was the daughter of Amram, the sister of Moses and Aaron, a prophetess; to whom the bringing of Israel cut of Egypt is attributed as well as to her brethren. "For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt (saith the Lord), and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam." (Mic. vi. 4.) As she was exalted to be one of them who brought the people of God out of the Egyptian bondage; so was this Mary exalted to become the mother of that Saviour, who through the red sea of his blood hath wrought a plenteous redemption for us, of which that was but a type: and even with the confession of the lowliness of a handmaid she seems to bear that exaltation in her name.

Beside this name of the blessed Virgin, little hath been discovered to us. Christ, who commended the faith of the centurion, the love of Mary Magdalen, the excellences of John the Baptist, hath left not the least encomium of his mother. The evangelists, who have so punctually described the city, family, and genealogy, of Joseph, make no express mention of her relations, only of her cousin Elizabeth, who was of the tribe of Levi, "of the daughters of Aaron." (Luke i. 5.) Although it be of absolute necessity to believe that he who was born of her descended from the tribe of Judah, and the family of David; yet hath not the Scripture clearly expressed so much of her, nor have we any more than an obscure tradition of her parents Joachim and Anna.†

sister of Moses; whom in another stilla, which is properly) maris, place he calls ἀδελφὴν αὐτοῦ Μαριά- or amarum mare, which he rather uvny. Therefore he thought the name embraced: yet these compositions of Mariamne to be the same with Mi- are not so proper, or probable at all, riam. And as the Greeks were wont especially in a name dissyllable. to add their own terminations to ex- Though the Jews themselves deduce otic words; so did they at other times it from, to signify the bitterness leave out the exotic terminations, if of the Egyptian bondage, as we read thereby their own were left. As for in Midrash y, beside the two au

נקראת מרים,Asia and Avra, for thors before quoted' חנה et אביה yet שמררו המצרים את חיי הם תרה Aod and Zaod, for' זרה et אסה

Θαρὰ, for Μαριὰμ Μαρία. Wherefore still the addition of the final mem is from the Hebrew Mirjam came, by not proper; or if that should stand variety of pronunciation, at first the Syriac Marjam; and from the Syriac Marjam, at first, only by variation of the pronunciation, Mapiàu, then for the propriety of termination, Mapia.

* For though that interpretation Domina may seem to some conveniently enough from, yet that being rather from the Chaldees, cannot so well agree with Miriam; nor is theso properly added at the end, as to the beginning of a Hebrew word, where it is usually in words of simple signification Heemantical. Again, though may signify smyrna maris, or illuminatrix, which St. Jerome rejected; and stella (or rather

for, there were no good account to be given of the jod. Whereas if we deduce it from the radix 0, with the addition of the Heemantic mem, the notation is evident, and the signification clear, as of one exalted above others.

† I call this a tradition, because not in the written word: and obscure, because the first mention we find of it was in the fourth century. Epiphanius first informs us, who speaking of Joseph, says he knew thus much: Γυναῖκα μὲν ᾔδει αὐτὴν τῇ πλάσει, καὶ θήλειαν τῇ φύσει, καὶ ἐκ μητρὸς ̓́Αννης, kai ik wатρòç 'Iwakɛiμ. Hares. 78. §. 17. Again: Ei ȧyyéλovç πрookvvεTodaι

Wherefore the title added to that name maketh the distinction for as divers characters are given to several persons by which they are distinguished from all others of the same common nomination, as Jacob is called Israel, and Abraham the friend of God, or father of the faithful; so is this Mary sufficiently characterized by that inseparable companion of her name, the Virgin. For the full explication whereof more cannot be required, than that we shew, first, That the Messias was to be born of a virgin, according to the prediction of the prophets; secondly, That this Mary, of whom Christ was born, was really a virgin when she bare him according to the relations of the evangelists; thirdly, That being at once the mother of the Son of God, and yet a virgin, she continued for ever in the same virginity, according to the tradition of the fathers, and the constant doctrine of the Church.

The obdurate Jew, that he might more easily avoid the truth of the second, hath most irrationally denied the first; resolved rather not to understand Moses and the prophets, than to acknowledge the interpretation of the apostles. It will therefore be necessary from those oracles which were committed unto them, to shew the promised Messias was to be born after a miraculous manner, to be the son of a woman, not of a man. The first promise of him seems to speak no less, "the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head :" (Gen. iii. 15.) for as the name of seed is not generally or collectively to be taken for the generation of mankind, but determinately and individually for that one seed, which is Christ; so the woman is not to be understood with relation οὐ θέλει, πόσῳ μᾶλλον τὴν ἀπὸ ̓́Αννης ture. Among which many being cerγεγεννημένην, τὴν ἐκ τοῦ Ἰωακεὶμ τῇ tainly false, it is not now easy (if at Avva dedwner; Hares, 79. §. 5. all possible) to distinguish what part where he makes mention of the his- of them or particular is true. Quod tory of Mary, and the tradition con- de generatione Mariæ Faustus pocerning her nativity. 'H rñs Mapíaç suit, quod patrem habuerit ex tribu ἱστορία, καὶ παραδόσεις ἔχουσιν, ὅτι ἐρ- Levi sacerdotem quendam nomine ῥέθη τῷ πατρὶ αὐτῆς Ἰωακεὶμ ἐν τῇ ἐρή- Joachim, quia Canonicum non est, μw, drɩ ǹ yvvý σov ovverλnovia, &c. non me constringit,' saith St. AugusDamasc. Orthod. Fid. 1. iv. c. 15. and tin, 1. xxiii. contra Faustum, c. 9. Orig. contra Celsum de Panthera, 1. i. §. 32. What this history of Mary was, or of what authority those traditions were, we cannot learn out of Εpiphanius. What the interpolator of Gregory Nyssen's Homily produceth, he confesseth taken from apocryphal writings. And divers of the like relations descended from the prime and greatest heretics. The gnostics had a book among them, which was called Γέννα Μαρίας. Εpiphan. Hares. 26. §. 12. Amongst the Manichees Seleueus wrote the history of the Virgin. And the Protevangelium Jacobi deceived many in relations of this na

* Τίς πότε, ἢ ἐν ποίᾳ γενεᾷ τετόλμηκε καλεῖν τὸ ὄνομα Μαρίας τῆς ἁγίας, καὶ ερωτώμενος οὐκ εὐθὺς ἐπήνεγκε τὸ παρθένον ; Εξ αὐτῶν γὰρ τῶν ἐπιθέτων ὀνο μάτων καὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς ὑποφαίνει τὰ τε κμήρια. Αξιώματα μὲν γὰρ ὀνομασιῶν ειλήφασιν οἱ δίκαιοι ἑκάστῳ πρεπόντως, καὶ ὡς ἥρμοζε. Καὶ τῷ μὲν ̓Αβραὰμ προσετέθη τὸ, φίλος Θεοῦ, καὶ οὐ διαλυ θήσεται τῷ δὲ Ἰακώβ, τὸ Ἰσραὴλ και λεῖσθαι, καὶ οὐκ ἀλλοιωθήσεται· καὶ τοῖς ̓Αποστόλοις, τὸ Βοανεργές, τουτέστιν, υἱοὶ βροντῆς, καὶ οὐκ ἀποκαταλειφθήσε ται· καὶ τῇ ἁγίᾳ Μαρίᾳ, τὸ παρθένος, καὶ où rрarnσeral. Epiphan. Hares. 78. §. 6.

unto man, but particularly and determinately to that sex from which alone immediately that seed should come.

According to this first evangelical promise followed that prediction of the prophet, "The Lord hath created a new thing on the earth, A woman shall compass a man." (Jer. xxxi. 22.) That new creation of a man is therefore new, and therefore a creation, because wrought in a woman only, without a man, compassing a man. Which interpretation of the prophet is ancient, literal, and clear;* and whatsoever the Jews have invented to elude it, is frivolous and forced. For while they force the phrase of compassing a man, in the latter part of the prediction, to any thing else than a conception, they do not only wrest the Scripture, but contradict the former part of the promise, making the new creation neither new, as being often done, nor a creation, as being easy to perform.

But if this prophecy of Jeremy seem obscure, it will be sufficiently cleared by that of Isaiah, " Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emanuel." (Isa. vii. 14.) The ancient Jews immediately upon the promulgation of the Gospel, understanding well how near this hour is, come, God shall say,

*For it is not to be denied that

הוא אומר אני עלי לבראתו is סבב the proper signification of I must ברית חדשה היום ילדתיך circundare or cingere. R. Judali has

observed but one interpretation of this verb, yo and Kimchi testifieth that all words which come from the root 20 signify encompassing or circuition. Therefore those words, a must literally import no less than that a woman shall encompass, or enclose a man, which, with the addition of a new creation, may well bear the interpretation of a miraculous conception. Especially considering that the ancient Jews did acknowledge this sense, and did apply it determinately to the Messias: as appeareth in Bereshit Rabba Parash. 89. where shewing that God doth heal with that with which he woundeth, he saith, As he punished Israel in a virgin, so would he also heal them with a virgin, according to the prophet, “The Lord hath created a new thing on the earth, a woman shall compass a man. By the testimony of R. Huna in the name of R. Idi, and R. Josuah the son of Levi, muan te m This is Messiah the King, of whom it is written, (Psal. ii. 7.) "This day have I begotten thee." And again in Midrash Tillim, upon the 2d Psalm, R. Huna in the name of R. Idi, speaking of the sufferings of the Messiah, saith, That when his

"

create him with a new creation. And so (by virtue of that new creation) he saith, This day have I begotten thee. From whence it appeareth that this sense is of itself literally clear, and that the ancient Rabbins did understand it of the Messias; whence it followeth that the latter interpretations are but to avoid the truth which we profess, that Jesus was born of a virgin, and therefore is the Christ.

How soon these objections were made use of by the Jews, will appear by Justin Martyr, the first writer which made any considerable explication and defence of the Christian religion; who, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, shews us what were the objections of the Rabbins: 'Eεi δὲ ὑμεῖς καὶ οἱ διδάσκαλοι ὑμῶν τολμᾶτε λέγειν, μηδὲ εἰρῆσθαι ἐν τῇ προφητείᾳ τοῦ Ησαΐου, ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει, ἀλλ ̓, ἰδοὺ ἡ νεᾶνις ἐν γαστρὶ λήψεται, Kai Tigerai vióv. p. 262. And Tertullian, whose works are full of the divinity of Justin: 'Si quando ad dejiciendos aliquos ab hac divina prædicatione, vel convertere singulos simplices quosque gestitis, mentiri audetis, quasi non Virginem, sed juvenculam, concepturam Scriptura contineat.' Advers. Judæos, cap. 9. et adv. Marcionem, lib. iii. cap. 13.

place did press them, gave three several answers to this text: First, denying that it spake of a virgin at all;* secondly, asserting that it could not belong to Jesus; thirdly, affirming that it was fully completed in the person of Hezekiah.‡ Whereas the original word was translated a virgin, by such interpreters as were Jews themselves, some hundred years before our Saviour's birth. And did not the notation of the word, and frequent use thereof in the Scriptures, persuade it, the wonder of the sign given by the Lord himself would evince as much. But as for that conceit, that all should be fulfilled in Hezekiah, it is so manifestly and undoubtedly false, that nothing can make more for the confirmation of our faith. For this sign was given and this promise made (" a virgin shall conceive and bear a son") at some time in the reign of Ahaz. This "Ahaz reigned but sixteen years in Jerusalem;" (2 Kings xvi. 2.) and Hezekiah his son, who succeeded him, "was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, (2 Kings xviii. 2.) and therefore born several years before Ahaz was king, and consequently not now to be conceived when this sign was given. Thus while the ancient Jews name him only to fulfil the prophecy in whom it is impossible it should be fulfilled, they plainly shew, that for any knowledge which they had, it was not fulfilled till our Saviour came: and therefore they cannot with any reason deny but that it belonged unto the Messias, as divers of the ancient Rabbins thought and confessed: and is yet more evident by their monstrous error, who therefore expected no Messias in Israel, || because they thought

* And as they soon began, so did they go on, with this objection: 'Hodie toto jam credente mundo, argumentantur Judai, Esaia docente de Maria et virginitate ejus, Ecce virgo in utero concipiet, et pariet filium, in Hebræo juvenculam scriptum esse, non virginem, id est, halma, non bethula.' S. Hieron.adv. Helvid. col. 439. +Dicunt Judæi, Provocemus istam prædicationem Esaiæ, et faciamus comparationem, an Christo, qui jam venit, competat illi primo nomen quod Esaias prædicavit, et insignia ejus quæ de eo nunciavit. Equidem Esaias prædicat eum Emmanuelem vocari oportere, dehinc virtutem sumpturum Damasci et spolia Samariæ adversus regem Assyriorum. Porro, inquiunt, iste qui venit neque sub ejusmodi nomine est dictus, neque re bellica functus.' Tertull. adv. Judæos, c. 9.

p. 262. And Trypho replies again to Justin: "Idwμev wg ikeïvov eis Xpiotòv τὸν ὑμέτερον ἀποδεικνύεις εἰρῆσθαι, ἡμεῖς γὰρ εἰς Εζεκίαν αὐτὴν λέγομεν πεπροpnrεvolai. p. 302.

§ The LXX. Ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γα orpi λneral. It is true, the rest of the interpreters, concurring with the objection of the Jews, translated it, 'Idov

veavic, i. e. adolescentula, or juvencula. But as their antiquity so their authority is far short of the LXX. especially in this case. I shall not need to shew, how the origination of

by from by proves no less. We know the affinity of the Punic tongue with the Hebrew; and by the testimony of St. Jerome, 'Lingua Punica, quæ de Hebræorum fontibus manare dicitur, proprie virgo alma appellatur.' V. Lib. Quæst. Heb. in Gen. c. 24. v. 43.

It is the known saying of Hillel, recorded in Sanhedrin, c. Chelek, "N

להם משיח לישראל שכבד אכלוהו,t So Justin testifieth of the Jews

speaking to Trypho, and in him to pin " There is no Messias to them: 'Enyεioε TV TOOTεia ws the Israelites, because they have alεἰς Εζεκίαν τὸν γενόμενον ὑμῶν βασιλέα. ready enjoyed him in the days of He

whatsoever was spoken of him to have been completed in Hezekiah. Which is abundantly enough for our present purpose, being only to prove that the Messias promised by God, and expected by the people of God before and under the Law, was to be conceived and born of a virgin.

Secondly, As we are taught by the predictions of the prophets, that a virgin was to be mother of the promised Messias; so are we assured by the infallible relations of the evangelists, that this Mary the mother of Jesus, whom we believe to be Christ, was a virgin when she bare him, when she "brought forth her first-born son." That she was a virgin when and after she was espoused unto Joseph, appeareth by the narration of St. Luke (i. 27.); "for the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph." After the salutation of that angel, that she was still so, appeareth by her question, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" That she continued so after she conceived by the Holy Ghost, is evident from the relation of St. Matthew: for when she was "espoused unto Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. i. 18.) That she was a virgin not only while she was with child, but even when she had brought forth, is also evident out of his application of the prophecy: "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son." (Matt. i. 23.) For by the same prediction it is as manifest that a virgin should bring forth, as conceive a son.* Neither was her act of parturition more contradictory to virginity, than that former of conception.

zekiah.‹ Divers of the latter Rabbins endeavour to mollify these words of Hillel by their several expositions, but in vain. And R. Joseph understood him better, who thought he took away all expectation of a Messias, and therefore fairly prayed for him, Condonet Dominus hoc R. Hillel. Howsoever, it appears that from two principles, whereof one was false, he gathered that false conclusion. For first, he thought those words in Isaiah were spoken of the Messias: which proposition was true. Secondly, he conceived that those were spoken of Hezekiah, and fulfilled in him: which proposition was false. From hence he inferred, that the Israelites were not to expect a Messias after Hezekiah: which conclusion was also false.

• Hæc est virgo quæ in utero concepit, virgoque peperit filium. Sic enim scriptum est, Ecce virgo in utero concipiet, et pariet Filium. Non enim concepturam tantummodo Virginem, sed et parituram Virginem dixit,' S.

Ambros. Epist. 7. ad Siricium. So he argued from the prophecy, and St. Augustin from the Creed: 'Si vel per nascentem corrumperetur ejus intcgritas, non jam ille de Virgine nasceretur; eumque falso, quod absit, de virgine natum tota confiteretur Ecclesia, quæ, imitans ejus matrem, quotidie parit membra, et Virgo est.' Enchir. c. 34. As also St. Ambrose in the same epistle; Quæ potuit Virgo concipere, potuit Virgo generare, quum semper conceptus præcedat, partus sequatur. Sed si doctrinis non creditur sacerdotum, credatur oraculis Christi, credatur monitis Angelorum, credatur Symbolo Aposto lorum, quod Ecclesia Romana intemeratum semper custodit et servat.' And St. Basil upon occasion of the same prophecy: Ἡ αὐτὴ γυνὴ καὶ παρθένος καὶ μήτηρ, καὶ ἐν τῷ ἁγιασμῷ τῆς παρθενίας μένουσα, καὶ τὴν τῆς τεκνογονίας εὐλογίαν κληρονομοῦσα. Ηomil. in Sanct. Christ. Gen. §. 4. Virgo peperit, quia Virgo concepit.' Vigil. de unitate Trinit. c. 10.

T