Secondly, They say that the birth of this child, which the ney . or young woman mentioned, was to conceive, was immediately to ensue, so as to be a sign unto Ahaz and the house of David of the deliverance promised unto them from the kings of Damascus and Samaria; and so could not be Jesus of Nazareth, whose nativity, happening seven hundred years after this, would be no pledge unto them of any thing that should shortly come to pass.
Thirdly, They insist that, Isa. vii. 16, it is promised that before that child which should be so conceived and born should come to the years of discretion, to “know to refuse the evil, and choose the good,” the kings of Damascus and Samaria should be destroyed; now this came to pass within a few years after, and therefore can have no relation to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.
Fourthly, They affirm that in the following chapter the accom- plishment of this prophecy is declared, in the prophet’s going in unto the prophetess, and her conceiving a son, concerning whom it is said, that before he should have knowledge to say, “ My father, and my mother,” the-land should be forsaken of both her kings, in answer unto what is spoken of the child of the virgin, chap. vu. 16, vii. 1.
Fifthly, That the name of this child was to be Immanuel, whereas he of whom we speak was called Jesus, Matt. i, 21.
Sixthly, That the child here mentioned was to be fed and nourished with butter and honey; which cannot be spoken, nor is it written, of Jesus of Nazareth.
23. In answer unto these objections, some learned men have granted unto the Jews that these words of the prophet were literally fulfilled in some one then a virgin, and afterwards married in those days, and that they are only in a mystical sense applied by Matthew to the birth of the Lord Jesus; as, they say, are sundry other things that are spoken primarily of others in the Old Testament. But the truth is, this answer is neither safe in itself, nor needful as to the argument of the Jews, nor consistent with the sense of the place or truth of the words themselves. First, It is not safe as to the faith of Christians; for whereas the birth of the Messiah of a virgin was so signal a miracle, and so eminent a characteristical note of his per- son, if it be not directly foretold and prophesied of in this place,
SECT. 22-24.] THE ONLY TRUE AND PROMISED MESSIAH. 387
there was no one prediction of it made unto the church of the Jews. Now, how this should seem reasonable, whereas things of far less concernment are foretold, is not easily made to appear.
Secondly, Upon this interpretation of the words, there is no ground left for the application of the mystical sense which they pretend to be made by Matthew: for if indeed the person primarily, directly, and literally spoken of, did not conceive a child whilst she was a virgin, but only that she who was then a virgin did afterwards, upon marriage, conceive in the ordinary course of nature, there remains no ground for the application of what is spoken concerning her unto one who, in and after her conception and the birth of her child, con- tinued a virgin; for although it be not required that there be an agreement in all things between the type and the antitype, yet if there be no agreement between them in that wherein the one is designed to signify the other, they cannot on any account stand in that relation. David, as he was a king, was a type of Messiah the great King. There was, we know, not an absolute similitude in all things between David and him, nor was there any necessity that so there should be, that he might be his type; but yet if he had not been a king, he could have been no type of him at all in his kingdom. No more can any person here spoken of, unless she did conceive @ son, and bring forth, continuing a virgin, be a type of her who was so to do; for how can the miraculous work of the con- ception of a virgin be signified or expressed by the ordinary concep- tion of a woman in the state of wedlock? Besides, this answer is wholly needless as to the objection of the Jews, and inconsistent with the sense of the place, as will be seen in the consideration of the words themselves.
24. We have formerly evinced that the foundation and end of the Judaical church and state, and of the preservation of the Davidical family, was solely the bringing forth of the promised Messiah; and this the event hath fully demonstrated, in their utter rejection after the accomplishment of that end. And hence the promise of the Messiah was the foundation, cause, and reason of all other promises made unto that people, as to any mercy or privilege that as such they
were to be intrusted withal ; for that for whose sake they were a people
must needs be the reason and cause of all good things that as a people were bestowed upon them. Thus, God often promiseth them to do this or that unto them for Abraham’s sake, and David’s sake; that is, upon the account of the promise of the Messiah signally made unto Abraham and David, when his bringing forth into the world was restrained unto their families and posterity. And hence, also, in times of straits and difficulties, when the people were pressed on every side, and laboured for deliverance, God oftentimes renewed unto them the promise of the Messiah; partly to support their spirits