Theologia veterum, or, The summe of Christian theologie, positive, polemical, and philological, contained in the Apostles creed, or reducible to it according to the tendries of the antients both Greeks and Latines : in three books / by Peter Heylyn.

ARTICVLI 4. Pars 2 ^da. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. e. Natus ex Virgine Maria. i. e. Born of the Virgin Mary. (Book 4)

CHAP. IV. Of the birth of CHRIST. The feast of his Nativity. Why born of a Virgin. The Prophecie of Isaiah. The Parentage and privi∣ledge of the Blessed Virgin.

PRoceed we to the second branch of this present Article, from the Conception to the Birth of our Lord and Saviour; the most materiall part to us of the whole mysterie. It had been little to our comfort, though much unto the honour of our humane nature, had the WORD been only made flesh, and with that flesh ascended pre∣sently into heaven, and had not dwelt amongst us, and shewn forth his glory, as the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (a) 1.1. It was not Gods being in the flesh, but his being manifested in the flesh; which St. Paul cals, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the great mysterie of Godlinesse (b) 1.2. For with∣out that, although he might have been seen of Angels, yet had he not been preached unto the Gentiles, nor been believed on in the world, as the Saviour of it. The end of his taking on himself our flesh, was to save poor man. For this is an acceptable saying, (as St. Paul hath told us) that JESUS CHRIST came into the world to save sinners (c) 1.3; and come into the world he could not (in the sense he speaks of) but by being born. I know some thinke, that though ADAM had never sinned, yet it had been necessary for the exalta∣tion of humane nature, that the WORD should have been made man: and Bonaventure (d) 1.4 doth approve it as a Catholick opinion, and consonant to na∣tural reason. But howsoever it may seem in his judgment to agree with reason, assuredly it is more agreeable to the piety and analogie of faith, that the Son of God had never appeared in our flesh but for the delivery of mankinde from sin and misery: neither the Scripture nor the Fathers speaking of the incarnation but with reference to mans redemption. To this effect St. Augustine speaketh most divinely, Si homo non periisset, filius hominis non venisset; nulla

causa fuit Christi veniendi, nisi peccatores salvos facere. Tolle morbos, tolle vulnera, et nulla est medicinae causa (e) 1.5. That is to say, If man had not perished, the son of man had not come (for therefore came the son of man to save that which was lost (f) 1.6.): there being no other cause of Christs coming but the salvation of sinners. Take away diseases and wounds from man, and what need is there of a Physi∣tian? So that resolving with the Scriptures and Fathers, that there was no cause for the incarnation of the WORD, but that he should be born for our redemption; let us proceed therein with that fear and reverence which justly doth belong to so great a mysterie, as the manifestation of God in the flesh is said to be by the Apostle. A mysterie in which there is not any thing beneath a miracle. Nor can it easily be resolved whether of the two be more full of wonder, either that God the WORD should be born of Woman, or born of such a woman as was a Virgin. The first and greatest of the two, that which indeed is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a miracle of miracles, as man is somewhere called by Plato, was that the word was made flesh, and did receive that flesh from a mortall womb. A wonder it seemed to Nicodemus that a man should be born when he was old (g) 1.7, or enter a second time into his mothers womb and be born again. A greater wonder must it be for him to enter into the womb, and thence to finde a passage into the world, who was far older then all time, and had his being when the world but be∣gan to be. A greater wonder must it seem for him to take a being from a mortal creature, by whom all creatures had their being, and did himself create the same womb which bare him. But such was his unspeakable love to the sons of men, that he disdained not to submit himself for their sakes to those low conditions, as to be made man and to have a Mother; a Mother which beyond example did bring forth her God, and became the Parent of her Saviour, Et mater sine exemplo genuit autorem suum (h) 1.8, as Lactantius hath it.

Born then our Saviour was of a mortall womb. But the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used in the present Article tels us more then so, and telleth us that he was not only born of the Virgin Mary, but so born of her as to be made of her also. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, And the word was made flesh, Ioh. 1.14. God sent his Son, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made of a woman, saith St. Paul, Gal. 4.4. where the same word is used as here. Made then he was, as well as born of the Virgin Mary.

And made, not convertendo, not by converting the Word into flesh, as Cerinthus; nor converting flesh into the WORD, as Velentinus was of opinion: for the deity cannot be changed into any thing, nor any thing into it. Nor was it made conciliando, as friends are made one, or reconci∣led, so as they continue two persons still; and while the flesh suffered, the WORD stood still and looked on only, as Nestorius taught; for that were not to be made flesh, but made with the flesh, not caro, sed cum carne, saith my reverend Author (i) 1.9. Nor finally was he made componendo, by compounding two persons together, and so a third thing produced of both, as Eutyches: for so he should be neither of both, neither the word nor flesh, neither God nor man. But made he was, as St. Paul tels us, assumendo, by taking the seed of Abraham, Heb. 2.16. His generation before time, as verbum Deus, is as the enditing the word within the heart. His genera∣tion in time, as verbum caro, is as the uttering it forth with the voice. The inward motion of the minde taketh unto it a naturall body of Aire, and so becometh vocal. It is not changed into it, the word remaineth still as it was; yet they two became one voice. Take a similitude from our selves. Our soul is not turned into, nor compounded with the body; yet they two though distinct in natures, grow into one man. So Athanasius in his Creed. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. So into the Godhead was the manhood taken, the natures preserved with∣out confusion; the person entire without division. The fourth General Councell so determineth also, Sic factum est caro ut maneret verbum, non immu∣tando quod erat, sed suscipiendo quod not erat. Nostra auxit, sua non minuit, nec

Sacramentum pietatis, detrimentum est Deitatis, i. e. He was so made flesh that he ceased not to be the Word, never changing what he was, but ta∣king that he was not. We were the better, he was never the worse. The mysterie of Godlinesse was was no detriment to the Godhead, nor the honour of the creature wrong to the Creator.

No wrong indeed it was, no detriment to the divine nature of the Word to be made flesh, and take upon him the infir∣mities of our humane nature; but much to the advancement of our humane nature, which he took upon him: as many Kings and soveraign Princes have been made free of some particular Corporations under their commands, without di∣minution or impeachment of their Royal Power, and highly to the honour of those Companies or Corporations. Mortalis factus est non infirmata verbi divinitate, sed carnis suscepta infirmitate, as divinely Angustine in his De Civit. dei. l. 9. c. 15. And herein miserable man hath a great advantage of the Angels, though made lower then they in his creation, in that the WORD God for ever blessed, vouchsafed to be made in such manner of our rank and order, as he is not of theirs.

From the manner passe we to the time when this work was wrought, which St. Paul cals plenitudinem temporis (k) 1.10, or the fulnesse of time, that is to say, when the time was come and fully accomplished, which God in his eternall wisdome had fore-determined; which he had also signifyed to the house of Israel by the mouth of his Prophets. In reference to the civil Account, it was at the time when Herod a stranger to the bloud-royal of David, was King of Iewry; and Augustus Caesar the sole Monarch of the Roman Empire. The first having translated the Scepter from Judah, and the Law-giver from between his feet, made an apparent way for the coming of Shiloh (l) 1.11, to whom the gathering of the people was now to be. The latter having the third time closed the Temple of Ianus, and setled an universal peace over all the Empire, made it the most agreeable time for the birth of him, who being called the Prince of peace by the Prophet Isaiah, proclaimed peace unto all the earth at the hour of his birth, and left it to his Disciples as his last Legacie at the time of his death. And it was also in the time of a general taxing, as our English, or rather of a general enrolment (cum universus orbis describeretur saith the vulgar very answerably to the Greek Originals) as the Rhemists read it. A time when every subject of the Roman Empire was to repaire to the head City of his family, there to list his name; and to professe (ut profite∣rentur, saith the Vulgar) or make acknowledgment of his fealty and true allege∣ance to the Prince in being. A thing not done at random, or by humane pro∣vidence, that by this means the Emperour might come to know, quot civium sociorum{que} in Armis (m) 1.12, the strength and number of his Subjects, as the Statists tell us; but by the speciall dispensation and appointment of Almighty God. Though Christ had been conceived in Nazareth, a City of Galilee; yet was he to be born in Bethlehem the City of David. And thither was Ioseph to repair, to be taxed (or enrolled rather) with Mary his wife (n) 1.13, that she being there delivered of her blessed burden, the word of God fore-signifyed by the Prophet Micah, might be fulfilled: viz. that out of Bethlehem-Judah there should come a Governour (o) 1.14, which should rule over the house of Israel. The shutting of the Temple of Ianus, and this general taxing or enrolment under the President-ship of Cyrenius point us directly to the 35. year of Augustus his Empire, in which CHRIST was born. And if it were esteemed (as it seems to be) so great an honour unto Cicero, that this Augustus was born when he was Consul; (Consulatui Ciceronis non mediocre adjecit decus, natus eo anno D. Augustus (p) 1.15, saith the Court Historian): how great an honour may we count it unto this Augustus, that CHRIST the Son of God, the very brightnesse of his Father, was born when he was Emperour? And as the year, so is the very month and day of our Saviours birth transmit∣ted to us from the best and purest times of the Christian Church; though not recorded in the Scriptures. Theophilus Caesariensis, who lived about the latter end of the second Century, doth place it on the eight of the Calends of Ianuary

(which is the 25. of December) as we now observe it: and reckoneth it as a festival of the Christian Church long before his time. Natalem Domini quocun{que} die VIII. Calend. Januar. venerit, celebrare debemus, as his own words are. And Nyssen though he name not the day precisely, yet cals it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the famous day of Christian solemnity (o) 1.16; and placeth it in that point of time, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as he telleth us there) in which the dayes wax longer, and the nights grow shorter: which is (we know) about the time of the Winter Solstice. In an old Arabick copy of Apostolick Canons, it is especially appointed that the Anniversary feast of the Lords Nativity be kept upon the 25. day of the first Canun (which is the same with our December) on which day he was born. A Persian Calender or Ephemeris doth place it on the same day also. The Syriack Churches do the like, and so do the Aegyptian or Coptick Churches, as Mr. Gregory hath observed out of their Records: not to say any thing of Iohannes Antiochenus, the Author of an old MS. Cosmography, who doth affirme as much for the East parts of the Roman Empire. A day so highly esteemed in the former times, that the Greeks called it generally 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the feast of Gods manifestation in the flesh; Chrysostom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (p) 1.17, the Mother or Metropolis of all other festivals: another of the Eastern Fathers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the festival of the worlds salvation. A day of such a solemn concourse in the Christian Church, that the Tyrants in the 10. Persecution made choise thereof as an especial oppor∣tunity for committing the greater slaughter of poor innocent souls: and therefore on that day (in ipso natalis Dominici die (q) 1.18, as my Author hath it) burnt down the Church of Nicomedia, the then Regal City of the East, with all that were assembled in it for Gods publick service. I know great pains have been unprofitably took to no other purpose, but to prove that Christ was born at some other time of the year, at least not on the day which is now pretended. But the Arguments on which the disproof is founded are so slight and trivial, that it were losse of labour to insist upon them. Suffice it, that the Church had far better reason to celebrate the birth∣day of the Son of God, then any of the sons of men to suppresse the same.

And this I call the birth-day of the Son of God, because from this day for∣wards he was so indeed, though not publickly proclaimed or avowed for such, till the day of his Baptisme (r) 1.19, when it was solemnly made known by a voice from heaven. The Word before, In the beginning was the Word, Ioh. 1.1. The Word made flesh, and born of the Virgin Mary, and by that birth, the only begotten Son of God full of grace and truth, said the same Evangelist, v. 14. For though we did not look upon him as the word made flesh, his being born in such a miraculous manner of an untouched Virgin, would of it self assert him for the Son of God. So said the Angel Gabriel, the first Evangelist (s) 1.20, Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. The Son of God, as soon as born of the Virgin Mary: because con∣ceived and born in so strange a manner, so far above the course of nature, that none but God, the God of nature could lay claim unto him. For here the great miracle of the incarnation doth receive improvement, in that the WORD was not only made flesh, and born of a woman; but born of such a woman as was a Virgin. That so it was we have the warrant of the Scri∣pture. In the sixth month the Angel Gabriel was sent from God to a City of Galilee named Nazareth (t) 1.21, to a Virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the Virgins name was MARY. So far the Text in∣formes us in the present business, giving her in one verse twice the name of Virgin, the better to imprint the same in our hearts and memories. And cer∣tainly it stood with reason that it should be so. For although Miracles in themselves are above our reason, because beyond the reach of all natural causes: yet doth it stand with very good reason, that since the WORD vouchsafed to descend so low▪ as to be born of a woman, he should re∣ceive

that birth from the purest Virgin, and be fashioned in a womb which was unpolluted. The pious care of his Disciples did conceive it fitting that his dead body should be laid in a Tomb or Sepulchre, where never man was laid before (u) 1.22. And was it not as fit, or fitter, that his living body great with Divinity and a soul (for in him dwelt the fulnesse of the Godhead bodily (x) 1.23) should be conceived in such a womb which had not been defiled with the seed of man, in whose most chast embraces and unblamable dalliances, there is a mixture of Concupiscence and carnal lusts. Most fit it was his Mother should be like his Spouse;(y) 1.24 of whom we finde it written in the Song of Solomon, that she is as a Garden inclosed, a spring shut up, a fountain ••ealed. Besides, the meanes and method of mans redemption was to hold some proportion with the meanes of his fall: that so that Sex might have the honour of our restauration, which had been the unhappy Author of our first calamity; that as by woman the Devil took his opportunity to introduce death into the world (for the woman being deceived was in the transgression, saith St. Paul to Timothy (z) 1.25); so by a woman, and a Virgin (such as Eve was then) did Gods foreknowing will de∣termine that life, even life eternall should be born into it. Eve the first woman out of an ambitious desire to be like to God, coveted after the forbidden tree of good and evill. The second Eve, if I may so call her (as Christ is called the second Adam, 1 Cor. 15.45.) out of an obedient desire that God might be as one of us, did gladly bear in her womb the tree of life, of which whosoever eateth he shall live for ever (a) 1.26. Eve, as her name importeth, was the Mother of all living, of all that live this temporal and mortal life, the life of nature: and MARY in due time became the mother of that living Spirit, by whom we are begotten to the life of grace. So true is that of Gregory surnamed Thau∣maturgus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (b) 1.27, that from the same Sex came our weal and wo. To drive this Parallel further yet. Eve at the time of the transgression was an untouched Virgin, a Virgin though betrothed to her husband Adam, (for she was a Virgin espoused from her first creation) when she conceived sin and brought forth iniquity: and Mary was an espoused Virgin (espoused to a man whose name was Ioseph) when she con∣ceived the Son of righteousness, and brought forth salvation. And as the first woman conceived death by believing an evill Angel, without consulting with her husband till the deed was done: so the espoused Virgin of the present Article, conceived in her body the Lord of life, by believing the words and message of a good Angel, her husband being not made privy to it, till he per∣ceived she was with child. Some reasons then there were why it should be so, why Christ our Saviour should be born of the purest Virgin, though those reasons do not make it to be lesse a miracle; for nothing but a mira∣cle and the holy Ghost, could have begotten such a child upon such a Mother.

That by this means the miserable fall of man was to be repaired, it pleased God to declare unto our wretched Parents before they were exiled from the garden of Eden. It was the first and greatest comfort which was given un∣to them, that the seed of the woman should break the head of the serpent (c) 1.28, and that the serpent should but bruise the heel of the womans seed; that is to say, that there should one be born of the womans seed, who by the sufferings of his body, his inferiour part, should overcome the powers of Hell, and set man free from that captivity in which he was held bound by Satan. And as it was the first in the generall promise, so was it (as I think) the cleerest and most evident light to point us out to the particular of bringing this great work to passe by a Virgin-birth. Though Adam was the root of mankinde, and lost himself and his posterity by his disobedience, yet was the promise made to Eve a Virgin; and not to Adams seed at all, nor any to be procreated from the seed of man. It is a common resolution of the Schoolmen, that if Eve only had transgressed, Adamo in innocentia permanente, Adam continuing still in his first integrity, neither the souls of their posterity had been tainted with original sin, nor their bodie made subject unto death (d) 1.29. It was in Adam that

all die, as St▪ Paul hath told us (e) 1.30. It is in Adam that all die, but 'twas in Eve, that all should be made alive: not in Eves person but her seed. The promise made to Eve a Virgin, that her seed should break the serpents head▪ fore-signi∣fyed, that our redeemer should be born of a Virgin Mother: such as Eve was, when this first publication of Gods will was made. A clearer evidence then which as to this particular, I think is hardly to be found in the book of God: that so much celebrated place of the Prophet Isaiah, Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, not being primarily intended of the birth of CHRIST, though in his birth accomplished in a more excellent manner, then first intended by the Prophet. The estate of Ahaz King of Iudah at that time, stood this; A storme was threatned to his Kingdome from the joynt forces of Rezin King of Syria, and Pekah King of Samaria: which so dismaid the hearts of Ahaz and of all his people, that they were as the trees of the wood moved with the wind (f) 1.31, as the text informes us, not knowing upon what to fasten, nor for what to hope. In this great consternation comes Isaiah to them with a message from God, assu∣ring them of the speedy destruction of those Kings whom they so much feared. But this when Ahaz durst not credit, nor would be moved to aske a signe from God to confirme his faith, and to assure himself of a quick deliveranc••: it pleased God to give him this by the mouth of the Prophet, Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evill, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evill, and choose the good, the Land that thou abhor∣rest shall be forsaken of both her Kings (g) 1.32. To say that this was literally and ori∣ginally meant of the birth of CHRIST, is not consistent with the case and circumstances of the present businesse. The King and people were in danger of a present war, and nothing but the hope of a present deliverance was able to revive their desparing hearts. And what signe could it be to confirme that hope, that after 700. years and upwards (for so long time there was between the death of Ahaz and the birth of Christ) a Virgin should conceive and bring forth a Son. Cold comfort could there be in this to that generation, who could not hope for so long life as to see the wonder. So that the literal meaning of the Prophecie is most like to be, that before some noted Virgin then of fame and credit, or else within that space of time that any who was then a Virgin should conceive a child according to the ordinary course of nature; and that that child should be of age to know good from evill, the two Kings spoken of before should be both destroyed. That so it is, seemeth very evident to me by the successe of the businesse. For in the next Chapter we find that Isaiah went unto the Prophetesse, (perhaps the Virgin spoken of in the former passages) and she conceived and bare a Son, whom the Lord commanded to be called Maher-shalal-hash-baz (h) 1.33; and gives this reason for the name, being so unusuall, that before the child shall have the knowledge to cry my Father, and my Mother (which is the same with that of refusing the evill and choosing the good) the riches of Damascus and the spoyle of Samaria shall be taken away before the King of Assyria. And so it proved in the event. For before this Maher-shalal-hash-baz so conceived and born, was able to distinguish of meats, or know his Father and Mother from other people; was the word ful∣filled which God had spoken by the Prophet touching their deliverance: Pekah being slain by Hoseah the son of Elah, and Rezin by Tiglath-Pilesar the King of Assyria, within two or three years after the said signe was given. Of which see a King. 16.5, 6, 7, &c. & Chron. 17.1. But then we must ob∣serve withall, that this Prophecie being thus fulfilled in the literal sense, ac∣cording to the Prophets intent and purpose, contained in it a more mystical meaning according to the secret purpose of Almighty God: this temporal deli∣verance of Ahaz and the house of Iudah from the hands of two such potent enemies, being a type or figure of that spiritual and eternal deliverance which he intended unto them and to all mankinde from the tyranny of sin and Satan. Which secret will and purpose of Almighty God, being made known

to the Evangelist by the holy Ghost, he might and did apply it to the birth of Christ (i) 1.34, born of a most immaculate Virgin, as a more punctual fulfil∣ling of that sacred Prophesie, then what before had hapned in the days of Ahaz.

But MARY as she was a Virgin, a Virgin and the heir of the promise which was made to Eve, and made to Eve when she was yet a Virgin, though espoused to Adam: so was she also a daughter, if not an heir to all those blessings, which God had promised unto David; the heir as some suppose of the Royal Fami••y, and thereby gave our Saviour an unquestioned title to the Realm of Iewry. But this I take to be a supposition so ill grounded (though I see great pains taken in defence thereof) that I dare not lay any part of my building on it. 'Tis true, the Iews, who knew of his descent from David, and greedily laid hold upon all occasions for the recovery of their lost liberties, sought after him to make him King (k) 1.35. But this they did not on an opinion that he was the next heir unto the Crown, but because they thought him best able to make good the Title. For having seen him feed so many thousands of men with no more provision, then only a few Barly loaves and two small fishes: they presently con∣ceived that he was able to raise victuals for a greater Army, then could be possibly withstood by the powers of Rome. The text and context make this plain to a Vulgar Reader. For no sooner had the people beheld the miracle, but presently they said, of a truth this was the Prophet (m) 1.36, whom they did expect: and if a Prophet, and that Prophet whom they did expect, then who more fit then he to be made their King? Nor to say truth, was our Redeemer a Descendent of the Royal line, but the collateral line of Da∣vid, none of which ever claimed the Kingdome, or the title of King, or ex∣ercised any special power, save Zorobabel only, and that but temporary for the better setling of the people after the Captivity. The Crown being entailed on Solomon and his posterity, ended in Ieconiah, the last King of that race: on whom this curse was laid by the Lord himself, that no man of his seed should prosper (n) 1.37. CHRIST therefore could not be of the seed of that wretched Prince, because we know his work did prosper in his hands, and that he is the Author of all prosperity both to Iew and Gentile. And more then so, the self same Prophet telleth us in the following chapter, that the Lord would raise unto David a righteous branch, a King which should both reign and prosper; which is directly contradictory to that before: whose name should be the Lord our righteousness (o) 1.38; and must be meant of Christ and of none but him. Though Ioseph might naturally spring from this Ieconiah, (though it remain a question undecided to this very day; whether Salathiel were his natural or adopted son;) yet this derives no title unto CHRIST our Saviour; who was not of the seed of Ioseph, though supposed his son. Our Saviours own direct line by his Virgin-Mother was not from Solomon, but Nathan, the son of David; of whom the holy Ghost saith nothing as concerning the Kingdome; for Mary was the daughter of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, and so forth ascendendo, till we come to Adam, according as it is laid down in the third of Luke. And this I call the line of Christ by his Virgin Mother, on the authority of St. Augustine in some tracts of his, the Author of the Book cal∣led De ortu Virginis, extant amongst the works of Hierome, and many late Writers of good credit: besides the testimony of Rabbi Haccanas, the son of Nehemiah, a Doctor of great esteem amongst the Iews: (p) 1.39 who telleth us, that there was a Virgin in Bethlehem Iudah, whose name was Mary, the daughter of Heli, of the kindred of Zerubbabel the son of Salathiel, of the Tribe of Iudah, who was betrothed to one Ioseph of the same kindred and Tribe. Nor can I see, to what end St. Luke writing after St. Matthew, and having, doubtless, seen his Gospel, should make another pedegree for Ioseph then was made al∣ready, and that so different from it in the whole composure from Christ to Da∣vid. I take it therefore for a certain and undoubted truth, that St. Luke reckoneth the descent of our Lord and Saviour, by the line of his Mother the daughter of Heli, (Ioachim he is called in our Vulgar stories) who is said to be the Father

of Ioseph, because he married his said daughter, as Ioseph is there said to be the Father of Christ, because he was husband to his Mother. Some other dif∣ference there is in these two Genealogies, as that St. Matthew goes no higher then Abraham, and St. Luke followeth his as high as Adam: the reason of the which is both plain and plausible. For Matthew being himself a Iew, and writing his Gospel originally in the Hebrew language, for the instruction of that people: could not bethink himself of a better way to gain upon them, then to make proof that Christ our blessed Saviour was the Son of Abraham, in whose seed the whole Nation did expect their blessedness. And on the other side St. Luke being by birth a Gentile, of the City of Antioch, and so by con∣sequence not within the Covenant which was made to Abraham, carryeth on the descent of Christ as high as Adam, who was the common Father both of Iews and Gentiles: to shew that even the Gentiles were within the Covenant which was made in Paradise, touching the restauration of lost man by the Promised seed.

For Maries birth and parentage, I think this sufficient. A little more may here be added of the title of Virgin; because called in this Article the Virgin, as by way of eminency. The Virgin Mary, saith the Article, and not a Virgin known or called by the name of Mary. Somewhat there is in this, there is no doubt of that: whether so much as many do from hence infer, may be made a question. That she continued still a Virgin after Christs nativity, I am well resolved of: notwithstanding all the cavils made against it by the Ebionites, Helvidius, Iovinian, and the Eunomian Hereticks. For who can think that Ioseph after such a revelation from the God of Heaven, that she had conceived with childe of the holy Ghost, should offer to converse with her in a conjugal manner: or that the blessed Virgin, if he had attempted it, would have per∣mitted that pure womb, which had been made a Temple of the holy Ghost, to be polluted and profaned with the lust of man? The piety of both parties is a forcible argument to free them from an act so different from all sense of pie∣ty. And yet Helvidius and his fellows had some Scripture for it; for even the Devil could come in with his Scriptum est (q) 1.40, namely that passage in St. Matthew, where it is said of Ioseph, that he knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son (r) 1.41. A first born son, say they, doth imply a second; and his not knowing her till then doth tacitly import that he knew her afterwards. And this they fortifie with that in the 6. of Mark▪ where not only Iames and Iuda and Ioses and Simon are called his Brethren, but his sisters also are affirmed to be then alive. But the answer unto these Objections was made long ago, St. Hierome in his tractate against Helvidius having fully canvassed them. For first, the first begotten or first born, doth imply no second; that being first, not which hath other things coming after it, but which hath nothing going be∣fore it. Et primus ante quem nullus (s) 1.42, as the Father hath it. And this appears most evidently by the law of Moses, by which the first born of every creature was to be offered unto God (t) 1.43. The first born not in reference unto those that are to come after, for then the owner of a flock or herd of cattel might have put off the sacrifice or oblation of the first born of his sheep or kine til he were sure to have a new increase in the place thereof: which the Law by no means would permit. And thus we say in common speech, that Queen Iane Seymour dyed of her first childe, and that King Edward the fift was murdered in the first year of his reign: where past all doubt neither Iane Seymour had more children, nor King Ed∣ward reigned more years then the first alone. And for the argument from the word until, (or donec peperit, in the Latine) it implyes no such matter as is thence collected: the word not having always such an influence as to im∣ply a thing done after, because not before. When Christ promised his Di∣sciples to be with them alwayes, till the end of the world (u) 1.44: think we his mean∣ing was to forsake them then, that they should neither be with him, nor he with them? I trow no man of wit will say it. And when the Lord said unto his CHRIST, Sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy foot-stool (x) 1.45: may we conclude, that when death, the last enemy shall

be overcome, that he shall sit no longer at the Lords right hand. I hope none dare think it. More instances of this kind might be easily had, to shew the weak∣nesse of this inference, were not these sufficient. And for the Brothers and Sisters mentioned by St. Marke, either they were Iosephs children by a former wife, as Irenaeus (y) 1.46, and likewise all the Greek Fathers downwards, St. Hi∣larie and St. Ambrose amongst the Latines are of opinion: or else his nearest kinsmen (as St. Hierome thinks) which in the Idiom of the Iews were accounted Brethren (z) 1.47.

But on the other side our great Masters in the Church of Rome, will not only have her to continue a Virgin, post partum, after the birth, as to the pu∣rity of her minde; but also in partu▪ in the birth, as to the integrity of her body. Durand one of their chief Schoolmen will needs have it so, not thinking it a sufficient honour to her to be still a Virgin, non solum carentia experi∣entiae delectationis Venereae, not only by an inexperience of all fleshly pleasure, sed etiam membri corporalis integritate (a) 1.48, but in the clausure of her womb, the dotres whereof (as they conceive) were not opened by it. And unto this most of the great Rabbins of that Church do full wel agree. Assuredly these men with a little help might in time come to be of the Turkes opinion: who out of a Reverent esteem which they have of Christ will not conceive him to be born or begotten, according to the course of nature: but that the Virgin did conceive him by the smell of a Rose, and after bare him at her brests. But herein they run crosse to the antient Writers, who though they constantly maintained the perpetual Virginity of the Mother of Christ, yet such a corporal integrity in the act of Child-birth, as these men idly dream of, did they never hold. Tertullian very aptly noteth, that she was Virgo a viro, non virgo a partu (b) 1.49, a Virgin in respect that she knew not man, and yet no Virgin in regard of her bearing a child: which though it were conceived in a wonderful manner, yet ipse patefacti corporis lege, he came into the world by the open way. Pamelius in his notes accounts this and some other passages to this purpose amongst the Paradoxes of Tertullian. So doth Rhenanus too (c) 1.50, a more modern censurer, and yet confesseth that St. Ambrose was of this opinion; so was St. Hierome too in his second Book against the Pelagians, who holds that Christ first ope∣ned those secret passages, though he after shut them up again. According to the judgment of which antient writers (for those which followed them in time varyed somewhat from them) it is the common resolution of the Pro∣testant Schooles, that though Christ when he was born of his Virgin Mother, opened the passages of her womb, as all children do, yet she continued still a Virgin, because her mind was free from the thoughts of lust, and that she had conceived of the holy Ghost: nay that he may more properly be said to have opened the womb of Mary his mother, then any other first born do, because he found it shut at the time of his birth, which the first born of the sons of men do not. And being it is confessed by the greatest Schoolmen, that there may be an opening of the womb, without the losse of Virginity, as in the cure of some diseases, or on such an accident of which St. Augustine speakes in his first book De Civit. dei. c. 18. I should much wonder at the stiffenesse of the Papists in it, but that I know they lay it for a ground work of their doctrine of tran∣substantiation, and the local being of his body in more places at a time then one, by taking from it all the properties of a naturall body.

But to say truth, they well may free Christs body from the bands of nature, when they have freed his mother from the bands of sin: not from the sins only of an higher nature, but even from slight and veniall sins, as they use to call them; nor yet from actual sins only, but original also. To what this great exemption tends, we shall see anon. In the mean time we may take notice that this exemption from the guilt of original sin, is but a new opinion taken up of late, and not yet generally agreed on amongst them: there having been great conflicts about this priviledge, between Scotus and the Franciscans

on the one side, Aquinas and the Dominicans on the other. But in the end, the devotions of the common people being strongly bent unto the service of our Lady, the Franciscans carryed it. Sixtus the 4. who had been formerly of that Order, not only ratifying by his Buls their doctrine of her immaculate con∣ception, Ann. 1476. But for the further glory of it confirming a new festival on the 8▪ of December, which in honour of her said conception the Canons of the Church of Lions had of late begun. After when as the doctrine of original sin was agitated and debated in the Councell of Trent, this Controversie was as hotly followed, as if the Pope had never determined it. Nor would the Coun∣cell bring it unto any conclusion, for fear of giving offence to the side con∣demned (a) 1.51; and therefore very warily did so state the point, as neither to exempt the Virgin from original sin, nor include her under the obnoxiousness and guilt thereof. Declarat Synodus non sibi esse propositum decreto hoc (they mean the Canons which they made touching that particular) B. Virginem compre∣hendere. For my part, I am loth to rob this most happy instrument of our Redemption, of any priviledge or exemption, whatsoever it be, which may con∣sist with the analogy of faith, and the texts of Scripture. But when I finde in holy Scripture, that CHRIST came into the world to save sinners (b) 1.52, and that the Virgin did rejoyce in God her Saviour (c) 1.53; either I must conclude that she was a sinner, (if guilty only of original sin, it shall serve my turn) or else that she needed not a Saviour. And when I read it in Nicephorus that she dyed in the 59. year of her age, and was attended to her grave by all the Apostles arrow_forward met together, not by chance, but miracle (d) 1.54; I cannot but conclude her under the Law of sin, or else she had not been subject to the stroke of death; which is the wages of sin (e) 1.55 as St. Paul hath told us. No Saviour, if no sinner; if no sin, no death. It must be either both or none, there's no question of it. But it is easie to dis∣cern what this tends unto; I mean the great care taken by the Church of Rome, to free this blessed woman from all manner of sin and humane infirmitie. Their meaning is to seat her in the throne of heaven, and place her in the Media∣torship between God and man, whereof she were not capable, if she were a sinner.

By what degrees they came at last unto this height is not hard to shew. They went it seemes, on that old Philosophicall maxime, that the way to make straight a crooked stick, was to bend it quite the other way. This way was follow∣ed first on mistaken zeal, and afterwards pursued upon worldly prudence, Helvidius and those other Hereticks before remembred, would not allow her just attribute, the Virgin Mary, affirming with an high hand of impudence, eam post Christum natum viro suo fuisse commixtam, that after our Redeemers birth she was known by Ioseph. This was encountred presently with another extreme, the writers of the following times not only making her a Virgin in all mentall purity, but in corporal integrity also, (f) 1.56 contrary to the judg∣ment of Tertullian, Ambrose, Hierom, before remembred, and generally of the Greek Fathers, hardly one excepted: the Schoolmen thereupon devising this trim distinction, to reconcile those antients to their new opinion, that Christ was brought into the world, non fractione aliqua membrorum, sed dilatatione meatu∣um (g) 1.57. The Antidicomaritani, an old brood of Hereticks, devested her (as their name imports) of all manner of righteousness, making her not more holy then another woman (h) 1.58. And on the other side the Collyridians in dislike of this pee∣vish humour, placed her above the reach of nature, afforded her divine honours, a dressing up a foure square Chariot, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as my Authour cals it) did thereon sacrifice unto her as an heavenly Deity (i) 1.59. The Schoolmen treading in the steps of these Collyridians, and having little else to do then to broach new fancies, first freed her from all mortal, then from venial sins; from actual first, and after from original also. And this the Champions of that Church have more hotly followed, because the Magdeburgians and some other of the Protestant Doctors, have made a muster of many crimes (infirmities they might have called them, had they been so pleased) with which they do as hotly

charge her. Nestorius once Patriarch of Constantinople, though he allowed her the title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the Mother of Christ; would not allowe her to be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the Mother of God (and tis an expression I confesse, which at the first hearing doth not sound so handsomely). In opposition unto whom, Cyrill of Alexandria and the rest of the Prelates at that time (having condem∣ned his doctrine of the two natures in Christ, in the third General Councel) did heap upon her all those Attributes, which might manifest their dislike of him and his cause together. Insomuch as Cyril doth not stick to call her in these early dayes (k) 1.60, pretiosum totius orbis thesaurum, i. e. the most precious treasure of the world, a lampe which cannot be put out, the crown of Chastity, the very scepter of true doctrine, (sceptrum verae doctrinae) and not the scepter of the Catholick faith as our Rhemists read it (l) 1.61. And so far there was no harm done, as long as those of Rome would contain themselves within the bounds prescribed by the antient Fathers, whose pious flourishes, devout meditati∣ons, and Rhetoricall Apostrophe's, aimed at nothing else, then the commemoration of her faith and piety. But let us look on the extravagancies of the writers of succeeding times, and we shall finde, that Anselm giveth this reason, why Christ, when ascended, left his Mother here, Ne curiae coelesti veniret in dubium, &c. (m) 1.62 lest else the Court of heaven should have been distracted, whom they should first goe out to meet, their Lord, or their Lady. That Bernardin Senensis doth not stick to say, Mariam plura fecisse Deo, quam fecit Deus toti generi hu∣mano, that she did more to Christ in being his Mother (n) 1.63, then Christ to all mankinde in being their Saviour. That Gabriel Biel a Schoolman of good name and credit, hath shared the government of the world betwixt God and her; God keeping Iustice to himself, Misericordia Virgini concessa (o) 1.64, and left to her the free dispensing of his Mercies. That Petrus Damianus tels us, that when she mediates with her Son for any of her special votaries, Non rogat ut Ancilla, sed imperat ut Domina (p) 1.65, she begs not of him as a handmaid, but commands as a Mistresse: that Bonaventure in composing our Ladies Psalter, hath applyed to her, whatever was intended by the holy Ghost to the advancement of the honour of her Lord and Saviour (q) 1.66: that she is called frequently in their pub∣lick Rituals, Mater misericordiae, Mater gratiae, Regina coeli, with other the like glorious title which she dares not own: that in the vulgar translation made Authentick by the Councell of Trent, in stead of He shall break thy head (r) 1.67 which relates to Christ, they read it, Ipsa conteret caput tuam, she shall break thy head, which many of their Commentators do refer to her: that Bellarmine maketh at all, no difference betwixt the Veneration which is due to her, and that which doth belong unto Christ, as man: and finally that the vulgar sort in point of practise (for needes such practise must ensue on such desperate doctrines) do use to say so many Ave Maries for one single Pater noster (s) 1.68, hear day by day so many masses of our Ladies, and not one of Christs, adorn her images with all cost and cunning which mans wit can reach, whilest his poor Statues stand neglected as not worth the looking after. Wonder it is they have not practised on the Creed, aud told us how the arrow_back Apostles had mistook the matter when they drew it up, and that it was not Jesus Christ but the Virgin Mary that suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucifyed, dead and buryed for the sins of man. Such are, and such have been the most known repugnancies, which have found entertainment in the Christian world, touching the Priviledges and Prierogatives of this blessed woman. Between these two extremes is the vertue placed which I perswade my self, hath been most happily preserved in the Church of England, retaining still two annual feasts instituted in the best times to her name and memory. We gladly give her all the honour which is due unto her, account her for the most blessed of all women (t) 1.69, a choice and most selected Temple of the holy Ghost, and happiest instrument of mans good, which hath descended simply from the loynes of Adam: but dare not give her divine honour, by erecting Altars to her service, going in pilgrimage to her shrines, or powring forth our prayers unto her. Finally we resolve with Epi∣phanius

(u) 1.70, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Let the blessed Virgin be had in reverence, but God only worshipped; let her possesse principal place in our good opinions, so she have none in our devotions. But it is time to leave the Mother, and return a∣gain unto the Son.

Now that which in this Article is expressed by the present words, Natus ex Virgine Maria, that is to say, born of the Virgin Mary, in that of Nice is thus delive∣red, and was made man. Some Hereticks had formerly called this truth in question, affirming that our Saviours body was not true and real, but only an ayery and imaginary body, as did the Marcionites; others, that he received not his humane being of the Virgin Mary, but brought his body from the hea∣vens, and only passed thorow her womb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as thorow a Conduit pipe; as Valentinian (x) 1.71: as if our blessed Lord and Saviour had only borrowed for a time the shape of man, ther••in to act his woful tragedy on the publick Theatre of the world, and made the Virgins womb his trying house. And some again there were who did conceive his body to be free from passion, maintaining that it was impassibilis, and that he was not subject to those natural frailties and in∣firmities, which are incident to the Sons of men by the ordinary course of nature. To meet with these and other Hereticks of this kind, the Fathers in the Nicene Councel, expressed our Saviours being born of the Virgin Mary, which every Heretick had wrested to his proper sense, in words which might more ful∣ly signifie the truth and reality of his taking of our flesh upon him, in words which were not capable of so many evasions, declaring thus, that being incarnate by the holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, factus est homo, he was made man; and conse∣quently was made subject unto those infirmities, which are inseparably annexed to our humane nature. This, that which positively is affirmed by the Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews (y) 1.72, where it is said, that we have not such an high Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. The high Priest which God gave us in the time of the Gospel, was to be such as those he gave unto his people in the time of the Law; one who could have compassion on the ignorant, and on them▪ that are out of the way, for that he himself is compassed also with infirmities (z) 1.73. The difference only stood in this, that our Saviours passions and infirmities were free from sin, and neither did proceed from sin or incline him to it, as do the passions and infirmities of men meerly natural; which is the meaning of St. Paul in the place aforesaid, where he affirmeth of our high Priest, that he was tempted, that is to say, afflicted, tryed and proved in all things, like as we are, save only that it was without sin, or sinful motions. And to this truth the Catholick Doctors of the Church do attest unanimously. St. Ambrose thus, CHRIST, saith he, took upon him not the shew, but the truth, and reality of the flesh; what then? Debuit ergo et dolorem susci∣pere ut vinceret tristitiam (a) 1.74, non excluderet; he therefore was to have a sense of humane sorrowes, that he might overcome them, not exclude them only. Fulgen∣tius goes to work more plainly (b) 1.75, Nunc oftendendum est, saith he, &c. Now must we shew, that the passions of grief, sorrow, fear, &c. do properly pertain unto the soul; and that our Saviour did endure them all in his humane soul, ut veram totam•• in se cum suis infirmitatibus hominis demonstraret suscepti substanti∣am, that he might shew in himself the true and whole substance of man accom∣panied with its infirmities. The fathers of the Greek Church do affirme the same (c) 1.76 When thon hearest (saith Cyril) that Christ wept, feared, and sorrowed, ac∣knowledge him to be a true man, and ascribe these things to the nature of man: for Christ took a mortal body subject to all the passions of nature, sin alwayes excepted. Which when he had affirmed in thesi, he doth thus infer, Et ita singulas passiones carnis, &c. Thus shalt thou finde all the passions or affections of the flesh to be stirred in Christ, but without sin, that being so stirred up they might be repressed, and our nature reformed to the better. But none of all the Antients state the point more clearly then Iohn Damascene, in his 3. book De fide orthodoxa (d) 1.77, where he tels us this, We confesse, saith he, that Christ did take unto him all natural and blamelesse passions: for he assumed the whole man, and all that pertained to man,

save sin. Natural and blamelesse passions are those which are not properly in our power, and whatsoever entred into mans life through the occasion of (Adams) sin, as hunger, thirst, weaknesse, labour, weeping, shunning of death, fear, agony, whence came sweat with drops of bloud. These things are in all men by nature; and therefore Christ took all these to him, that he might sanctifie them all. With this agreeth the distincti∣on of the latter Schoolmen, who divide the infirmities of the flesh into natural, and personal (e) 1.78, calling those natural which follow the whole nature of man, as hunger, thirst, labour, wearinesse, and even death it self; those personal which arise out of some defect or imperfection in the constitution of the body, or dis∣order of diet, or from some other outward cause, as Agues, Leprosies, and the like. Then they infer, that all the frailties and infirmities (you may call them punishments if you will, as indeed they are) that are from without, and are com∣mon to the whole nature of man, were taken with our flesh by Christ, who came to be a Saviour of all men, without respect of persons; but such as flow from sin dwelling within, or proceed from particular causes and are proper only unto some, those he took not on him. Aud of these passions and infirmities attendant on Christs humane nature, I have spoke the rather in this place, because it doth so manifestly conduce to the better understanding of the following Article, viz. his sufferings of all sorts under Pontius Pilate.

Notes

• (a) 1.1

  Joh. 1.14.
• (b) 1.2

  1 Tim. 3.17.
• (c) 1.3

  1 Tim. 1.15.
• (d) 1.4

  Bonavent. in 3 Sent. dist. 4. qu. 2.
• (e) 1.5

  Aug. de. verb. Apostol. Serm. 70.
• (f) 1.6

  Luk. 19.10.
• (g) 1.7

  Joh. 3.4.
• (h) 1.8

  Lact. l. 2. c. 9.
• (i) 1.9

  B. Andrw. Serm. 6. on the Nativ.
• (k) 1.10

  Gal. 4.4.
• (l) 1.11

  Gen. 49.10.
• (m) 1.12

  Tacit. An∣nal. lib. 1.
• (n) 1.13

  Luk. 2.4, 5.
• (o) 1.14

  Micah 5.2. Mar. 2.5.
• (p) 1.15

  Vel. Paterc. hist. l. 2.
• (o) 1.16

  Greg. Nyss. hom. de Christ. Nativ.
• (p) 1.17

  Chrysost. in Orat. de Philog.
• (q) 1.18

  Neceph. Eccl. hist. l. 7. c. 6.
• (r) 1.19

  Mat. 3.17. Luk. 3.22.
• (s) 1.20

  Luc. 1.35.
• (t) 1.21

  Id. v. 26, 27.
• (u) 1.22

  Joh. 19 41.
• (x) 1.23

  Col. 2.9.
• (y) 1.24

  Cant. 4.12.
• (z) 1.25

  1 Tim. 2.14.
• (a) 1.26

  Joh. 6.51.
• (b) 1.27

  Greg. Thaum. Serm. de Annunc. Virg.
• (c) 1.28

  Gen. 3.15.
• (d) 1.29

  Aquin. 1.2. qu. 11. Art. 5.
• (e) 1.30

  1 Cor. ••5.22.
• (f) 1.31

  Isa. 7.2.
• (g) 1.32

  Id. v. 14, 15, 16.
• (h) 1.33

  Isa. 8.3, 4.
• (i) 1.34

  Mat. 1.22, 23.
• (k) 1.35

  Joh. 6 15.
• (m) 1.36

  Ibid. v. 14.
• (n) 1.37

  Jer. 22.30.
• (o) 1.38

  Ch. 23.6, 7.
• (p) 1.39

  Cited by Speed in his Tract of Ge∣nealog. c. 7.
• (q) 1.40

  Mat. 4.6.
• (r) 1.41

  Mat. 1.25.
• (s) 1.42

  Hieron. ad∣vers. Helvid.
• (t) 1.43

  Exod. 13.2.
• (u) 1.44

  Mat. 28.20.
• (x) 1.45

  Psal. 110.1.
• (y) 1.46

  Iren. adv. haer. l. 1. c. 25.
• (z) 1.47

  Hieron. adv. Helvid.
• (a) 1.48

  Durand. l. 4. d. 44. qu. 6.
• (b) 1.49

  Tertul. de carn. Chri. in fine.
• (c) 1.50

  Rhenan. in Arg. l. de Car. Chr.
• (a) 1.51

  Concil. Tri∣dent. Sess. 5.
• (b) 1.52

  1 Tim. 1.15
• (c) 1.53

  Luk. 1.47.
• (d) 1.54

  Nicep. Histor. Eccl. l. 2
• (e) 1.55

  Rom. 6.23.
• (f) 1.56

  Durand. l. 4. d. 44. qu. 6.
• (g) 1.57

  Maldonas. in Luk. 2.
• (h) 1.58

  Epiphan. advers. haeres.
• (i) 1.59

  Id. ibid. haeres. 79.
• (k) 1.60

  Cyr. com. Nestor. Hom. 6.
• (l) 1.61

  Annot. in Act. 1.14.
• (m) 1.62

  Anselm. de excell. B. Virg. ••. 17.
• (n) 1.63

  Bern. Senens. Serm. 61.
• (o) 1.64

  Biel in Ca∣none Missae. Sect. 80.
• (p) 1.65

  De Nativit. B. Mariae Serm.
• (q) 1.66

  Psalt. Bo∣navent. Edit. An. 1596.
• (r) 1.67

  Gen. 3.15.
• (s) 1.68

  Relation of Sr. Edw. Sandys
• (t) 1.69

  Luk. 1.42.
• (u) 1.70

  Epiphan. in haeres. 79.
• (x) 1.71

  Epiphan. advers. Valent.
• (y) 1.72

  Heb. 4.15.
• (z) 1.73

  Heb. 5.2.
• (a) 1.74

  Ambros. in Luc. l. 10.
• (b) 1.75

  Fulgent. ad Thrasimund. 3.
• (c) 1.76

  Cyr. The∣saur. l. 10. c. 3.
• (d) 1.77

  Damasc••n l. 3. c. 20.
• (e) 1.78

  Feild of the Ch. l. 5. c. 17.