| OCR Text |
Show = clefabaollpart,Cannasfi - Thefecmad'B PENNe TN : Guavianctg.oftheHifyofobeWald PETE et : ‘ eS * - ; and fecure of her ownc eftate,as notjyanting an Eeire. Wherfore it was not needful, chat the fhould be fo vanaturall, as to,deftroy the ch ilde of herowne fon, of whofelif the might hauemade greater ye, thanthe could ofthis death ; whereas indeed, the lone dbGrand-mothers to their, Nephewes, is little lefle than the Mothers to.their chil. : é dren. ~ This argumentis very ftrong. Forit may feemeincredible, that all naturall affedion fhouldbe caft a-fide, when asneitherneceflity vrgeth,nor any commoditic therby got- tenrequireth it, yea whenall humanepolicie doth teach onethe fame, whichnature avithout reafontwould haue perfwaded. ; Tf. 11. That loas did not defendfrom Nathan. Vt (as it issmore eafie-to finde.adifficultie inthat which istelated:; than to thew how. itimighthaue otherwifebin the pedegree of this Loafh is,by themwhichthink hin notthefonne of Abazia,fet downein fuch fort that it may very iuftly be fufpected. Theyfay thathe.defcendéd from Nathamthe fonne of Dawd,and not from: Salomon, to which purpofethey bringa Hiftorie (I know not whence)oftwo'families ofthe raceof Dawid, {aying thattheline of Salomomheld the kingdomewiththis condition, thaifat any timeit failed, the familie of Wathawfhouldducceedit. Concerning this Nathan? the fonne of David thereare that would haue him'to bee Wathaz the Prophet, who, as they thinke, was by Dasidadopted. And ofthis opinion was Origen, as alfo S. Aagne fline fometime Was, but afterward he reuokedit, as was meete ; forthis Nathan is reckoned among theffons of Danid,by Bath/ua the daughter ofAmmes,and therfore could TaCh703-5 not bethe Prophet. Gregory Nazianzen (as I findehim cited by Peter Martyr)and after him, Erafmus, atid Faber Stapulenfis, hauc likewife held the fameof Ioa/h, deriuing him from Nathan, But Nathan and thofe other brethren of Salomon by the fame Mother, arethought,vpon goodlikelihoods; to haue been the children of ria the Hittite :and fo are they accounted by fiindry ofthe fathers,and by Lyre,8¢ Abalenfis,whofollowthe HebrewExpofitors ofthatplacein the firt ofChrozicles, The words ofSalomon calling30 himfelfe the only begottten of his mother, doeapprouethis expofition: for weseade of tio more than two fons which Bath/ua ox Bathfheba did beare vnto Dawid, where! the one begotten inadultery, died. an infant, and Salomon onelyofher childrenbythe King did line. So that the reft muft needes haue beene the children of ria, and ate thonght to _haue beene Dawids only by adoption. Wherefore if Jee had not beene the fon of abazéa,then muft that pedegtee haue beenefalfe, wherein S. Matthew deriueth himlineally from Salamon ; yea, then had notoar bleffed Sauieur iffued from theloys of Danid, according to the flefh,but had only beene ofhis line by courtefie ofthe Ne tion, and forme of Law, as any other might haue been. As for the authoritie ofPhil , which hath drawne manylate writers into the opinion that Jea/h was not of the poltetitie of Salomon, it is enoughto fay, that this was Frier Anaius his Philo: for noother edition of PAilohath any fuch matter; but Azsixscan make Authors to {peake waat lik. , beenelextant,of an.cuent fo memorable. That therace of Nathan was not ¢ itis indeed apparant by the Genealogie ofour Lord,asit is recounted by prefertation ofthe houfe of Denéd,mentioned inthe books ofKings an performedin the perfon of /ehoahas, in whomthe Royall branchof Sélomon, the ral,and not onlylegall ifftuc remaining of Dawid,was kept aliue.. Wherefore it thought that this Zoa/b, who followed 4rhalia in the Kingdome, wasthe ¥« ot Jehoram, whole lite Athalia asa ftepdame, wasnotlikely to purfue.- For it 1° eafily vnderftood, why the preferuiation of Dasids line, by Gods ef; regard ofhis promifemade, fhould pertaine ratherto that time, wher himfelfe, there were two andfortie, of his brethren, (as in another called)fonnes ofhis brethren remaining aliue, which a than haue reference to the lamentable deftruction andlittleleffe t that progenie, whergin oneonlydid efcape.. Certainely that inhuma dehoram committed vpohhis brethren, if it were(as appeareth in the H vponhis owne children ; then was not this vengeatice of God ac -omp Philiftims and Arabians, but being only begun by them, was afterwards proiec lehw,andfinally tooke effect by the hands ofthat fame wicked woman, on, hée had committed{uch barbarous outrage. Andfromthis ¢ r+ By fodoubtfullacafe, ifit feeme lawful to hold'an opinion that nomaft hath ye *thought vpon, methinkesit were notamiffe to lay open at once, andperule tog" two places of Scripture, whereofthe onetelling the wickedneffe of /ehoramthe ™ ie iudgement laid vpon Jehoramandall his children, only Johoahas hi as exempted ; whomtherforeifI fhould affirme tobe the famewith Ja led the fon of Ahazia, I fhould not want goodprobabilitie. Somefur of neceflity there is, which doth argue that it could no otherwife ha y ongeft fonne of Jehoram in whomtheracewaspreferued ; which could not ylikelihood be Ahazia, {eeing that hee was twentyyeeres old attheleaft (asis alnoted) when he began to reigne,and confequently, was borne in the eighte ortweentieth yeere ofhis Fathers age. Now Iknownot whetherofthe two is more vnlikely, either that Zohoram{hould haue begotten manychildren befo : gotecne yeeres old, or\that hauing) (as. hee had) manywiues ai vpon the fuddaine,at his eighteenth ye re; becomevafruitfull, ar twenty yeeres following : eachof which muft hauc beene true, if ¢ 40a=44 Was thefame Johoshas, which was his yongeftfonne. But this inc taxcn away, és thofe other doubts arifing from thecaufeleffecr ueltyot king the life Of Joa, are eafily cleered, if Joes and sehoahas were one. Neith af Lar this opinion. For he was feuenyeeres, old » "i{tand we vnderftand of yeeres compleat,he might ie beena vam, beingbegotten fomewhat afterthe b nning of his ablurdto fay that he was the naturall fonof Iehoram, thou 40than it Wereto fay, as great Authors haue done,th is difficulty ‘ the pofteritie of Nathan. Onething indeed. I knownot howto ; y curred with the reft,might haueferued.as.the foundationofthis opinion. The ehoahas, that foundeth much morenecre to /ozs, than to Abazia, in an Euelifh ithe Hebrew(as Iaminformed by fome, skilfull in that language t aine letters, differ much from th: 1 of feh/aphat King ofluda, for which heandhis children perithed;rehea ee "ie id ; bee alfo called zariz, and muft hau the fame Lehoram,; there wasnor a fonne left him, fan Tchoahas the yougef of "a tebe Now,ifitwete inregard of Gods promifé to Deuid, that after thofe maflacres © Elf ram ~ponall his brethren, and ofthe Philiftims and Arabians vpornthe children : ¢ id ee <silr to hauecicaped;im whom theline ofDawid was prefeiued * for hadall the race OF ' tar fo haue had feu ; in which mannerJozs mi piNion vpont poflibiliti . ake foundation of mine owneco oniideration of of fuchas fi-h : sonhecration haue more abilitie roit of Gods mercies towards the houfe of Dawid, that according to his promt encewe" ces eat gine hima licht, and to bis childrenfor ewer' : the other doth fay, that for th eoffen haram;one of the feed of Dasid efcapeds Why may itnot bee thought that c ANer Of writing, and little from the other ald. That loas mayprobably be thoscht.to hane been thefonne of Ichoram. a.King. 8.19, evo, beene rootediv pin thefe wofull Tragediesyand theprogenie of.Mathan fucces in,placeithereof; likeenough it isthat fome remembrance more particular woul t. IV £08 What reafans Ashalia mizht feeke to deftroy loas, if bewere her owne grandchild, thall follow oretowe : La ccording theletter, ir ma which : andi nly. receined, r tv Was not only |} DiLic |
