Theologicall questions, dogmaticall observations, and evangelicall essays, vpon the Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to St. Matthew Wherein, about two thousand six hundred and fifty necessary, and profitable questions are discussed; and five hundred and eighty speciall points of doctrine noted; and five hundred and fifty errours confuted, or objections answered: together with divers arguments, whereby divers truths, and true tenents are confirmed. By Richard VVard, sometimes student in the famous vniversities of Cambridge in England: St. Andrews in Scotland: and Master of Arts of both the kingdoms; and now a preacher in the famous city of London.

CHAPTER I.

VERSE 1.

The Booke of the generation of Iesus Christ, the sonne of David, the sonne of Abraham.

I Will (according to the method of our holy Evangelist) first speake a word or two of the Genealogie of our Lord and Savi∣our Jesus Christ; his genealogie being re∣gistred; to let us see that Jesus is THE CHRIST: the agreement of the foure Evan∣gelists doe greatly confirme the same. Two of the foure, viz. Saint Matthew, and Saint Luke record Christs genealogie unto us: hence a que∣stion ariseth.

[Quest. 1] How can these two Evangelists bee reconci∣led, differing so much as they doe in this Genea∣logie? [Answ. 1] I answer, They write and set downe the linage and descent of Christ diverso sed non ad∣verso modo, diversely but not contrarily; whose diversity makes up the sweeter harmony: for where Saint Matthew reckons from the Fa∣thers downeward; Saint Luke reckons from [Answ. 2] the children upwards. I answer againe; the whole genealogie is divided into five Sections, reckoning as Saint Matthew doth from the Fa∣thers to the children. 1 From Adam to Noah. 2. From Noah to Abraham. 3. From Abraham to David. 4. From David to Zorobabel. 5. From Zorobabel to Christ himselfe. In the first and se∣cond Saint Luke runnes alone, Saint Matthew not meddling with the Genealogie of Christ fur∣ther then Abraham. In the third section from Abraham to David, Saint Matthew and Saint Luke goe together. In the fourth from David to Zorobabel they take different courses, for Saint Matthew descends from David by Solo∣mon, but Saint Luke by Nathan, and both meet in Salathiel: where going on two steps toge∣ther, they part againe, and the one takes his course from Zorobabel by Rhesa to Mary: the other from Zorobabel by Abia to Ioseph.

It will be questioned againe, How Saint Mat∣thew [Quest. 2] and Saint Luke can agree in the last exam∣ple, according to our Evangelist (verse 16.) and the first according to Saint Lukeg Saint Mat∣thew affirming Iosephs father to be Iacob; Saint Luke, Elie? I answer, [Answ.] Iacob was the naturall Father of Ioseph: Eli was the naturall Father of Mary, and so by the contract of those two, Eli was Iosephs Father in lawh.

It will be further questioned, why Saint Mat∣thew and Saint Luke have both of them descri∣bed [Quest. 3] the genealogie and linage of Ioseph, not of [Answ. 1] Mary. I answer first, for the convincing of the Jewes, to whom Saint Matthew wrote. Second∣ly, [Answ. 2] because Ioseph and Mary were contribules, both of one Tribe, and therefore it was all one whether of them were described; but of this more by and by.

The Booke of the generation:] hence another [Quest. 4] question ariseth, Whether this bee the Title of the Booke or no? Answer, [Answ.] it is not the title of the Booke, but onely of the Catalogue expres∣sed in the Chapter, so Gen. 5.1. This is the Booke of the generations of Adam, &c.

It will be hence demanded further, why doth [Quest. 5] Saint Matthew meddle at all with Genealogies, seeing Saint Paul forbids themi I answer, there is a double use of Genealogies: 1. First, a pro∣phane use, for ostentation, pride, boasting, or ambition; and this the Jewes were too much addicted unto: and this is that which Saint Paul forbiddes; namely, a vaine pride, and glorying in their ancestors. 2. Secondly, there is a holy use of Genealogies, which is three fold. 1. For the observing of judiciall Lawes. 2. For the di∣stinguishing of the Church from those that were without: and these second uses of genea∣logies belong not now unto us. 3. For the de∣claration or setting forth of the pedigree, race, or linage of the Messiah: and this continued

for and with us, and is that which Saint Mat∣thew here intends, who fearing, least it should be thought that Christ were some obscure, or pri∣vate, or secret, person like Melchizedech, who was a Pater without Father or Mother, doth therfore shew forth unto us his generation, that wee might observe and know it to bee double, viz. First, naturall and knowne, comming from Da∣vid by this line and descent. Secondly, divine and ineffable.

[Quest. 6] Furthermore it will be asked, why Saint Luke proceeds unto Adam, and Matthew beginnes but at Abraham; seeing they both intend one and the same thing, viz. the genealogie of Christ [Answ. 1] according to his humanity? first some answer, that this was done to shew that Christ was given two manner of waies: to wit, first

For the Gentiles and for all men, and that in a double regard.

• First, by the sufficiency of that Redemption, which was wrought by Christ.
• Secondly, by a generall of∣fer of conditional grace, which was made unto all.

[Answ. 2] Secondly to the Godly onely, (the seede and children of Abrahams faith) by effectuall Re∣demption.

But I rather thinke the reason to bee this in short: Saint Matthewes chiefest regard in the reckoning up of this genealogie, was to move the Jewes to embrace the Gospel: and there∣fore hee beginnes with David in this verse, be∣cause then it was most common in the mouthes of all men, that the Messias should be the sonne of Dauid: but Saint L ke (as testifies Eusebius) by birth a Gentile, borne in Antiochia, learned in Physicke, and now a Proselite, truely conver∣ted, doth write his Gospel to convert others: and therefore shewes to the comfort of all be∣leeving Gentiles, that Christ is a Saviour also unto them, even which are of the posterity of Adam: The promise of the Messias was tyed to the families of David, and Abrahamk and there∣fore Matthew proving Christ to bee the sonne of David and Abraham according to the flesh needs goe no further: But Luke writes unto the Gentiles (for he was Pauls companion, who was the Apostle of the Gentiles) and therefore hee proceeds unto Adam the Father of all Nati∣ons.

[Quest. 7] Againe, hence it will bee demanded; why is onely David and Abraham here named? [Answer.] I an∣swer, because under these two were all the pro∣mises made and given, viz. First to Abraham, Gen. 12.3. and 22.18. Secondly, to David 2 Sam. 7.12. 1 Chron. 17. Psal. 89.37. Esa. 37.35. and 53.3. Ier. 13.13. 22.4 30.23.5.

[Quest. 8] Lastly, one other question may hence be pro∣pounded, which is this; why is David set, or pla∣ced before Abraham (in this verse) Abraham be∣ing [Answ. 1] the eldest? I answer, First, because the pro∣mises made to David were more cleare and illu∣strious, and later; and therefore better knowne unto the people: as appeares by the blinde man, who cries unto Christ, thou sonne of David have mercie upon me; and so the common people call the Messias the sonne of David. Secondly, I an∣swer, [Answ. 2] It is ordinarie with Historians to proceed from later things to more ancient: first, to re∣late those things that are freshest in our memo∣ries, and then goe one to those that are more remote from us. Lastly, I answer, The matter [Answ. 3] in hand, or the historie of the Genealogie of Christ, doth require that David should bee pla∣ced before Abraham: for the Catalogue of the persons is to bee drawne from the first to the last or to begin with the eldest first, and so pro∣ceed downewards: and therefore being to be∣gin with Abraham, as he doth vers. 2. hee first names David, then subjoynes Abraham, vers. 1. that so the second verse may depend immedi∣atly upon the first. Thus much for the que∣stions. One objection we have further to re∣solve. [Object.] Saint Matthew making no mention at all in this his Genealogie, of the linage of the blessed virgin Mary, gives Salmeron the Jesuite occasion to alledge this place to prove, that the virgin Mary was without sinne at all: and that we should not consider her to have sprung from sinners, lest she should thereby have incurred the guilt of originall sinne from them: but wee must conceive of her, as the elect and gracious mother of Christ, and consequently exempted from all sinne: and for this cause (onely sayth he) she is described as Saint Paul describes Melchizedech, without Father or Mother, or genealogie; and as wee understand an other person (i. e. Christ) figured in Melchize∣dech: so the blessed Mother of Christ, must bee imagined to be without Father or Mother, that so wee may understand her to bee without the least staine of sinne. The Jesuites argument be∣ing something confused, we will draw it to this forme. Major. Whosoever is described with∣out father or mother, or genealogie, is altoge∣ther voyd of sinne. Minor. But the blessed virgin Mary is such a one, described without father or mother, or genealogie. Therefore she is altogether voyd of sinne.

First of all, we deny the Major or first propo∣sition: [Answ. 1] for Melchizadech is described in Scrip∣ture, to be without father or mother, or generation: and yet neither Papists, nor any other, goe a∣bout to prove, that hee was free from all sinne. Secondly, wee answer, that the confirmation [Answ. 2] and proofe of the Major is very ridiculous, Ma∣ry is described like Melchizedech, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without any genealogie, or generation; there∣fore as Melchizedech signifies Christ, so Mary was free from all staine of sinne: this is a Sequi∣tur, à baculo ad angulum, as wee say in the Schooles. Thirdly, the Minor, or second pro∣position [Answ. 3] is false: Mary is not described like Melchizedech, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; for his parents, none at any time, or any where, hath named in Scripture; yea, he is so obscurely brought in, that wee have no argument to prove, that hee was borne, but onely that generall argument, which is taken from the nature of man: But Mary was not onely borne after the nature of other men and women, but also her Genealogie

is named in Scripture. For, I. First, she is cal∣led the Cosen of Elizabeth, from whence necessa∣rily one genealogie must bee common to them both. II. Secondly, shee is shewed to bee the daughter of David and Abraham, because Christ was borne of her, vers. 20. and hee is sayd to bee the sonne of David and Abraham, vers. 1. And therefore the Genealogie of the Sonne, must needs appertaine unto the Mother. III. Thirdly, this same Genealogie, which is described both by Matthew and Luke, is both the Genealogie of Mary, and described for Ma∣ries sake, and not for Iosephs; because it is described to shew the descent and linage of Christ, who came not of Ioseph, but of Mary onely: and therefore if this Genealogie belong not unto her, it belongs not unto Christl.

VERRS. 2. Abraham begat Isaac.] Isaac was a type of Christ in 3 things. First, in his nativitie, which was in a manner, and in nature almost impossiblem, Abrahams body being dead: so Christ was wonderfull in his birth. Second∣ly, in his obedience unto the death, making no resistance against his Father Abraham, Gen. 22. So Christ was also obedient to the stroake of deathn. Thirdly, he was the sonne of promise, and the promised seed, Gen. 21.12. and so was Christ, Gal. 3.16.

[Vers. 5] [Quest.] §. 1. VERS. 5. Boaz of Rahab.] It may here bee demanded, why in the Genealogie of our [Sect. 1] blessed Saviour, none of the holy women are reckoned up, but those onely whom the Scrip∣tures [Answ. 1] doe taxe and reprehend as sinners? I an∣swer, this was done first of all, because Christ came into this world to save sinners, and to take away their sinnes. Sinners are reckoned up in his Genealogie, and he is sayd to be descended of them, because he descended frō heaven for themo. Christ for the comfort of poore penitent sin∣ners, assumed that nature which once was sin∣full, that he might separate it from sinne. Se∣condly, another reason, why they are reckoned up and named, and neither Sarah, nor Rebecca, is to represse the arrogancie of the Iewes, who [Answ. 3] glorie so much in their progenitors. Thirdly, and lastly, this is done to manifest Christs glo∣ry, in that hee tooke not any of his holinesse from his parents, or progenitors, they being wicked.

[Sect. 2] §. 1. VERS. 5. Salmon begat Boaz of Ra∣had: [Quest.] and Boaz Obed of Ruth.] Here it will bee questioned, to what end are these set downe, for they seeme not pertinent to the matter in hand. [Answ.] I answer, These things are not in vaine set downe, but for our instruction, teaching these three things unto us. First, Rahab was an harlot, and yet her husband took her unto him∣selfe, although shee was such: so Christ hath married himselfe unto the Gentiles, who were spirituall fornicators, through sinnep. Second∣ly, Ruth was a stranger, and very poore, yet Boaz did not despise her for her povertie, nor abhorre her for the wickednesse of her Coun∣trey: no more doth Christ despise us, being most poore and beggarly, through the want of goodnesse, and worthy to bee abhorred for the wickednesse of our lives. Thirdly, to teach us, that as Ruth left her countrey, and her fathers house, and all her kindred, and then was enno∣bled by this marriage: so wee must likewise leave our old Conversation, that so we may bee bee joyned in marriage unto Christ. Psal. 45.10.q

VERS. 8. Ioram begat Ozias.] From these words divers doubts arise. First, what manner [Quest. 1] of succession this was? For Ioram did not be∣get Ozias. I answer, t'is true, [Answ.] Ioram did not be∣get him; but yet Ozias came from him, as ap∣peares thus. I. Ioram had many brethren, as we may finde, 2. Chron. 21.2. but them hee slew, vers. 4. II. Ioram had also many children; but the Aethiopians slew them all, as wee read, 2. 2 Chron. 21.17. and 22.2. excepting one, which is called Iehoahaz, 2. Chron. 21.17. but Ahazias, and Azariah, 2. Chron. 22.1.6.7. III. The children of Iorams children were slain by Iehu, 2. Chro. 22.8. even 42. persons, 2. King. 10.13. IV. Ahazias had many children, 2. King. 10.13. who (their father being slaine by Iehu) were all slaine by their mother Athaliah, 2. Chron. 22.10. except only Ioas, vers. 11. whom Iehoiada crownes, 2. Chron. 23.1. &c. V. Ioas had a sonne called Amaziah, 2. Chron. 24.27. VI. Amaziah had a sonne whose name was Vz∣ziah, or our Ozias (mentioned in this verse) 2. Chron, 26.1. And thus we see, that although Ozias was not the immediate sonne of Ioram, yet hee was of his linage, and descended from him, as appeares plainly by that which hath been sayd, but more briefly by the Mar∣gent.r

Secondly, it will be sayd, Was not Ioas, the [Quest. 2] Grandfather of Ozias, the sonne of Nathan? for so it is generally thought: and if so, then he came not from Ioram, as is affirmed by the for∣mer question: but he was the legall sonne onely, and came from Nathan, and not the na∣turall sonne of Ahaziah, of the stocke of Salo∣mon? I answer, It hath been affirmed by divers, [Answ.] that Ioas was the sonne of Nathan, but without any solid ground at all: And the contrary (that Ioas was the naturall sonne of Ahazias) doth evidently appeare from these places, which I perswade my reader to observe, 2. King. 11.2. and 13.1. and 14.13. 1. Chron: 3.11. and 2. Chron. 23.11. and 23.3.

It may yet from hence further bee questi∣oned, [Quest. 3] Why Saint Matthew here omits these three Kings, Ahazias, Ioas, Amaziah, seeing they came betweene Ioram and Ozias? and why he omits these three rather than others? First, hereunto some say, because these three de∣scended [Answ. 1] from the cursed family of Ahab, whose posteritie God commands Iehu to destroy. Se∣condly, [Answ. 2] otherss rather thinke fit to give over the Quare, and leave it as a secret, than to dive into it. Thirdly, although it bee true, that the [Answ. 3] Lord may doe what he please, and need not give an account of his actions unto man, yet he doth nothing but for some good and just cause: and in these Historicall relations gives us leave with modestie to enquire after those things, that at first view seeme to bee obscure and secret: and therefore (I hope without offending in this

kind. vit. to dive into the depths that onely the Lord can sound) foure reasons may bee given why these three, and only these three are here omitted.

The first is, because S. Matthew for the helpe of memory hath propounded to reckon up 3 series, or orders of the progenitors of Christ, every one of them consisting of 14. persons, as in the 17. verse of this chapter: and for this cause he is en∣forced to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 many.

The second reason is this because the Evange∣list would not so precisely stick, or ••herein the enumeration of Christs forefathers, but hastens unto the ma•••••• scope hee hath propounded unto himself, and that is the demonstration of Christ, not those from whom hee came, according to the flesh, any further, than the ma••••er in hand ne∣cessarily requires.

The third reason may bee this; the series of Christs progenito••s from I••ram to Ozias, might easily be knowne by the simplest, from those plaine places of Scripture, cited before, quest. 1. and therefore the Evangelist troubles not him∣selfe to reckon them up.

The last reason why hee omits these 3 Kings, rather than others, is for these causes. I. First, be∣cause the kingdomes were wickedly governed under them, and therfore they were not thought worthy to be named. II. Because these 3. were most miserably killed: and thus S^t. Iohn Apoc. 7.5.6.7.8. doth not reckon up the tribe of Dan a∣mongst the tribes of Israel, for her singular, and exquisite impietie.

[Vers. 11] VERS. 11. Iosias begat I••c••••ias and his brethren, about the time, they were carried away into Ba∣bylon.]

[Object. 1. 2.] It may here be objected, Iosias was not the Fa∣ther of I••c••••iah, but his Grandfather. Secondly, Iosias begot not these sons. I••c••••iah and his bre∣thren, [Answ. 1] in the Captivitie, but before: I will joyne these two doubts together, in the resolving of them. First, some answer hereunto, that Iosias begat I••c••••ias and his brethren, inregard onely of a legall succession, because they succeeded him. I. I••b••as succeeded, whom the King of E∣gypt carried captive. II. Ieb••iach••••, whom the King of Babylon carried away. III. His sonne Ie••••iachim, who in like maner was captivated by the King of Babylon: and these were they, a∣gainst whom the Prophet Ieremie denounceth all his threatnings, Ier. 22.18. &c. IV. Zedochi∣as the sonne of I••sias.

[Answ. 2] Henry Stephen (although Beza attribute it to Robert Stephen. Beza. s.) thinking that the Fa∣ther Ieh••iachim was here omitted, amends it thus, Iosias begat Ioachim, & Ioachim begat I••ch••∣nias and his b••ethren: But this correction is not to be allowed; for first, knots must not bee out, when they should be untied, wee must not adde or diminish from the Scriptures, when wee can∣not reconcile them. Secondly, no Greeke ex∣amples or copies, have it thus, and therefore no such addition is to be permitted. Thirdly, Ioc••∣nias [Answ. 3] had onely one brother, viz. Zedochias the yonger, and therefore by Brethren (in this verse) is not to bee understood the immediate naturall brethren of I••ch••nias. I answer therefore (with Beza and Hier s.) that there was a double I••co∣nias, to wit, the father I••hoi••••im, and also the sonne Ieh••••achin, who were both so called, (it being ordinarie with the Hebrewes, to have two names, and sometimes tearmed by the one, and sometimes by the other) and of the father it is here sayd, I••sias begat I••coniah (that is I••h••ia∣••i••) together with his brethren. Now the bre∣thren he had were th••ee, viz. Ie••••as, Shallum, and Ma••••••••as, or Zed••chias (although some there be that conjecture Ieh••as and Shallum to be one and the same.) But against this, [Reply. 3] it will bee objected, how then it is sayd, that Iosias beg••t them in the Babylonian captivitie? I answer [Answ. 1] first, B••••h is put for La••••d, i. e. about the time of the captivitie. Againe, the Captivities to be [Answ. 2] referred unto the sonnes, not unto Iosias, i. e. these words in the Text, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the captivitie, are not to be referred to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, beg••t, but unto the children which hee begot, in whose time a threefold successive cap∣tivity came to passe under their Kings. 1. Vnder Iech••nias the father, whom the Hebrewes call Ieb••••achi•• (as Hierome sayth by H and K,) or as others Ie••••iaq••••s by Q II. Vnder Ioc••nias the sonne, whom the Hebrewes call I••••••iachi••••, by Ch. and N. III. Vnder Zedechia, who reigning, the carrying into captivitie, was consummate, & finished: which transportation Saint Matthew here remembers, as though it were but one a∣lone: so that the meaning is not, that I••sias in the Babylonian captivity begot the children, for being prevented by death, long before the Cap∣tivity he could not: But that his posteritie was brought into that Babylonian exile: for the words are to be read thus: Iosias begat I••conias & his brethren, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. who were in the time of the transportation into Babylon: And thus in the 17. verse of this Chapter the same wordes signifie, T••ri••i••um, non t••mporis duratio∣nem.

V. 12. I••che••iah begat Salathiel, [Vers. 13] ] this Salathiel is called elsewheret Sh••••ltiel, and he is concei∣ved to bee the common terme of the stocke of Salomon and Nathan: for whereas hee is called the sonne of Iaconiahu, wee must understand it not, to bee his sonne by nature, because hee had no sonne that reigned after himx, but his legall sonne, hee being of the stocke of Na∣thany. And thus these two places are recon∣ciled, to wit, Ierem. 22.30. and this verse: the first speaking of a naturall sonne, the other of a legallz. It will here bee objected. Salathiel Luke 3.27. is called the sonne of Neri: but in this verse, of Ioconias. Answer. Hee was the naturall sonne of Neri, and the legall sonne of Ioconiah: so called, because hee succeeded him in the kingdome: And thus in the genealogie of Christ, Luke followes the naturall order, and Matthew the Legall. See Parou•• up∣on this verse, where this question is further prosecuted.

VERS. 13.14.15. And Abind begat Eliachim, [Vers. 13, 14, 15.] [Object.] and he Az••r, and he Zadoc, and he Achim, and hee Eliud, and he Eleazar, and he Matthan, and hee

Iacob.] The Papists object these verses for their humane traditions thus. The Evangelists (both Matthew in these verses, and Luk. 3.) name ma∣ny of Christs progenitors, whose names are not found in the Old Testament, but are borrowed onely from Tradition: and therefore Traditions [Answ. 1] besides the Scriptures, are to bee allowed. I an∣swer hereunto first, that although some names in the genealogie of Christ, be not in Scripture, yet it follows not hence, that the Euangelists had them from humane tradition, but from the dicta∣ting of the Spirit of God, who did inspire them, [Answ. 2] when they wrot these books. Secondly, without the knowledge of these names, our faith may be safe, it not being absolutely necessarie unto sal∣vation, to know directly & successively the line, race, and linage of Christ: and therefore this will prove but a sandie foundation unto the Pa∣pists, to build those their Traditions upon, which concerne (as they say) our faith unto salvation. [Answ. 3] Thirdly, because it is requisite for the confirma∣tion of our faith, after the comming of Christ, to know him certainly to be the son of Abraham and David; therefore this genealogie is written, and that in Scripture, that we may know it, and beleeve it; and therefore the Papists are not to obtrude any Tradition upon us, but such as are in the Scriptures, as the forenamed examples are; for we beleeve that Christ came of these, and al∣though wee know not, from what histories or authors the Evangelists were taught it: yet now, because it is taught unto us by an Evangelist (who in the writing hereof was directed by an infallible spirit of truth) we therefore confident∣ly assent unto it.

[Vers. 16] VERS. 16. Of whom was borne Iesus.] If any [Sect. 1] judicious reader desire to know the derivation or reason of this name (Iesus) which is given to the true Messias, let him reade Illyricus de nomi∣ne Iesu, where hee shall finde it confirmed by eight reasons, that Jesus comes from the verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jascha to Save: and is the same with Ie∣hoshua a Saviour: where also divers arguments are confuted, by which Ofiander would prove, that Jesus comes from Iehovah, or from Ie∣heschuh.

[Sect. 2] § 2. VERS. 16. Iacob begat Ioseph the husband [Quest. 1] of Mary] Concerning these two holy persons, Ioseph and Mary, much might be spoken, but I will onely observe a word or two. First it may bee inquired, [Answ.] what they were? I answer, they were one thing jure, another re, one thing by right of inheritance, another by present condition: By right they were successors of the Kingdome of Israel, as is proved by many writers: but for the present, they were poore, he being a Carpen∣ter, and she but meane in regard of temporal pos∣sessions, and her present condition. Hence it will be questioned againe,

[Quest. 2] Why doth God permit the righteous to bee deprived of their right, and to bee brought into misery and poverty, [Answ.] and want? I answer, that the Lord doth it for many causes. First, be∣cause thus God will prove and trye them. Heb. 12.3.4. Secondly, because worldly aboundance and plenty is not so fit or convenient for them, as shall afterwards be shewed. Thirdly, that he may crowne them with future blessings more abundantly: thus Iob was robbed; and Abra∣ham was to forsake all, that the Lord might double all their losses unto them. Fourthly, God hereby would let us see, how carefull hee is of us, when wee are in neede, either by comfor∣ting of us in our affliction, or by avenging him∣selfe upon those that injure us, or by giving us contented hearts willing to endure, or undergoe whatsoever our God layes upon us: And this last was fulfilled in Ioseph, who although that hee were a great Heire, yet hee was contented with his poore, lowe, and present condition, be∣ing herein a patterne and president unto us, that as hee (which was supposed to bee the father of Christ, and was indeede the right▪ Heire unto the kingdome of Israel) was content with that lot of the things of this life, which God alotted and measured forth unto him: so all they, that suppose themselves to bee the children of Christ, [Observa.] and are indeed Heires of the kingdome of heaven, should bee willingly, and cherefully contented with their present condition, al∣though they bee brought from riches to pover∣ty, from the throne to the dunghill, and from ruling a Septer, to handle a saw (as Ioseph was) to maintaine life. Hic labor, hoc opus est, this is [Quest. 3] (will some say) durus sermo, a very had taske, because in this regard it is hard to descend, and a bitter thing to be brought from plenty to po∣verty, from honour to a low estate; and therfore how or wherby may we be strengthened thus to submit our selves, to what estate or condition soever the Lord shal call us unto, with this con∣tentednesse of minde, that was in holy Ioseph, & blessed Mary? I answer. [Answ.] Cōtentation is to be cor∣roborated by these meditations. First remember, if thou have victum & amictum, food & rayment, thou hast enough, and therefore having that, be contentedb. Secondly, remember this is the worke of God; art thou from plenty brought to poverty with Iob, this is Gods work: or art thou brought from a high estate to a low, as Ioseph here? remember the Lord hath a hand in it, and therefore murmure not against him, but rather be contented. Thirdly, remember God ••ries thee hereby, (as he did Iob) to see whether thou wilt serve him in adversitie, when hee crosseth thee, as well as in prosperitie, when hee blesseth thee, as did Iob: and therefore bee content, and patient, and quit thy selfe, like a man. Fourthly, remember all the children of God are made par∣takers of some affliction or other, either in bo∣dy or minde, or estate, or children, or friends, or good name; and therefore bee thou contented with thy crosse whatsoever it bee. Solamen misa∣ris, semper habere pares: thou art no worse than others, yea, thou hast many copartners in mise∣ry, and therefore thou mayst beare thy burthen the more cheerfully. Fiftly, remember, if thou be crossed and afflicted in temporall things, it is an argument of thy filiation or adoption into the fellowship of sonnes: they being bastards, and no sonnes that are are afflicted with no stripes, Heb. 12.8. And therfore thou shouldest rejoyce when

thou art afflicted; much more be content with it. Sixtly, remember, the way unto heaven and glory, is by poverty, adversity, sicknesse, pati∣ent enduring of wrongs, injuries, losses, crosses, and the like: and therefore (these things consi∣dered) there is great reason to bee content with our condition, although wee bee brought with Ioseph, from heires apparent of a Crowne, to poore handy-craftsmen.

[Sect. 3] § 3. Iacob begat Ioseph, the husband of Mary.] [Quest. 1] Here it may be demanded, why is the genealo∣gie of Ioseph here declared, Christ being not borne of him, but onely supposed so to be? This question is urged by all the Jewes and Pagans, against this our Evangelist, as unanswerable, arguing thus; either Jesus was the naturall Son of Ioseph (that is naturally begotten by him) and then he is not God (for whatsoever is borne of the flesh, is flesh:c or else, Christ is not the naturall sonne of Ioseph, and then Iosephs genealogie doth neither appertaine unto Christ, nor at all prove Christ to be the Sonne of God.

[Answ. 1] Hereunto it is answered commonly (by the Christians) thus; although Ioseph were onely the supposed Father of Christ, and not the na∣turall, yet Iosephs genealogie doth prove Jesus to be the son of David; because Mary also was of the same Tribe of Iudah, and family of David: This they prove thus; Ioseph was a just man, and one that feared the Lord, and therefore marries one of his owne Tribe and family according to the Law;d every daughter that possesseth an inhe∣ritance, in any tribe of the Children of Israel, shall bee wife unto one of the family of the Tribe of her Father, &c. If this probation were solide, the whole argument were solved: but I finde, that this law is not universall, but limited and re∣strained, pertaining onely to those daughters, who were left alone in their family, together with their fathers inheritance (as were the daughters of Zelapheade and therefore before this probation will be allowed, it must first bee proved that Mary the B. Virgin was such a one, left alone in her family with her Fathers inheritance: which cannot be proved from scrip∣ture; but rather the contrary, that her condi∣tion was poore and meane, and low in regard of temporall possessions: And therefore seeing this answer doth not satisfie; nor solve the doubt, we will produce another from the Scriptures.

[Answ. 2] Saint Matthew here doth plainely demon∣strate two things. First, that Jesus was not be∣gotten by Ioseph, but borne of Mary (verse 18. before Ioseph and Mary came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.) Secondly, that Jesus was the sonne of David and Abraham, verse. 1. and therefore Jesus of necessity must bee the sonne of David, either by Father or Mother. i. e. Ioseph or Mary: but not by his Father Io∣seph (as is shewed, from verse 18.) but by his Mother, who therefore must needs bee the daughter of David. Againe, Luke 1.31. the Angel sent unto the Virgin Mary, doth call Jesus (the child that is to be borne of her,) the sonne of David: but David was not the Father of Jesus by Ioseph, but by Mary: and therefore Mary was the daughter of David. So also in divers other places of Scripture, Christ is called the sonne of David, and of the seede of Davidf: which he could not be, but by the Mother: And thus these places doe firmely prove, that Ioseph and Mary were both of the same Tribe, and family of David.

But here another question doth arise, If it bee [Quest. 2] thus, that Christ is not the sonne of Ioseph, why then doth not the Evangelist here rather reckon up the genealogie of Mary, then of Ioseph. To this first some answer, that Saint Matthew doth [Answ. 1] this ex opinione vulgi, because hee would observe that common opinion, that was of Christ, to wit, that he was the sonne of Ioseph: but this is false, for verse 18. hee testifyes that Ioseph was not his Father, but that shee was found with child of the Holy Ghost, before Ioseph and shee came together. I answer therefore, the cause [Answ. 2] undoubtedly was this; Saint Matthew was a Jew, and herein observes the custome of the He∣brewes, who reckoned or recorded onely the genealogie of men not of women.

§ 4. VERSE 16. The husband of Mary.] [Sect. 4] Concerning the B. Virgin, I will here say no∣thing, saving onely this, that the Papists say too much; striving manibus pedibusque, with tooth and naile, to prove that shee was without origi∣nall sinne: the arguments whereby they en∣deavour to prove it, I shall (God enabling mee) consider of in their due place: I will here onely produce one example, they bring to prove it, whereof I will say no more but this, recitare est confutare, it needes no better Argument to con∣fute it, then barely to cite it. Baralet to prove the Virgin to bee without sinne, telleth us this story (si credere fas est) that there was one M^r. Alexander Niccham, who having given it out three sundry times, that hee would prove that shee was conceived in sinne, was prevented by sicknesse, so that he could not performe his pro∣mise; but afterwards renewing his purpose, the night, before hee was to prove his assertion hee fell into a great disease: and in his agonie calling upon the B. Virgin, shee came presently unto him, and said, hanc infirmitatem pateris pro ••o, quod, me esse conceptam in peccato originali, pre∣bare niteris, i. e. this punishment is inflicted up∣on thee, because thou wentst about to prove, that I was conceived in originall sinne: and having so said, tooke a knife, and therewith cut out a peece of rotten flesh out of his side, and with a needle, and a silke thread sewed it up againe, wherupon he did not onely renounce that dam∣nable opinion, but wrote a great booke, for the confirmation of the contrary.

§ 4. VERS. 18. [Vers. 18] Now the birth of Iesus Christ was on this wise; when as his Mother Mary was [Sect. 1] espoused unto Ioseph (before they came together) she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

The first and maine question here will bee [Quest. 1] this; Why the Lord would have the blessed [Answ. 1] virgin espoused unto Ioseph? I answer. First, for the honour of Matrimony: ^g the patronage of wedlocke doth take away the infamy of [Observ, 1] whoredome, teaching us, that honourable mar∣riage

is to bee preferred before dishonourable whoredomes: and that for these causes, First, because adultery and fornication are forbidden (by God) unto all men, of all times, in all places, and is allowed unto none at any time, or upon any occasion. Secondly, because God hath [Answ. 2] commanded Matrimony, and hath given and granted it unto man, as a remedy against un∣cleane fornications. Secondly, some answer, that this was done, that the Divell might not know Christ,h lest that hee should plot or pra∣ctise some mischiefe, either against the blessed virgin, or her more blessed infant. This an∣swer Pareus (upon these words) doth justly re∣ject, upon these two grounds. I. Because there is no probabilitie, that those things which the Angel had openly revealed to Ioseph and Ma∣ry, should bee concealed from the Divell. And II. Because from the very nativitie of Christ, the Divell begun to lay a thousand traines for the destruction of Christ, both by Herod and the [Answ. 3] Jewes. A third answer therefor is given, viz. That this was done for these ends. I. First, that there might bee one, who should provide and take care for the flight of the infant, when He∣rod should by crueltie seeke his lifei. II. Se∣condly, that there might bee one, who should take care for the education and nourishing of Christ, in providing for him whatsoever was needfull in regard of his humanitie. III. Third∣ly, that the blessed Virgin might have one, from whom she might receive both comfort and ayd, in the time of Christs infancie. A fourth an∣swer [Answ. 4] is brought,k which is, That Mary might have a domesticall witnesse of her immaculate virginitie: for none was better able to testifie [Answ. 5] her chastitie, than Ioseph. It is answered a∣gaine,l Mary was espoused to Ioseph, that by his genealogie (to whom Mary was allied) the o∣riginall also, or progenitors of Mary, might the better be demonstrated.

[Answ. 6] Lastly, I answer. This was done for the a∣voyding of a threefold mischiefe, or inconve∣nience, that might otherwise have ensued, to wit: First, lest the Jewes should take occasion to reject Christ, because he was borne out of mar∣riage: and consequently blasphemously esteeme him the fruit of a polluted bedm. Secondly, for the avoyding of death, which was allotted by the Law unto suchn. Hier. s. Thirdly, to a∣voyd infamie, if shee had not beene betrothed unto a husband, she would have incurred the name of a harlot: teaching us carefully to avoyd every occasion of infamieo.

But hence a question is considerable; Why should wee bee thus carefull of our credit and good name, doth it not savour too much of [Observ. 2] vaine ostentation? I answer, we should carefully regard our credit: first, because our owne con∣science [Quest. 2] is more confirmed thereby. Secondly, [Answ. 1] because our brethren are benefited by our good [Answ. 2] example, our unreproveable lives being as a candle in a darke place, usefull for the directing and encouraging of them in the trade of ver∣tue. [Answ. 3] Thirdly, because the Gospel is either ho∣noured or dishonoured by us, that is, if our lives be unblameable, we adorne our profession, and honour the Gospell; but if infamous, wee are a dishonour and a scandall unto it, which wee should be very fearfull of: and therefore very carefull to preserve a good name amongst all, which is as a pretious oyntment.

Hence another question will bee demanded; [Quest. 3] How is a good name or fame to be sought for? I answer. Fame is either evill or good. I. First, [Answ.] there is an evill fame, which is two-fold, viz. first with evill men, who seeke fame, malè agendo, by wicked workes, as Herostratus burned the Temple of Diana at Ephesus, to get a perpetuall fame: and some also, by drinking others under the table, or by patronage of wicked-men. Se∣condly, with good men, who defend often that which is amisse, and excuse all their imperfe∣ctions, lest otherwise it should tend to their disgrace; both these are ordinarie, but neither of them good: and therefore Fame is not thus to be sought for. II. There is a good Fame, which is likewise two-fold: first, bonum faciendo, when a man gets a good name, by doing that which is good. Secondly, offensionem cavendo, by avoyding and shunning all occasions of evill: a man gets a good name, by carefully avoyding all evill, and eschewing giving of offence unto all. Now offences arise three manner of wayes. First, mala agendo, by doing that which is evill: and therefore he that covets Fame, must onely employ himselfe in good actions. Se∣condly, dubia agendo, by doubtfull actions, which may justly bee suspected: and therefore he that desires a good report among men, must eschew all appearance of evill, 1. Thess. 5.22. that is, all those actions which are of evill report, or may be ill interpreted. Thirdly, bona agendo, sed non cum cautelá, by doing that which is good for the matter of it, but undiscreetly for the manner of it: and therefore unto a good name are required good actions, performed with pru∣dence and discretion. And by these wayes it is lawfull to acquire fame.

When Mary was espoused.] The Papists doe [Sect. 2] from this verse maintaine, that Mary the [Obiect.] blessed virgin, was not onely a virgin, when shee was espoused unto Ioseph, and continued so all her life time after: (for this we willingly grant) but also that shee vowed or purposed virginitie, before the message of the Angell was brought unto her: and from her example ground their opinion of votaries, or vowes of chastitie, or ab∣stinence from marriage.

But this assertion is rashly, without Scripture, [Answ.] nay rather against it, affirmed: for the Text is plaine, that they had a purpose to consummate their marriage, from these words; When Mary was betroched to Ioseph, before they came together: therefore there was a meaning to come toge∣ther, if shee had not in the meane time beene found to bee with childe of the holy Ghost: for otherwise it would seeme to have been a moc∣kery on Maries part, or behalfe, to promise marriage to Ioseph without, any purpose to per∣forme the dutie of marriage. And if it were done with both their consents, then mocked

they with God, who instituted marriage for some end and purpose, which could not bee at∣tained out of marriage: for if there had beene a vow of continencie upon them, they should neither have married for avoiding of fornicati∣on, which are the two chiefe ends of marriage: as for the third, which is mutuall comfort, it [Reply 2] ariseth of the former. Bellarmine (li. 2. de Mo∣nach. Cap. 22.) answereth hereunto, that Ma∣ries vow was no hindrance to their marriage, because shee knew by revelation, that Ioseph would not exact marriage duties of her.

[Answ. 1] To this wee answer first, That this is spoken without booke, a conceit of their owne, having no warrant, nor confirmation from Scri∣pture.

[Answ. 2] Secondly, Peter Lombard (li. 4. distinct. 30. b.) thinketh that Ioseph also had purposed virgi∣nitie, which if so, then it was a mocking of the ordinance.

[Answ. 3] Thirdly, the opinion is so unwarrantable, that the opinionists cannot agree among them∣selves, for Thomas Aquinas thinkes, that Mary made not an absolute vow, before her espousall; but Scotus affirmeth, she did.

[Answ. 4] Fourthly, it is not likely that Mary had any such revelation before her espousall (as they af∣firm) because the Angels salutation and message (which hee brought after her contract) was so strange and rare.p

[Sect. 3] §. 3. Before they came together.] What is meant by this Comming together? [Quest.]

[Answ. 1] I answer, first (with Calvin) this may bee understood of cohabitation, or dwelling to∣gether.

[Answ. 2] Secondly, or (with Muscul. Erasm. Gualt.) de Coitu, of Wedlocke duties.

[Answ. 3] Thirdly, or of both, which I rather ima∣gine: and therefore there is a double error to be avoyded and reproved. 1. Of those who thinke, that the Virgin Mary was married unto Ioseph long before, but as yet was not knowne carnally of him, because they abstained by a mutuall vow, as the Papists thinke. (Sup. §. 2.) 2. Of those who thinke Ioseph not as yet carnally to have knowne her, but afterwards did. Both these are to be exploded, because the Holy Ghost speakes of the time

• By-past, that as yet Mary was not con∣joyned unto Ioseph, either by cohabi∣tation, or copulation.
• Not to come, as though hee did know her afterwards: But of this after∣wards. verse 25.

[Sect. 4] § 4. Shee was found with Child.] It may here be questioned, [Quest.] who it was that found Mary to be with child?

[Answ. 1] I answer, First, Mary her selfe, who presently after the Angels message unto her, Luke 1.31. perceived a strange motion, and a conception within her, as women doe, when they first quicken.

Secondly, her parents in whose house, and [Answ. 2] under whose custody shee as yet remained, and unto whom (it is probable) she declared the An∣gels message: they also perceive her to bee with child.

Thirdly, Ioseph also her husband perceived it; [Answ. 3] and that either first by himselfe, observing her wombe to swell greater: or secondly from the common fame of others, who had observed it: or thirdly, by her parents, who had decla∣red it unto him: or fourthly, by the B. Virgin her selfe who revealed it to her husband.

§ 1. VERS. 19. [Vers. 19] Then Ioseph her husband be∣ing a just man, and not willing to make her a publike [Sect. 1] example, was minded to put her away privily. Hence it may first be demanded;

§ 1. [Quest.] Why is Iosephs righteousnesse here made mention of?

I answer, [Answ.] because this newes gored him with a Dilemma: hee was (as it were) betwixt the Bulls hornes, and knew not which way to leane: hee was in a Straight, or Labyrinth, that he knew not how to winde himselfe out of: and in a Maze, that he scarce knew how to tread: for first, he was just, and therefore hee will not

• Not punish sinne; Justice re∣quireth, that sinne should be punished.
• Receive an adulterous wife, such as he conceived her to be.

for although hee were righteous, yet hee hated this wrong in her, adultery being odious to the best men.

Secondly, he was mercifull, and therefore he would not be so extreame unto her, or rigorous towards her, as to make her a publike ex∣ample.

§. 2. Was minded to put her away privily.] [Sect. 2] Here two things are observable; First the place in this verse used, not willing to make her a publike example; that is so publikely to punish her, that she might be an example unto others: but this I passe by. Secondly, the thing it selfe; he desires to spare her, and not at all to inflict any punish∣ment upon her: and hence a double question springs up.

Why would not Ioseph punish her? [Quest. 1]

Some say, because he was no Magistrate; this [Answ. 1] answer I adhere not unto, because private per∣sons may informe though not punish: yea they are (as it were) the eyes of the Magistrate, and therefore should informe, when any grosse enormities are committed.

I answer therefore, this was done, because of [Answ. 2] that conjugall love, that he bare towards her.

Againe, because of the fame, and rare estima∣tion, [Answ. 3] she had among all, for her unblameable by-past lyfe.

Lastly, because it was a private fault: and [Answ. 4] therefore he would not publikely shame her.

It will bee hence demanded againe, how was [Quest. 2] Ioseph a just and upright man, when hee would not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 make an adultrous wife a pub∣like example, seeing the law condemned her; and it is the part of a righteous man, to observe the law?

To this first I answer; he suspected her to be [Answ. 1] an adulteresse, but he was not sure of it, and ther∣fore being a lust man, he would not bee too rash in punishing. Secondly, the law of charity com∣mands [Answ. 3] us to cover a multitude of secret sinnes in

our brethren: and such this offence was, or seemed to bee; for indeede it was no sinne of uncleanenesse which the innocent and imma∣culate Virgin had committed, which was the cause of this suspition in Ioseph: but hee so con∣ceived of it, and therefore her fault not being as yet publikely divulged, hee would not make her a publike example.

[Answ. 3] Thirdly, a just man is not one, that is indued with universall Justice, but one which loves those things, which are honest and right: And thus Ioseph was a righteous man, loving in him∣selfe, and in others that which was good, and hating that which was evill, although hee did not punish this fault according to the tenor of the law: for justice is not contrary unto equity, neither doth alwaies perswade to use the utmost rigor of the law; and therefore Ioseph might be a just man, and yet shew this mercy, hee did un∣to Mary.

[Vers. 20] § 1. VERS. 20. But while he thought on these [Sect. 1] things, behold the Angell of the Lord appeared un∣to him in a dreame, saying; Ioseph, thou sonne of David, feare not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived of her, is of the Holy Ghost.

While he thought on these things.] That is pon∣dered them with himselfe.

[Quest. 1] First, It may hence be demanded, what man∣ner of reasoning was this that Ioseph had within himselfe?

[Answr.] I answer, his thoughts were these. 1. That it might be, shee was defiled, before her espousall unto him, and then she was to be married to the former party that had knowne her: and there∣fore he thought to have dismissed her, but clam sine clamore, privily, without making any word of it. Or 2. he thought, that it might bee shee was defiled, after shee was contracted unto him: but this thought hee presently recalles, charity not being suspicious; rather beleeving that shee was seduced, when shee was a maide, then when shee was a wife, rather simple forni∣cation then adultery, and therefore will secretely put her away. 3. he thinkes with himselfe, that though it should be so, that shee had played the adulteresse, yet he resolves that another shall pu∣nish her, and not hee: for, for his part (if it bee so as hee suspects) hee will neither free her nor persecute her: he will neither excuse nor accuse her: he will neither justifie nor condemne her. And thus before he will determine any thing, or execute any thing, [Observa.] he doth reason, & debate the matter long with himselfe: teaching us hereby, that in every weighty action wee undertake, it is good to deliberate, and take counsell with our selves.

[Quest. 2] Hence, it may likewise bee demanded; why doth Ioseph, or should wee thus deliberate of our actions, before they are effected or performed?

[Answ.] I answer, for these causes; First because God hath endued us with understanding, to direct us, and our actions thereby; sudden actions pro∣ceede from affection, not from judgement: and therefore wee should lay our hands upon our hearts, before we doe any thing of moment.

Secondly, because rashnesse is a forerunner of sorrow and punishment: the people of Israel rashly goe up to the hill top, and are discomfited by the Amalekitesq. Nabal answers Dauids ser∣vants inconsideratly: which had likely to have occasioned the ruine both of him and his.r Rehoboam, unadvisedly (or at least not well ad∣vised) answers Ieroboam and the Israelites; wherefore ten Tribes revolt from hims. Thus wee see all these were punished for want of due and mature deliberation in their actions: and so the Lord threatens that he will scatter Israel, Because they are a nation voide of counsell, neither is there any understanding in themt. Thirdly, be∣cause at the least the fruit of rashnesse is repen∣tance, as it was in Davids inconsiderate num∣bring of the peopleu: and Peters denying of his Masterx. Hence a third demand may be made; whether deliberation and delay, or procrastination, [Quest. 3] be all one? and if not, how they differ.

They differ thus, First, [Answ.] deliberation is before resolution, delay or cunctation is after resolution is fixed.

Secondly, deliberation is an act of reason con∣trary to affection: delay is is an act of the af∣fection contrary unto our knowledge: and therefore Abraham will not be overcome by af∣fectiony: nor Paul consult with flesh and bloodz: lest that affection had procured delay: And thus Ioseph deliberates against his love unto Mary, what to doe in this case with her, and un∣to her; and after this deliberation, without any further deferring had thought, privily to put her away. verse 19. Had he not beene forewarned the contrary by the Angell, in this verse.

Hence a further doubt may be raised: If all [Quest. 4] they doe well, that consult and take counsell be∣fore they execute their actions?

I answer, No; for proofe hereof, [Answ.] observe that there are divers sorts of men very faulty in those things, that are undertaken. First of all, some consult not at all, concerning that which they have in hand: as David towards Nabala, and towards Zibab; These are rash persons. Second∣ly, some consult weakely and childishly of their actions, as R••h••boamc, and Nabald; these are foolish persons. Thirdly, some consult with rea∣son, but captivated by affection, thus David to∣ward Absolome; these are weake persons, being overswayed by affection, not directed by judge∣ment. Fourthly, some consult with reason not subjected unto religion; thus did Pharaohf, and Ieroboamg, These are wicked persons: and all these foure forts either erre for want of consulta∣tion, or through weake and wicked consultation. Fiftly, some cōsult, but are not able to understand, or finde out that which they desire: and al∣though they use all endeavors, yet cannot pene∣trate into those things which are hid from them: thus did Davidh, and of this Paul forewarned usi, because herein we are alwaies in danger to erre, either by thinking amisse: and such was Io∣sephs consultation, who had, notwithstanding all his deliberation, punished an innocent person, if by the Angel hee had not beene admonished to the contrary, in this verse.

§. 2. The Angell of the Lord appeared unto him in a dreame.]

[Sect. 2] It may here bee asked, Is any faith, beleefe, or credit to be given to dreames? [Quest.]

[Answ. 1] I answer first, sometimes dreames are messen∣gers from God, according to his promise, your young men shall dreame dreamesk: and wee have many instances of such dreames, as for example, Ioseph. Gen. 37. Pharaohs baker. Gen. 40. Pha∣raoh himselfe. Gen. 41. and Ioseph in this verse. [Answ. 2] Now these dreames are to be beleeved. Second∣ly, dreames in times past were more ordinaryl, but the light of the Gospel hath now dispersed and expelled them; signes belonging to unbelee∣vers. Thirdly, Dreames now are alwaies doubt∣full, [Answ. 3] and therefore not lightly to be credited nor taken notice of: for the confirmation of this answer, observe some make a sixefold originall of dreames ^l thus: every dreame is either first, Naturall, or secondly Spirituall,m or thirdly Dia∣bolicall.

• Naturall dreames either proceede from causes
  • Internall to wit either
    • From the temper or temperature of the body: as fulnesse, emptinesse, or some change wrought in the humors of the body by sicknesse. This the first cause. Or,
    • From abundance or diversity of thoughts:n as when our friend is ab∣sent, wee dreame that hee is dead, or returned, or the like. This is the second cause.
  • Externall, proceeding from abundance of imployments. This is the third cause.
• Spirituall dreames are divine admonitions, and are of two sorts, either
  • Simply divine, as this Dreame of Iosephs, which was a divine admoniti∣on meerely from the Lord. This is the fourth cause. Or
  • Mixtly divine: that is when our dreames are spirituall, but mixed with some thoughts of our owneo. This is the fift cause.

There are diabolicall, wicked, and uncleane thoughts, or such dreames arising from such thoughts. And this is the sixt and last cause of Dreames.

[Answ. 4] I answer further, Dreames have their signifi∣cations, either first, as signes, or secondly, as causes.

Dreames have their significations, as Signes, and that either first, of things present, as drea∣ming of meat or drinke, argues hunger or thirst, &c. Or, secondly, of things to come; this is called a prediction, and is threefold; either First, Naturall and divine, as Galen tells of one (Crus lapideum balneo lotus, &c) who dreamed that bathing himselfe, his legges, and thighes were metamorphosed from flesh to flint.

Or, secondly, Diabolicall and wicked; the devill sometimes forewarning of things to come, to gain credit and beleefe with men. Or third∣ly, Divine, and these are to bee observed, and marked; and of this kinde was Iosephs dreamesp and the dreame which was dreamed by the wise men. Matth. 2.12.

Againe, dreames have their significations as causes, and that either,

• By illusion of Sathan. Or,
• By revelation from God and that either
  • Commanding, as in this verse, and Matt. 2.19.22.
  • Or, Forbidding, as Gen. 31.24.

[Answ. 5] And in all these three, we must carefully take heede of the illusions of Sathan, who can doe all these. Deut. 13.1. &c.

Lastly, all dreames do either

• First promise something, Or
• Secondly, terrifie and affright us, Or
• Thirdly, declare or shew something unto us.
• Fourthly, or admonish and advise us: and these are not altogether to be sleighted, but to be weighed and pondered, observing therein these conditions, viz.

First, doe not wholly believe them, but onely suspect, that they may be true.

Secondly, Procura, ne cura; if we can provide against what wee doubt and dreame of, doe it, but be not careful of the successe, nor fearefull for any dreame.

Thirdly, doe nothing upon a dreame, either against thy generall calling as thou art a Christi∣an, or against that particular calling, wherein God hath placed thee. More plaine and particu∣lar signes of divine dreames wee shall consider of (God willing) in another place.

[Sect. 3] §. 3. For that which is conceived in her is of the holy Ghost.

From the words it evidently appeares, that Christ is the true Sonne of God, or the onely be∣gotten Son of the true God. Not

First, onely man by nature, and Quasi Deus, as it were a God by grace, as the Arrians, Nestorians and divers others would have it. Nor

Secondly, onely God, and made Quasi homo, as it were a man, as the Maniches, Marcionites, and divers others falsly imagine. Nor

Thirdly, true God, and true man, but having the humanity created of nothing; as the Valen∣tinians and Wittcham hold, that Christ tooke not flesh of the Virgin Mary; and Servetus, that the body of Christ was compacted of three uncrea∣ted Elements (Beza. epist. 8. confess. Gal. art. 14) But

Fourthly, that in Christ are two natures uni∣ted by a hypostaticall conjunction: being Man of the flesh of his Mother, without a Father, and God of God his Father without a Mother. Now hence divers Quares may be made, of which briefly.

First, why was it necessary that Christ should [Quest. 1] be God? [Answ. 1]

I. Because man alone could not doe that which was requisite for our Redemtion viz.

First, satisfie Gods justice. And secondly, overcome and conquer death. And

II. Because neither could an Angell save us, or performe that which was to bee done, before we could be ransomed: that is,

First, an Angell could not dye. Nor, secondly overcome temptation for us. Nor thirdly, make us the children of God.

[Quest. 2] Secondly, Why was it necessary, that Christ should be man?

[Answ. 1] I. That he might dye: for God cannot, it being contrary to the nature of an immortall God, and without death there can bee no Re∣demption. And

[Answ. 2] II. That he might merit, which God cannot doe neither; because to merit is to procure unto ones selfe, that which otherwise they have not, nor is due unto them (Thom.) wherefore God cannot merit.

[Answ. 3] III. That he might apply his merit unto us; and therefore it was convenient, that hee should be like unto his brethren.

[Quest. 3] Thirdly, why was it necessary that the Son, the second person of the blessed Trinitie should be made Man?

[Answ.] Because he being the Character, and engraven Image of the Father (Heb. 1.3.) was most fit to restore and repaire againe the Image of God in us.

[Quest. 4] Fourthly, why was Christ begotten of the holy Spirit?

[Answ.] That hee might bee holy, pure, immaculate, and a lambe without spot, both in his generati∣on and conception.

[Quest. 5] Fiftly, why is the conception of Christ ascri∣bed to God the holy Ghost alone, seeing it is common to all the three persons in the blessed Trinitie?

[Answ. 1] I. This is not done to exclude the Father, or the Son himselfe from this work: but to signifie that it comes of the free gift and grace of God, (which commonly is tearmed by the holy Ghost) that the manhood of Christ, being but a creature, should bee advanced to this dignitie, and become a part of the Sonne of God.

[Answ. 2] II. The holy Ghost is the authour of this conception in a speciall manner: for the Father and the Sonne did cause it by the holy Spirit, from them both immediately. M^r Perkins.

[Vers. 21] VERS. 21. Shee shalt bring forth a sonne, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for hee shall save his people from their sinnes.

[Sect. 1] §. Thou shalt call his name JESUS.

[Quest. 1] Who was to name this child?

[Answ.] Ioseph, not Mary; for the Angell doth not say, vocabit, Mary shall call his name, but vocabis, thou shalt call his name Iesus. Hence some observe, that it belongs unto the Father to name the child.g

What must Ioseph call this child?

[Quest. 2] Iesus; Thou shalt call his name Iesus.

[Answ.] What signifies Iesus?

[Quest. 3] First it signifies a Saviour: observe here, that [Answ. 1] some derive this name from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to cure, heale, or give health, because hee is our best 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or [Answ. 2] Messias & Physitian of our souls. Others derive it from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to save or preserve in safety; from which comes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Saviour, or one who is the authour of salvation.

Secondly, these derivations are true in regard of the office of Christ, which was to save us; but are not according to the literall and grammati∣call derivation of it, which is this. Iesus comes from Iashang, or in Hiphill from Hosheang, which signifies to save; and hence in this verse the An∣gell first Propounds the name [Thou shalt call his name Iesus.] And then secondly, expounds it, for he shall save his People from their sinnes.

Is this name Iesus proper unto Christ? [Quest. 4]

First, no; for it was given unto others, three [Answ. 1] more having beene of the same name, one men∣tioned. 1 Chron. 24. another, 2 Chron. 31. and a third, the Authour of the booke of Ecclesiasti∣cus; for he is called Jesus the son of Sirach. There were two more also almost of the same name, Ioshuah that brought the People into the promi∣sed Land, and Ioshuah, who together with Zerub∣babel brought the people backe from Babylon 1 Esdr. 2. For Ioshuahs name hath in it onely one letter more, and signifies the salvation of the Lord.

Secondly, this name is given unto Christ [Answ. 2] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, after a more speciall and singular man∣ner, then unto any other, because he is the one∣ly begotten Sonne of God, who by himselfe hath purchased salvation for us.

§. 2. Iesus shalt thou call him.

Some observe that divers deepe and profound [Sect. 2] mysteries are included in this name Iesus,r many whereof I omit, referring the studious Reader to Petrus Galatinus ^k considering briefely of one or two onely. Jesus is a Triptote, declined onely by three terminations, Iesus, Iesum, Iesu, signi∣fying therby the three persons of the B. Trinity, in unity ever to be worshipped. Againe the first case ends in S. JESUS, the second in M. JESUM, the third in V. JESU, to teach us, that Christ is Summus, Medius, and Vltimus, the beginning the midst, and the ending, the first, and the last, yea all in all. Coloss. 3.11.

The Papists affirme that Antichrist shall be one particular man, [Obiect.] and shall have a certaine proper name, which shall not bee knowne untill his comming, but shall consist in certaine letters, which in number make six hundred sixtie six, (Bellarm. de Antichrist. Cap. 10. et Rhemist. s. Apoc. 13. §. 10.) And they argue from this verse thus: Antichrist shall have a name, as Christ had: but it is not necessary to be knowne, otherwise then Christ his name was; which was described by the Sybils by the number of eight hundred eighty, eight, as Antichrist is by six hundred sixty six: yet was not Christs name Iesus, perfectly knowne before his comming; neither therefore is it necessary, that Antichrists should, before that time. Iesus in Greeke letters, thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 maketh as you see eight hundred, eighty, and eight.

First, they must prove Antichrist to bee one [Answ. 1] singular man, as Christ, was, and then seeke out his name, for the arguments of our men to the contrary are not yet answered.

Secondly, Non est par ratio, the Sybils prophe∣cies, [Answ. 2] and Iohns Revelation are not Christian like

parallelled, Iohn having his Revelation from heaven, and the Sybils their predictions by a spi∣rit of divination.

[Answ. 3] Thirdly, the name Iesus hath some evidence out of the Prophets; for Iesus and Iesua, are all one, and both of them signifie a Saviour; but Iesua wee have mentioned Zachar. 3. it being the high Priests name, who was a type of Christ, and bare his name, vers. 5. upon whose head is set a Diadem, which must needs be understood of JESUS CHRIST our high Priest. Againe, JESUS is called HOSANNAs, which signifieth the same that JESUS, and is derived from the same root; translated SAVE US: and this name we finde Psalm. 118.25. And therefore the name of CHRIST may bee deduced from the Prophets.

[Answ. 4] Fourthly and lastly, if the name Iesus Christ, were revealed to Sybilla, an heathen prophetesse, how can it bee that the Prophets of God were ignorant of it? Therefore by their owne ar∣gument, seeing CHRISTS names were knowne before his coming, why should not Antichrists in like manner, if he should be one singular noto∣rious man, as they affirme?

[Sect. 3] §. 3. Thou shalt call his name Iesus.] Having observed something of the name Jesus, I come now to consider of the imposition of the name, and the reason of it. A question will here bee propounded:

Why is the Messias called Jesus? [Quest. 1]

I answer, [Answ.] because he will save his people from their sinnes: where we see, that his name is taken from his office; he must be called a Saviour, be∣cause hee will save his people: teaching us that names should be imposed upon infants, with rea∣son and discretion: that is, it were fit that sig∣nificant names should be given unto them.

How many sorts of names are there? [Quest. 2]

Some divide names into three rankes, [Answ.] Natu∣turall, Officiall, and Personall: this verse speakes onely of Personall names, therefore I forbeare the rest, and will speake onely of this.

Personall names are either, 1. changed after they are imposed. or 2. once imposed, and never chan∣ged. I. Names formerly given are sometimes changed, and that two manner of waies. First, by taking away the old names, as Saul was cal∣led Paul, and Abram, called Abraham. Second∣ly, by adding of new names unto the old, and that in a foure-fould regard; namely either

1. In respect of the Body, so wee call some men long, some thicke, some fat, according to their shape. Or II. in respect, of the minde, and so it is two-fold, either in regard of

• Vices, when men are named from their vitious natures, as Brutus, Biberius Mero (for Ti∣berius Nero) Sardanapalus, Helbrand for Pope Hildebrand, Or,
• Vertues, and that for a double cause
  • Either by reason of some praise, or praise-worthy vertue observed in them, as Philadelphus. Or
  • By reason of some admonition given to some vertue, as
    • ...Peter.
    • Boanerges. Or

III. In respect of some atchivements, or deeds that are, or have beene done, as Africanus, Scaevola. Or,

IV. In regard of fortunate, or unfortunate suc∣cesse in our enterprises; as Faelix, Faustus, Mara.t

2. Names are somtimes imposed, and alwaies retained, being never either left or changed: And herein observe these two things.

First, when these names are given.

Secondly, why or how they are given.

First consider when these names are given that are never changed. 1. Sometimes before the birth; hereof we have examples both in

• The old Testament as Ishmael Gen. 16.11. Isaac. Gen 17.19. Iosiah 1 King. 13.2. And New Testament; as Jesus in this verse and Iohn Baptist. Luk. 1.13

II. These names are somtimes given after the birth, both by heathens and Christians.

First, this is observed by heathens, who give names to their infants, some few dayes after their birth: the Grecians the seventh day after they are borne: the Athenians the tenth: the Romans, if a boy the ninth, if a girle the eight,u and all these in their solemnities, did use some lotions, and some manner of purging of the in∣fant, who was to be namedx.

Againe, this is observed by Christians, who at the Sacrament impose some name upon the Childe to be baptised; yea, it is fitting, that the name should be imposed upon the Childe, non cum natus, sed cum renatusy, not when hee is first borne, but when hee is borne againe, that is in Baptisme, it being the Sacrament of our regeneration, and initiation into the Church.

Secondly, consider wee now, how these names, which are not to bee changed, are impo∣sed upon children.

I answer. First, sometimes they are given casually, without any solid ground at all: this is too too ordinarie: for, so the childe have a name, we care not what it be.

Secondly, sometime they are imposed with reason, and judgement, and that three manner of wayes. Either I. by reason of Distribution, or Distinction, that severall children may bee distinguished by severall names. II. Or by rea∣son of Notation, of body, as Rufus, Simon, Sylla, Longimanus, &c. III. Or by reason of Recordation, or Remembrance. And this is two-fold. First of Men. And secondly, of Things.

Sometime names are imposed for the remembrance of men, and this is two-fold: either

• Politicke, which is either Or
  • Evill, for vain-glory, as Scanderbeg, Or Lawfull, for the remem∣brāce, either
    • Of kindred, now livingz, Or
    • Of predecessors, now dead. Or
    • Of friends, whether alive or dead.
• Religious, which remembrance is for the imitation of the Patri∣arches, Prophets, Apostles, or holy men, &c.

Sometimes names are imposed for the remembrance of Things. and that either, First, by-passed, as Evah, Enosh, or the children of Iosepha, and Naomi, who changed her name into Mara, in regard of her former losses and miseries. Or secondly, to come, and that either of Hope, as Benjamin, or of Office and Direction.

Direction in names is two fold, to wit,

• Imponendo, in the imposition of names: here thou maist direct and dispose of the name according to thy owne wishes and desires: and this is the office and part of the parent, to name his child, after what Patriarch, or Apostle, or Saint, he will.
• Recordando, this belongs unto those that are named, they must remember that their names, are for this end, that they may strive to imitate the vertues of those whose names they beare.

I have omitted to explaine the names here a∣bove mentioned, for these three causes. First because it would have swelled this question to too great a bulke: and tediousnesse (especially in these things which are lesse needful unto saving knowledge) I desire to avoyd. Secondly because to the vulgar Reader, they are not so necessary to be known. Thirdly, because of the understan∣ding Reader, which is but meanely Conversant in Histories, they are well enough understood.

[Sect. 4] §. 4. Hee shall save his people from their sinnes. Hence it will bee objected, [Obiect.] how are wee saved from our sinnes, when as yet wee fall daily into sinne, and are overcome by it?

[Answ.] To this I answer, by Christ wee are saved, first from the punishment of sin, or from death; for now there is no condemnation to those that are in Christb. Secondly, from the Kingdome of sinne; because it shall not raigne in, nor over those that are in Christc. Thirdly, and this free∣dome from the power and punishment of sinne, is our justification and salvation: And thus Christ here is said to save his people from their sinnes.

[Quest. 1] Further, it may here bee demanded, from what sinnes doth Christ save or free his people?

[Answ.] I answer from this verse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, From their owne proper sinnes: for these onely are they that condemne us.

[Quest. 2] Which are those proper sinnes from which Christ will save us?

[Answ.] I answer. First, those that lurke and lye hid in our natures, which are the cause of all the rest. Secondly, those actuall sinnes, that flow from these wicked habits, or at least spring from these reliques. And both these wee are freed from by Christ.

[Observ.] The maine worke of Christ, qua Iesus, as he is our Saviour, is that which is here expressed, to take away our sinnes; part of which power the Pope and Papists ascribe unto Saints, to the Vir∣gine MARY, and to themselves: Nay, the Pope doth shoulder for the whole power, and doth usurpe as much himselfe, as Christ can doe in that kinde: for this is all, Christ can doe, to for∣give his people all their sins fully and perfectly. And Pope Paul the fift did say, he would doe as muchd. Nay, they say, the Pope hath done more than Christ did: For Pope Clement the 8^th, gave indulgentiam plenariā, & remissionē omnium peccatorum, tam culpa quam poenae, a full forgivenes of all their sinnes, both in regard of the guilt, and of the punishment thereof: the last whereof they deny, that Christ hath done, in the doctrine of Satisfaction. Yea, the Pope hath done more than ever Christ did indeed, if all be true which they say: Gregory by his prayer did recall the soule of the Emperour Trajane from Helle; Christ never did the like. And thus wee see in regard of this principall blessing, (the forgive∣nesse of sinnes) which wee receive from Christ, Christ is opposed by the Pope: and therefore hee is rightly termedf, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Ad∣versarieg.

Againe, this verse serves to prove, that the Virgine Mary is not excepted from the common nature of men, neither free from originall sinne, thus: [Argum.] Those unto whom Christ by his death hath brought salvation, were guiltie of sinne: but unto the blessed Virgine Christ by his death hath brought salvation, and for her purchased salvation: Therefore the blessed Virgine was guiltie of sinne. The Major proposition is pro∣ved from this verse, and these places, Mark. 2.17. Rom. 5.6.7.8.9.10. and 4.25. and 1. Cor. 15.3. Galath. 3.13. 1. Pet. 3.18. The Minor proposition is confirmed from Luk. 1.46.47.48.49. and Act. 4.12. Yea, Bellarmine himselfe can sayh, Inter Catholicos convenit beatam virgi∣nem per Christi sanguinem verè fuisse redemptam, &c. The Papists doe generally among them∣selves agree upon this, and assent unto it, that the blessed Virgine was truly redeemed by the blood of Christ; and that which the Apostle sayth (2. Cor. 5.) Christ dyed for all men, is univer∣sally to be understood, without excepting of any.

But here they give us a testimony of their subtile Sophistry, [Reply.] acutely distinguishing of a double salvation in this manner: Christ is a Sa∣viour in a double respect, either for saving men already fallen into sin and condemnation: or else for sustaining and preserving them from falling: and in this sense onely he was a Saviour to the Virgine Mary, who was preserved only from sinne by Christ, not saved from her sins, which she had noti.

To this we answer, Christ is called JESUS, a Saviour, in this sense onely, because hee should [Answ. 1] save his people from their sinnes (in this verse) he was then either a Saviour unto Mary, or not at all; but her Saviour he was, as shee her selfe confessethk, therefore hee saved her from her sinnes.

[Answ. 2] Againe we answer, one cannot be said to bee a Saviour, if he save none: but Christ in their sense never yet saved or preserved any that they should not sinne at all; contra naturam pene est, ut aliquis fine peccato sitl. It is a thing against na∣ture for a man to be without sinne. No man or woman then was ever yet so preserved from sinne; wherefore in that sense Christ is not a Sa∣viour, but that he saveth, that is, delivereth us from sinnem.

[Vers. 22] VERS. 22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the Pro∣phet.

[Quest. 1] Why doth the Angel adde this prophecie to his message?

[Answ.] That thereby hee may confirme his message unto Ioseph: for in the message he brings, are two things observable. 1. the matter or substance of it, and that is the maine and chiefest doctrine of religion, to wit, our salvation by Christ: and therefore it was necessary that it should bee con∣firmed from the Prophets: the principles of reli∣gion being to bee groundedn upon Scriptures. 2. The manner of it, and that was miraculous in a double respect; both in regard of the ap∣pearing of the Angel, and also in regard of that divine conceptiō, which he preadmonished Ioseph of: and therfore to avoid all deceit which Joseph might imagine to be in this vision: the Angel cites the Prophecie, that so Ioseph might the more certainely give credit unto it: [Observ.] teaching us hereby that Miracles are to be confirmed by Scripture: thus the Angel doth here confirme his message from Esay 7.14. and againe, hee confirmes his message unto Zachary, Luke 1.17. from Malach. 4.6. both which were miraculous.

[Quest. 2] But hence it may be demanded, why are mi∣racles to be proved by Scripture?

[Answ. 1] I answer first, because delusions and false mi∣racles may be wrought by Sathan: Reade these places. Iannes and Iambres wrought miracles. Exod. 7.11.22. and 8.7. so 2 Tim. 3.8. Deut. 13.1, &c. Antichrist shall come with signes and lying wonders. Mat. 24.20. and 2 Thes. 2.9. and Revel. 13.14. and 16.14.

[Answ. 2] Secondly, because omnis confirmatio à fortiori∣bus, every confirmation must necessarily bee drawne from the greater, stronger, and more undeniable principles: but unto the faithfull there is nothing more strong then the word of God, and the holy Scriptures; whom they will rather beleeve, then one that should rise from the grave unto them: True it is, that the Apostels confirmed the Scriptures by Miracles unto un∣beleeverso: but the Angel here (unto faithfull and holy Ioseph) confirmeth his miraculous message by the Scripture: for unto beleevers. Religion is not to bee proved by Miracles, but Miracles by Religion.

VERS. 23. Behold a Virgin shall be with child, [Vers. 23,] and shall bring forth a sonne, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is by interpretation, God with us.

This verse is a recitation of a prophesie, from Esay 7.14. the scope of which prophecie is this, Achaz feares, Esai comforts him, and for the further strengthning of him offers a signe, which Achaz refuseth: the Prophet, disdaining this his obstinacie, doth repeate a generall signe, verse 14. adding a particular signe verse 14.16. [Observ.] The malice of the Jewes against Christ, and the truth of the Gospel doth evidently appeare by this place: for

First, they will not grant, that it is to bee un∣derstood [Obiect. 1] of Christ the Messias: but either first of Hezekiah; or secondly, of Shearjashub, the sonne of Achaz. Isa. 7.3. of thirdly, of some other of Achazes sonnes, whi••h was not as yet borne.

But to this I answer, [Answ.] the first and second were already borne; and how can the third be called Emmanuel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God and Man, without blasphemie?

Secondly, they object further, It is not likely [Object. 2] that the Prophet would give a remote signe of an approaching deliverance: or thus, the con∣ception and birth of the Virgin Mary could not be a signe unto Achaz, to whom it was promi∣sed and made, seeing it fell out 800. yeares at the least after Achazes death.

It is answered, first, the Prophet doth not [Answ. 1] give a remote signe of an approaching delive∣rance; for here are two prophecies, as followes by and by. Secondly, although the Prophet [Answ. 2] should doe thus, yet were it no new thing, there being divers instances of the like in Scrip∣turep.

Thirdly, This signe was not promised unto [Answ. 3] Achaz, that wicked King, that would not aske of God a signe, (Esay 7.) but unto the house of David, which continued unto the time that Christ was borne of the Virgin Mary; as ap∣peares by the genealogie of Christs drawne from David and Abraham, by Saint Matthew unto Ioseph, and consequently unto Mary, as hath beene aforesaidq.

The Jewes object againe, The following [Obiect. 3] scope doth shew that this is spoken of a child, either borne already, or to bee borne hereafter unto Achaz, verse 15.16.

I answer those two verses doe not belong to this child: for the proofe of this, [Answ.] see Iunij Pa∣arell. fol. 8.

They further object, the word Halma doth [Object. 4] not alwaies signifie a Virgin, but sometimes a young woman, who is married.

I answer, it signifies alwaies in Scripture a [Answ. 1] Virgin, except onely Prov. 30.19. where Halma is taken not for a pure Virgin, but for a Virgin in shew, or outward appeareance, as verse 20.

I adde one answer more, which may serve as [Answ. 2]

a generall solution of all these objections; That we have the testimony of the holy Spirit in this verse, confirming from heaven unto us, that this prophecie is meant onely of Christ the true Messias.

[Answ. 3] Lastly, because this question is not questioned amongst Christians, as also because othersr handle it something largely, I therefore pro∣secute it no further.

[Sect. 2] §. 2. Behold a Virgin shall bee with child, &c.] A Virgin in Hebrew is Halma, derived from the root Halam, which signifies to hide, because Virgins were wont warily to be retained, and de∣tained in their Fathers house, untill they were espoused: [Observ.] Teaching all Parents carefully to re∣gard the chastity of their daughters, and neither by ill examples, or too much liberty, or by suf∣fering them to frequent the society of wanton persons, endanger the staining of their Virginity.

Some hence may question, why are they so charily to be kept? [Quest.] they are filia bonae spei, very hopefull; vertue shewes it selfe in them, and therefore what neede is there to keepe them like Lyons in a grate, or birds in a cage? we hope wee may safely suffer them sometimes to runne and fly abroad.

I answer first; Casta est quam nemo rogavit, per∣swasion [Answ. 1] is strong, and there are subtile induce∣ments unto lewdnesse, and little doe we know whether they will hold out or yeeld, untill they be assaulted: and therefore the safest way is to preserve them from all cords of vanity, that draw on iniquitys, that is all occasions that may pro∣voke unto sinne.

Secondly, Nature is flexible, and youth easi∣ly [Answ. 2] to be seduced, the least sparke will set gun∣powder on fire: and dry flaxe burneth quickly: there is naturally some wantonnesse in young maides, as well as in young men; and therefore parents should bee the more carefull of them, giving no way to their wantonnesse, but circum∣spectly curbing, and warily restraining it.

Thirdly, Virginity is a Iewell never to bee [Answ. 3] recovered, being once lost: and therefore pa∣rents in regard of their owne reputation, and their childrens perpetuall credit, should have a carefull eye over them.

§. 3. His name shall be called Emmanuel, which [Sect. 3] being interpreted, is God with us.

Three things may bee observed from these words. 1. There is none so pure, but malice can deprave, no truth so infallible, but the perverse braine of man will object against it. 2. This verse evidently proves the deity of Christ, be∣cause this name Emmanuel given unto Christ, doth testifie that in the person of Christ, God is with us. i. e. united with our flesh. 3. yet there are some who dare oppose the truth of it.

Eniedinus, a Samosatenian Heretike doth here [Obiect. 1] object. It followes not that Christ is God, be∣cause he is called Emmanuel. 1. because many are said to be that which they are not. 2. Many have beene called Emmanuel, who were not Gods.

[Answ. 1] I answer first, It is blasphemie to say, that Christ is not that, which hee is called: for if so, their God should mocke and deceive his people, and Ioseph and Christ by a false name, which is blasphemy to utter.

Secondly, Other Emmanuels have nomen sive re, [Answ. 2] Christ nomen et re••••: others are onely so called, but unto Christ the name doth truely agree, hee having this name given unto him, to expresse the nature of his person: he being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the New Testament doth ever and anone con∣firme: as; the word became Flesh, and God was ma∣nifested in the Flesh, and the like phrases: And therefore he onely is the true Emmanuel.

It is very doubtfull (saith the same hereticall [Obiect. 2] objecter) whether Christ were called Emmanuel or not: because neither the Angel nor the E∣vangelist doe call him Emmanuel, but Iesus.

I answer, First, if hee bee Iesus the Saviour, [Answ. 1] then is hee God and man, because none could save us but such a one, as is proved before verse 20.

Secondly, God called Christ Emmanuel, not for [Answ. 2] this end, that it should bee the proper name of the Messias, but that it might signifie his wonder∣full person, mercy, and grace, in being God and Man, and becomming Man for us: and there∣fore the Angel (from that prophesie Esa. 7.14.) saith that in regard of his person he shall bee cal∣led Emmanuel, but his proper name shall be Iesus: Thou shalt call his name Iesus, verse 21.

VERS. 25. And Ioseph knew her not, [Vers. 25] untill shee had brought forth her first borne sonne, &c.

He knew her not Donec, untill, &c. that is, hee never knew her at all, for so Donec signifies; as it is said, Samuel saw not Saul, untill the day of his deatht, that is, hee never saw him after: the words here used are Greeke, but the phrase He∣brew, for this is frequent in the Old Testament, as Michal had no child untill the day of her death. i. e. she had no more children at all afterwards.

That Ioseph never knew Mary at all, the Church hath alwaies held, and that for these reasons.

First, because it doth establish an Article of out faith, natus ex Virgine, that is, of one who was a Virgin, when he was borne (and this is of ab∣solute necessitie to be beleeved) yea continued a virgin all her life time after; and this we are ve∣rily perswaded of.

Secondly, because the Fathers with an una∣nimous consent, have both alwaies called her Virgin, and also held this opinion: condemning those for heretickes that thought the contrary, as may be seene in Epiphanius, Augustine, Hierom, and divers other Fathers.

Thirdly, some of the Fathers, and Gualter (upon these words) for the proofe of this opi∣nion, have argued from the Prophet; saying:x This gate shall bee shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it, because the Lord the God of Israel hath entred in by i•• ••herefore it shall be shut: But this reason ser•••••••• not of much weight, that place not bearing it, without allegorizing the place, as shall (God willing) bee shewed else where.

Fourthly, it is not likely, that Ioseph being a just man would know her, whom hee knew to bee

the Mother of his Lord: or expose to a common use, that vessell which the Lord had thus sancti∣fied; especially considering that he was of the age of 80. yeares when he was contracted to her, as saith Epiphanius.

[Obiect. 1] But against this opinion, Helvi••••us, Nestorius, Ievinianus, and divers others object many things.

[Answ.] First from the phrase of Scripture used in this former verse, where she is called his wife (he tooke unto him his wife.)

Hereunto I answer, There may be matrimo∣ny without carnall knowledge: this appeares most plainely from the lawy. If a Damosell, that is a Virgin be b••tr••••••ec•• unto a husband, and a man finde her and lie with her, he shall be stoned to death, because he hath humbled his neighbours Wife: Be∣sides, Marriage is not congressu•• carnis, but cons••n∣sus voluntatumz, not the conjunction of the flesh, but the mutuall consent of wills.

[Object. 2] Secondly, from the phrase of Scripture used in this verse, where Christ is called her first borne, implying thereby that Mary had more children afterwards.

[Answ. 1] To this I answer, first, it is not simply said priu••••genitus, the first borne, but primogenitus i••••e, that first borne, to wit, of Goda.

Secondly, primogenitus, the first borne, is one before whom none was before, not one after whom some others were borneb. Primogenitus est, non post quam alij, sodante qu••m nullus alius genitus est. But they instance here, This Vntill is a relative word, and therefore cannot goe alone, a man cannot properly bee called a first borne sonne, and an onely sonne.

[Answ.] It is true, but withal know, that there is a double relation, viz. in esse, & in posse, in entity (or being) or in possibility: thus the child that first opens the wombe is called Pri••••g••nitus, the first borne because although there bee in being, but one, [Obiect. 3] yet in Possibility there may be more.

Againe from hence they object, He knew her not Vntill she had brought forth &c. this Vntill im∣plies [Answ. 1] that afterwards he did know her.

First, it may be answered, Cogn••stere est i••••el∣ligere mysteriumc, to know is to understand the mysterie revealed unto him by the Angel, that is untill Christ was borne, he did not truely and fully understand this wonderfull and profound mystery.

Secondly, Donec, untill, doth denie the time foregoing, not imply the time following: it doth exclude all time by-past, but not include the time to come: he knew her not untill she had brought f••••••h her first borne; this doth plainely prove that he knew her not before, but not in∣ferre that he knew her afterwards: for Do•••••• is often a note of perpetuity, as donec pona•• inj••••co•• scabell••̄d, untill I have made t••ine enemies thy f••••••∣st••••le. i. e. for ever. I am with you (saith our Sa∣viour) usque ad sinem secu••••e, untill the end of the world, that is, in seculum seculorum, World without end.

The Papists very well like and allow of this exposition, of Donec, ••••••ill, and therefore I would entreate them not to urge that Donec in the parable so vehemently, as they dof. Thou shalt not come out, Donec, untill thou haue paid the utmost furthing: the Papists urge this Donec against us for the proofe of Purgatorie, in the same man∣ner, that Helvidius, Nestorius, and their adhe∣rents doe both against us and them urge Donec here, to prove that Ioseph carnally knew Mary: And therefore it is not fit for them, to make of the Scripture a nose of waxe. But I shall consi∣der of that in his proper place.

The forenamed Heretikes object againe, from [Object. 4] the testimonies of the ancients, who say that af∣terwards Ioseph knew Maryg.

To this I answer, Clavus clavo pellendus; wee have more of the ancients that deny this, then affirme it: And therefore if their Testimony be of value, it will be concluded on our side.

Further they object, Christ had brethren, [Obiect. 5] Iames and Ioses, Simon and Iude: and it is said unto Christ, thy brethren seeke thee: therefore, Ioseph afterwards knew his wife.

I answer first, the Scripture usually calls Cosen [Answ. 1] Germans, Brethren: So Lot is called the brother of Abraham, and so Iames was the sonne of Ma∣ry Cleophas: And thus Iosephs brothers, or sisters children, or Maries sisters children are the bre∣thren of Christ.

Secondly, others answer, that Ioseph married [Answ. 2] after the death of Mary, and that the sonnes he had by that wife were called Christs brethren: of this opinion is Danaush. But if Ioseph were (according to Epiphanius) 80 yeares old, when he was contracted unto Mary, who was alive when Christ was crucified, 34 yeares after, it is not probable that hee married or had children, [Answ. 3] when he was 114. yeares old at the least.h

Thirdly, others thinke (to which I rather subscribe) that Ioseph had another wife before Mary, by whom he had fixe children. [Obiect. 6]

Lastly, they object, Ioseph tooke her home in stead of a wife, verse 24. therefore it is likely, [Answ.] that he knew her.

I answer, he tooke her not home for carnall copulation: but first, that he might defend her, both from the lash of tongues and humane lawes. Secondly, that he might provide for her and the infant, as is foreshewed verse 18.

And therefore I conclude this verse, Chap∣ter and controversie, That although it bee not Determined by Scripture, yet because first there is no Scripture against it. Secondly, because there is (in a manner) a generall consent and a∣greement of Fathers for it: And thirdly, be∣cause it is very agreeable unto reason; it is not therefore lightly to be denied or gainesayed by any.

Notes

• g

  Luk. 3.23.
• h

  Eut. 1. l. 1. Cap. 10.
• i

  1 Tim. 1 & Tit•••• 3. Answer.
• Eccles. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 4.
• k

  Gen. 22.18. 2 Sam. 7.12.
• l

  Chamie∣rus Tom. 3. f. 115. Sect. 18.19.20.21. Vers. 2. Observa.
• m

  Rom. 4.19.
• n

  Phil. 2.8.
• o

  Hier. s.
• p

  Chrysost Hom. 3. op. imperf.
• q

  Ambr. in. Luke 3. Vers. 8.
• r

  Joram whose son was Aha∣zias, whose sonne was Ioas, whose sonne was Amaziah, whose son was Ozias
• s

  Pareus s.
• t

  1 Chro. 3 17. Reconci∣liation.
• u

  1 Chro. 3.17.
• x

  I••••••. 22.30.
• y

  Luke 3.27.
• z

  Tremel∣lius.
• Reconci∣liation.
• Tract. 6. f. 623, 624.
• b

  1 Tim. 6.8.
• c

  Ioh. 3.6.
• d

  Numb. 36.8, 9.
• e

  Num. 26.33. & 27.7. and 36.2.6.
• f

  Rom. 1.3. and 2 Tim. 2.8. and Apoc 22.16.
• Fable.
• Hier. s.
• h

  Hier. s.
• i

  Hier. s.
• k

  Pareus. s.
• l

  Heir. ad∣vers. Hel∣vidium.
• m

  Dion. Carthus. s.
• n

  Deut. 22.21,
• o

  Pro. 22.1. Eccles. 7.3.
• p

  Luke 1.28.
• q

  Num. 14 44, 45.
• r

  1 Sam. 35.10.13.
• s

  1. King. 12.8.16.
• t

  Deut. 32.28.
• u

  2 Sam. 24.10.17.
• x

  Mat. 26.75.
• y

  Gen. •• 23. & 3.
• z

  Gal. 1 16.
• a

  1 Sam. 25.13.
• b

  2 Sam. 16.4
• c

  1 King. 12.12.
• d

  1 Sam. 25.10.
• e

  2 Sam. 18.5.
• f

  Exod. 1.10.
• g

  1 King. 12.28.
• h

  Psalm. 73.15.
• i

  Rom. 1••.33.34.
• k

  Ioel 2.2••. Act. 2.17.
• l

  1. Sam. 28.6.15.
• m

  Creg. Moral. 8. s. Iob. 7.
• n

  Eccles. 5.2.
• o

  Iob. 7.14
• p

  Matth. ••:13.
• Exposi∣tion.
• g

  Chrysost. Op. Imper.
• r

  P. Galat. lib. 3. c. 20.
• λ	10
  η	8
  σ	200
  ο	70
  υ	400
  ς	200
  	888
• s

  Ioh. 12.13. Read D. Willet Sy∣nops. f. 230.
• Observa.
• t

  Ruth. 1.20.
• u

  Plut∣quaest. cent. rom. qu. 102.
• x

  Rhod. è festo Pomp
• y

  Muscul. s. Genes.
• z

  Luk. 1.61
• a

  Gen. 49.
• b

  Rom. 8.1.
• c

  Rom. 6.14.
• d

  Iubil. Paul. 5. an∣no 1620.
• An. 1592
• e

  Revel. Briget. li. 4. ca. 13.
• f

  2 Thess. 2.4.
• g

  Squire s. 2 Thes. 2.4. f. 152.
• h

  Li 4. de amiss. gra. cap. 16.
• i

  Francis∣cani Fox. pag. 801.
• k

  Luke 1.47.
• l

  De••ret. part. 1. dist. 25. ca. 3. Gloss.
• m

  D. Wil∣let. Sy∣nops f. 1321.
• n

  2 Tim. 3.16.
• o

  Cor. 14.2••.
• Exposit.
• p

  Vide Iu∣nii Parall, fol. 8.
• q

  Pareus s.
• r

  Mayer s. & Pare∣us s.
• Exposit.
• s

  Esa. 5.18.
• Observa.
• Exposit.
• t

  1. Sam. 15.35.
• 1. Sam. 6.23.
• x

  Ezech. 44.2.
• y

  Deut. 22 23.24.
• z

  August.
• a

  Gualter.
• b

  Danaeus è Iustinia∣no, & Hi∣er contra Helvid. Reply.
• c

  Gualt. ex Epiphanio.
• d

  Psalm. 110.••.
• e

  Matth. 28.20.
• f

  Matth, 5.26.
• g

  Danaeus. Answ.
• h

  De haeres f. 166.
• h

  Danaeus de haere. f. 224.