Matthew 1

THe Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham. The Book of the Generation, Signifieth no more than the writing containing the Genealogy or Pedegree; for the Jews called all writings Books. Thus, Ier. 32.10, 11. The Evidences of a purchase is called the Book. So Isaiah, 50.1. and Mark. 10.4. the writings called a Bill of Divorce are both in the Hebrew, and the Greek called, a Book of Divorce. Thus in Ecclesiastical Courts still, the term Libel (which signifieth a i tle Book) is used, so as these words, are not to be lookt upon as the Title to the whole Gospel according to St. Mathew, b t only to the following Pedegree of our Saviours Ancestors, of Iesus Christ, of that Person to whom the name of Iesus was given by the Angel, as we shall hear further, v. 20.21. Because he should save his People from their sins (for Iesus as also Ioshuah signifies a Saviour or Deliverer) and who also was the Christ, or the Messiah, prophesied of by Daniel, Dan. 9.25, 26. expected by the Iews, as does appear from Ioh. 1.41. (for Messiah and Christ denoted the same Person, Ioh. 4, 25. only Messiah was an Hebrew word, and Christ of Greek extraction, both signifying Anointed, and so Gods designation of a Person to the Office of a Priest, a Prophet, or a King. The Christ signifyeth a designation to all three, The Son of David, the Son of Abraham: Not the immediate Son of either, but by a long Traduction, lineally descended from both. Abraham was long before David but is here put after him, either because he was a King, or because, the Iews expected Messiah, was to be the Son of David; Or because the Evangelists design was to begin the Pedegree from Abraham whom he therefore last mentioneth. Both are named, because both were concerned in the promise of Christ. It was made to Abraham, Gen. 12.3. & 22.18. and to David renewed, and enlarged. Psal. 89.36, 37. Hence it appeareth that the Iews, lookt that Christ should be the Son of David, Mat. 22.42. Mar. 12.35 Hence the Evangelist puts David in the front. From Abraham the Iews derived themselves, they usually Gloryed, they had Abraham to their Father. The Evangelist by proving Christ, to have descended from Abraham by Isaac, proveth him an Hebrew of the Hebrews, and to be descended from the seed to whom the Promise was made, and by proving him the Son of David, he proves him David's righteous Branch, or Branch of righteousness mentioned, Ier. 23.5, 6. & 33.15. and so to have descended from the Royal Family.

Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judas and his Brethren. The Evangelist reckoneth the Genealogy of our Saviour, by three Periods; reckoning thrice fourteen Descents. The first Period began in Abraham, and ended in David. The second began in Solomon, and ended in Iehojachim. The third began with Iehojachim, and ended in Christ. Luke (as we shall see in its place) fetcheth our Saviours line, from Adam, from Abraham to David, there is no difference betwixt. Mathew and Luke, they both reckoned up the same fourteen Persons, Luk. 3.32, 33, 34. But Luke repeating our Saviours Pedegree by his Mothers side, and Mathew by his supposed Fathers side, Ioseph, after David they must differ, Mary descending from Davids Family by his Son Nathan, Ioseph descending from him by Solomon. All Interpreters agree that there are great Difficulties, about the Genealogy of Christ, (especially in reconciling Mathew and Luke.) And the Enemies of Christianity have in all times, made their advantage of them, to weaken our Faith as to the Gospel, but Christians ought to consider, 1. That the Iews had without doubt perfect Genealogies; and were more especially exact in keeping them as to the Royal Tribe of David, which was Iudah, and the Priestly Tribe of Levi, that they might have a right King, and High Priest, and it cannot be expected that after seventeen hundred years almost, we should make out Genealogies as they could. 2. That they were very apt to make Strifes, about words, and endless Genealogies. As appears by the Apostles cautioning both Timot y and Titus against it, Tim. 1.4. & 6.4. Titus 3.9. 3. That it had been a sufficient exception against Christ if they could have proved he had not lineally descended from David. 4. That tho they c villed at Christ for many things, yet, they never made any such Cavil. 5. That we are forbidden S ife, and endless Labour about Genealogy. And therefore it is the most unreasonable thing imaginable for us, to make such little Dissatisfactions, Grounds for us to question, or disbelieve the Gospel, because we cannot unty every knot we meet with in a Pedegree, but in this first Period, no such Difficulties occur. Both the Evangelists are agreed, and the Old Testam nt agrees both: That Abraham begat Isaac (when he was an hundred years old) we are assured by Moses, Gen. 21.2.5. that Isaac begat Iacob, he also telleth us, Gen. 25.26. So also that Iacob, begat Iudas and his Brethren, Gen. 29.35. Iudah was Iacob's third Son by Leah, and that Son of whom dying Iacob prophesied, That him should his Brethren praise, and to him should his Fathers Children bow down. That the Scepter should not depart from Iudah, nor the Lawgiver from between his Feet, until Shiloh came, and unto him should the gathering of the People be, Gen. 49.8, 9, 10. Tho Saul who was the first King of Israel (given them in wrath) was of the Tribe of Benjamin, 1 Sam. 9.21. yet David was of the Tribe Iudah, in whose Line the Kingdom held unto the Captivity. (and his Brethren) the Brethren of Iudah, are here mentioned, being the Heads of the Iewish Nation: Christ descended from Iudah.

And Judas begat Phares and Sarah of Tamar and Phares begat Esrom, and Esrom begat Aram. That Iudas begat Pharez and Zarah (they were Twins begot of Thamar his Daughter-in-Law, the relict of his Son Er whom God slew Gen. 38.7.) appeareth from Gen. 38.27, 28, 29, 30. That Pharez begat Ezrom, appeareth from Ruth 4.18. and 1 Chron. 2.5. and from the same Texts appears also that Ezrom begat Aram, Ruth 4.19. 1 Chron. 2.9. where he is called Ram, some may possibly be offended that amongst all the Ancestors of Christ, there are but three Women named, and all of th m such as had a great stain and blot upon their Reputation. Thamar, the Mother of Pharez and Zara was blotted with Incest, and Pharez was one of the Children begot in that Incest. Rahab also is mentioned, v. 5. whom the Scripture calleth an Harlot, Iosh. 2.1. and Bathsheba was stained with Adultery. But we ought to consider, 1. That (abating Original Corruption which we indeed all derive from our Parents) no man deriveth any intrinsick badness from the Vice of his Parents, tho he may derive, a blot upon his Honour and Reputation, from it. 2. That this was one degree of our Saviours Humiliation. 3. That it was no way incongruous, that he who came into the World to dye for great Sinners, should be born of some that were such.

And Aram begat Aminadab, and Aminadab begat Naasson, and Naasson begat Salmon. This exactly agreeth with the Old Testament, Ruth 4.19.20. 1 Chron. 2.10.11. only it is there said, that Naasson, was Prince of the Children of Iudah, Num. 1.7. & 2, 3. and Salmon is there called Salma.

And Salmon begat Boaz of Rachab, and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth, and Obed begat Jesse.

And Jesse begat David the King— This agreeth with Ruth 4.22. and 1 Sam. 16.2.2.15. Here now ariseth the first Difficulty we meet with in this Genealogy, and it is rather an appearance of a Difficulty than a real one. Salmon being the Son of Aminadab, who was the Prince of the Children of Iudah in Moses time, Salmon cannot be imagined to have lived later than in the times of Ioshua. Booz seemeth to have lived in Elies time, which (if Chronologers count right) was 300 years after, here are but four men named to take up these years. Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Iesse. Ans. The World according to Chronologers wanted but five of 2500 years old, when the Israelites (under the Conduct of Ioshua) entred into Canaan: We will suppose Salmon, to have then been a young man. Eli is by them said to have lived about the 2810th. So that the distance is 315 years. David is said to have been born in the 2860th. So as from Salmon to David are 365 years Admit Salmon, Boaz, Obed and Iesse to have each of them lived an hundred years, or upward and this is no Difficulty. Nor can be any absurdity in admitting this, if we consider the Age, and Vigor of Persons in that age of the World. Moses (tho a man spent with Travels and Battels) lived 120 years, Deut. 34.7. Caleb at 85 years was strong, and as fit for War, as ever Ios. 14.11.12. If we allow these four men the Life of Moses they might live 480 years, which might allow to each of them 15 or 16 years apiece for the Concurrency of their Lives with their Parents, yet 365 years might be well allowed for all their time: Nor is it unreasonable for us to suppose that God might allow those whom he intended thus to dignifie a something longer Life, then the ordinary sort of men lived in that age of the World. So as the thing being neither naturally impo sible (for in our Age we see particular Persons live upward of an hundred years) nor morally improbable, and directly affirmed in three or four Texts, they must have a great mind to quarrel with a Divine Revelation who quarrel the Truth of it upon such a pretence: Especially considering that the Lives of men in our declining, and Debaucht age of the World, are no measures by which we can guess at the Lives of extraordinary Persons who lived near three thousand years ago. [David the King] possibly that term is added to distinguish the David here intended, from others of the same name, or because he was the first King of the Tribe of Iudah to whom the Scepter of Israel was promised, Gen. 49 10. Or the first King not given to the Israelites in wrath, as Saul was upon their murmuring against Samuel, or to show that Christ descended from that Family, to whom the Promise of the Messias was made, Ier. 23.5. and a Kingdom established for ever. Psal. 89.36, 37. Thus our Evangelist has given us the Names in his first Period, or fourteen Generations. Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, Iudas, Pharez, Ezrom, Aram, Aminadab, Naasson, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Iesse, David.

And David the King begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah. Solomon was not the eldest Child of David by Bathsheba, that dyed, 2 Sam. 12.22, 23. He was born after David had taken Bathsheba (who had been the Wife of Vriah) for his Wife, v. 25. compared with 2 Sam. 11.27.

And Solomon begat Roboam, and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa. This exactly agrees with the History of the Old Testament, 1 Kin. 11.43. (where he is called Rehoboam) he Reigned but seventeen years and dyed, 1 Kin. 14.21. and v. 31. Abijam his Son Reigned in his stead, he is here called Abia. But we shall observe frequent alteration of Names, both as to the final Terminations, and where the quiescent Letters in Heb. fall into the Name. Abia or Abijam Reigned but three years, and was succeeded by Asa his Son, 1 Kin. 15.2.8. Asa Reigned forty one years, 2 Chron. 16.13. So as these three Princes Reigned sixty years.

And Asa begat Josaphat, and Josaphat begate Joram, and Joram begat Ozias. Iehosaphat here called Iosaphat, in the Greek (they having no Letter to express the Hebrew by) was the Son of Asa, a good Son of a good Father, 2 Chron. 17.1, 2. he Reigned twenty five years, 1 Kin. 22.42. Iehoram (here called Ioram) succeeded him in his Kingdom, he slew his Brethren, he walked in the ways of Ahab, 2 Chron. 21.2.6. he Reigned but eight years, lived, and dyed wickedly, and was buried infamously, 2 Chr. 21.20. But here ariseth another Difficulty from what is said, Ioram begate Ozias. It is certain that he did not beget him immediately, for Vzziah was the fourth from Ioram. Iehoram or Ioram begat Ahaziah, he was his youngest Son, he lived but one year as King, 2 Chron. 21.1, 2. then Athaliah usurped the Kingdom for six years, not counting her Usurpation. Ioash the Son of Ahaziah Reigned forty years, 2 Chron. 24.1. He dies, 2 Kin. 12.21. And Amaziah his Son Reigned in his stead, 2 Chron. 26.1. He was the Father of Vzziah called Azariah, 2 Kin. 14.21. So that when it is said: That Ioram begate Oziah, we must only understand, that Vzziah lineally descended from Ioram, thus, v. 1. Christ is called the Son of David, The Son of Abraham. Thus the Iews said, We have Abraham to our Father, and Elizabeth is said to be of the Daughters of Aaron, Luk. 1.5. But it is a greater Question, why the Evangelist leaves out Ahaziah, Ioash and Amaziah who were all three lawful Princes, and rightly descended from the Family of David. To pass by various Conjectures, the best account I find given of it is this. 1. It is manifest the Evangelist had a design to divide all the Generations from Abraham to Christ into three Periods. The first of which should contain the Growing State of the Iewish Common-Wealth, till it came at the heighth which was in Davids time. The second should contain its Flourishing State; which was from Davids time till the first carrying into Captivity. The third should contain its declining State, from the first carrying them into Captivity to the coming of Christ. 2. He designed to reduce all the Generations in each Period to fourteen, this appeareth from v. 17. Now altho the first Period contained exactly fourteen Descents or Generations, yet in the second there was manifestly seventeen, so as the Evangelist was obliged to leave out three to bring them to the number of fourteen; now tho it be a little too Curious to inquire why the Evangelist chose to leave out these three: Ahaziah, Ioash, and Amaziah, rather then any other three, yet there is the probable good Account of it given by learned Men, who have waded into these Speculations. Ahaziah was the Son of Iehoram by Athaliah the Daughter of Ahab, 2 Chron. 21.6. Ioash her Grand-child, Amaziah her Great Grand-child. Now God had cursed the house of Ahab, and threatned to root out all his House, 1 Kin. 21.21. This (as is supposed) made the Evangelist, who was necessitated to leave out three to bring the Generations to fourteen, rather to choose to leave out these Princes, who were of Ahabs half Blood, then any others. If any say why then did he not leave out more? Besides that he was not obliged any other way (then as he would keep to his number to leave out these) he knew Gods Threatnings of Children, for the sins of Parents, usually terminate in the third, and fourth Generation.

And Ozias begat of Joatham, and Joatham begate Achaz, and Achaz begat Ezekias. That Iotham succeeded his Father Ozias and Reigned sixteen years, agreeth with 2 Chron. 26.23. and that Ahaz his Son succeeded him, agreeth with 2 Chron. 28.1. he also Reigned sixteen years, Hezekiah his Son Reigned in his stead, 2 Chron. 28.27. Some here have cavilled at the Truth of the History of Holy-writ, because it appeareth from 2 Kin. 16.2. that Ahaz dyed at thirty six years of Age, and that Hezekiah began to Reign at twenty five years of Age, does also appear from 2 Chron. 29.1. whence it appeareth that Hezekiah must be born when his Father was but eleven years of Age, which they think improbable: But those who will question the Truth of what we have so good a Proof of, as the Revelation of Holy-writ is, are obliged not only to tell us of things in it that are improbable to their apprehensions, but either in Nature impossible, or at least in consistent with some other piece of Divine Revelation. Of the latter sort, we hear of nothing objected in this Case. Now tho with us it be not ordinary for Persons at that Age to beget Children, yet that it is not impossible in Nature, nor more then has happened in the World sometimes, Spanhemius has largely proved in his Dubia Evangelica, Dub. 5. and that by no less Authorities then those of Hierome amongst the Ancients, and the learned Scaliger amongst the more Modern Writers, it is what may be. The Scripture telleth us it was so, that is enough for us, tho it be not a thing very ordinary.

And Ezekias begat Manasses, and Manasses begat Amon, and Amon begat Josiah. All this exactly agreeth with the Scriptures of the Old Testament, these three Princes in a lineal Descent immediately succeeded each other, Manasseth, Reigning 55. Amon, 2. and Iosiah thirty one years, all together eighty eight years.

And Josias begat Jeconias and his Brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon. In this Ieconiah (who ever he was) determined the Evangelists second Period of fourteen Generations. But there is much Dispute, both about the Ieconiah who is here mentioned, and the Sons of Iosiah as they are reckoned up, 1 Chron. 3.15. where it is said. The Sons of Iosiah were the first born Iehanan, The second Iehojakim, The third Zedekiah. The fourth Shallum, 2 Kin. 23.31. 2 Chron. 36.1. It is plain that Iehoahaz succeeded Iosiah his Father: It is certain that amongst the Iews it was very ordinary for Persons to have two Names; thus King Vzziah in the Book of Kings called Azariah, 2 Kin. 14.21. Most if not all of Iosiahs Sons had two Names, it is plain that Iehoahaz his eldest Son is the same who in 1 Chron. 3.15. is called Iohanan, but he Reigned but three Months, probably set up by the People, and put down by Pharaoh Necho, in a Battle against whom Iosiah was slain, he pursuing his Victory put him down and set up Eliakim his next Brother, calling him Iehoiachim, as he is called 2 Chron. 3.15. he Reigned eleven years, 2 Chron. 36.5. The King of Babylon puts him down, and setteth up Iehojachin his Son, who is also called Ieconiah, and Coniah, 2 Chron. 36.9. he Reigned but three Months, and ten days, and the King of Babylon fetcheth him away, and sets up his Uncle Zedekiah (called also Mattaniah) he Reigned eleven years, as appeareth by 2 Chron. 36. v. 11. then the whole Body of the Iews were carried away Captive into Babylon. We do not read either in the Book of Kings, or Chronicles, that Shallum (Iosiahs fourth Son) ever Reigned, yet it should seem that he did, by Ieremiah, 22. v. 11. Some think that he was set up in stead of Iehoahaz, when he was carried away. But the Scripture says nothing of it, nor is it very probable that the Conqueror should skip over the Second and Third Son, and set up the Fourth. But it is not my present Concern, to inquire after Shallum, but only after Ieconiah mentioned in this Verse, and the other Ieconiah mentioned in the 12 Verse, as the Head of those Generations which make up the last Period. As to this Ieconiah the most probable Opinion is, that it was Iehojakim, who was also called Ieconiah, and that the Ieconiah mentioned, v. 12. was Iehojakin, the Son of Iehojakim. In this I find some of the best Interpreters acquiescing, nor indeed is there any great Difficulty, in allowing Iehojachim the Father, as well as Iehojachin the Son to be called Ieconiah (so near are the Names akin, and the signification of both the same) but then the Question is, how Iosiah could be said to beget Iehojachim, About the time of the carrying into the Captivity of Babylon; for it appeareth by 2 Chron. 36.5. That Iehojachim was twenty five years Old when he began to Reign, and he Reigned eleven years; and in his time was the first carrying into Babylon, so that there must be thirty seven years betwixt the begetting of Iehojakim and the first Transportation into Babylon. The Margent of our Bibles tell us of another Reading, Iosias begat Iakim (Iakim and Iehojakim are the same) and Iakim begate Iechoniah (that is Iehojakim.) Beza thinks this the truest reading taken out of an old Copy of R. Stephens, magnified by Stapulensis and Bucor. But he thinks it should be thus, Iosias begate Iakim, and his Brethren (for we know that Iosiah had four Sons) and Iakim begat Ieconiah (that is, Iehojakin) about the time of the carrying into the Captivity of Babylon. For Iehojakin or Ieconiah was not nine years old when himself was carried away, and his Father was carried away before [about the carrying away into Babylon] The Greek Preposition does not signifie any determinate certain time, but does include sometimes many, and distinct ti es as it must do here, for Iosiah began to Reign at eight years old, and Reigned thirty one years, so that he dyed at thirty nine years of Age, 1 Chron. 34. v. 2. Iehoahaz (or Iohanan) his eldest Son succeeded him at twenty three years old, so he must be born when Iosiah was sixteen years of Age. Iehojachim began to Reign at twenty five years of Age. Zedekiah at one and twenty, as appeareth from 2 Chron. 36.1, 5, 11. so that Zedekiah must be but about nine years old when his Father dyed, which was not twelve years before Iehojachim was carried into Babylon, as appeareth by the History, 2 Chr. 36. Thus, the Persons in this Period, which) was the flourishing time of the Kingdom of Iudah) are fourteen: Solomon, Rehoboam, Abia, Asa, Iehosaphat, Ioram, Vzziah, Iotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasses, Amon, Iosiah, Iehojachim, only here is no mention made of Iehoahaz his Reign, who was Iosiah his eldest Son, who it may be is not mentioned by the Evangelist: Either, because Iehojachim (here called Ieconiah) was a second Son of the same Father, or in regard of his short Reign (for it was but three Months and odd days) or it may be, because in all Probability he was Tumultuously set up by the People, and not fixed in his Throne, before he was turned out by the Conqueror Pharaoh Necho, nor do we read of any Sons he left, to be sure he left none who could succeed him in the Throne, for Iehojachim was set up, and his Son Iehojachin succeeded him, as the History telleth us.

And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconia begat Salathiel, and Salathiel begat Zorobabel. This Ieconiah is generally thought to be Iehojakin the Son of Iehojakim, he is called Ieconiah, 1 Chron. 3.16. as well as Iehojakin, 2 Chron. 36.8. so also Ier. 24.1. he is called Ieconiah the Son of Iehojakim, that this Ieconiah begat Salathiel, appeareth from 1 Chron. 3.17. It is here objected that God said concerning this Ieconiah, called also Coniah, Ier. 22.30. write you this man Childless, how then did he beget Salathiel; but it is easily answered, for that Verse, Ier. 22.30. will expound it self. Write you this man Childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the Throne of David, and ruling any more in Iudah: So as that Text is plainly to be understood without a Child that shall actually succeed in the Crown, for the Text it self supposeth that he should have seed but none that should prosper, sitting upon the Throne of David, and ruling in Iudah, which the Scripture, 2 Chron. 36. justifieth, for the King of Babylon set up Zedekiah his Uncle in his stead, who was the last King in Iudah, in the eleventh year of whose Reign the Iews were all carried Captive. This Ieconiah had eight Sons as we read, 2 Chron. 3.17.18. Salathiel is there reckoned as his second Son (possibly Assir dyed young, or at least Childless) so as the right of the Crown was in Salathiel, who is the Person alone here named. But how Salathiel is here said, to have begot Zorobabel is yet a greater Difficulty; for, 1 Chron. 3.19. it is said: The Sons of Pedajah (not of Salathiel) were Zorobabel, and Shimei, if Zorobabel were the Son of Pedajah, how could he be the Son of Salathiel? Several Answers are given to this. Some think that Zorobabel, because he descended lineally from Salathiel is called his Son, which were a sufficient Answer if the Supposition were true, that Zorobabel were lineally descended from Salathiel: But that it is not, for according to 1 Chron. 3.18. Pedajah was not the Son, but the Brother of Salathiel. Others think that Salathiel is here said to have begot Zorobabel, because Zorobabel succeeded him in the Kingdom, but as that is a strange Interpretation of the word begat, So neither was Salathiel a King, tho possibly the Title of the Crown was in him, as the Great Grand-child of Iosiah, nor did ever Zorobabel assume the Crown that we read of. Whereas others say, that there were two Zorobabels; and that this Son was the adopted Son of Salathiel, both these things are suggested without Proof. The most probable Opinion which I perceive the best Interpreters acquie ce in, is, That Salathiel dying without issue Pedajah his Brother married his Wife according to the Law of God, Deut. 25.5. and begat Zorobabel of her that had been the Wife of Salathiel; and thence it is said Salathiel begat him. Pedajah so raising up seed to his Brother according to the Law aforesaid. To this it is objected by some, That the Law was, That the Child should succeed in the name of the Brother that was dead: So that if this were the Sense it should not have been, Salathiel begat Zorobabel, but Salathiel begat Salathiel. The Answer to this, is not Difficult: For to succeed in the name of the Brother that is dead, does not signifie to be called by the very name with which he was called, but to be denominated his Son, as if begotten by him. And this is Evident from Ruth 4 10. where Boaz has these words, Ruth the Moabitess, the Wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my Wife, to raise up the Name of the dead upon his Inheritance, that the Name of the dead, be not cut off from among his Brethren. Yet v. 21. Boaz having a Son by Ruth, did not call his name Mahlon, by the name of his Father, but Obed.

And Zorobabel begat Abiud, and Abiud begat Eliakim, and Eliakim begat Azor.

And Azor begat Sadoc, and Sadoc begat Achim, and Achim begat Eliud.

And Eliud begate Eleazar, and Eleazar begate Matthan, and Matthan begate Jacob. Here are divers Objections made to this last part of the Genealogy, and in a great measure caused from the difference between Mathew and Luke; but I shall not attempt any Reconciliation of those Differences, till I come to Luke, ch. 3. There is no Abiud reckoned amongst the Sons of Zorobabel, 1 Chron. 3.19.20. and for the others named, we have no certain Account of them, in any part of the Holy-writ. From the time of Iehojachim were above five hundred years to the Birth of Christ: Of which seventy were spent in the Captivity of Babylon, Zorobabel was alive at the end of the Captivity, Ezra 5.2. and, as it appears, the Ruler of the Iews tho not under the Title, and stile of King. For Eliakim, Azor, Sadoc, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Mathan, and Iacob. Tho we have no mention of them, in any Canonical Books of Holy-writ, but only this, yet Mathew's Credit in the Church of God, ought to out-weigh any other Writings, pretending any thing contrary to what he says; we are therefore obliged to believe they all lineally descended from David, but living in a private State, and Condition, and Holy-writ not extending its History beyond Zorobabels time (the time when the Iews came out of Babylon) it is no wonder that we have no better means then we have, from Holy-writ to know their lineal Descent from the Royal Family. That Mathew in what he wrote was guided by the unerring Spirit, and that he had Rolls of Pedegrees which we want, we have reason to believe. This is enough for us Christians, who own the Books of the New as well as the Old Testament, to be wrote by Persons divinely inspired, so as to them we have nothing to do, but to reconcile Mathew and Luke both, whom we own to have had the same infallible Inspiration and Direction. If Iews or Pagans argue from any other Topick then this, it is enough to tell them, That the Iews kept exact Genealogies, and more especially as to the Descents in the Tribes of Iudah and Levi, that they might never be at loss as to the Messiah whom they expected, as the Son of David, nor yet as to the true High-Priest. Tho these Records, and Rolls of Genealogy be now lost, yet we have no reason to believe they were so in Mathews time, of which Genealogies (as to this part) doubtless what Mathew says was but a Copy, directed by that Holy Spirit, by which he was inspired.

And Jacob begat Joseph the Husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. How Luke cometh to make Ioseph the Son of Heli, we shall inquire (if God please) when we come to his third Chapter: But from this Verse ariseth a very Grave Question, viz. How, or wherefore, the Evangelist in deriving the Pedegree of Christ, bringeth the line down to Joseph, from whom our Saviour did not descend, being no flesh of his Flesh. Christ being the promised Messias, the Propechy, Isa. 7.14. must be, and was fulfilled in him. A Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and thou shalt call his name Emanuel. Now if Ioseph were not the true, but only the Legal or Supposed Father of Christ: What had the Evangelist to do with his Genealogy? Many Answers are given to this, some think that the Evangelist accommodateth himself to the Vulgar Opinion, they took him generally for the true and natural Son of Ioseph. They said, Is not this the Carpenters Son? But then the Holy Spirit, must have attempted to have proved a Conclusion true, from a Medium that was false, which must by no means be allowed: Besides, neither could this be Mathews design, who afterwards relateth the Mystery of our Saviours Incarnation plain enough; and tells us v. 18. That Mary was found with Child before Ioseph, and she came together, others therefore say that amongst the Iews the Genealogies of Women use not to be reckoned. How universally true that is, I cannot tell, generally it is (very probable) as being usual almost with all Nations to reckon Descents from the Males. In the present Case it is granted by most that Luke deriveth the Descent of Mary. In the present Case, it seemeth of high Concern that the Genealogy both of Ioseph and Mary should be counted: Tho our Saviours being the Messias, could not have been proved from his being the Son of Ioseph, for then he could not have been the Son of a Virgin (yet admitting the Jewish error in that Case, not knowing the Mystery of Christs Incarnation) Christ, by their own Confession was confirmed to be the Son of David, because Ioseph was so: On the other side, Luke deriving Maries Genealogy from David, and affirming Christ to be born of a Virgin espoused, confirmed him to all the World to be both the Son of David, descending from Mary a Virgin, that was a Daughter to one who was the Son of David, and also the true Messiah in whom the Propechy was fulfilled, of a Virgins conceiving and bearing a Son; so that by the reckoning of the Generation of two Persons, both of which were lineally descended from David, he was proved to be the Son of David both to the generality of the Iews, who could not deny but Ioseph was so, and to all believers both Iews and Gentiles, to whom God should give to believe the Mystery of the Incarnation by the Conception of the Holy Ghost. This to me seems a sufficient reason for the reckoning up our Saviours descent from David both by Father and Mother. Which is advantaged by considering that Ioseph was not only the reputed Father, but the legal Father of Christ, and altho his being not the Natural, but the legal Father of Christ, will not prove him the Son of David, further then to the Iews who would have him to be the Natural Son of Ioseph, yet the Genealogy reckoned from Abraham to Ioseph will prove Ioseph the Son of David (whom they judged Christs natural Father) so as they had nothing to say against that, and the other parts of this Gospel, and this Chapter indeed with the Genealogy of Mary, will prove that he was both the Son of David, and the true Messias, as a Son born of a Virgin. Whereas some say that Mary was of the Tribe of Levi, and think to prove it by her being Cousen to Elizabeth, who is expressly called a Daughter of Aaron, Luk. 1.1. Besides that Luke ch. 3. plainly proveth her of the Tribe of Iudah, and of the Family of David, the Proof is by no means sufficient, for altho the Law, Num. 36.8.9. for the avoiding of a Confusion of Inheritances, commanded them to Marry within their Tribes, yet this Law concerned not the Daughters of the Tribe of Levi, for that Tribe had no Inheritance as the rest. So as that kindred might easily be, tho Mary was not of the Tribe of Levi, but of Iudah, as indeed she was. But leaving this Question, let us come to the words of the Verse. And Iacob begat Ioseph, the Husband of Mary, that is, the espoused Husband of Mary. Espousals make a Marriage before God: The Angel afterward says to Ioseph (but yet espoused) Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy Wife. And he was soon after the Legal, Actual Husband of Mary: Of whom was born Iesus, who was called Christ, that Person who was called Iesus by the Direction of the Angel, as we shall by and by see who was also called Christ, which as we said signifieth Anointed, and the same with Messiah. It is observed by some that the Name Christ was given to Kings of Iudah (because of their anointing) before the Captivity, but to none after, till he came who was the Christ, God by that Providence (if the Iews would have understood it) pointing out to them, that the Person was now come who was promised them under the Notion of the Messiah, Dan. 9.25 26. and whom they expected, as appeareth from Ioh. 1.41. & 4.25. and no longer to be expected.

So all the Generations from Abraham to David are fourteen Generations; And from David to the carrying away into Babylon, are fourteen Generations, and from the carrying away into Babylon, unto Christ are fourteen Generations. The Evangelist for reasons which we cannot fathom, reduceth our Saviour's Progenitors to fourteen in each Period of the Jewish State, and in the first Period determining with David there were no more. In the second, he leaveth out three Kings descended from the Daughter of Ahab. In the third which was from the Captivity to Christ, there were doubtless more, Luke reckoneth up twenty four (taking in Christ for one) and agreeth in very few with Mathew, who was forced to leave out some to keep to his number of fourteen. Nor does Mathew speak any thing false, or contradictious to Luke, in saying there were fourteen tho there were more. Besides, there might be many more Progenitors of Mary then Ioseph, whose Pedegree Mathew deriveth.

Now the Birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise, when as his mother Mary was espoused, to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the holy Ghost. The Evangelist prefaceth this extraordinary Birth of our Saviour in this manner. Now, the Birth of Iesus Christ was on this wise, not in the ordinary Course and manner in which Children are conceived and brought forth into the World, but in this wonderful manner [when his mother Mary was espoused to Ioseph.] Betrothing, or Espousing, was nothing else but a Solemn promise of Marriage made by two Persons each to other, at such distance of time, as they agreed upon. It was a Decent usage approved of (if not ordained) by God, as appears by Deut. 20.7. That we are obliged still to use it, I dare not say, it might be a prudential Order and Constitution of that State. There was nothing in it Typical, nothing to bring it under the Notion of a Carnal Ordinance, (as the Apostle calls some of their Ordinances relating to the Worship of God) It seemeth Equitable, that the Parties to be Married might have some Convenient time to think seriously of the great Change they are soon to make in their Lives, and more solemnly seek unto God for his Blessing upon them, as also that they might more freely Discourse together about their Houshold Affairs, and the Settlement of their Families, then the modesty of the Virgins of that age would otherwise have allowed them. It made them Man and Wife before God, tho they came not together for some time after: The distance of time, seemeth to have been left to the Agreement of Parties, and Parents. In this Case we cannot certainly assert the distance, but it appeareth to have been such, as that she was found with Child, before they came together. Mary knew what the Evangelist here asserteth, that it was by the Holy Ghost: For as she must know, that she had not known Man, as she told the Angel, Luk. 1.34. So the Angel had satisfied her, saying, v. 35. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Power of the most high shall overshadow thee. Therefore also that Holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. It cannot be doubted but that she revealed this to some of her Friends, but how it came to be found, or who found it we are not told. Ioseph as yet had no such Revelation. God would have his Son to be born of a Virgin. 1. For the fulfilling of the Promise, Isa. 7.14.2. Of the Holy Ghost, that the Womb of the Virgin being sanctified by the Spirit of Holiness, there might be no Traduction of Original sin. Of a betrothed Virgin. 1. That he might not be under the Reproach of Illegitimacy. 2. Nor his Mother subjected to the Punishment of the Judaical Law. 3. That Maries stock might be by her betrothed Husband. 4. That Christ might have a Guard in his Infancy.

Then Joseph her Husband being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. It was found she was with Child (possibly her self, or some of her Friends told it to Ioseph) her espoused Husband, it is plain from this Text, he came to the knowledge of it, for upon it, the Evangelist says, he was minded to put her away privily; had Ioseph at this time heard and believed, that the Holy Ghost had come upon her, and the Power of the most High overshadowed her, being a good Man, he would not have entertained Thoughts of putting her away: But tho she had before received this Revelation, and might possibly have Communicated it to some of her Friends, yet it is manifest that her Husband Ioseph had not heard it, or at least was not easie to believe a thing of so unusal and extraordinary a Nature. That she was with Child, was Evident, how she came to be so, was as yet hidden from him, in Nature, and so incredible a thing, as it had argued too much of easiness of belief for him to have believed, had not Ioseph had (as afterward he had) a divine Revelation for it, he therefore receiving such a Report, and finding it to be true, resolves to put her away in the privatest manner he could, rather then to expose her to a publick Shame, or to be made a publick Example. Their being betrothed was a thing publickly taken notice of, and he could not put her away so privately, but there must be Witnesses of it, the meaning therefore must be as privately as the Nature of the thing would bear. Ioseph in this Case had the choice of three things. 1. He might notwithstanding this, have taken her to his House, as his Wife, for the Law of Divorce or putting away, was but a Law giving a Liberty in Case of a discerned uncleanness to put away the Wife, it did not lay any under an Obligation so to do. 2. He might give her a Bill of Divorce, and leave her with her Friends. Now those skilled in the Iewsh Writings tell us this might be done; either, more privately before two or three Witnesses putting a Writing of that import into her Bosom, or more openly, and publickly before the Magistrate. 3. He might according to the Law, Deut. 22.23.24. &c. have brought her forth to be examined, whether she had only suffered a Rape, or had her self Consented. If it was done with her Consent she was by the Law to be stoned. Of these Ioseph, in his first Thoughts upon the Matter, and before he rightly did understand the thing, chuseth the Second, and the milder part, and resolves to put her away, but in the most private manner the Law would in that Case allow him: He did this (says the Vangelist) because he was a just Man, where the term signifieth Equitable, in opposition to Severity and Rigour; nor ought any to say Ioseph in this showed himself an unjust Man, because by the Law, she ought to have been Stoned to Death, for that is a mistake, supposing she had been with Child by man, yet if she had been forced, the man only wa to dye, Deut. 22.28, 29, or she might have been with Child before her betrothing, in which Case she was only obliged to marry him that had so abased her: A kind, and Equitable man always presumeth the be t, especially in a Case where Life is concerned, besides that no doubt Mary had by this time told Ioseph the Truth, and what the Angel had said to her, to which (it being so incredible a thing as not to be believed, but upon a divine Revelation) tho Ioseph was not obliged having as yet no such Revelation to give a present easie Faith, yet he might reasonably give so much Credit as to resolve upon the mildest Course he could take, tho he was willing also to avoid the blot upon himself by taking her to him for his Wife according to his Contract. God will not leave so good a man long unresolved what to do.

But while he thought on these things, behold, the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. What we have in this Verse assureth us, That Ioseph was not only inclined, by the Kindness and Benignity of his own natural Temper, and by his Charity to that moderate resolution he had taken up, but also more immediately influenced by God, who was now sending a Messenger to him to tell him, what he would have him to do in this Case. Whether this Angel was the Angel Gabriel, who Luke tells us ch. 1.26. was sent to Mary, to tell her that the Power of the most high should overshadow her, or some other Angel, none can assert, an Angel it was. He appeareth to Ioseph while he was asleep, and in and by a Dream. By Dreams was one way by which God revealed his mind to People formerly, Heb. 1.1. one of those ways by which God made himself known to Prophets, Num. 12.6. and not to Prophets only but to Pagan Princes sometimes, as appeareth by the instances we have in Scripture of the Dreams which Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezar both had Dreams, are either Natural, or Supernatural, or Preternatural. How to distinguish the former from the two latter, is not my work in this place, and possibly a difficult Task, especially in our times, when God having spoken to us by his Son, and given us his word as a perfect Rule, has left off ordinary speaking to his Prophets by Dreams and Visions, tho not limited himself, but that he may sometimes so speak; we are assured of the Truth of a Divine Revelation to Ioseph, by this way of Dreams, while his Head was full of Thoughts what he was to do in this Case. God thinks of us, when we sleep, and one way or other will not be wanting to our Inquisition in sincerity to know his Will, in the difficult Cases of our Lives. The Angel says unto Ioseph, Ioseph, thou son of David; By which Compellation he lets him know, he was to be the Supposed and Legal, tho not the Natural Father of the Messias, who was by the Confession of all men, to be the Son of David. Fear not to take to thee Mary thy Wife. She that is thy betrothed Wife, and so thy Wife in my sight, thou hast espoused her, and called me to Witness, that thou wilt Consummate this Marriage with her in a due time and take her to thine House. I see what has happened, which troubleth thy Thoughts, possibly thou art afraid lest thou should'st offend me, marrying one who appeareth unto thee, to be defiled, or thou art afraid of bringing a blot upon thy self if thou should'st Consummate this Marriage, but do not Fear any of these things, but go on, and Consummate thy Marriage, she is not as thou supposest, or may'st Fear, defiled by Man, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. That Holy thing, (as Luke speaks) that humane Body which is in her Womb, is created in her, and is, of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost by his Almighty creating Power, has supplyed what is wanting from the help of the Creature as to ordinary Productions of this Nature.

And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his People from their sins. When the usual time of Women is accomplished, she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name Iesus. He shall not be thy Natural Son, but he shall be her Son, not begot by thee, but brought forth by her, so, Flesh of her Flesh, His namë shall be called Iesus by thee, or by his Mother. It is the Will of God thou should'st give him that Name. For he shall save his People from their Sins. It was the Custom of the Iews (Gods Ancient People) to give Names to their Children, either expressive of the Mercy which God had showed them in giving them their Children, or of the Duty which their Children did owe unto God. This name was given by God, expressing the Mercy of God to his People, in giving them this Child. For, he shall save his People from their Sins (says the Angel) Iesus comes from an Hebrew word, which signifies Salvation. Ioshua had his Name from the word, because he was to be a Temporal Saviour to save the Iews, the whole Body of the Iews from the Canaanites their Enemies. This Iesus was to save his People, all that should believe in his Name, whether Iews or Gentiles from their Sins: Hereby the Angel hints the mistake of the Iews, in thinking the Messias should be a Temporal Saviour, who should save the Iews from their Enemies, minding them, that he was to save them not from their Bodily but Spiritual Enemies, from their Sins: The Guilt of them, and the Power of them, and from the eternal Danger of them, and he alone should do it; Acts 4.12. There is no other Name under Heaven given amongst men, neither is there Salvation in any other.

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet saying.

Behold a Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted, is God with us. By these great Acts of Divine Providence, that which was spoken, and Prophesied of by Isaiah, ch. 7.14. speaking by Inspiration from God, was fulfilled: Tho things are said in the Evangelists, to be fulfilled when the Types have had their accomplishment in the Antitype, and when something cometh to pass much like, or bearing some Proportion to something which before happened in the World (as I shall show hereafter) yet I take the Sense of being fulfilled, here to be literally fulfilled; believing so much of that Prophecy as is here quoted, did literally concern Christ, and none but him. But we must take heed of interpreting the Particle that as signifying the end of Gods Action in this great work of Providence; for the End for which God sent his Son into the World, was before expressed, to save his People from their sins, not to fulfil a Prophecy. That here only signifies the consequent of that Act of divine Providence, and the Sense is but only this: By all this which was done, was fulfilled that which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, &c. But the Iews so much Clamouring against the Application of that Text, Isaiah 7.14. to Christ; and some learned Interpreters thinking the fulfilling mentioned to be no more then the fulfilling of a Type in the Antitype, it will be necessary that we make it appear that it was literally fulfilled. To which I know of but two Prejudices. 1. That it could be no relief to Ahaz, nor to the Iews against their Sense and Fear of their present Danger, to tell them that Christ should be born of a Virgin eight hundred years after. 2. That whereas v. 16. it is added. Before the Child shall know to refuse the Evil, and choose the Good, the Land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her Kings. Supposing those two Kings, to be Pekah King of Israel, and Rezin King of Syria, who were at that time joyned in a Siege against Ierusalem, or at least preparing for it, and the Child mentioned v 16. to be the Son of a Virgin promised, v. 14. it could be no relief to Ahaz, nor any great News for the Prophet to have told Ahaz that they should both leave the Country before eight hundred years were Elapsed. Let us therefore first consider the History to which that Prophecy related, Isaiah 7.1. we are told that in the time of Ahaz, Rezin the King of Syria and Pekah the Son of Remaliah the King of Israel went up towards Ierusalem to War against it, v. 2. And it was told the House of David (that is Ahaz) saying, Syria is Confederate with Ephraim; and his Heart was moved, and the Heart of his People, as the Trees of the Wood are moved with the W nd. The expedient which Ahaz thought upon in this Distress, was to get Tiglah Peleser, the King of Assyria, to joyn with, and help him (which he afterward did) hiring him with the Silver and Gold found in the House of the Lord, and in the Treasures of the Kings House, as we find 2 Kin. 1.6, 7. This Conjunction with Idolaters, was what the Lord had forbidden, and had often declared his abhorrence of. To prevent it, v. 3. he sends his Prophet Isaiah to him, Isa. 7.3. Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy Son at the end of the upper Pool in the High-way of the Fullers Field. And say unto him. Fear not, neither be Faint-hearted, &c. In short, he assureth him in the Name of the Lord, That the Counsel of these two Kings should not stand, nor come to pass, v. 7. that within threescore, and five years Israel should not be a People, &c. Ahaz knew not how to believe this. Isaiah offereth him from God to ask a Sign for the Confirmation of his word, either in the heighth, or in the depth. Ahaz refuseth it under pretence that he would not Tempt the Lord, as if it had been a tempting God to have asked a Sign at his Command, at this the Lord was angry as appeareth by the Prophets reply, v. 13. And he said, Hear ye now you House of David, is it a small thing for you to weary Men, but will you weary my God also? Then he goeth on. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a Sign. Behold a Virgin, &c. There was nothing more ordinary in the Prophets, then to Comfort the People of God amongst the Iews in their Distresses, with the Promise of the Messias, this we find they often did with reference to the Captivity of Babylon and in other Causes of Distress and Trouble. And certainly that is the design of the Prophet here, in these words: Behold a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son and shall call his Name Immanuel. Ahaz had refused to believe the Promise, God gave him, to defeat the Counsel of these two Kings, he had refused to ask a Sign, for the Confirmation of Gods word. Well (says the Prophet) God shall give you that fear him a Sign, he shall in his own time send you the Messias, whose name shall be called Immanuel, and he shall be born of a Virgin. Nor yet does he leave Ahaz and his people Comfortless, as to their present Distress, for says he v. 16. Before the Child shall know to refuse the Evil, and to choose the Good, the Land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her Kings. The Hebrew is which I think were better translated: This Child, then the Child, for seems not to be a Relative (referring to the Child mentioned in v. 14.) but a Demonstrative referring to the Son of Isaiah Shear-jashub, whom God v. 3. Commanded the Prophet going to meet Ahaz to carry with him, (who probably) was a very young Child says the Prophet. Here is a little Child whom God has Commanded me to bring with me, before this Child be much older, this Land which thou art so much afraid of, shall be quitted of both those Kings, who have now some Possession of it, for at this time, 2 Kin. 16.6. Rezin had taken Elath a City of Iudah; and doubtless he, and Pekah had taken divers places, for they were come up to Ierusalem it self. And indeed if this be not the Sense, it is very hard to conceive, to what purpose God Commanded Isaiah to take Shear-jashub with him. Isa. 7.3. When he went upon this Errand. So that v. 14. remains as a Prophecy respecting the Messiah only, and given not for any relief of unbelieving Ahas as to his present Distress, but for some relief to Gods People among the Iews, with reference to their Posterity: This will appear a much more probable Sense than theirs, who think that Mahershalal-hashbaz is the Son mentioned, v. 14. whom we read of, Isa. 8.3. who was born to Isaiah of the Prophetess, who some think was at this time a Virgin, and was a Type of Christ, for the Scripture does not tell us whether that Prophetess was a Virgin, or a Widow, neither was it any great wonder, that a Virgin being married should conceive, and bear a Son. Nor had this been any relief to Ahaz, as to his present Distress, for this Virgin (if she were such) was yet to be married, to conceive and bear a Son, so that according to that Notion, we must allow three or four years, before Ahaz could have expected relief. This is further advantaged by that passage, Isa. 8.18. Behold I and the Children which the Lord has given me are for Signs. Not the Child but the Children. Shear-jashub, was for a Sign of Gods deliverance of the Iews from those two Kings, Maher-Shalal-hashbaz, was for a Sign of the Destruction of the Israelites, within five years, and also of Syria, which fell out afterward thus, v. 14. remains a litteral Prophecy of Christ. For the Jewish interpretation of it, concerning Hezekiah (born fifteen years after) it is too ridiculous to be mentioned.

Then Joseph being raised from sleep, did as the Angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife.

And knew her not, until she had brought forth her first born Son. And he called his name Jesus. The Will of God (as we heard) was revealed to Ioseph in a Dream. It is God that giveth a Power to sleep, and a Power to awake: Therefore it is said, being raised from sleep, he showed both his Faith and Obedience, his Faith in the Divine Revelation, a certainty of which he had doubtless by some extraordinary divine Impression and his Obedience to the divine Precept: He took unto him his Wife, that is, he took her unto his House (for betrothed Virgins, used to abide at their own Friends Houses, till the Consummation of the Marriage) and owning her as his Wife, yet not fully using her as such, for the Text says he knew her not (a modest Phrase used from the beginning of the World, as appears from Gen. 4.1. to express the Conjugal Act) till she had brought forth her first born Son. Some make a great stir in determining, whether he knew her afterwards, yea or no: Some of the Ancients were stiff in their Opinion, that he did not, so are the Popish Writers, and many Protestant Interpreters. Mr. Calvin I think determines best, That none will move such a Question, but such as are unwarrantably curious, nor contend for either part, but such as are unreasonably Quarrelsome. For as on the one side, none can conclude that she had more Children from the Word until, further than, they can conclude from Psal. 110.1. That Christ shall not for ever sit at his Fathers right hand (the word Vntil being a Particle only exclusive of a preceeding time, not affirming the thing in future time. Nor does the term First born conclude any born afterward: So on the other side, there are no cogent Arguments, to prove that Mary had no more Children by Ioseph, we read of the Brother of our Lord Galath. 1.19. and of his Mother, and his Brethren, Math. 12.47. and tho it be true, Brethren may signifie Kinsmen according to the Hebrew dialect, yet that it does so in these Texts cannot be prov'd. The Holy Ghost had made use of the Virgin for the Production of the Messias, why after this, her Womb should be shut up, and Ioseph take her home to be his Wife, and not use her as such, I cannot tell, nor yet, what reproach it could be to Mary or to our Saviour, Marriage being Go Ordinance, and the undefiled Bed Honourable, and those who think our Saviour would have been dishonoured in any others lying in the same Bed, after him, seem to forget how much he humbled himself, in lying in that Bed first, and then in a Stable, and a Manger; we know he knew her not till Christ was born, whether he did afterward or no, we are willingly ignorant because God has not told us. And he called his name Iesus: This is added to declare his Obedience to the Command received by the Angel. We shall meet with more Circumstances relating to the Birth of Christ, when we come to the two first Chapters of Luke.