, the Son of God or second Adam now consecrated to be a quickening spirit, did restore the sons of the first Adam to their inheritance which their Father had lost, by giving a true natural son of the first Adam, a thief by practice, livery de sezin, or actual possession of the celestial Paradise. The bequest or legacy was punctual and solemn. Amen dico tibi hodie mecum eris in Paradiso, Verily I say unto thee this day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. Upon the sixth day of the first week or week of Creation or vicissitude of times, Adam's body was taken out of the substance of the earth▪ Upon the same sixth day was the body of the second Adam the Son of God, shut up into the bowels of the earth after he had commended his spirit into his Father's hands which had given it him. That temporal curse denounced against the first Adam [In the day wherein thou eatest thou shalt die the death] was exactly now fulfilled in the second Adam. For in the sixth day of the week of his Consecration he died the death of the Cross, and was delivered to the earth whence the first man was taken; only he was not to be resolved to dust, but rested there without corruption. For as God had rested the Seventh day from his works of Creation though not of Preservation; so the Son of God was to rest from all his labour or toil upon the seventh day of the week of his Consecration, not only to bless and sanctify that day and make it his own, but withal to hollow the grave or the womb of the earth (whence all flesh was taken and by the course of nature must return) by his sweet rest and presence in it. So saith S. john. I heard a voice from heaven saying, Blessed are the dead which hereafter die in the Lord, even so saith the spirit, for they rest from their labours and their works follow them. Rev. 14▪ ver. 13. Their sleep or quiet rest in the grave thus hollowed by our Saviour's Death and rest in it, becomes the evenings or vespers of their everlasting Sabbath.  
2 The night immediately following the legal Sabbath wherein our Saviour did rest from all his Labours, was part of the first evening and morning or of the first natural day of the week: His Resurrection upon that day, and at that time of the day, and at that season, implieth a twofold mystery, or the accomplishment of two remarkable divine Oracles: First that of Gen. Chap. 1. ver. 1. 2. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the deep. The darkness made the evening, and the separation of the light from darkness made the morning of the first natural day. God (faith Moses) divided the light from the darkness and called the light day, and the darkness he called night, and the evening and the morning were the first day. As was the condition of this visible world or form less earth before the Creation of light, or the division betwixt it and darkness, such altogether was the condition or state of the intellectual world before it was new made or redeemed by the Son of God. The corrupted mass of mankind was overspread with darkness, and covered with the mantle of Death, but this long darkness became more palpable than that of Egypt, during the time of the Son of God's surprisal, and his enclosure in the region of Death. These were the hours wherein it was permitted the powers of darkness to domineer, but these powers were conquered and the darkness dispelled by his Resurrection from Death, which was on the same day, and at the same hour, wherein God the Father by him did first divide darkness from light. From this hour of his Resurrection the night is gone and the day is come, as many as believe in him raised from death, and adore the Son of righteousness, who as the Apostle saith having abolished death brought life 
2. Tim. 1. 10.  and immortality to light, they are the Sons of God, Heirs of Glory; but such as love darkness more than the light of his gospel, they must remain the sons of darkness and of death. All this and more, is implied in the circumstance of the time and place which the day and hour of his Resurrection had in that holy week being the first hour of the first day. The other mystery is implied in the circumstance of the time and place which the day of his Resurrection held in that solemn feast of unleavened bread.  
3 So it fell out by the sweet disposition of God's special providence that the day of our Saviour's Resurrection should for that year fall upon the second day of the Feast of unleavened bread, or the morrow after the Sabbath of that great solemnity. Now on that precise day the Israelites were peremptorily bound by a strict Law to offer up the first fruits, as ears and blades of corn unto the Lord, Leu. 23. 10. 11. When ye become into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, than ye shall bring a sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest unto the Priest, and he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord to be accepted for you; on the morrow after the Sabbath the Priest shall wave it. From this peculiar reference or parallel of the circumstance of time between the day of our Saviour's Resurrection, and the day appointed for this legal feast of offering the ears of corn, The analogy or parallel between the Type and the substance is thus: As the use of the corn was not allowable to the people until some ears or blades of the same kind were offered up in sacrifice by the Priest unto the Lord: So neither could the seed of Adam or of Abraham, or of any man else (seeing all had been sown in corruption) be either holy or acceptable to the Lord, or partakers of his Table or presence, or put on incorruption, until the high Priest of our souls the Son of God had offered a sacrifice of the same kind, to wit, a body subject to like mortality as ours are until it was consecrated to glory and immortality by the sufferings of Death.  
4 All were sanctified, all were reconciled to God by this one oblation of himself as the first fruits of them that sleep. Yet even such as were upon the day of his Resurrection really sanctified and actually reconciled unto God, (the very Apostles themselves,) were not made up or wrought into one body, or loafetill fifty days after, not until that very day wherein the new reaped corn made into bread, was solemnly offered and presented to the Lord. Leu. 23. 15. 16. 17. And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering, seven days shall be complete, even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath, shall ye number fifty days, and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave-loaves of two tenth deals; they shall be of fine flower, they shall be baken with leaven, they are the first fruits unto the Lord. The one holy Catholic Church and Communion of Saints which we profess in our Creed did not begin to be in esse (as by God's help it shall appear hereafter,) or hear true life, until the effusion of the holy Ghost; which is the soul of the one holy Catholic Church, or of the mystioall Body of Christ: And that was upon the fiftieth day inclusively from the day whereon the ears of corn, or sheaf of blades was offered unto the Lord. On that fiftieth day the holy Curch received the first fruits of the spirit, it being likewise another solemn day appointed for the legal offering up of the first fruits.  
4 Thus much of the accomplishment of the Type of jonas his imprisonment in the belly of the Whale, and of the mysteries contained in those three special days and nights, or evenings and mornings wherein our Saviour was in the womb of the earth, and the time of his rising again. But the two former queries. First, what our Saviour's abode forty days on the earth from his Resurrection to his Ascension, or which is all one, what the sign of jonas did portend to this evil and adulterous generation of the jews. Secondly, how the space of his forty day's abode upon the earth after his Resurrection was prefigured; are points worth the discussion, and for aught I know will make the fittest Period of this long work concerning the knowledge of Christ and him crucified.   

CHAP. 42. That the sentence proclaimed against Nineveh by the Prophet jonas, was in a full measure executed upon the adulterous Generation of the jews; not believing or repenting at our Saviour's preaching.  
THat a state so strong and mighty as Niniveh was then, when jonas was sent unto it, should upon these or the like brief Summons of a foreigner [Yet fory days and Niniveh shall be destroyed] be so deeply stricken on a sudden with extreme fear of death and ruin: Or that a Court so dissolute, luxurious, and proud as that Court was, should so readily change their soft raiment into sackcloth, and laying aside their perfumes and sweet odours, as the Text saith the King himself did, may well seem a greater wonder to a Reader qui ad pauca respicit, then God almost at any time had wrought in Israel: But the strangeness of the sudden change persuades, or rather assures me, or any diligent Reader, that the constant fame of jonas his miraculous deliverance or escape out of the Whale's belly, had come before him into Niniveh, and made way for the efficacy of his preaching or due entertainment of his Embassage. And as Naaman the Syrian from the experiment of his strange recovery of his health, broke forth into that acknowledgement, Now I know there is no God in all the world except in Israel: So these Ninivites did collect that he who had delivered jonas from the danger whereinto he had cast him, was able to kill and to give life to whom he pleased: And as they dread his anger for transgressions past, so they conceive hope of mercy upon their true repentance and amendment: But however, it was not so strange that Niniveh upon jonas summons should so quickly repent, as wondrous that the jewish Nations should not repent after this sign of the Prophet jonas was so peremptorily and punctually given them by him that was far greater than jonas, by a Prophet of their own, according to their apprehension in their calmer thoughts, mighty in word and in deed. The special points wherein the Ninivites condemn this present generation of Scribes and Pharisees are, first their unpartial diligence in examining the truth of the miracle wrought on jonas. Secondly their readiness upon testification of it to believe God's judgements and his Mercies; of which the one did impel or drive, the other gently lead or draw them to repentance.  
2 But that which the Apostle saith of the jews in general was remarkably true of this evil and adulterous generation in this particular. They had most grieviously displeased God by putting his only Son to most cruel Death, and after they had thus grieviously displeased God they became contrary to all men, to the most grievous sinners of other nations; & in special to these Ninivites which must rise or stand up in judgement against them. The Ninivites upon jonas his preaching or embassage being ushered or countenanced by the fame of his miraculous deliverance, repent in sackcloth and ashes. To have repent in a more ample, more deep, or better manner than the Ninivites did, this present generation of the jews had motives many, all in themselves, or absolutely more forcible than these heathens had. First to search more unpartially after the truth of that great miracle wrought by and upon our Saviour Christ, being foreshadowed by the deliveverance of the Prophet jonas: He who was much greater and had been in greater danger than jonas was, foretell them almost in the beginning of his prophetical function, when he said unto them desiring of him a sign why he did those things, he gave them this sign. joh. 2. 19 Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up. But this was a kind of riddle unto them, and so it was to his Disciples till after his Resurrection, for he meant it of the Temple of his body: But this riddle or enigmatical prediction he vouchsafed at this time to explicate or unfold, not to the vulgar or common sort of people but unto the Scribes and Pharisees who were the most curious Critics or Cavalists of the Law and Prophets, and of the ceremonies, Types or Shadows contained in them, provoking or inviting them withal by this preamble [There shall no sign be given to it but the sign of the Prophet jonas] diligently to observe the parallel between the Type or shadow exhibited in the Prophet jonas, and the body or antype to be exactly accomplished in himself. Some at least of the Scribes, of the Pharisees and Elders, saw him die or linguering in the pains of Death upon the Cross: All or most of them, and of this adulterous generation had the manner of his Death both for circumstance and substance, testified unto them by authentical witnesses. And to prevent all possible occasions of false rumours or impostures which might be procured or attempted by his followers, they provided a band of Soldiers to watch or guard his corpse in the Sepulchre, during the time presixed by him for his Resurrection. All this notwithstanding, he who commanded the Whale to restore the Prophet jonas whom she had swallowed up in the sea, did now command the earth or hard rock wherein our Saviour's Sepulchre was made, to yield up this her prisoner within three days and three nights after his burial; within the time limited and prefigured by jonas his imprisonment in the fishes belly; and to yield him up not unto the earth or sea, but unto heaven whence he descended. The sea was his and he prepared the dry land, both sea and land, and all that are in them and upon them, were absolutely and equally at his command and disposal, and so was the heaven of heavens itself. 
And for fear of him the Keepers did shake and became as dead men. Mat. 28. 4.  The earth now trembled at his rebuke, and men of war were affrighted at the sight or presence of his heavenly messengers: If these Roman Soldiers or all their legions had offered the least resistance to his person or to his Resurrection, these heavenly Soldiers would have fought for him and for his Kingdom, which now began to be propagated through the world, though it was told the Roman deputy it was not of this world.  
3 All the circumstances which besides these mentioned might be alleged, were they put together and pressed home, might well occasion on half Christian, or diligent Reader, or unpartial observer of times and circumstances, rather to suspect the truth of the Evangelicall story, then fully persuade him that it were possible either for the jews to attempt the subornation of the Roman soldiers to testify so gross an untruth as they did, or for them to yield upon any terms to so foul a temptation. But whether we resolve this spirit of contradiction in these jews unto their own unrelenting spleen and malice, or unto divine infatuation, or respectively unto both; it would be a task more easy than safe to parallel their stupidity and subtle disposition with with the like or worse blindness in many, which verily believe the truth of our Saviour's Resurrection with the circumstances, and would be very ready to confirm their belief of it, and most particular points of faith with their blood. For the light and evidence of divine truth can hardly suffer a total eclipse in any man professing Christianity, no not in men of spleen-bitten brains; yet many fearful partial eclipses it suffers in these men, in respect of the particulars at which their spleen doth rise or interpose its dismal shade, whilst they are maintained or illustrated by others whose good parts they envy, or whose persons they hate; but of this argument much hath been spoken before in other meditations, and more if God permit may be added in a treatise promised as the Reader may observe in the Preface prefixed to the first two. Books of these Commentaries.  
4 But for the jews which upon the fight or uncontrollable fame of our Saviou's miracle had traduced him for a conjurer or sorcerer, it was no new wonder in them, either not themselves to believe, or to persuade the Roman Soldiers (being first half blinded with bribes) to believe or suspect that his Disciples might use some means more than commendable arts or natural skill could afford them, either for astonishing or deluding their senses, or surprising their wits. However this of the Prophet jonas being the last sign or forewarning which this evil generation was to expect from our Saviour the consequence of their nonobservance, or not repenting after the exhibition of it, was most contrary to this exemplary pattern of the Ninivite's observance of jonas embassage by turning to the Lord in sackcloth and ashes. judah was now become more contrary to our God then either her sister Samaria or then Assiria or Niniveh had been; and God's ways became more contrary unto her and to her children. The Ninivites repenting within the forty days limited for this purpose, God repealed the sentence which he had pronounced against them, although jonas who proclaimed it did murmur or grumble at it. For he expected that the Lord whose mouth and messenger he was, should at the forty day's end declare him to be a true Prophet by putting his sentence in execution: The Son of God expects as long for the repentance of these jews, which doubtless would have pleased him much better than their destruction: But seeing they would not repent within the forty days between his Resurrection and Ascension, the sentence proclaimed by jonas against Niniveh proceeds in fullest measure against this wicked and adulterous generation or degenerate seed of Abraham.  
5 But shall we be concluded from these premisles to say that jerusalem and judah were destroyed immediately upon our Saviour's Ascension? No: but this we may safely say, that from the day of his Ascension which was the fortieth day after his Resurrection, both the City and Nation did ipso facto & jure incurre the sentence of woe denounced against Niniveh by jonas. And we may further add that the destruction both of City and Temple, the desolation of judea and miserable dispersion of the jews throughout the Nations, became more necessary and more inevitable than heretofore they had been; not for the indefinite substance only of the woe denounced, but the very measure of their misery did daily by the like necessity increase both for intensive decrees and for extension, especially in respect of the number of persons which did incur the sentence or decree pronounced against them, and of the time ordurance of the matter of woe denounced in it. Yet were none of these necessary but by their continuance in their fore-father's sins, and by not repenting of them, and by the daily increase of their own and their children's sins.  
6 During the time of these forty years after our Saviour's Ascension the City and State had a possibility of being freed à tanto though not a toto; though not simply from destruction, yet from such fearful desolation as afterwards befell them. But continuing as impenitent all these forty years as they had done for the forty days before his Ascension the sentence within forty years after his Resurrection began to be put in execution according to the strict tenor of our Saviour's prediction. Luk. 19 41. 42. 43. 44. During the time of these forty days God's judgements did lay siege against jerusalem, but the son of man Christ jesus yet conversing as man here upon earth did bear off the punishments due to their iniquity, as Ezechiel, entitled and in Type the son of man, had before prefigured. Chap. 4. 6. Thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of judah forty days, I have appointed thee each day for a year. see v. 1. 2. And thus at the end of forty years after our Saviour's Resurrection, (allotting a year for every day of his abode on earth) the City and Temple were destroyed. This Calendar of a day for a year, was no new or uncouth account to this people either in the days of Ezechiel, or at the time of our Saviour's Ascension; it was a Calendar of God's own making as we may read Numb. 14. 33. 34. Your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years and bear your whoredoms until your Carkeises be wasted in the wildernsse after the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days (each day for a year) shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise. I the Lord have said it, I will surely do it unto all this evil Congregation that are gathered together against me in this wilderness, they shall be consumed and there they shall die. The people were gathered against God when they were gathered against joshuah and Caleb, and bad stone them with stones ver. 10. And the Glory of the Lord which then appeared in the Tabernacle of the Congregation before all the children of Israel, had now more personally and visibly appeared in the man Christ jesus and yet how oft were they ready to stone him to death? The former people for their rebellion were to die in the wilderness without hope of seeing the promised land.  
7 For the rebellion of this later generation (specially after the Glory of God was now revealed by his Resurrection) jerusalem according to Micah's prophecy was to become an heap of stones, and Zion the beauty of the whole Nation was to be ploughed like a field, and the mountain of the house which was the glory of Zion was to become as the high places of the forest, a more ghastly wilderness then that wherein their Fathers wandered. The cause of God's plague denounced Numb. 14. was that generations credulity to believe the report of the other spies concerning the land of Canaan, contrary to the good report which Caleb and joshuah had made of it. And the cause why this generation were to die of a more fearful plague in jerusalem, and why jerusalem was to become an heap, was their distrust unto the promise concerning the Kingdom of heaven, (whereof the land of Canaan in her highest prosperity was but the map) avouched by john Baptist the Preacher of Repentance, and by jesus the Son of David, which had viewed it and presented the fruits of it unto them. And for this their distrust, as their Fathers had wandered forty years in the wilderness and never admitted to the land of Canaan, so this rebellious generation had forty years' time before they were cast out of the earthly jerusalem never to be admitted into new jerusalem which came down from heaven.   

CHAP. 43. That place of Zachary Chap. 14. v. 3. expounded showing that God did fight with the Gentiles against the jews as formerly he had done with the jews against the Gentiles. How the forty days of Christ's abode upon earth after his Resurrection was foretell.  
THis wath of God against jerusalem was foretell by the Prophet Zachary. Chap. 14. ver. 1. 2. 4. Behold the day of the Lord cometh (saith the Prophet) and the spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee, that is, her enemies should not come against her as rievers ' or boot-halers, which dare not stay to divide the spoil where they catch it, but as full Conquerors, as it followeth ver. 2. For I will gather all Nations against jerusalem to battle, and the City shall be taken, and the house rifled, and the women ravished etc. The contexture of this Chapter (as the most learned Commentators upon it do confess) is very perplexed, and yet in my opinion made so, partly by the somnolency of translators, and incogitancy of Interpreters, or paraphrastical Expositors of it. Leaving the discussion of most particulars in it unto the learned Critics of sacred Philologers, I shall endeavour to unfold one perplexity, or knot which hath been rather drawn closer, or cast harder by most modern Interpreters than Eusebius, or the ancient Greek Writers did leave it. The knot or rub is in v. 3. [Then shall the Lord go forth and fight 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst or in the midst of the Nations] & ariseth from the ambiguous or various importance of the Hebrew particle or preposition beth which in composition admits as great a multiplicity of opposite or contrary senses, as the Latin preposition in, or the Greek particle alpha doth, both which are sometimes privative or purely negative, sometimes vehemently affirmative: as in that or other like speech, quod dixi indictum volo, the word indictum is a mere negative and equivalent to non dictum, and implies a revoking or repealing of what was said; otherwhiles the same indictum implies a peremptory declaration or denunciation, be it of war or controversy etc. The Greek alpha admits more variety, sometimes it is 〈…〉 a privative or pure negative as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gifts no gifts, sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an augmentative, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very thick wood, or a wood full of trees, sometimes again more than so, an augmentative or intensive implication of the contrary or that which it seems to deny● as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not only a Lawless man, or one that knows not the Law, but one extremely opposite to all good Laws, the epitheton or synonymum to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greatest enemy of Christ or of his Laws. The Hebrew particle or preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary or against, sometimes no more than cum, in, intra, or infra, with in, or amongst, as in that speech of Balaam Numb. 23. v. 23. There is no enchantment [bejacob] most now render it against Israel, though some heretofore have rendered it. There is no enchantment to be found in Israel. The sense in the vulgar Latin is ambiguous because it is uncertain whether Israel be the accusative or ablative case, if the accusative as some express it in Israelem it may be as much according to the Author of the vulgar Latins meaning as adversus Israelem against Israel, which is the most probable sense of that place. However the most usual signisication of the same particle is no more than the Latin in, or intra, or other variations of it according to the nature of the subject wherein it is used: The like variation of the Hebrew beth especially when it is prefixed to the infinitive mood ariseth from the different parts of time unto which it refers, as in the title of the third Psalm. entitled unto David 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— that is, verbatim in ipso fugere, vel fagiendo, or dum fugeret, in his flying or in his flight, or, as our English renders it, when he fled from his son Absalon. But in that petition of Naaman the Syrian for absolution from the Lord (unto whose service he tied himself by vow by the mouth of his Prophet) the same particle though a prefix to the infinitive mood, hath another aspect, neither to the time present or future, but to the time past, In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant bebea Adoni, not when my Master goeth, but in that when my Master hath gone into the house of Rimmon, he hath leaned on my hand and I have bowed myself in the house of Rimmon, that is, I worshipped in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing. That this was a supplication for sins past, not a dispensation for doing the like is apparent from the Prophet's answer unto it, go in peace, which was the solemn form of absolution used by the Ancient Hebrews, and by our Saviour himself. When the same particle beth denotes a place or person, it is equivalent to the Latin Adverbe intus, or in, as bemidber is no more than in, or within the wilderness: And so to trust baihovah or Laihovah, is no more nor less than to trust in the Lord. The same particle beth in many other places is equivalent to the the particle le, and in this sense it must, both from the necessity of the matter, & from circumstances precedent and consequent be taken in this 3. v. I will fight in, or amongst, not against these Nations.  
2 As in the place of the Psalmist, Psal. 74. v. 14. Thou hast broken the head of Leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the wilderness. The same particle le is as much as in or within, for by the people in the wilderness the Psalmist means such ravenous land-creatures as wolves, foxes and the like, or amphibious, as use to prey upon the earkeises, or bodies forsaken by the sea wherein they were drowned, or cast upon the shore as Pharaoh and his mighty host were, whose death besides the strangeness or suddenness of it was disgraceful and terrible to all spectators. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is aequipollent to bemidber in its formal signification, only the word denotes a more solitary and dry place then the wildernsse doth, which perhaps was the reason why the septuagint translate this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Aethiopian people; whether by that they understood men or crocodiles or other like monsters of Aethiop or afric is uncertain. Arias Montanus renders it populis solitudinicolis which for aught I know may signify men somewhat more monstrous than the Cannibals, which fed upon men's flesh, but whether on men cast upon the shore or no I cannot tell. To omit other importances or significations of this Hebrew particle beth, it must be taken in a sense equivalent to the particle le, or to the Latin cum, in, or pro, in this place of Zachary. Chap. 14. v. 3.  
3 And I cannot but wonder at the incogitancy or oversight of that most learned and ingenious Writer Ribera, who having so fair hints and good directions as Eusebius and other Ancients alleged by him for leavelling this passage made rugged by Latin Interpreters or Translators, forsakes the dexter sense which the Greeks had given, and embraceth the sinister sense of the Latins: The seventy Interpreters had rendered the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He to wit, the Lord will command in chief and order the battle of the Nations which he had gathered against jerusalem: For questionless he did not call or gather them against jerusalem to fight for it against them, but for them against it. This version of the original is most consonant to that prediction of the Prophet Isaiah. 63. 10. He became their enemy, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fought against them. The full and just Paraphrase of the whole verse is in plain English thus, The Lord will as remarkably show himself to be the Lord of hosts, or the Lord mighty in battle by fight for the Nations against jerusalem, as he formerly had done by fight for Israel against Pharaoh and his hosts, or for Gideon against the Madionites; for Barak and Deborah against jabin and Sisera, or in other like famous victories which he procured for his people; unto some one or other of which, most Interpreters refer these words, as in the day of battle, Zachary 14. 3. But the adequate or complete object of the literal sense is not one or two, but all the famous victories which the Lord of hosts had bestowed upon his people. And he that will diligently peruse josephus' History of the jewish wars, especially the sixth Book, may find as many pregnant documents of God's displeasure and powerful hand against the jews, and of his peculiar temporal favour towards the Nations under the conduct of Titus, as had been showed in any one age against the Nations on the behalf of Israel or the jews.  
3 It hath been observed before that the best Commentators upon most prophecies in the Old or New Testament, are such historians as did least remember or understand them, or had no other aim or intention save only to relate matters of fact unpartially. The best Commentary that the ordinary Reader shall easily find upon this fourteenth Chapter of Zach. is the forementioned history of josephus (lib. 6.) and the best Mercury or director that I can commend unto him for finding out the accomplishment of this prophecy according to the literal sense by the events or accurrences recorded in that history, is Danaeus▪ who besides the literal explication, is in this particular most orthodoxal for the moral sense of the Prophet, concerning Gods gracious goodness unto these jews in foretelling so long before, from what place the City should be assaulted, and by whom, and in what manner taken. The place from which the City was first assaulted and the defendants most prejudiced, was clearly foretell by this Prophet. ver. 4. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before (or over against) jerusalem on the East and the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the East and toward the West. etc. This part of the prophecy concerning the feet of God which were to stand upon the Mount of Olives was never before so literally verified as in the day of our Saviour's Ascension. Many strange miraculous reports are extant, concerning the print of our Saviou's feet, which continued more than four hundred years after his Ascension, (if we may believe traditions anciently recorded) and poor travellers are made to believe that the Print continues the same unto this day. But to let these traditions pass tanquam via navis in mari, certain it is, that whilst our Saviour's feet did, as upon the day of his Ascension, stand upon the Mount of Olives, the feet of that God of whom the Prophet their speaks, did stand upon it. Now the time allotted for the jews repentance being expired and peace not made with him before his Ascension, the very dust of his feet, much more the print of his feet did remain as a witness against them. At the same time was that other passage of the Prophet. ver. 3. Then shall the Lord go forth, to wit, our of jerusalem, literally fulfilled. If his feet had not stood upon the Mount of Olives as a witness against them, the Roman army had never stood there to execute his wrath upon them. For to omit allegories or forced interpretations concerning the cleaving of the Mount of Olives mentioned by the Prophet, their conjecture is more than probable, who think the prophecy was literally verified when the Romans besieged the City and cast their trenches upon the Mount of Olives. The time was now come that the Nations were to tread jerusalem under their feet, and the jews which were Christ's enemies were to become his footstools. These be the issues of his setting his feet upon the Mount of Olives as it concerns jerusalem and the jews. Unless the Lord of hosts had set his feet upon Mount Olivet to fight for the Nations against jerusalem, it had never come into Titus his head to give command or directions, nor into his soldier's hearts to put his directions conceived by himself (contrary to the several advisements of his counsel of war) in execution, by raising that mighty wall mentioned by josephus (l. 6. cap. 13.) in the space of three days. His relation concerning the raising of that wall would have been to me incredible or a lying wonder, unless the Prophet Zachary had foretell it. ver. 4. And the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the East and toaeard the West, and there shall be a very great valley, and half of the mountain shall remove toward the North, and half of it toward the South. The wall without question was not of stone, for to have attempted that had been a madness, but at the most de cespite vivo, of earth and turf. Now the digging up of so much earth as would suffice to make a wall of that height, and so many furlongs in length as josephus describes, would necessarily cause or occasion such a valley as the Prophet deciphers.  
4 It is well observed by Danaeus, and so I presume by many others, that jerusalem should be distressed and exposed to ruin from that place wherein her rulers had apprehended her native King and supreme Lord as a malefactor with swords and staves; and that her Lord and God should make her amore miserable prey to the Roman Soldiers, than they had made his son and his followers to the Roman Deputy, or such as were under his command. But to parallel the miseries which befell jerusalem and her children by the rules of divine retaliation, according to all that she had done unto her Lord and King, or to set the exact proportion between jonas his forewarning to Nineveh [Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be destroyed] and our Saviour's forewarning unto jerusalem [as jonas was three days and three nights etc.] and the issues or executions of both forewarnings; the one upon jerusalem for her perpetual non-repentance; the other upon Nineveh for returning to her vomit about forty years after her repentance within the forty days prefixed by jonas, would require a large volume. Thus much for the present must suffice for answer unto the former of the two queries last proposed, to wit, what our Saviour's abode forty days here on earth after his Resurrection did portend.  
5 The second was how these forty days of his abode here on earth after his Resurrection, were fore-pictured or foretell.  
6 This second query is in part already answered in the explication of the sign of jonas, for as he expected forty days what should become of Nineveh, so our Saviour did respite the solemn declaration of Ierusalem's doom as many days. Nor can I mislike their opinion who think that the forty days intervenient betwixt the hour of his Resurrection and Ascension were prefigured by his forty days fasting in the wilderness after his Baptism, as that questionless was by Moses fasting forty days and forty nights in the Mount. Moses did then bear as himself doth witness the iniquities of the people, to wit, as in the Type; but our Saviour as well in that long fast after his Baptism as in the forty days after his Resurrection did bear their and our sins really and according to the mystical and complete meaning of Moses words.  
7 But if we should descend unto more exact search of the particular cricumstances of time as it includes the day of his Resurrection and Ascension with the other thirty eight days intervenient; these were most punctually and admirably foreshadowed and represented by the day of his first birth from the womb, and by the day of his blessed Mother's Purification and his Presentation in the Temple in jerusalem.  
8 Inasmuch as all the firstborn are called holy unto the Lord, and God requires them expressly of his people. Exod. 22. 29. The firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. This did imply that there should be some one firstborn amongst them that were borne of women, in whom the light and life of holiness, that holiness itself of which all the legal titles of holiness were but shadows or glimmerings, should reside or be incorporated as light in the body of the sun. Now that jesus the Son of Mary was this firstborn in whom the true and complete holiness did thus reside, the holy Ghost did declare or proclaim by the mouth of Simeon, at that very time wherein our Saviour according to the Law of the firstborn was to be presented unto the Lord in his Temple, to wit, the time of his Mother's Purification. Simeon (saith S. Luke) came by the spirit into the Temple, and when the Parents brought in the child jesus, to do for him after the custom of the Law, than took he him up in his arms and blessed God and said: Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace according to thy word, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation which thou hast prepared before the face of all people, a light to lighten the Gentiles and to be the glory of thy people Israel. And joseph and his Mother marvailed at those things which were spoken of him: And Simeon blessed them and said unto Mary his Mother: Behold this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be spoken against.  
9 They good souls came not to the Temple with any such intent or expectation, but to observe the Law of the firstborn male, as S. Luke tells us. Chap. 2. 22. 23. 24. And when the days of her Purification were accomplished according to the Law of Moses, they brought him to jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord) and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the Law of the Lord, a pair of turtle doves, or two young pigeons. The ordinary offering which the Law in like case did require was a Lamb, as you may read Levit. 12. 6. yet with this express dispensation that if the party were not able to offer a Lamb, two turtle doves, or two young pigeons should suffice. The Blessed Virgin whether by reason of her husband's poverty, or (as I rather think) by reason she was delivered of her Son in a strange place, without the Country or Province wherein she dwelled, was content to use the benefit of this dispensation,  
10 But though our Saviour had this peculiar prerogative of the firstborn, that he was most holy unto the Lord, and although, as he said at his baptism, it became him to fulfil all legal righteousness, yet it is questionable whether he were redeemed at other firstborn were. The sacrifice mentioned by S. Luke was ordinary at every woman's Purification, whether the child brought forth were male or female. As for our Saviour of all first borne, he only needed no legal Redemption because he was destinated from his birth not to be redeemed, but to be offered up in sacrifice for the Redemption of others. And in this he did fulfil that legal rite or shadow of redeeming those useful creatures which were by the Law unclean, by the sacrifice of such 
Exod. 13. 11. 12.  as by the Law were accounted clean  
11 But was he exempted by any more peculiar right from the Law of Redemption than the blessed Virgin his Mother was from the Law of Purification? To this demand it might be answered that the blessed Virgin was not free from all taint of original sin as he was. But this reply or answer being admitted, it would be a foul heresy or worse than so, to say that she was either legally or naturally unclean during all or any part of the time of her separation from the Sanctuary or holy assembly, for she was free from any actual sin in the time or manner of her conception, and from all legal uncleanness either in her travail, or for forty days after it. Otherwise that holy one which was borne of her might have been conceived, or brought forth or nourished by her milk in her uncleanness, which to avouch or conceive were foul blasphemy. Was her observation then of the Law concerning Purification either a will-worship, or affected work of supererogation? Rather an excellent pattern or exemplary rule of obedience unto all the sons and daughters of Adam that desire or intent to be the sons and daughters of Abraham. The rule is that even such of either sex as know themselves not to be conscious of the occasions nor much liable to the temptations which public Laws or sacred Canons seek to prevent or restrain from bursting out into matter of fact, shall do both wisely and religiously if they submit themselves to the observance of such decrees or injunctions as are useful or needful for most other men to observe. For it well becomes and behoves the most strong and sound members of any body natural, or civil, of Christ's mystical body especially, to sympathise, thus far at least, with unsound or decaying parts of the same body, as to restrain themselves from using that liberty which they for their own parts might safely enjoy, were the object or matter prohibited void of danger unto other members of the same society, which have more forcible temptations to the contrary, or want skill or knowledge how to use their general liberty.  
12 But to conclude the point last proposed and with it this present Treatise. When the Evangelist saith that the blessed Virgin with consent of her betrothed husband brought her son into the Temple according to the Law of Moses; It is clear that she did not come to present herself, or him in the Temple before the fortieth day from his birth. For so the tenor of the Law concerning the firstborn males is, that his Mother should be seven days unclean, to wit, unto the day of her son's circumcision and thirty three days after it, accounting the day of his Circumcision for one of these days.  
13 The parallel before proposed lies directly between these four points or terms of proportion: The first, the day of our Saviour's birth from his Mother's womb. The second, the day of the blessed Virgin's Purification, or the solemnity of his Presentation in the Temple. The third, the day of his birth from the Grave, or of becoming the first fruits of them that sleep. The fourth, the day of his Presentation to his Father in the heavenly sanctuary, or of his enthronization both as King and Priest. Upon the fortieth day after his birth from the womb of the blessed Virgin Simeon blessed Mary and joseph; and Hunna the daughter of Phanuel a Prophetess coming at that instant into the Temple gave thanks likewise unto the Lord and spoke of him to all them that looked for redemption. Luk. 2. 34. 38. upon the fortieth day after his birth from his maiden-grave the prophecy of simeon & Hanna and their thanksgiving to the Lord were more exquisitely accomplished then can by any mortal voice or pen be expressed. As the legal Sabbath was to the Lord's day, so was the fourth day of the first week, on which the sun, moon, and stars were created, but the vespers unto the new creation, wherein the Lord of Glory and Son of righteousness was placed in his supercelestial sphere. On the first day of that week in which he ascended, that joy of the fourth day of the first Creation deciphered by * job, the morning stars did sing together and all the Sons of God, (the holy Angels, and Archangels. Cherubims & Seraphims, Principalities, & Powers,) did shout for joy, was accomplished. The ditty or manner of their song or joyful shout is unexpressible, uninvestigable. God grant we may in this mortal pilgrimage so demean ourselves as that we may be able to stand before the son of man at his second coming unto judgement, & be capable and docile to learn our parts in that heavenly ditty or song wherewith the Church triumphant did entertain him at his Ascension.    
FINIS.