Page images

putabant nonnulli effe, (ex traditione Hebræorum fumptâ occasione, ex evangelio quod titulum habet juxta Petrum, aut ex libro lacobi) filios Joseph ex priore uxore, quæ convixerat ipfi antequam duceret Mariam, in Mat. 13.55. This Hacobus mentioned by Origen, is the same with him whom Eustathius mentions in Hexainero, "Ažlov isoey árázsere meicivics Maeras 'loxwbés Tis érindv. Where he reckons Joseph inter ro's yngstoras' and Epiphanius calls Pláxw66 Eleaños. S. Hierome therefore observing that the former opinion of Joseph's Sons was founded merely upon an Apocryphal Writing, and being ready to assert the Virginitry of Joseph as well as Mary, first invented the other Solution in the kindred of Mary, as founded not only in the Language; but also testimony of the Scriprures. Quidam fratres Domini de alia uxore Jofeph filios fufpicantur, sequentes delirimenta Apocryphorum, & quandam Escham mulierem confingentes. Nos autem ficut in libro quem contra Helvidium scripfimus continetur, fratses Domini non filios Joseph, fed consobrinos Salvatoris, Mariæ liberos intelligimus materteræ Domini, quæ esse dicitur mater Jacobi minoris & Joseph & Judze, quos in alio Evangelii loco fratres Domini legimus appellatos. Fratres autem confobrinos dici omnis Scriptura demonstrat. S. Hieron. in Matth. 12. 49. After S. Hieron. S. Aug. embraced this Opinion : Consanguinei Virginis Mariæ fratres Domini dicebantur. Erat enim consuetudinis Scripturarum appellare fratres, quoslibet confanguineos & cognationis propinquos, in Joh. Tract. 28. item Tract. Io. O contra Fauftum l.22. 35. Although therefore he seem to be indifferent in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians, Jacobus Domini frater, vel ex filiis Joseph de alia uxore, vel ex cognatione Mariæ matris ejus, debet intelligi: yet because this Exposition was written while he was a Presbyter. and those before mentioned after he was made a Bishop: therefore the former was taken for his undoubted Opinion, and upon his and s. Hierome's Authority hath been generally since received in the Latin Church.

And yet this difficulty, tho’usually no farther considered, is not fully cleared; for they which impugned the perpetual Virginity of the Mother of our Lord urged it farther, pretending that as the Scriptures called them

the Brethren of Christ, fo they also shewed them to be the Sons of Mary Matth.13.55. the Mother of Christ. For first the Jews express thern particularly by their

Names, Is not his Mother called Mary ? and his brethren James and 70fes, * From this and Simon, ard Judas ? * Therefore Fames and Fofes iete undoubtedly the place Helvidi- am

2.- brethren of Christ, and the same were also as unquestionably the Sons of Hæc eadem Mary: For among the Women at the Cross we find a Mary Magdalen, and vocabula in 3

i loco no- Mary the Mother of James and Jofes. Again, this Mary they think can be minari, & no other than the Mother of

her than the Mother of our Lord, because they find her early in the eosdem effe Morning at the Sepulchre with Mary Magdalene and Salomé ; and it is fratres Do- ? mini ilios not t probable that any should have more care of the Body of the Son than Mariæ. s. the Mother. She then who was certainly present at the Cross, was not Hier: adverbi probably absent from the Sepulchre: Wherefore they conclude, she was the from the next Mother of Christ, who was the Mother of James and Jofes, the Brethren of he concluded, Chrif Ecce Jacobus & Jofes, filii Mariæ, quos Judæi fratres appellârunt. a Matth. 27.56. b Mark 16.1. Here Helvidius exclaiming triumphed, Quam miserum erit & impium de Maria hoc sentire, ut cum aliæ fæminæ curam sepulturæ habuerint, matrem ejus dicamus absentem !

And now the urging of this Argument will produce a greater clearness in the solution of the question. For if it appear that Mary the Mother of James and Jofes was different and distinguished from Mary the Virgin ; then will

it alfo be apparent that the Brethren of our Lord were the Sons of another John 19. 25. Mother, for fames and Jofes were so called. But we read in S. John, that

there stood by the Crofs of Jefus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary Matth.27.56. the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. In the rest of the EvangeMark 15:40. lists we find at the same place Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Matth. 28.1. James and Jofes; and again at the Sepulchre, Mary Magdalene and the o

ther Mary: wherefore that other Máry by the conjunction of these Testimonies appeareth to be Mary the wise of Cleophas, and the mother of James

and Jofes; and consequently James and yoses, the Brethren of our Lord, * Jacobus qui appellatur fta- were not the Sons of Mary his Mother, but of the * other Mary, and thereter Domini, fore called his Brethren, according to the language of the Jews, because that

to the other Mary was the Sister of his Mother. Justus,ut non- c o. nulli existimant, Joseph ex alia uxore, ut autem mihi videtur, Mariæ fororis Matris Domini, cujus Joannes in libro fuo meminit, filius. S. Hieron. in Catalogo. Sicut in Sepulchro ubi pofitum eft corpus Domini, nec antea nec poftea mortuus jacuit: fic uterus Mariæ nec antea nec poftea quicquam mortale suscepit. S. Aug. in Job. Tract. 28.


Notwithstanding therefore all these pretensions, there can be nothing found to raise the least fufpicion of any interruption of the ever-blessed Maroy's perpetual Virginity, For as she was a Virgin when the conceived, and


[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

to the rį!

after the brought forth our Saviour; so did she continue in the fame state and condition, and was commended by our Saviour to his beloved Disciple, as a mother only now of an adopted son:

The third Consideration belonging to this part of the Article is, how this Virgin was a Mother, what the foundation was of her maternal relation to the Son of God, what is to be attributed unto her in this sacred Nativit the immediate work of the power of the Highest, and the influence of the Holy Ghoft. For we are here to remember again the most ancient form of this Article, briefly thus delivered, Born of the Holy Ghost, and the Virgin . .., Mary; as also that the word * Born was not taken precisely for the Nativity * rebirge of our Saviour, but as comprehending in it whatsoever belonged to his human Generation; and when afterward the Conception was attributed to the Spirit, the Nativity to the Virgin ; it was not so to be understood, as if the Spirit had conceived him, but the blessed Virgin by the power and operation of the Spirit.. .

First therefore we must acknowledge a true; real and proper Conception, by which the Virgin did conceive of her * own substance the true and real sub- * Tantum ad stance of our Saviour, according to the prediction of the Prophet, Behold a nativitatem

a carnis ex fe Virgin hall conceive, and the Annunciation of the Angel, Bebold, thou dedit, quánMalt t conceive in thy womb. From whence our Saviour is expressly termed tum ex

fæminæ eby Elizabeth, a the I fruit of her womb.


corporuin fusceptis originibus impendunt. S. Hilar. I. 10. de Trinit. That is, by à proper Conception, Curabitur cs mesei che Syriack in one word 73 ac fi diceres, ventrescere. So the Lxx. translated the simple : 107, á gäsei able). As therefore cv yasei a Xev expresseth a proper Gravidation, so doth cv yasei Cuanabaty a proper Conception. According to that expression of Gregory Nazianzen, Jerãs , öti xoeis árdegsevgwtixãs Ö, Őri vórego xvhciws. Ep. I. ad Cledon.

a Luke 1. 42. Heb. U2 in .

Secondly, As she did at first really and properly conceive, so did she also nourish and increase the fame body of our Saviour, once conceived by the true Substance of her own; by which the was found with child of the Holy Matth.l.i8. Ghost, and is described going with Jofeph to be taxed, cbeing great with, Luke 2. 5. child, and pronounced happy by that loud cry of the woman in the Gospel, ***

šon ilxúco. d Blessed is the womb that bare theě.

d Luke 11.27. * Thirdly, When Christ was thus conceived and grew in the womb of the rochiq i Basán

obrá re. blessed Virgin, the truly and really did bring forth a Son by a true and proper incon Parturition ; and Christ thereby was properly born by a * true Nativity. For emeletes as we read, e Elizabeth's full time came that she should be delivered, and Kieros ipar,

** มีอะไร The brought forth a Yon; so in the like simplicity of expression, and propriety has create or of speech, the fame Evangelist speaks of Mary,' The days were accomplished Cápsze rào that she should be delivered, and she brought forth her firft-born rón. Si Sirmione

... sej drevepov Siš, Wherefore from these three, a truc Conception, Nutrition and Parturition, We Suppliers et we must acknowledge that the blessed Virgin was f truly and properly the Mo- anoős en wees

In dév8. Ig. Epift. ther of our Saviour. And so is the frequently styled the Mother of Jesus in die somer the language of the Evangelists, and by Elizabeth particularly the mother of Luke 1.57. her Lord, as also by the general consent of the Church ( because he which i Luke 2:6, 7.

Veri & prowas fo born of her was God,) the * Deipara; which being a compound title prii filü quis

nisi absurdiffimus neget verè & propriè esse matrem? Facundus l. 1. c. 4. Hoc & ad credendum difficile, & dignum controversia videbatur, utrum Deum illa Virgo genuerit: cæterùm quod verè & propriè genuerit, quicquid est ille quem genuit, nulli dignum disceptationis apparet. Ibid. nãs gS Š 8076x@ gj De er sjór X894. Theod. Abucara. ** This name was first in use in the Greek Church, who delighting in the happy compositions of that language, called the blessed Virgin Osolóxov. From whence the Latins in imitation styled her Virginem Deiparam & Deigenitricem. Meursius in his Glossary sets the Original of this Title in the time of Justinian. Inditum hoc nomen eft matri Domini ac Servatoris noftri Jesu Chrifti à Synodo V. Constantinopolitana tempore Justiniani. Whereas this was not the Original, but the Cone firmation, of that Title. In hac Synodo Catholicè eft inftitutum, ut Beata Maria semper, virgo orolóx@ diceretur: quia, ficut Catholica fides habet, non hominem solum, sed verè Deum & Hominem, genuít. Paul. Warnef. de Geft. Longobard. 1. 6. c. 14. 5o Speaketh be of the same Synod : and 'tis true, for the seventh Canon of the same runneth thús, Εί τις 4 αναφορων και καταχρησικώς Θεοτόκον λί ταγίαν, ένδοξον, άιπαρθένου Μαρίαν - άλλα μη κυρίως και κατ' αλήθειαν Θεολόκον αυτω ομολογώ -ο τοιύτG- ανάθεμα ίσω. Otherwie in this Council was but confirmed what had been derers mined and settled long before: and therefore Photius says thereof, avom j Embeda Nesoeie war ta minegi ago Quépifwa



défugla ás to r eads sebéesce, that it utterly cut off the Herefie of Neftorius which then began to grow up again. Now part of the Herélie of Neftorius was the denyal of this Oc07ón, and the whole was nothing else but the ground of that denyal. And therefore being he was condemned for denying of it, that Tirle must be acknowledged authentick which he denied from the time of the Council of Ephesus; in which those Fathers; saith Photius exprefly, Fw eve xpq7ov HTML5 Dévov (Xersó) umliege xupios se camomis mererat, rj coupnutias 607óxov a Sgdodáxari, Epift. 1. And that it was so then is manifeft,' because by the deny al of this the Neftorian Herefie was first discovered, not in Neftorius himself but in bis Presbyter Anaftafius, who firft in a Sermon magisterially delivered, Osolókov † Magice sucro pandéis. Soc. Eccl. Hift.1.7. 0.31. and Liberat. Breviar. C. 4. as alfo Euagrius and Nicephorus. Upon whicle words arising a Tumult. Neftorius took his Presbyter's part, teaching the same Doctrine conftantly, in the Church, we By Tex et aéžov cóx@ inberra And hereupon the Tumult grew so great, that à general Council for that reason was called by Theodofius Jun. tõ Net sopis cyar Magicos Bivar eolóxov isgosipeffus, as Justinian testifeth, Ep. ad V. Synodur. In which, when all things seemed clearly to be carried against Neftorius and his faction, he hoped to have reconciled all by this feigned Acknowledgment, deyiah w c 06076x@ » Magic, es wawacat w ta xutmeg. Soc. l. 7. 6. 34. Liber, Brev. c. 6. Ii is plain then that the Council of Ephesus, which condemned Neftorius, confirmed this Title €076x@, I say, cowfirmed it; for 'ris evident that it was before used in the Church, by the Tumult which arose at the first deryal of it by Anaftafius ; and fo confirmed it as received before, because they approved the Epistles of s. Cyril, who proved it by the usage of those Fathers which preceded him. Where by the way it is observable, that while S. Cyril produceth nine several Fathers for the use of this Word, and both before and after he produceth them, affirmeth that they all did use it, there are but three of them who exprelly mention it, Athanafius, Antiochus and Ammon, Epift. ad Reginas. And it is fomething to be admired that he mould so name the other fix, and recite those places out of them which had it not, when there were before him so many telide them that used it. As Gregory Nazianzen, Ei tos š 0807óxov Magic Amharboud, xogos ési Jeória; Epift. as Cledonium, and in his first Oration de Filio, Speaking of the difference of his generation from that of others, wig cr Tois coñs fuaus 06076xor womprévar, and S. Bafil asserteth, un salade me aj o piroxe is wv T axoli, öts w078 izoralo birou wwelec j 9507ór@. Hom. de Nat. Christi. And that in the time of s. Bafil and S. Gregory this term was usual, appeareth by the objection of Julian, who derided the Chriftians for thinking God could be born of a woman; 0807óxor suas ó Este Magia koorego S. Cyr. Tom. 6. Before both these Eusebius Speakech of Helena, who built a Church at Bethlehem; 'H Bariadsaj 9coorbesátu od 06076x8 cm xúnou pokucao Javpasois xalexóoud. de vita Conit. l. 3. And before Eusebius, Alexander Bishop of Alexandria; biras xi yéfoney • Kúpia huôn Inoős Xersos, Cauce popérais ambūs, sy Š do-. xúcs, is is 50%6x8 MagiasEp. ad Alex. apud Theod. l. 1. c.4. Before him Dionyfius Alex, calls our Saviour Cagxoeveč in pa ayies auglévy O 507óxx Magias. Epift. ad Paulum Samosat. And speaking of the words of Isaiah, a Virgin shall conceive, serruri oro colór Tuvad (wéad@ev, s wegler dynerótt. Refp. ad Quaft. 5. And in the Answer to

be Jane quelion, sySpac ai kaws, $ x = 2 vị đuaw T8 vlss a devaso Can T8 Đè8, Magie s eta exo, os ar apbevos. And again, stwori abyd sy oes to frinbeylos cue of Ocolóx8. In the Answer to the 7th Question, Alda φαΓαν άς Αίγυπ7ον τ Ιωσέφ άμα τη Θεωγόκω Mαρία ώ ακάλαις Φερέση 7 καταφυγω ημών, and 6 often. Nay yet before him Origen did not only use, but expound at large the meaning of that title Ocolóxos, in his first Tome on the Epistle to the Romans, as Socrat. and Liberat. teftifie. Well therefore did Antiochus Bishop of Antioch urge the ancient Fathers against Neftorius, calling it wegcoegu ovopece sj telesne pefyon waldois i Maliqwr. And again, Nandos o 11e76gwe sej w sodv, os recepiv, es pnbér. Tôtoys Toi o vopce, fays be, idei's ñ 'Exranote5ixão dodaorána waghong oi të gs xence puoi atas Tool micauoi, o T xe poet 8x iathại6ove * x revior. Concil. Ephef. . I. . 25. * * Although begin in the Greek Church, was resolved into its parts by the Latines, and Otolóxos may the Virgin was plainly pamed the * Mother of God. be extended to 10 CIC V Igui fignifie as much as the Mother of God, because tix les doth sometimes denote as much as gfuvão, and therefore it hath been translated Dei Genitrix, as well as Deipara; yet those ancient Greeks which call the Virgin Ocolóxos, did not call her renliege og Org. Bus the Latins translating Of07óxos, Dei genitrix, and the Greeks translating Dei genitrix Soš putns, they both at last called her plainly the Mother of God. The first which the Greeks observed to Ryle her so was Leo the Great, as was observed by Ephraim Patriarch of Theopolis, whose words have been very much mistaken by two learned men, Dionysius Petavius and Leo Allatius, who have produced them to prove that Leo Magnus was the first man which ever used the word 107680s. A strange error this must needs appear in fo great a person as a Patriarch, and that of the Greek Church; and indeed not imaginable, considering how well he was versed in those controversies, and how he compared the words of Leo with those of the ancient Greek Fathers, and particularly of S. Cyril. His words are these in his Epistte ad Zenobium, figūtos en syios ném idixãs HATEV auraus nigroi, ws pútne Jeð isin saiyice $07óxos, iš aeg autó walipai Algapuriors pópuri penerato Ocepetíam. That is, Leo was the firft who in plain terms called the 807óxos, that is, Mary, the Mother of God; whereas the Fathers before him spake not the same in express words. Petavius and Allatius have clearly mistaken the Propofition, making the subject the Predicate, and the Predicate the subject, as if he had first called the Mother of God 06076x0s, whereas he is said first to call the 0607óxos Mother of God, as appeareth by the Artitle added to the Subject, not to the Predicate. But if that be not fufficient, his meaning will appear by another paffage to the same purpose, in bis Epiftle ad Syncleticum; "Oso poléage Jeð azūros ñ 'Enca debet arbitev, rois aínda Και πόθεν μοι τύτο, ίνα ή μήτης τη Κυρία με έλθη πρός με ; Cαφέςερον ή άλλων ταύτα τ' λέξιν πρώτος ο όσιος Λέων και Tamids #eguvefxe. Therefore as he took the Lord and God to be synonymons; so he thought. Elizabeth firft styled Mary the Mother of God, because she called her the Mother of her Lord; and after Elizabeth, Leo was the first who plainly Styled ber fo; that is, the Mother of God. And that we may be yet farther assured of his mind, he produced the words of Leo the Pope in his Epistle to Leo the Emperor': 'Ayezbemaliditw Nesógios, o m peragiær sj 9c07óxov Magic oxi 18, avegamy nóvor, wisów diven untéege. The sentence which he translates is this, Anathematizetur ergo Neftorius, qui beatam Virginem Mariam non Dei, fed hominis tantummodo, credidit genitricem. Epift. 97.6. 1. Where plainly genitrix Dei is tranfated witne org, and 607óxos is added by Ephraim out of cuftom in the subject, being otherwise not at att in Leo's words. It is therefore certain that first in the Greek Church they termed the blessed Virgin olóros, and the Latins from them Dei genitrix, and mater Dei, and the Greeks from them again uárne Jeğ, upon the authority of Leo, not taking notice of other Latins who styled her so before him. * Latins who joylea ner Jo before bim..

. - 2110''

A **s The necessity of believing our Saviour thus to be born of the Virgin Mary,

vorges will appear both in respect of her who was the Mother, and of him who echt was the Son.

In respect of her it was therefore necessary, that we might perpetually preserve an esteem of her person proportionable to fo high a dignity. It was her


anot * Helisabet &

own prediction, a From henceforth all generations Mall call me blessed; but · Luke i 48. the obligation is ours, to call her, to esteem her so. * If Elizabeth cried Non æquan

cu da eft mulieout with so loud a voice, Blessed art thou among women, when Christ was ribus cunctis, but newly conceived in her womb; what expressions of Honour and Admi- quæ genuit ration can we think sufficient now that Christ is in Heaven, and that Mo-"

majeftatem. ther with him? + Far be it from any Christian to derogare from that sp ial de fingular.

Clericorum. privilege granted her, which is incommunicable to any other. We ca bear too reverend a regard unto the Mother of our Lord, so long as we give Zacharias nos her not that worship which is due unto the Lord himself. Let us keep the docere poflanguage of the Primitive Church : #Let her be honoured and esteemed, let in ferman him be worshipped and adored.

sunt B. Mariæ

matri Domini fan&titate. quae conscia in se habitantis Dei liberè proclamat, Ecce ergo ex hoc beatam me dicent omnes generationes, S. Hier.adv. Pelag. l. 1. Ablir ut quisquam S. Mariam divinæ gratiæ privilegiis ut speciali gloriâ fraudare conetur. N'H Mrigáce s tiųñó Kúera w Ogrtuveiat w 'Ev tius irw Maesa, ó nainą. x 'Tids, sãylov Mysõnce wegen sweat . Tl Maesar und eis wegrxwestw, Epiph. Hæref. 79. Ei xanisa aj Maesc, xj öyle, sey TETienekin, na sx vis to Wegsxrweia). Ib. 'Huels ä сompa mot ögw pobów grodoyó pele oder einen g uvozarwy 78'5 cv agera serekavas as cv@gáros úenses geegi egrello Móvor je to chat wegen wõpuedes Ieòr saj lécega, rj i creivs ye nógov, rj to wavários move õpice. Theod. Therapeut 2. pag. 302.

· In respect of him it was necessary, first, that we might be assured he was . made, or begotten of a Woman, and consequently that he had from her the true nature of man. For he took not on him the nature of Angels, and Heb. 2. 16. therefore faved none of them, who for want of a Redeemer, are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. And man once fallen had been, as deservedly, so irrevocably condemned to the fame condition, but that be took upon him the feed of Abraham. For being we are partakers of flesh and blood, we could expect no Redemption bur Ý 14. by him who likewife took part of the fame. We could look for no Redeemer, but such a one who by consanguinity was our * Brother. And being there is but one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Je- * Under that fus, we cannot be assured that he was the Christ, or is our Jefus, except notion did the we be first assured that he was a Man. Thus our Redeemer, the Man Christ ancenews

expect him, as Jefus, was born of a woman, that he might fredeem both men and women; appeareth by that both Sexes might rely upon him, who was of the one, and from the la

e the Targum.

Cantic. 8. 1. other.

ובההיא זימנא אתגלו מליכא

mmxs xiny xnn Nng pown 192.79578299 011019 NOV 23 N when the Messias Mall reveal himself, the fons of Israel fall say unto him, Thou shalt be unto us a Brother. "tHomini liberatio in utroque sexu debuit apparere. Ergo, quia viruin opportebat suscipere, qui sexus honorabilior eft, conveniens erat ut fæminei sexus liberatio hinc appareret, quod ille vir de fæmina natus eft. S. Auguft. Quaft. l. 83. Nolite vos ipsos contemnere, viri, filius Dei virum suscepit: nolite vos ipsas contemnere, fæminæ, filius Dei natus ex fæmina est. Idem de agone Christi.

Secondly, It was necessary we should believe our Saviour conceived and born of such a woman as was a most pure and immaculate Virg behoved him in all things to be made like unto us; fo in that great simi- Non eum in litude a dissimilitude was as necessary, that he should be c without in. Our peccatis ma

the ter ejus in uPassover is slain, and behold the Lamb that takech away the sins of the World ; but the Lamb of the Passover must be without blemish. Where- quem Virgo as then we draw something of corruption and contamination by our se- concipit, Vir

go peperit, minal traduction from the first Adam; our Saviour hath received the fame S. Auguft. in nature without any culpable inclination, because born of a Virgin with- Tract. 4. in out any feminal traduction. Our High-Priest is separate from finners, not see Agnus

Johan. Ergo only in the actions of his life, but in the production of his nature. For as Dei. Non ha1 Levi was in the loins of Abraham, and paid tiches in him, and yet Christ, beat

vet Christ beat ifte tra

• ducem de Athough the Son of Abraham, did not pay tithes in him, but receive them in dam, carnem

tantùin sumpsit de Adam, peccatum'non assumpsit. Ibid. Verhuin caro factum in fimilitudine carnis peccata omnia noftra fufcepit, nullum reatûs vitium ferens ex traduce prævaricationis exortum. Johan. 4. Epift. ad Conftantinum, Levi


[ocr errors]

in Lumbis Abrahæ fuit, fecundùm concupiscentiam carnalem, Chriftus autem secundùmr solùm fubftantiam corporalem. Cùm enim fit in semine & visibilis corpulentia & invifibilis ratio, utrumque cucurrit ex Abrahani, vel etiain ex ipfo Adam, Wque ad corpus Marice, quia & ipfum eo modo conceptuin & exortum efl : Chrillus autem vilibilem carnis substantiam de carne Virginis fumpfit; ratio vero conceptionis ejus non à femine virili, fed longè aliter ac desuper venit. S. Aug. de Gen, ad lit. l. 10. 6. 19.

Mat. 22

Melchizedeck: so though we being in the loins of Adam may be all faid to sin in him; yet Christ, who descended from the same Adam according to the flelli, was not partaker of that sin, but an expiation for it. . For he which is contained in the seminal virtue of his parent, is some way under his natural power, and therefore may be in some manner concerned in his actions: but he who is only from him by his natural substance, according to a passive or obediential power, and fo receiveth not his propagation from him, cannot be so included in him as to be obliged by his actions, or obnoxious to his demerits.

Thirdly, It was necessary that we should believe Christ born of th: fon, that Virgin Mary which was espoused unto Joseph, that thereby we might be assured that he was of the family of David. For whatsoever promiles were made of the Messias were appropriated unto him. As the leed

of the woman was first contracted to the seed of Abraham, so the feed of Luke 1. 32. Abraham was next appropriated to the Son of David. He was to be called

the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God was to give unto him the throne Mat. 22. 42. of his father David. When Jefus asked the Pharifees, What think ye of

Christ? whose fon is he? they said unto him, The son of David. When Niat. 2. 4, 5. Herod demanded of the chief Priests and Scribes where Christ Jhould be born;

they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judæa, because that was the city of Luke 2. 4. David, whither Jofeph went up with Mary bis espoused wife, because he

was of the house and lineage of David. After John the Baptift, the foreLuke 1. 69. runner of Christ, was born, Zacharias blessed the Lord God of Israel, who

had raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David. Mat. 15. 22. The woman of Canaan, the blind men fitting by the way, and those other and 20.30. blind that followed him cryed out, Have mercy on us, Lord, thou son of and 9. 27.

27. David. The very children, out of whose mouths God perfected praise, were at. 21. 15. crying in the Temple, and saying, Hosannah to the son of David. And Mar. 12. 23. when the blind and dumb both spake and saw, all the people were amazed,

and said, Is not this the son of David? Thus by the publick and concur

rent teltimonies of all the Jews, the promiled Melias was to come of the * Adis 2. 30. house and lineage of David * for God had worn with an oath to him, that Atquin, hinc of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh he would raise up Christ to fit 'magis Chrifum intelli- upon his throne. It was therefore necessary we should believe that our Sagure debebis viour a made of the feed of David according to the flesh: of which we are ex David deputatum car assured, because he was born of that Virgin Mary who descended from him, hali genere, and was espoused unto Jofeph, who defcended from the same, that thereby ob Mariæ his Genealogy might be known. Virginis cenfum. De hoc The consideration of all which will at last lead us to a clear explication of enim promii- this latter branch of the Article, whereby every Christian may inform him. To juratur in colevhat he is house

"self what he is bound to profess, and being informed, fully express what is the David, Ex object of his Faith in this particular, when he faith, I believe in Jesus Christ fructu ventris which was born of the Virgin Mary. For hereby he is conceived to intend ini collocabo

bro- thus much: I assent unto this as a most certain and infallible Truth, That nam tuum. there was a certain woman, known by the name of Mary, espoused unto 70Tertul.3.adv. seph of Nazareth, which before and after her. Efpoufals was a pure and unMarcionem, 6. 20.. Ipotted Virgin, and being and continuing in the faine Virginity, did, by * Rom. 1. 3. the immediate operation of the Holy Ghost, conceive within her Womb the

only-begotten son of God, and, after the natural time of other women brought him forth as her first-born Son, continuing still a most pure and im



« PreviousContinue »