2 Kings xvi. 2. as · Abaz reigning but fixteen Years*, and Hezechias being † 2 Kings xviii.2. twenty five Years old when he began to reign t, the latter was not now to be conceiv'd and born either when this Sign was given, or when his Father came to the Throne. The Evangelical History must therefore affure us of the Completion of this Prophefy; All this was dons, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, Saying, Behold a Virgin fhall conceive, &c. *. Mat. i. 22. 3. (c) Tho' we find not this recorded in Scripture, as not having a neceffary Influence on the Mystery of the Incarnation, yet the peculiar Eminency and unparallel'd Privilege of the Virgin-Mother, the fpecial Honour and Reverence due to her Son, and ever paid by her felf, the regard of that Holy Ghoft which came upon her, and that Power of the Highest which overshadowed her, the fingular Goodness and Piety of Jofeph, have perfuaded the Church of GOD in all Ages to believe that the ftill continued in the fame Virginity, and to l'Aendevor, give her the Title of the Ever-Virgin Mary t. Some Αειπάρθενος, have yet taken upon them (especially Helvidius, and his Semper-virgo. Followers,) not only to deny this Truth, because not contain'd in Scripture, but to affirm the contrary, as there contain'd. First: Reading that Jofeph knew not Mary until fhe had brought forth her First-born Son, they infer, that afterwards he knew her; without Grammar, or Reafon. Secondly: Chrift being in the fame Text ftyled the Firft-born Son of Mary, they conclude that he must have had a Second; with the fame Wisdom and Succefs. Thirdly: With fome fhew of Argument, they object, that fince others are in the Gofpels called the Brethren of Jefus, and alfo the Sons of Mary, they must be his proper Brothers by the fame Mother. Whereas it is evident by comparing the Evangelifts to*Vid. Joh.xix.22. gether, that James, Fofes, &c. tho' called our Lord's Brethren, according to the Cuftom of the Jewish LanMatth. xxvii. 56. guage, extending that Name to the Collateral Kindred, were the Sons of another Mary, the Wife of Cleophas, and Sifter.to the Bleffed Virgin. Mark xv. 40. xxviii. I. (d) Vide Addit. (f) The Belief of this latter Branch of the Article is neceffary, both in refpect of her, that was the Mother, and of him that was the Son. In In refpect of her, it is therefore neceffary, that we might perpetually preferve a juft Efteem of her Per Luke i. 48. fon and Dignity. It was Elizabeth's *, it was the An- * Luke i 28. gel's Salutation, Bleffed art thou among Women: It was † Luke i, 42. her own Prediction, From henceforth all Generations shall call me Bleffed *: But it is our Duty to fee that the be not robb'd of this Title, that the do not fuffer in this Honour. Far be it from any Chriftian, to derogate from that fpecial Privilege granted to her, which is incommunicable to any other. We cannot bear too reverend a regard to the Mother of our Lord, fo long as we give her not that Veneration which is due to our Lord Himfelf. Let us keep to the Language and Pra&tice of the Primitive Church; let her be honoured and efteem'd, let Him be worfhipp'd and ador'd. In refpect of Him, our Belief of this Truth is neceffary. 1. To affure us that He was made of a Woman, and that, confequenly, He had from her the true Nature of Man. He took not on Him the Nature of Angels, but He took on Him the Seed of Abraham t. And fince we are Par- † Heb. ii. 16. takers of Flesh and Blood, we could expect no Redemption but by Him who likewife took part of the fame *. * Heb. ii. 14. 2. To affure us of his immaculate Conception. Our High-Prieft is Separate from Sinners t, not only in the † Heb. vii. 26. Actions of his Life, but in the Production of his Nature. For, according to St. Auftin's Comparison, as Levi was in the Loins of Abraham, and paid Tithes in him, yet Chrift, tho' the Son of Abraham, did not pay Tithes in him, but receive them in Melchizedec; So being in the Loins of Adam, may be all faid to fin in him, yet Chrift, who defcended from the fame Adam, according to the Flesh, was not Partaker of that Sin, but an Expiation for it. tho' we 3. To affure us that He was of the Family of David; and that GOD fhrunk not from His faithful Oath *. *Pfal. cxxxii. II Whence we are alfo encouraged, with the Blind and XX. 30. the Lame, to cry out, O Son of David have mercy on us† ; † Matt. xv. 22. and with the Children out of whofe Mouth GOD perfected Praise, to fay, Hofannah to the Son of David*. (d) Our Lord's Pedigree, as he was the true Seed of David, and rightful King of the Jews, is thus deduc'd. The ix. 27. Matt. xxi. 15. ver able to fhew Son. The Royal Line of David by Solomon being extin& in Of him it is Feconiah*, the Crown and Kingdom paffed into the improphesied in the mediately younger Line of Nathan t, (another Son of moft folemn man- David, in Salathiel **, and Zorobabel; which Zorobabel ner, (Jer. xxii. 33.) that he should be having two Sons Abiud and Rhefa tt, the Royal DigChildlefs. Nor nity defcended of right upon the Line of Abiud, of bave the Jews, to which Jofeph was the laft; who marrying the Virgin this hour, been e- Mary, fprung from the Line of Rhefa, the younger Son and produce his of Zorobabel, and withal having no Iffue himself, bis Right paffeth into the Line of Mary, being next of kin, +Vid. 1 Chron. and by that means upon Jefus, her Son. Whereupon, ii. s. Where, fince He was both naturally the Son of David, and also legally Laft, the Sons can- the King of the Jews; which latter is accounted to us by not befet down ac- St. Matthew, as the former is by St. Luke; who delivers cording to the Or- down the Pedigree of Mary the Mother of Jefus, and der of Birth. Daughter of Eli **; tho' Jofeph her Husband only stands Hence he is there nam'd, according to the known way of the Jews Jeconiah, 1 Chr. Computing their Genealogies. Dr. South's Serm. on iii. 17. and Mat. Rev. xxii. 16. Solomon is nam'd ftyled the Son of i. 12. i. e. legally and politically his Son, as his immediate rightful Succeffor, upon the removal of Zedekia who in the fame Senfe is likewife ftyled his Son, 1 Chron. iii. 16. Affir in the next Verfe is only an Appellative of Jeconiah himself, importing that he was in Captivity, or under Bonds, when Salathiel was declared King. tt For fince St. Matthew and St. Luke agree from Jeconiah to Zorobabel, and then divide, the one naming Abiud for his Succeffor, the other Rhefa, it is natural to infer, that they were both his Sons, tho' not fet deron in the Chronicles under thofe Names. *** The diminutive of Eliakim, which is the fame with Jehojachim, or Joachim, (2 Kings xxiii. 34. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 4.) the Father of the Bleffed Virgin, according to Primitive Tra dition. St. Luke doth not say that Jofeph was the Son of Eli, but rỡ 'Eλì, belonging, or related nearly to him, as bis Son-in-law. Idem. ARTICLE IV. He fuffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. He suffered Am really perfuaded within my felf, and do make a fincere Profeflion of this, as a most neceffary, certain, and infallible Truth, that the Only-begotten Son of GOD, begotten of the Father, and of the fame Effence with the Father, did for the Redemption of Mankind really and truly fuffer (a); not in his Divinity (b), which was impafible, but in his Humanity, which in the Days of his Humiliation was fubject unto Infirmities: That as He is a perfect Redeemer of the whole Man, fo He was a complete Sufferer in the whole (c); in his Body, by fuch dolorous Infirmities as arise internally from Human Frailties, and by fuch Pains as are inflicted by external Injuries; in his Soul, by fearful Apprehenfions, by unknown Sorrows, by Anguish unexpreffible (d). (a) It (a) It having been fhewn before, amongst the Proofs of the Meffias, that He was to fuffer, and that those things which GOD before had jhewed by the mouth of all his Pro• Acts ii. 18. phets, that Chrift should suffer, He hath lo fulfilled* ; We need only add a Remark or two on this Argument. First, therefore, the Distinction of a double Meffias, fram'd and contriv'd against Chriftianity, is really of Advantage to it, as being a plain acknowledgment of a double Condition. Why fhould the Jews pretend to expect one Meffias to die, another to triumph, but that the true Meffias was both to triumph, and to die; to be humbled, and to be exalted? Thus, even while they endeavour to elude, they confirm our Faith; and, as if they were still under the Cloud, their Error is but as a Shade to give luftre to our Truth. Secondly, we may obferve, that the Sufferings of the Meffias were not only foretold in exprefs Words by the Prophets, but were all along involved and implied in the Types, acted and exhibited in the Sacrifices. And this agreeably to the determinate Counsel and Foreknowledge of GOD t, in which the Lamb was flain from the Foundations of the World* ; Agreeably to the Eternal Covenant with the Father; in purfuance of which we read concerning our Lord, Then Jaid He, lo I come; in the Volume of the Book it is writ ten of me, to do thy Will, O GODT. + Acts ii. 23. Rev. xiii. 8. + Heb. x. 7. (b) When by the neceffary Coherence of the Articles in our Creed, we profefs that the Son of GOD did fuffer and die for us, far be it from us to think that the Divine Nature, which is immutable could fuffer, which only hath Immortality, could die. The Conjun&tion with the Humanity could put no Imperfection on the Divinity, nor can that Infinite Nature, by any external acquifition, be any way changed in its intrinfe cal and effential Perfections. The Sufferings of the Meffias were the Sufferings of GOD the Son, because the fame GOD the Son was alfo the Son of Man; not that they were the Sufferings of his Deity, as of which that was incapable; but the Sufferings of his Humanity, as unto which that was inclinable. For although the Human Nature was united to the Divine, yet it fuffered as much as if it had been alone; and the Divine as little fuffered as if it had not been united; because each kept their refpective Properties diftin&t, without the leaft Mixture or Confufion. Nor is there any other Com |