Works

Advertisement to the Binder.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

A Lthough this very Learned Author's Epistles and Prefaces to many of the English pieces contained in this Volume may save me much the labor of a general Preface to them all: Yet it may be convenient to add something concerning the use of this kind of Learning, the Author himself, and these English Tracts of his.

AS for the First, the Reader must not expect a Treatise about it in a Preface to Another's Book: But only some brief suggestions for the direction and encouragement of the Studious; that the Author might not seem to have employed so much time and tedious labor too fruitlessly in Writing, nor myself somewhat of both in Reviewing, Correcting and Publishing what is here presented to him. There seems to me two chief Points of a more comprehensive Wisdom, the one is justly to estimate and prize the several parts of Knowledge, and that principally from their usefulness; not so much from their Antiquity, their being esteemed and cultivated perhaps by great Personages, or the like slight and pedantique considerations, any further than as they are signs or arguments of the former: The other is to understand the inclinations, capacity and ability of any person for one or more of them. These two things are principally to be observed by those who apply themselves to any study (and indeed to any employment) in making their choice: Which is in itself of greatest use and importance, and which a person can make most progress in; what is best in itself, and what he can best do. If anything be of no good use or advantage, it is not to be undertaken at all; if a man wants ability or capacity for it, it is not to be attempted by him. Although there be truly great difference between the several sorts of Science in respect of their value; yet there is hardly any which hath not its use, and ofttimes much more than the ignorance, or envy, or fashion, or humor of an Age will allow.

There are four things which our Author hath been very diligent and laborious in, and where we may be considerably benefited by the Reading of these Tracts. I. The Chronology of the Holy Scriptures. II. Their Chorography. III. Their Original Texts and various Versions. IV. Talmudical and Rabbinical Authors.

First, For Chronology, it is nothing but the knowledge of the Relation and the existence of things one to another, before, with or after; and particularly with the conversions and situations of the Sun and Moon, i. e. years, months, weeks, days, as being the most constant and the most universally known. Though the time of a things existence may be and frequently is characterized by the existence of other things likewise, nor is it so easy to define what is the first measure of time. But this is not so much to our purpose. The uses of the knowledge both of the times of writings, and of their matter or contents, are very considerable, and in short these among others. First, From thence we collect many other circumstances, and consequently a more full and adequate knowledge of things; such as place, Authors; qualities, conditions, persons to whom, reasons why, and twenty others: Whence it frequently helps to the discovery of the true writing in an Author, or of its meaning and sense; and in profane and fallible writings, the truth or falsehood of things themselves therein delivered. Instances of the former are numerous in the Scriptures, (for as to the latter, the truth of what is delivered therein, we are secure). As in pag. 80. of the ens • ing Volume, according to our Author, the sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. of the Kingdom of Asa (2 Chron. XVI. 1.) in the thirty sixth year, of which Baasha King of Israel is said to come up against Judah, is not his personal but his National Kingdom, if I may so call it, not his Reign, but the Kingdom of Judah in opposition to that of the ten Tribes, since their division. This appears from the Chronology or computation of Baasha 's reign, who is said 1 Kings XV. 33. to begin it in the third of Asa, and to continue it but twenty four years, that is, to the twenty seventh of Asa; and this according to all the translations too. Baasha therefore could not come up against Israel in the thirty sixth of Asa 's reign being understood of his personal reign or Kingdom. We'l take leave to argue from the Chronology of the Scripture, especially where all Copies and Translations agree, notwithstanding the assertions and conjectures of the late famous Critick, That no exact Chronology ( what for no time? ) can be stated upon the Authority of these Books; till he lays surer foundation for his Opinion, and more particularly explains it. However this and other following instances are proofs and illustrations of what use Chronology may be; although the integrity and truth of the present writing in the Hebrew Copies be only supposed not proved. Thus also Omri 's beginning to reign over Israel twelve years in the thirty first year of Asa King of Judah according to the Hebrew Text, and all the Versions must have the sense which Chronology will there allow. vid. Harmony of the Old Testament, pag. 81. In p. 87. Ahaziah 's being forty two years old when he began to reign, 2 Chron. XXII. 2. and Jehojachin eight years old, 2 Chron. XXXVI. 9. must be otherwise rendered than it usually is to make it consistent with Chronology, supposing no error in the Hebrew Text. But both the Greek and Oriental Versions in the first place, having the number twenty two or twenty instead of forty two; and in the other place, the Oriental Versions having eighteen instead of eight, makes it probable that there is a mistake. Grotius 's confident assertion concerning the reading of Isa. 7. 8. viz. that in the Hebrew it should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. six and five, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sixty and five (though this last agree with all the versions too) and consequently that it was to be six and five or eleven years, not sixty and five to the time when Ephraim should be no people, to the taking of Samaria and captivating the ten Tribes; I say this assertion of his is to be rejected (however otherwise that place is to be interpreted) because it is inconsistent with Chronology as well as for other reasons. For this Prophesy must be in the third year of Ahaz at the furthest, because it was in the time of Pekah King of Israel, when he invaded Jerusalem with Resin King of Syria. Ahaz began to reign in the seventeenth year of Pekah 's twenty years reign, 2 Kings XVI. 1. and therefore could be contemporary with him but three years at most. But now from Ahaz 's third year to the taking of Samaria, which was the ninth of Hosea King of Israel, was eighteen years, not eleven as Grotius would have it. Even to the beginning of the siege it was fifteen years. For Hosea began to reign in the twelfth of Ahaz (2 Kings XVII. 1.) there is nine years; and Samaria was taken in the ninth of Hosea, there is nine more. The reason of Grotius 's mistake, we read in the 2 Kings XV. 30, viz. that Hosea siew Pekah, and reigned in his stead. This he takes to have been immediately after Pekah 's death, which is not necessary. And it appears from the other computation, that there was an Interregnum in the Throne of Israel seven years; or at least that Hosea was not accounted to reign, as our Author hath observed. The reason of which he probably conjectures to have been that Shalmanezer, the Assyrian King, had conquered him and his Kingdom, and kept them for about seven years; afterwards he permitted him to govern as his Tributary, or Hosea by force rescued himself from that subjection. Our Author in pag. 104. makes the same observation serviceable for the methodizing and explaining Isa. 1. 9. and XIV. 28. Once more the most probable reading of that known place, Exod. XII. in the Samaritan Text and Alexandrine Copy of the Septuagint is determined by Chronology. A number of other places there are both in the Prophesies and Epistles especially, beholding to the knowledge of the time both of their writing and matter for their meaning; As on the other hand ofttimes the matter is a Character of the time.

The proof of the completion of Prophesies by Chronology is a matter of great importance, to assure us that there hath been such a thing as Revelation in the World, by one of the greatest Miracles the prediction of contingent futurities. As that of the habitation and servitude of Abraham and his posterity in Canaan and Egypt four hundred years, a round and even number for an uneven and more particular; a thing so usual in the Scriptures, that the Rabbins have made a rule of it in the interpretation of them. And the number four hundred and thirty recorded Exod. XII. is an argument of no design in the Writer or Compiler of the Pentateuch to make the Prophesy and its Completion exactly agree; but that he set down, as he received by writing, tradition, or Inspiration. Remarkable also are indeed the Prophesies of the pollution of Jeroboam 's Altar, about three hundred and fifty years after the prediction, by Josiah offering up the Priests of Baal, and burning men's bones upon it; 1 King. XIII. 2, 23. That of Daniel 's seventy weeks or four hundred and ninety years from the going out of the Decree to the coming of the Messiah; That of the 70 years Babylonian Captivity; The express naming of King Cyrus who should show favor to the Jews in giving them liberty to rebuild their Temple and City; That of the Destruction of the Temple before the end of one generation predicted by our Savior. The time of prediction and completion of these things, that the one is before the other, and how long, is to be taught and proved by Chronology. But these things are here only to be set down as known examples; it requires leisure and some diligence to examine them. Finally, Chronology sixes things in our memories, and makes it more easy and pleasant to apprehend and remember them.

The next is Chorography or the knowledge of places. This also is extremely helpful to our understanding, imagination and memory. Generally we cannot well conceive nor remember any intellectual objects, such as are the qualities, tempers and dispositions of men's minds, without some sensible circumstances; nor sensible objects, such as bodily actions and speech, without the circumstance of place: And we may observe in our reading, when we desire to understand, and retain what we read, if we find not such circumstances related, we fancy them and make them to ourselves. This also prevents errors in the interpretation of the Scriptures, and is often necessary to it, especially in the Prophets, where frequently the names of notable places, as Cities, Mountains or Rivers, are set to denote whole Countries, their Inhabitants and Qualities; as Isa. II. and everywhere: What is so common needs no others instance.

Concerning Copies and Translations they are of great use. (1) To evidence and confirm the Integrity of any Copy of the Original Text; though there be great difference between these, and all are not of the like weight and Authority. Generally speaking (just to mention my conjecture) I reckon the Samaritan Text, and Version in the first place after the Hebrew, next the Paraphrase of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, then the Syriac Version in the English Polyglots, then the Vulgar Latin, then the present Septuagint, then the Arabic Version, then the Ethiopic, then the other Chaldee and Persian paraphrases. Thus for Example, that the old original reading of the place before cited, Isa. 7. 8. was not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as Grotius affirms, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as it is in all our Hebrew Copies, is very probably argued from the agreement of all our Translations. In Deut. X. 6. The Hebrew and Samaritan Texts are contrary one to the other; besides there is a whole sentence in the Hebrew which is not in the Samaritan. According to the Hebrew it is, And the children of Israel took their journey from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan to Moserah, there Aaron died and there he was buried, &c. But in the Samaritan it is, and the children of Israel went from Moserah and pitched their tent among the sons of Jaakan. And then all the encampments of the children of Israel being interposed and reckoned up, as Numb. XXXIII. it follows, then died Aaron, &c. But all the other Versions exactly agreeing with the Hebrew Copy, are a very good argument for its reading; and that it may be reconciled with the History, Numb. XXXIII. 31, 38. in some such manner as is done by our Author, pag. 38. Though it be confessed too, that the exact agreement of the story in both places according to the Samaritan, is on the other hand considerable for the readding of the Samaritan Text. The Repetitions of the Samaritan, in Exod. XVII. after verse. 14, 19, 22. from Deut. XXIV, & V. with some alterations, as in many other places; and the interposition of a whole sentence, Exod. XXII. 10. and elsewhere; these, I say, being all absent from all the Translations are arguments of the integrity of the Hebrew copy in general, and particularly in those places. Nor can I believe but in that vexatious question of the two Cainans, Gen. X. 24. and Luke III. 36. the Septuagint is corrupted, and the Hebrew Copy in the right, since the Samaritan Text and Version, and all other Translations agree with the Hebrew. And even the Vatican Copy of the Septuagint, in 1 Chron. I. hath quite left out the second Cainan, and the Alexandrine Copy, as it once hath it, so it hath once omitted it also. But then (2) on the other hand it is to be acknowledged, that sometimes the consent of other Versions are an argument of defect or error in our present Hebrew Copies. For through the Hebrew Copies we have be beyond all comparison the best and nearest the Originals: yet it is too much partiality or superstition to believe that there are not therein some faults considerable to be corrected by the translations, of which examples are frequent in the restoring of other Authors, and particularly Ignatius 's his Epistles by Primate Usher. In that known place Psal. XXII. 16. the English translation hath truly read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they pierced my hands and my feet: But in our present Hebrew Copies it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 As a Lyon my hands and my feet. That there is a defect in all these Hebrew Copies, and that it was formerly written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they have pierced or digged my hands and my feet, all the Versions except the Chaldee Paraphrase confirm. Besides that the present reading is non-sense, except it be supplied with some Verb, as it is by the Chaldee Paraphrast, which upon this Book of the Psalms and upon the Hagiographa is of no great antiquity; where we read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. like a Lion biting my hands and my feet. But this is very Precarious, and such an Ellipsis (though the Hebrew abounds with that figure) as seems contrary to the Genius of the Biblical Hebrew, and perhaps without example. Not now to mention that according to the Masora itself, it must be here read in another sense than as a Lion: for it here notes that in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the letter ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) is twice found in the Bible with the Vowel ( • ) but in two different significations; and that the other place is Isa. XXXVIII. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to our English translation. I reckoned till morning that as a Lyon so will he break all my bones. In this last place no doubt but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must signify as a Lyon; therefore in the first place of Psal. XXII. it must not signify so, but some other sense. These are things known sufficiently to the Learned, but not to beginners in this sort of Literature, nor in our Language, and therefore it may not be superfluous to mention them. Nor that of Psal. CXLV. 14. where all the Translations except the Chaldee Paraphrase again interposing a whole verse to this sense, The Lord is faithful in all his words, and holy in all his works; makes it highly probable (besides the argument from the Alphabetical beginning of every verse one of which will be wanting without that interposition) that so much is left out in all our modern Hebrew Copies which was in the more ancient, whatever the industrious and laborious Hottinger may briskly and warmly, after his manner say in defense of them: though the repetition of that verse, with the alteration of two words in the seventeenth verse, may be some argument on the other side. That famous place of difficulty, Exod. XII. 40. The sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years, would be justly suspected of defect from the Samaritan Text, and Alexandrine Copy of the Seventy, though there was no evidence from Chronology. Both of which have it, The sojourning of the children of Israel, and of their Fathers in Egypt and Canaan: and even the Roman edition, of the Seventy, adds the land of Canaan to Egypt.

In old Jacob's Prophesy concerning his youngest son Joseph, Gen. XLIX. 22. The Samaritan Text confirmed by the Seventy seems much the better reading than the Hebrew, In the Hebrew it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Which our English translation renders, whose branches run over the wall. But indeed according to the present punctation it can hardly be construed: But in the Samaritan Text it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and in the Seventy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. Joseph my youngest son: which also well answers that in the prediction concerning Reuben, verse. 3. Reuben my first born. In Gen. IV. 8. The agreement of the Samaritan Text and Version, the Syriac, Septuagint, Vulgar Latin, for the interposition of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as it is in the Samaritan Text) i. e. let us go into the field, in the speech of Cain to Abel (besides the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and he said, necessarily requiring it, and a void space left in the Hebrew Copies) makes it extremely probable that those words are really wanting in our present Books. As for the great difference of the intervals, or sum of years, from the Creation to the Flood, and from the Flood to Abraham 's birth, which is between the present Hebrew, the Samaritan and the Septuagint, I leave it to Chronologers. This is not a place to dispute it.

That there are also many Errata's and faults in many places of the present Hebrew of single letters, both consonants and vowels (I mean the sounds, not the characters of vowels, which without doubt are very late) cannot reasonably be denied by one unprejudiced, as principally from other arguments, so from one or more of the Versions. I do not allow of all the Examples produced by Learned Men, and some of them as much partial on the other hand, and almost spiteful against the Hebrew: But I think some instances are just and reasonable. As to single out one or two, Psal. II. 9. we read now in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. Thou shalt break them with a rod, or rather a scepter of Iron: But in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, as Rev. I. 27. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thou shalt feed or rule them: to which agree all the other translations except the Chaldee Paraphrase. Whence we have very likely reason to believe that they did read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Hebrew, which signifies, thou shalt feed, govern, or rule them. It is true the sense of both readings is much the same, and therefore the variety of no great consequence. For the same reason it is probable that in Hos. XIII. 14. the true reading of the Hebrew formerly was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where are, which St. Paul follows, 1 Cor. XVI. 55. not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will be thy Plagues O Death. Though the conjecture of the very Learned Dr. Pocock, observed also by Buxtorf in his ordinary Lexicon, concerning a Metathesis or transposition of the letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be ingenious. But I confess his citation of the Chaldee Paraphrast, verse. 10. of the same Chapter is so far from proving it, that it might as well argue another defect in the Hebrew of the same kind; and that there also The Paraphrast as well as the Vulgar, and all the rest of the translations, did read in the Hebrew formerly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will be. Nor I doubt is there one example of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by a Metathesis signifying interrogatively. And yet Buxtorf in his Lexicon before cited, only upon the Authority of these two places, hath given us this new word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for where. Our English Translation following the present Hebrew hath more truly rendered it, O Death I will be thy Plagues; and I will be thy King. For nothing more ordinary than for the future tense of the Verb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be written defectively with an Apocope. Again Amos 9. 12. there seems to be three words otherwise read by the Septuagint, and followed by St. Paul, Act. 15. 16. than is now extant in the Hebrew, which much alters the sense; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they shall possess the Septuagint read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they shall seek; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Article of the Accusative Case 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 me; and for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Edom 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Man or Mankind. The Septuagint, and out of them the Arabic reading one way; the Chaldee, Vulgar Latin, and Syriac reading another; leave it uncertain which is the right unless it can be determined by other means.

These things are now almost known to everybody, and are brought here only for instances with some little additional observation.

Moreover it may not be amiss to take notice that the punctation of the present Hebrew is not always accurate. This is apparent enough as from many other Anomalies not mentioned by the Masora; so also from many proper names otherwise written in the Versions, and that according to their own Analogy of the Hebrew Tongue. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Seventy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so likewise in the Vulgar: whence it is most likely these words should have been pointed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with pathach not scheva before the guttural.

And to add this upon this occasion; It hath been nothing but mere superstition, I concieve in the Modern Jews, and perhaps in the more ancient even beyond the time of the Seventy, to put the vowels of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Adonai under 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehovah the proper Name of the God of Israel. For it seems to me more likely that this proper Name of God was pronounced, because it frequently made a part of men's names both in the beginning and ending. As in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (to be pointed as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as it is • alsly in our Hebrew Bibles) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. vulgarly written, Isaiah, 〈◊〉 , Jonathan. Nor is it less probable that the true punctation of this proper Name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehovah as now pointed was anciently 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jahavoh, As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. But this by the bye for a little digression. Another use and benefit of the several Versions of the Scriptures is ofttimes to suggest to us some significations of phrases or words which otherwise we should not have thought of. Thus Isa. XXViii. 16. In the Hebrew we read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which our English Translateth, He that believeth will not make hast: But the Seventy render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and St. Paul Rom. ix. 33. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall not be ashamed, and the Chaldee Paraph. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall not be troubled or disturbed, and the Syriac 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall not fear. Now from these different Translations it may not be unlikely that the Hebrew word may signify all these four senses, especially being of so near an alliance one to another; though in our modern interpretations we take notice but of one. Which is rendered somewhat more probable by that very learned Orientalist Dr. Pocok, who tells us the Arabic verb Hausch answering to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies three things, viz. to hast, to fear, to be ashamed. And in the Heptaglott Lexicon of the indefatigable Dr. Castle, now the worthy Arabic Professor in Cambridge, who with the loss almost of his Senses, Limbs and Estate, undertook that laborious Work; and underwent a great part of the toil in the edition of the English Polyglott Bible (such is too often the fate of Learned drudgery) I say in this Lexicon appears four or five more significations. But as to this last, It seems I confess that the arguing from the various significations in one Tongue, to the like in another, may be too much relied upon. For what is more ordinary than for people in a little Tract of time by reason of many accidents to change the signification of words, and to give others; and for one Country who first borrowed a word from another, to add more senses and ofttimes quite to lose the first. As for example, The word concieve hath many significations in English different from those of Concipio in Latin, from whence it is derived. Nor doth infoelix in Latin signify both unhappy and mischievous, because unluckie, in English, which answers to the Latin infoelix sometimes signifies both. Nor do the French words Trier and Craquer signify any other thing that I remember at this day, than to pick or choose, or cull, and to shake or quake, not to try, attempt, make an essay, or to boast; Though the English words to try, and to crack do, which are derived from those French words. Nor finally doth the word Letten in Dutch signify Contraries, viz. to hinder and to permit, because the English word to lett, which answers to it doth: of which Dr. Pocock takes notice ( loc. cit. ) as one instance of a word signifying contraries amongst many others of other Languages. No more will it follow that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Hebrew is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of two repugnant significations, because the Arabic sometimes translating it according to some of their Lexicographers is of that kind.

I know that the English to lett, signifying to permit, comes from the Dutch word Belaten not from letten; but the word lett in English signifying to hinder, is written with the same letters, and answers to the Dutch letten in one sense, whence one might infer that letten in the Dutch should have the same significations. But I fear I shall almost tire my Reader before I come to that I principally designed, which was the benefit and advantages of Talmudical and Rabbinical Learning, the chief talent of this learned and laborious Author.

This kind of study hath now flourished in these Western parts about the space of one Century, and somewhat more; But at present begins (as it seems) to be neglected and laid aside, partly because it is thought that the best of it is already extracted and prepared to our hands, by the hard and assiduous labors of many both Learned and Judicious Men, (in which may be much mistake) partly because it requires much time and pains not attended with such secular Advantages as other Studies more easy and delightful. Since its restauration it hath had somewhat the fortune of Chemistry, and hath been by degrees inspected, improved and used not only by men of whimsey, memory, or vanity, but by the more Wise, Judicious and Philosophical. Many of both sorts have given us a large account and examples of the great usefulness of it: perhaps besides some more instances of what they have observed I may suggest or more insist on one or two which they have not taken so much notice of.

First then, The very knowledge of the opinions and customs of so considerable a part of mankind, as the Jews now are, and especially have been heretofore, is valuable both for pleasure and use. It is a very good piece of History, and that of the best kind, viz. of Human Nature, and that part of it which is the most different from us, and commonly the least known to us. And indeed the principal advantage which is to be made by the wiser sort of men, of most writings, is rather to see what men think and are, than to be informed in the Natures or Truth of things they write of; To observe what thoughts and passions have run through men's minds, what opinions and manners they are of. Particularly it is of good importance here to take notice of the strange ignorance, the putid fables, the impertinent trifling, the ridiculous discourses and disputes, the odd conceits, the fantastical observations and explications, the childish reasonings, the groundless arrogance and self-conceit, the superstitious temper of this people universally, except Maimonides and one or two Modern more Philosophically given, who yet had enough of it too. The very Spirit of Hypocrisy, Weakness, Pride and Superstition, which our Savior and the Prophets, those illustrious Preachers of inward and real Righteousness, of a solid and intelligent Piety and Virtue, reproved and inveighed against in their times, runs still generally through their writings. It appears yet by them, how blindly or hypocritically they prize the smaller matters of their Religion and their own additional circumstances beyond the weighti • r and more important. They make a great noise of their being God's peculiar people, in special Covenant with him; of the Divinity of their Religion, and the jus Divinum of all their little institutions and non-sensical mysteries, especially of their Cabbala, either from the groundless and whimsical interpretation of some command of their Law, or from uncertain or false tradition; when in the mean time they little mind the great end and design of what is true and useful in them. They will dispense with Charity and Humanity itself, to observe their own decisions, while they think it lawful to compass the Death of an Israelite, who wears Linsey-woolsey, and unlawful to take up a Heathen out of the Sea ready to perish. They talk as if God were so enamored of their Ancestors, and doted on their posterity, that he made the World only for their sake; and thought himself still so obliged to them for their honor they do to him, by preferring and choosing him and his Laws, and Religion, before others; that he must needs be their Protector and Savior, nor ever suffer one of those his dear people to perish or scarce come to any harm. This is a disease in all Religions, and but too ready to creep into the best of Religions, Christianity itself. Which hath so expressly discovered, and severely condemned it, in the foolish Hypocrites of the Mosaical Religion, to which it succeeds. We may further also observe how much the Jews and other Oriental people, are given to strange, uncouth and strong imaginations, especially about intellectual things, like the Pythagorean's and Platonists, who had their Learning and Notions from the East and the South: which as it hath its use for invention and discovery, sometimes of more than what ever enters into the thoughts of the dull generality of mankind; so it is a great disadvantage of nature too, stuffing the mind with a great many impertinencies, follies and falsehoods, and that believed with great pertinacity, unless it be managed by the supreme faculties of understanding, reason and judgment. After all this a man may meet with some opinions among them, either by chance or Tradition, and many Institutions, Rites and Laws, with the explication and application of them, which may be good hints to Wiser Men. Though I have been generally inclinable to believe that the most of the considerable Doctrines among them, about intellectual matters in Divinity and Philosophy, As concerning the Nature and Attributes of God, some things of the Messia, the nature and orders of Angels, of the Holy Spirit, and Divine presence ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) of the Resurrection of the dead, the Immortality of Souls and their states after death, of the first and second death, of a kind of Purgatory, of the day of judgment, of original sin, &c. of some of which there is some account in the Theol. Jud. of Du Voisin; I say, I have been always prone to think that the Jews, especially the Modern, such as Ramban, Rasi, Saadia, Kimchi, Abarbanel, &c. have received them though insensibly, and not known to themselves, and with some mixture and interpolation of their own from Heathen and Christian Philosophers, Fathers, Schoolmen, who first taught them and set them about in the World. I have said the most not all; and this I think I could make probable in many particulars, if this were a place for it. But this is enough for the first Advantage.

A second use of the Talmudical and Rabbinical Authors, may be the confirmation of the History of our Savior Jesus the true Messias. That there were such persons as Jesus and his Disciples, who lived in such a Country, and in such an Age, that he performed such actions, and delivered such discourses, that there was such places, opinions, customs, practices, public and private, in that time. For the Jewish Writers, who then lived or not long after, and others from them make mention of these matters of fact, they report to us such usages and rites among themselves, they relate and discuss such opinions and controversies; Their style and phrase is perfectly the same with that of the Evangelists, nay much of the matter too, such as Proverbs, Parables, Similitudes. Now what confirms or weakens the credit of an History in some particulars doth it in all the rest; for the oftener any one relates things truly or falsely, the more probable it is he may do so again. Were it not in our own Tongue I should think it almost superfluous to give but an instance or two, out of many of our own observation, there being so great a number already produced by our Author, and other Learned Men, to commend and encourage this study. How like to that of our Savior, in his Sermon on the mount, Matth. VI. 25. and Luke XII. 22. Therefore take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, &c. is that, in the Babylonian Talmud, in the Gemara of the Treatise Sota, fol. 48. col. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. 'Twas a saying of Rabbi Eliezer the elder, That whosoever having one morsel in his basket, enquires what he shall eat on the morrow, he is no other than one of little faith. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This same saying is quoted by our Author, in his Horae Heb. but at the second hand, out of R. Abuhabb 's Preface to Menorath Hammaor. And again, T. B. kidd. in Misn. Misn. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. Shall the Beasts and the Fowls be fed without solicitous care and trouble, and shall not I who am created to serve my Master and Maker? Again, Matth. X. 35, 36. Our Savior tells his Disciples, That he was come to set a man at variance against his father, &c. We meet with the very same Tradition almost in the same words, T. B. cap. 9. mis. 15. The citation is too long to be all recited. It begins 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to this purpose, That about the time of the Messias, impudence should abound, &c. and then a little after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The son shall revile and ill treat his father, the daughter shall rise up against her mother, and the daughter in law against the mother in law, and a man's foes shall be they of his own household. R. Judah tells the same story in T. B. Sanhed. fol. 97. Col. 1. Although these unwonted things seem to be spoken by these Rabbins, not as the consequents or effects, but as the immediate precedents of the Messias coming. Some of the most notable parables of our Savior, in the Gospels, we meet with them, the very same or very like, with some few alterations in their Talmuds. That of the rich glutton, Luke XVI. in T. B. Gem. Berac. That of the Laborers in the Vineyard, Matth. XX. in T. H. Gem. Berac. That of the Marriage feast, and the wise and foolish Virgins, T. B. Gem. Schab. 153. These translated by Cunrade Otho, are already cited by Sheringh. In his Preface to Codex Joma. The last of which is loosely and ill rendered, with additions and omissions, for the better explication and accommodation of it to the Text of the Evangelist. Furthermore, how exactly true doth that reproach of our Savior to the Scribes and Pharisees appear, Matth. XXIII. 3. from their own disputes and decisions, in T. B. Maas. Misn. cap. 4. Mis. 5. our Savior pronounceth a woe against them for their greater care and accuracy, in paying Tythe, of Mint, Annise and Cumin, than in Judgment, Mercy and Faith. Their great Doctors and Wise Men, in the place cited, make it an important question, whether Annise (which they call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) should give Tythe of its seeds, leaves, stalks or sprouts altogether (as I suppose). R. Eliezer was of opinion that it ought: but the Wise Men ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) who always carry it, judged that nothing was to be Tithed in its leaves and seeds, but only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nasturtium & Eruca, which some English cresses and rocket. Scores of places might be here set down which have not been taken notice of by other Authors: nor was it worth their while always to do it, unless very briefly to indicate such a custom or phrase, and the places in their Authors where for curiosity or exercise they may be found. And to keep myself within the bounds of a Preface, I will here together just note many places in the Talmuds where there is mention made of our Jesus, that the learners or learned may consult them at their leisure: Most of them are to be found scatteringly in Buxt. Lex. Talmud. only we must observe that partly out of ignorance, partly out of malice, they have mixed many fooleries and falsities with what is true. In T. B. Sanh. Gem. 43. 1. It is delivered as a Tradition, that Jesus was hanged ( upon a Cross ) the day before the Passover, because he had enchanted, seduced and drawn away the people; that it being proclaimed three days for some person to appear in his behalf, to testify his innocence, there was none found to do it; that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 regno propinquus, i. e. either of the Royal Family or in favor with some Courtier; that there was five of his Disciples (the names except one agree not with ours) who pleaded they were not to be put to death. Again, in the same Treatise, fol. 101. 2. and in Sot. 47. 1. they say, Jesus used enchantments and sorceries; and they tell a story of his going into Egypt with one Joshua son of Perachiah, and that he was excommunicated by R. Simeon. The rest of the places are T. B. Avod. Zar. 17. 1. and in those which speak of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Apostate. By whom Buxtorf and others think they covertly mean Jesus. As T. B. Sanhedr. 67. 1. Schab. 104. 2. and T. H. Sanhed. cap. 7. about the end. It were easy to fill many sheets more under this head: but these are abundantly sufficient for instances of this second use of Talmudical and Rabbinical skill. The Reader also in perusing this Volume will find a multitude of passages and observations to this purpose, and particularly Chap. 9, 10. Of the Temple Service: and Sect. 77. Of the Harmony of the New Testament.

To these ought to be added the known benefit and advantage of the interpretation of many places of the Old Testament, concerning the Messias; the rendering more probable even to Christians, and the establishment of many Christian Dogms against the Jews, denied by some, or many, or almost all the later of them, from Authors and Writers of greatest Authority in their account. As to this last point against the the Jews, it matters not so much of what Authority they are in themselves, (though some may be allowed them) or from whence they had their opinions. Such are for example, the time of the Messias coming, the excellency of his Nature, the greatness of his Power, that he was to be a Spiritual Prince, to have Spiritual Power against Satan, and to turn him and wicked men into Hell; yet a Calamitous, Afflicted and Despised Person, though highly Meritorious, the Justification of men for his sake, his satisfaction by his Merits for the sins of penitents, &c. I do not say that what we meet withal among the Jews, especially more ancient, is exactly the same with these Christian Doctrines; but that at least it is so like, and comes so near them truly and intelligibly explained, that they have reason to be fairly disposed to the belief and reception of them.

And, First, I will very briefly put together (that I take in as much as I can into this Preface) many Scripture interpretations, especially of the Ancients, concerning the Messias, to which many more may be added. Isa. I. 6. His Name shall be called Wonderful, &c. Maimonides in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 confesseth these six Names to belong to the Messia, construing the words as we do. So doth ABen Ezra. But R. Lipman, R. Selomo and D. Kimchi make another construction, viz. that the mighty God, the everlasting Father, &c. shall call him (the Child ) Wonderful, &c. Isa. XI. 1, 2. and there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, &c. The Gemarists in T. B. Sanh. 93. 2. and Maiem. in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Chaldee Paraphrast interpret it of the Messia, Isa. LII. 17. Behold my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted, &c. Tanch in Jalkut understands it of the Messias, and R. Houna in the same place refers the fifth verse. of Chap. 53. He was wounded for our Transgressions to the afflictions of the Messias. That whole Prophesy is generally by the Ancients interpreted of the Messias; though R. Saadia, and ABen Ezra, whom Grotius thought good to follow, refer it to Jeremy; and the Kimchi 's, R. Solom, and ABarbanel, with much less reason or sense, to the people of Israel. Isa. XI. 10. To it shall the Gentiles seek. In Beres. Rabb. fol. 110. it is said to be meant of Messiah: So indeed do all the Jewish interpreters. Isa. II. 4. And they shall beat their swords into plow-shares, &c. it is spoken of the times of the Messias in Jalk. out of T. B. Schabb. Zech. XI. 12. And they weighed for my price thirty pieces of Silver. R. Chanian, and R. Jochanan in Beres. Rab. are of opinion that those thirty pieces were thirty new precepts, which the Messias was to bring with him, whence would follow some change in their Law. Though there are there who object that those thirty precepts are to be given to the Gentiles, not to the Israelites, as the Scholiast R. Issachar there interprets it. Zech. XII. 10. And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced (which place I think may be better rendered to secure it against the Grammatical objection of the Jews) R. Dousa in T. B. Succ. 52. 1. will have it meant of the Messias the son of Joseph. Mich. V. 2. Out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be ruler in Israel. The Chaldee Paraph. tells us this is the Messia. Buxt. in his Lex. Talm. gives us above sixty places where the Chaldee Paraphrasts mention the Messias: Many or most of which interpretations or allusions being fantastical, and not owned by any Christian Expositors, who have handled the Scripture with Judgment and Sobriety, are impertinent to our purpose. Although I fear I have already cloyed the reader with the first sort of citations, yet I must beg his patience a little while, for one or two more of the second, viz. those that belong to the establishment and more easy reception of some Christian Dogms. That Gloss of Tanchuma in Jalkut on Isa. LII. 13. a place just before mentioned is now quoted by everybody. The words of the Prophet are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. Behold my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted, and be extolled, and be very high. That ancient Author glosseth, i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This is the King Messias, He shall be exalted above Abraham, extolled above Moses, and high above the ministering Angels; For it is said, (Ezek. I. 18.) As for their heights or backs, there is a height above them. I know in the Hebrew this last sentence brought for proof, may and ought to be otherwise rendered: But it is sufficient to my purpose that the sense must be as I have translated it, according to this ancient Author, because otherwise it proves not the thing for which it was quoted. Now that which is principally observable is that by the living creatures in Ezekiel. This Author and others understood the supreme order of Angels (of which they make seven) called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or holy animals, and by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which we translate rings, they backs, they mean their dignity: and yet they say there was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a height or dignity above them, which was that of the Messias; and therefore that he was next God the fountain of being: And why not then that he did from eternity emane or issue from him. This Doctrine of this ancient Author is directly contrary to the opinion of Majemonides, who tells us, that the dignity or eminency of the Messias should be greater than that of all the Prophets except Moses. But nothing can be more agreeable to the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews and especially to the 7. & 14. verses; and indeed this Chapter, and the beginning of St. Johns Gospel, and the Epistle of Jude, and many things in St. Johns and St. Peters Epistles, in the Apocalypse and elsewhere, have so much of a Cabbalistical strain, both as to matter and phrase, that the Jews methinks should have a kindness for them, if it were but only upon that account. I should here scarce mention so whimsical a Writer as Baal Hatturim, who seems to attribute at least the formation of the Chaos to the Messias; did not our Learned Author, in his Harmony of the New Testament, tell us that the same is to be met withal in Zohar and Bahir, two of the most esteemed books among the Jews. Upon the words, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, Gen. I. 2. that Author notes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This was the Spirit of the Messias. Nor is that Translation and Paraphrase of the Chal. Paraph. Isa. LII. 13. to the end of Chap. LIII. now I suppose less commonly known, where Justification or Remission of sins is so plainly ascribed to the intercession of the Messias. Chap. LIII. 4. &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Therefore he shall pray for the remission of our sins, and our iniquities shall be forgiven for his sake; and verse. 6. & 7. In the Chaldee, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. we all of us have been scattered like Sheep, everyone strayed and wandered in his own way: But it hath seemed good to God to forgive us all our sins for his sake, he prayed and was heard, nay before he opened his mouth he was accepted. It may indeed be some doubt whether the Paraphrast by this, He, who shall intercede, understands the Messias or some other; because those things which are spoken from verse. 13. of Chap. LII. to verse. 4. of Chap. LIII. He seems to mean them confusedly, sometimes of the Messias, and sometimes of the people of Israel, as many of their modern Authors do: But the doubt may soon be resolved by observing, that he attributes remission of sins to the same person, of whom he saith, That he shall gather the captivity of Israel, and shall send the wicked to Hell: But this cannot be meant of the people of Israel, and consequently it must be understood of the Messias. Nor is it any wonder that the Jews should do this honor to the Messias, when they give so great a part of it to their Ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, &c. The Jerusalem Targum, Gen. XXII. 14. introduceth Abraham, desiring of God that when the children of Israel should address themselves to him in time of necessity, he would remember Isaac 's voluntary oblation of himself to be a sacrifice (for so they think it was) and pardon them and forgive their sins. And in T. B. Ber. 7. 1. there is one Rabi who interprets those words in Daniel 's prayer, Dan. IX. 17. for the Lord's sake, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. for Abraham's sake. But the plainest and clearest place to this purpose, as if it had been written by a Christian under the disguise of a Jewish style, is extant in a book of great repute among the Jews for its Antiquity (Though for some reasons I conjecture the Author lived after Muhammad's time) called Pesikta. It is quoted in Jalkut on Isa. LX. 1. Buxtorf. hath already given us this place largely translated into Latin, in Arc. foed. cap. 14. I will here set down as little as may be of it, for brevity sake, with an observation or two. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God beginning to make a Covenant with him ( the Messias ) thus bespake him. Those whose iniquities are hid with you, will put you into an iron yoke, with which they'll make you like an heifer almost blind with labor, and strangle you; for the cause of their iniquities your Tongue shall cleave (with grief and drought) to the roof of your Mouth. Do such things as these like you? To which the Messias answers, Perhaps those afflictions and sorrows may last for many years. God tells him, That he had decreed him to suffer them for a whole week of years, but if he did not consent thereto he would presently remove them. To whom the Messias returns, That he would most willingly undergo them upon condition that not one Israelite should perish, but that all of them should be saved. Those who lived and died in his days, those who were hid in the Earth, those who were dead since Adam, even all embryo's and untimely births, finally all who had been or should be created.

Are not these expressions very near the Christian Doctrine of the Messias suffering for the sins of all mankind, or of Christ's being a propitiation for the sins of the whole World? Only these true Jews according to their wonted uncharitableness and arrogance, restrain the benefit to themselves. Again the same Author Pesikta tells us, That it is a tradition of their Masters, that in the month Nisan their forefathers are to rise up and say to the Messias, O Messias, Although we are your Ancestors, yet thou art more excellent than we, because thou hast born the iniquity of our sons, and harder, and heavier afflictions have passed over thee than ever yet happened or shall happen to any man, &c. Is it your pleasure that our children should enjoy the benefits which God will bestow upon them? For peradventure because thou sufferest even from them while they cast thee into prison (he came unto his own and his own received him not, John I. 11.) thou mayst be less favorable unto them. To whom the Messias answered, That what he had done, he had done it for the sake of them and their children. What's all this but what the Christians teach, that the Messias was to be a person despised ('tis there one instance of his condition) afflicted and cruelly used even by his own Kindred and Countrymen? It is true, in the same place of the same Author, we have two traditions likewise of the victorious, pompous, splendid and prosperous state of the Messias at last: but they are different traditions of different persons, the one of R. Isaac, the other of R. Simeon. And then suppose they had been of the same persons, yet still the Messias was to have been a man of mighty sufferings; and no marvel if they withal retained their inveterate Opinion of his temporal Power and Greatness. In the same place, a little before, they feign a short Colloquy (according to their fashion) between God and Satan; where God tells Satan, That the light which he saw under his Throne of Glory belonged to him, who should in time confound him with shame; and that Satan when he saw it fell down and trembled, crying out, that He truly was the Messias, who was to cast him and all the Heathen people into Gehenna. For this purpose was the Son of God manifested (saith St. John I. 3, 8.) that he might destroy the works of the Devil. Much more might be observed and transcribed in this quotation, and many more instances might be brought: but I am to remember I am writing a Preface not a Treatise.

But lastly, The principal use of Talmudical and Rabbinical Authors is yet behind, namely the right interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, especially of the New Testament. Inspired writings are an inestimable treasure to mankind; for so many sentences, so many truths, but then the true sense of them must be known; otherwise so many sentences so many Authorized falsehoods. Whatever therefore contributes to the finding out of that, must in proportion be valuable. And no greater help to do it with ease, speed and plainness, than the knowledge of the Phrases, Opinions, Laws, Rites and Customs, as well as other circumstances of the Jews at the time of those writings. This appears from the great and frequent ignorance or mistakes of many both ancient and modern interpreters, who had as great a share of piety, parts and wit, and other suitable qualities as other men, but wanted this assistance; and even Jerome and Origen who had the most skill would have done better if they had had more of it. In this age all Commentaries are full of this kind of Learning, and none hath more frequently, and perhaps to better purpose made use of it than this our laborious and learned Author. I will only here, as I have done in the particulars before, add an instance or two out of many of our own observation, and put an end to this short essay of the utility of oriental Learning. In Matth. XII. 36. the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or idle word, for everyone of which our Savior saith men shall give an account (he doth not say shall be condemned or punished) may perhaps be of the same importance with that which the Talmudists and Rabbins call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. the talk of those who are idle, at leisure, have little to do; such as is used among people in ordinary conversation when they meet together. As what news? How doth such a person? Or the like. Even this may be well or ill done, prudently or foolishly; and therefore even of this an account will be required. See Maiem. Comment. in Pirk: Av. cap. 1. That of our Savior's promise, Matth. XVIII. 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my Name, I will be in the midst of them; is well paralleled and illustrated by the saying of R. Chaninah Pirk. Avo. cap. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If but two together employ themselves in the Law, the Shekhinah or divine presence will be among them; the like also T. B. Ber. 6. 1. That of St. Mark XIV. 56. concerning the false witnesses against our Savior, that their witnesses agreed not together, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be somewhat explained by the custom we read of in T. B. Sanh. Misn. cap. 5. they used to put seven questions to everyone of the witnesses apart; namely in what Jubilee or space of forty nine years anything was done, in what year of that Jubilee? What month? What day of the month? What day? What hour? What place? If the words of the witnesses agreed not, the Testimony was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or an idle Testimony which was to no purpose, if they did agree it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a firm and effectual Testimony. And a somewhat more obscure saying of our Savior to the Samaritan woman, John IV. 14. Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst, but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. This may receive light from a like saying in in pir Avo. cap. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. The Law gives him that studies in it a Kingdom, Dominion, Sagacity in judgment, revelation of its secrets, and becomes to him like a never ceasing fountain, and mighty flowing river. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. the refreshment of Spirit in the World to come, of which R. Jacob ( in pir Av. cap. 4.) pronounceth that one hours enjoyment is more worth than a whole life in this World, is very like St. Peters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the times of refreshment which shall come from the presence of the Lord, Acts III. 19. The Apostles advice, Cor. I. 8. to abstain from things offered to Idols; was in compliance with those Brethren who thought it unlawful from a Jewish Canon. T. B. Avod. zar. Mis. cap. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is lawful to eat of the flesh which is carrying into an Idols Temple, but not of that which comes out, because it is of the sacrifices of the dead, i. e. to inanimate Idols or to dead persons. That place of 1 Cor. XI. 10. where St. Paul commands the women to cover their heads in praying, because of the Angels, would have given Critics and Expositors no trouble, if they had observed that the Apostle alluded to, and allowed of, the received opinion of the Jews concerning Angels being present, and that with curiosity in some human affairs of importance, but especially in Religious matters. We may learn thus much and smile into the bargain from what we read concerning R. Joshua and R. Jose the Priest in T. B. Chag. 14. 2. 'It is this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

To this sense. As R. Joshua and R. Jose the Priest were walking together they said one to another let us discourse of the Mereavah or Chariot (that is the Metaphysical part of their Cabbala or traditional mysterious Philosophy, so called from the vision of Ezekiel where they think it was mystically taught) R. Joshua began ( and it was upon the day of the Summer Solstice ) presently the Heavens were covered with clouds, and there appeared a kind of a Bow in a cloud, and the ministering Angels were crowding to hear as men use to do at the solemnities of the Bridegroom and Bride. This story will not fail to bring to our minds that of St. Peter 1. I. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Into which things (the matters of the Gospel) the Angels desire to look into. Which makes me a little wonder at the opinion of our Author, pag. 303. so well versed in those Books, that by the Angels are meant the Devils making a bait of the beauty of the women to entangle the Eyes and Hearts of the men. Perhaps he hath changed his opinion in his notes upon the Epistle to the Corinthians which I could never yet see. He that reads in the Chaldee Paraph. commonly called Jonathan 's on the Pentateuch, Gen. XXXV. 25, 26. That the Angels used to meet together at certain times to praise God vocally; and in the same Targ. as also in the Jerusalem, how the Angel which wrestled with Jacob desired him that he would let him go because that very morning was his first course from the Creation with others to laud and praise God; He that reads the long story of R. Chaninah and R. Kasma. in the Medraschim Printed with Zohar, fol. 46. pag. 2. col. 2. concerning the Angels Aza and Azael ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) who murmuring and rebelling against God, and by him tumbled down from his holy place, and then clothed with aiery vehicles, playing pranks with women, were bound with long Iron chains to the mountains of darkness; I say he that reads these, cannot but refer them to 1 Cor. XIII. 1. The Tongues of Angels; and 2 Pet. II. 4. The Angels that sinned and were cast down to Hell and delivered into chains of darkness; and Jude verse. 6. The Angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness. I have put as many things together here as I could conveniently, and could add much more. But it is time to put an end to this part of our little dissertation, and to draw to a conclusion of the whole.

In the beginning of our Preface I promised something concerning this very worthy and learned Author. It is but a little I have to say of him, but it is all that either my own knowledge or others, no very forward information would amount to. He was born in Staffordshire, and educated in Christ's College in Cambridge, but in that Age when the strain of Opinions in Divinity ran generally another way, after the first Forreign Reformers, before things were so calmly, impartially and perhaps judiciously examined. He lived, and publicly appeared, principally when Factions grew high, and were in great ferment; when the Populacy, the worst of Masters, all being done, the most ignorant, selfish and ungenerous were courted; when public accusation was the fashion, and all things found fault with right or wrong; when affairs were carried with clamour, confidence and violence, with pretences and appearances of Religion and Reformation, backed with a present success. And it was no wonder if some good and innocent men, especially such as he who was generally more concerned about what was done in Judea many Centuries since, than what was transacted in his own Native Country, by the intrigues and designs of Enthusiastical or Hypocritical Politicians; I say it is no wonder if some such were born away to some compliances in some opinions and practices in Religious and Civil matters, which they themselves afterwards upon more sedate and serious reflection did not allow. And yet it seems his innocence from any self-interest or design, together with his Learning, secured him from the extravagancies and follies of the Demagogues, the people's Oracles, everyone of which affected to distinguish and signalize himself by some peculiar Doctrine or Custom; but in truth were no more fit for Teachers and Governors in Religion, than Mountebanks to compose Dispensatories, or to be Presidents of Colleges of Physicians.

For one little proof of which, when in the University itself, the use of the Lord's Prayer was generally laid aside, He did in the University Church, as I remember, both produce and discourse his own opinion, concerning the obligations to use the form of it in Public; and accordingly to testify his more than ordinary assurance and zeal, recited it both before and after his Sermon.

His preaching in the University in his course (which he seldom omitted) was to the most judicious and best disposed (and there were many who began carefully to examine things when heats were over) very acceptable. For he always brought with him some new and considerable notion, either in the explication of some place of Scripture, or confirmation of it, which was usually followed with some application, delivered with a very sensible and grave Piety.

He was for his temper, as far as I know, or have heard from those who knew him better, and may be gathered from many of his Prefaces, of as great modesty as learning; humble and mean in his own opinion perhaps to an excess. Where the greatness of that amiable virtue (a thing rare) seems to have betrayed him to an error in judgment concerning himself and his own value, and too long Commendations and Elogiums of others. As he was most obliging and kind himself to others, so by what I have heard he was the most sensible of their obligations to him; which might be the cause why he was in some cases so liberal in his acknowledgments and praises: Having more regard to the favor he received than to the right or other qualities and circumstances of the person who bestowed it. He was most assiduous and laborious in his Study where he spent almost the whole time, and peradventure somewhat too much when he was in a station of some action and government.

His Learning is best known from his Works. It lay principally in History, Chronology, Systematical Divinity, the Oriental Tongues, but above all in Rabbinical and Talmudical Authors. In these last doubtless he had spent a great deal of time, and taken a vast deal of pains, and I do believe I have reason to say, as far as appears by writings, that he had been the most conversant, and was the most skilled, in the two Talmuds (the principal part of Jewish Learning, being their Canon and Civil Law) of any man in Europe. And his Ability in this sort of Knowledge and Learning was so well known and esteemed, in the time of the edition of that Herculean, and incomparable Work of the English Polyglot-Bible (though now too low prized) that he was often consulted, and did as freely communicate his Observations and Collections. In the Apparatus to it are Printed his animadversions upon the Chorographical Tables or Maps of the Holy-land made by Adrichomius Trinius, &c. in which he discovers and corrects a great number of gross errors; and his opinion is more than once cited in the Prolegomena. All which is but very little in compare with what he hath since done in his Chorographical disquisitions, before his Horae Hebraicae, on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but of this others perhaps ere long will give an account.

It is not so foreign to the Argument, and design of this Preface, to take notice here by the way, and upon this occasion of the French Critick, now so much in vogue with us, Father Simon; who as he hath indeed in that Book of his, given very just commendations to so great a performance; so he hath been pleased to find some faults therein, and to make many other observations and reflections concerning other matters, with reason little enough. As for example, perhaps because he saw the compilers of those many great Volumes so good husbands as to give us the Alexandrine Copy of the Septuagint, as it were in the Margin, by noting only the differences from the Vatican Copy: He thought they would have done well to have given us in like manner the Samaritan Text and Version of the Pentateuch: whereas there are not the same reasons. Perhaps there are more and more considerable differences between the Hebrew and Samaritan than between the two Copies of the Seventy; and then the reading of the Hebrew in Samaritan letter, and that without any points, as also the being acquainted with the dialect of the Samaritan Version, so very remote from the Hebrew, and somewhat different from all other of the Chaldee Paraphrasts, were sufficient reasons besides others for the Printing them as they are done entirely. And indeed they would have been much to blame if they had omitted them, and followed some such advice as that of this Author.

But his reflection upon the Protestants in another place wants either judgment or sincerity; where when he hath shown, as he thinks, the very great difficulty in translating the Holy Scriptures, he infers the great ignorance of the Protestants, or the little pains they have taken in finding out their difficulty, when they affirm that the Word of God contained in the Scriptures is plain and not at all intricate. But what Protestant saith so? They say indeed, that the matters necessary to salvation are plainly contained in the Scriptures; which in my opinion is so certain and easy a truth, that neither he nor any other will be able to confute it; and for my part I am so far from believing that all necessaries to salvation are not plainly contained in the Scriptures, that I think both they and a multitude of not necessaries too (though of great use) are there plainly to be found. Yet I am not ignorant what they have ever ready to object against Protestants.

And for his explication of Authentic, viz. A faithful Copy which one cannot suspect to have been altered. It is not only equally (as himself honestly acknowledgeth) but much more applicable to all the Modern Latin and Vernacular Translations than to the Vulgar Latin, a great part of which nobody can tell what it is or whence it comes. For the present Hebrew Copy itself, though it may have its defects: yet without doubt coming infinitely nearer the true first Original, as himself confesseth, than the Vulgar Latin, must be a more faithful Copy, and consequently more Authentic. And then all the Modern both Latin and Vernacular Translations, though they have their faults, not everywhere truly rendering the Hebrew, yet more agreeing with the present Hebrew than the Vulgar Latin, as everyone knows, they must be more faithful Copies, and consequently more Authentic too.

And in effect the reasons of the ingenious Parisian Divine, who is so well pleased with this Notion for the Authentickness of the Vulgar Latin, are only because the Council of Trent hath said so; and those of Father Simon an unreasonable suspicion of all other Translations from the Hebrew, and the long use of it for some Centuries in a corrupted ignorant Church.

It is pretended for the reputation of that Council by this Critique, Bellarmine and others, who were too Learned not to see the advantage of Protestants against the Romanists by this Decree; that the Council did not intend either to exclude the present Hebrew, or to prefer the Vulgar Latin before it. But either the contrary is true, or else they were strangely negligent in a most important affair which they should have first settled, viz. the best Version of the Holy Scriptures. Otherwise why did they not appoint some of their own to review and correct the Latin Translation of San. Pagn. from the Hebrew, encouraged by Leo the tenth, or else to make a new one and a better? Besides the words of the Decree, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus & expositionibus pro Authentica habeatur, & ut nemo eam quovis praetextu rejicere audeat vel praesumat. Can infer nothing less than that everyone should be bound, either quite to neglect the Hebrew and consequently to exclude the use of it, or else wheresoever they found the Vulgar Latin differing from or contrary to the Hebrew, yet to stick to the Vulgar Latin; and what is this but to prefer it before the other?

This methinks is a considerable instance of the indefensibleness and willfulness of some of the opinions of the Roman Church. Wherefore this Learned and industrious Critick follows the present mode of France to make the most plausible and tenable explications of their received Dogms; which for my part, supposing they be not only plausible but true, shall have not only my permission but commendation. But that they have been always the general sense of their Church, or though true, ought to be imposed upon all Christians as conditions of Communion; the one I do not always believe, the other I do not by any means allow. I am glad to see such effects of the increase of solid knowledge amongst a people more ingenious, free and generous, that they are ashamed somewhat of follies and falsehoods though too ancient and too much Authorized.

This Writer indeed is Learned and hath much considered the task he undertakes; but all is not extraordinary, and all that is so is not perhaps true. For very many things are now commonly known, and many observations concern the Pontifician or the more early reformed Critics and Commentators, altogether ignorant or indifferently skilled in Oriental Learning, nor gotten out of the prejudices of an infallible Church or more modern Systems, not then to be questioned without the suspicion of Atheism or Heresy. Many also are his remarques, which though they have the hap now first to appear in public, yet they have been taken notice of by many among the Protestants, who have not been so forward to publish them, but chose rather to reserve them to longer consideration. And in general I think it may be observed that that Learned Genius, that free, judicious and serious Spirit, in Philosophy, Morality and Religion, which hath of late shown itself amongst the French, hath been much earlier and more propagated among us here in England; if it be not again oppressed or discouraged by confidence, superstition and interest. For I look upon Roman Catholics, till lately in France, under too much restraint, and the reformed generally under too much employment, and both under too much prejudice to make any considerable discovery or improvement in Science, Religion and Learning. In fine, as there is in this ingenious and new Critick many unusual and useful remarks, so he will give occasion for, and hath need of many Animadversions.

But to return to our Author, What he hath written in Latin is as much and perhaps more considerable than what is here collected in English: The various pieces are now with us Translated into our own Tongue, and Printed altogether also in one Volume. Amongst these are his Horae Hebraicae & Talmudicae upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians, which I had not seen when this Preface was first written and gone off from the Press, but since I have seen and perused it. And the managers of this whole Edition for some reasons of their own, having deferred the perfecting and publishing of it till this present time, have put me upon a necessity of altering some things in this sheet, and given me opportunity of adding others.

I have before in this Preface mentioned the most natural and easy interpretation in my Judgment of that so much criticized and seemingly difficult place 1 Cor. 11. 10. For this cause ought the Woman to have power on her head 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because of the Angels. It seems a received opinion among the ancient Jews, that some of the good Angels, when they pleased, used to be present with some curiosity and concernment in their Religious affairs and assemblies, as perhaps the evil ones were in the filthy and Idolatrous ones of the Heathens which were by their own contrivance, suggestion and encouragement. This opinion in itself not improbable to reason, the Apostle might approve and make use of. It was there somewhat unexpected to me that our Author so well versed in these writings should not take notice of it: but that contrariwise in Page 303. of the ensuing Volume he should interpret that place of evil Angels making a bate of the beauty of Women to entangle the Hearts and Eyes of the Men. Yet I suspected that he might have changed his opinion in his Notes upon this Epistle to the Corinthians. But now upon perusal I find he hath here taken little notice of the first, and I think most genuine interpretation, and started a new one. Because of the Angels, that is saith he, because of the messengers or deputies of espousals, the Women were permitted the liberty either of unvailing their faces to show their comeliness and beauty, or of vailing them to show their modesty. Which interpretation as it shows his notable conjectural faculty, so it seems to me remote and improbable.

For first, It is hard to find any instance in the Scripture where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without any addition signifies an office and not an order of beings which we call Angels: nor in the Rabbin's themselves, as he acknowledgeth, do we find the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without the addition of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying those deputies, unless they have been before mentioned together.

Secondly, The Apostle speaks not only of Women to be married, but of Women in general married or unmarried: whereas the reason by this interpretation of the Womens having power on their Heads would reach only the unmarried. But this only occasionally and to fill up a Page.

In the late ill and unjust Times he was not for nothing taken from his Country employment, and put into the Mastership of Katherine-Hall in Cambridge; By those who out of interest did ofttimes respect and draw in Persons of some Account and Reputation for Learning. Here he continued till the happy Return of our Sovereign to the rightful possession of his Crown and Kingdom, when he soon ranged himself in the Church of England, in which his Innocency and Learning were so far taken notice of by his Superiors, and especially the late most Reverend and Generous Archbishop, and the Lord Keeper Bridgman, two impartial countenancers of honest Men and Scholars, that (as I have been informed) they always used him with kindness, respect and liberality. And indeed his Dedicatory Epistles before his Latin Commentaries on St. Mark and St. John are sufficient witnesses both of his Benefactors and his gratitude. By their care and bounty it was, that what he had before his Majesty's Restauration, was continued to him, and moreover a Prebendary of Eli bestowed upon him. In those Stations he followed his Studies, and constantly and honestly discharged his duty till his Death, which happened in December in the year 1675. And thus much of the Author. Much more without doubt might be said to his Advantage by those who had more acquaintance with him or knew him better. I have done what right I could to his Worth and Memory.

It remains only, in the last place, that we say something concerning this Edition of these several pieces of the Author, and so conclude this somewhat long Preface. All his Writings being in very good esteem here among us, and in greater beyond Sea, where I have been more than once inquired of about them, and his English ones being grown scarce; some Booksellers were desirous to reprint these in English, and put them altogether in one fair Volume: In order to which they requested me to Dispose, Revise, Correct and put some Preface before them, which I have now done.

I have ordered them according to their more natural use, not according to the time of publishing them by the Author: and therefore I have put in the first place, The general Harmonies of the Old and New Testaments, then the particular Books, as the Harmony of the four Evangelists, his Observations on Genesis and Exodus, his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, and in the rear his two Tracts of the Temple Service and Miscellanies, which contain many Observations applicable and useful, to the interpretation of the Scriptures. The latter of which was written by him when very young, and when that Learning was not so much cultivated nor dispersed by others Works, and therefore no wonder if there be in it many things now more ordinary and well known. I have Corrected hundreds of Errors both in the Texts and History, and in the Chronology and Figures. In the first notwithstanding I left some small Matters, as being uncertain whether they were the Printers faults or the Authors own way of Writing, which was sometimes a little out of the common road. My principal care was in the Hebrew, Talmudical and Rabbinical quotations, which were generally misprinted. This I thought more worth the pains, because the many Citations and Translations of these Authors, are a very considerable help for young beginners to understand them, otherwise tedious and difficult enough. They are many and very useful examples, so that many good notions may be gotten at the same time with the Language. In the Chronology were a great number of faults likewise to be mended: Those which were more manifest and plain I did alter; but some which to me seemed mistakes, yet uncertain whether it was the Authors opinion, I have left to the observation and correction of others if they see cause. And indeed it would have been endless to have examined all the little accuracies; as the Interregnums, the concurrent reigns of several Kings, especially the last and first years, when they were complete and in order succeeding one another, when they were in part coincident and concurrent, so that the last year of one should be the first of another.

There is one thing generally altered for the best. Whereas in the former Edition the numbers of several Epocha 's answering one another were set any how as the Printer could hit it, now they are put one over against another in the same line, except here and there where the Printers have neglected my directions in the Copy; of which I shall presently advise by an instance or two. There is also a place or two where I know not how to reconcile the numbers, as in pag. 99, 100. For Jotham 's first year and Uzziah 's last and the 3252 ^d year of the World should be concurrent according to the Author himself; unless he gives a double sense to the word reign of Jotham; namely one more improper as Deputy to his Father Uzziah struck with Leprosy in his last year, and the other more proper by himself alone the year after his Fathers death; which is a way of Solution he sometimes useth. How far it is to be allowed I am not here to say. I am not to set down my own but my Authors sense, be it what it will, or what others can make of it. And in general, once for all, I hope no man will think me obliged to applaud or approve every notion or remark of these Treatises. It is not my business to make an Author, but to give him made; not to tell what the Author should say, but what he hath said; everyone may take or leave as he pleaseth. For he seems I confess too seriously to make and imitate Cabbalistical and Rabbinical observations, such as that of the Talmudists and Baal Hatturim. But sometimes perhaps the importance of the matter of the observation, more than the certainty or probability of it, might induce him to do so. Though indeed I think more generally it was his kindness for such Authors, and his settled opinion of the Authentickness of every point and tittle of our modern Masoretical Copies of the Old Testament. As p. 86. He observes that the Hebrew Text hath divinely omitted a letter in one word, viz. the letter ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifieth something; (as all Translations render it) and written it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying a blott; to brand Gehazi for his villainy in running after Naaman, and desiring something from him in his Master Elisha 's Name, 2 Kings V. 20. As the observation is taken from R. Solomon in his Commentaries upon that place, an Author much given to such Talmudical fancies: so it is also founded upon a mistake. For it is not written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Copies which our Polyglotte Bibles followed, and in Athias edition, all that I had at present to consult besides Buxtorfes Bibles with the Rabbinical Commentaries. Here indeed it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the reason of which is I suppose the Masora 's marginal note upon that word which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. Aleph in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is wanting according to the Commentary or explication of R. Solomon Jarchi. It seems therefore only to be so written in the Copy which that Rabbi used and those who were pleased to follow him. Besides that the word which signifies a blot is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and even this last is sometimes written with an Epenthetical Aleph 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But enough of this trifle. Such also is his conjecture, pag. 129. concerning the reason of the transposition of the Hebrew letters ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) and ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) in the Alphabetical Chapters of the Lamentations, or rather of the verses which begin with ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) being set before those which begin with ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ); whereas ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) in the Hebrew Alphabet is before ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ). The reason may be (saith our Author) to hint the Seventy years desolation of Jerusalem, because the Hebrew letter ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) stands for the number Seventy. If it were to denote any such thing, it might as well have hinted Eighty years as Seventy, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) being the Numeral letter for Eighty. Besides the Syriac and Arabic Versions there have retained their usual and natural order. His note upon the extraordinary and unparalled punctation of the Hebrew words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 To us and to our children belong the revealed things, Deut. XXIX. 29. With points over everyone of those letters, nay with eleven points according to the Masora; I say this is of the same nature. It is, saith he, to give warning against curiosity in prying into God's secrets, and that we should content ourselves with his revealed will. But it is far more probable or certain, that these things were the casual mistakes or crotchets of some transcribers. His style also is often less proper, sometimes Grammatically defective, which is to be attributed to his perpetual converse with the Talmudists, Rabbins, and other Oriental Languages, whose Genius is so extremely different from that of the Western; and to the want of reading Authors in our own Tongue, being sufficiently employed with his own thoughts and compositions, and sometimes perhaps to the singularity of his notions. It may be observed also, that he often differs much from many or all other Chronologers; As in the time of Christ's birth, the time from Christ's Baptism to his Death, the two terms of Daniel's seventy weeks or four hundred and ninety years. In his account from the Flood to Abraham 's Birth, he differs sixty years, from the generality of computists, and that upon a different interpretation of Gen. XI. 26. and proof that Abraham was not Terah’s eldest son. From whence it necessarily follows that where he agrees with others in the intermediate intervals, as from Abraham 's birth to the Promise, to their going out of Egypt, to the building and destruction of the Temple, &c. he must assign these to different years of the World, viz. sixty later than usual; perhaps in some points he may have as good reason and proof as others; of which let the Reader judge; for I intend not in this place to dispute or decide any Chronological controversies which are numerous, often operose and of little moment.

It is pity he finished not his Harmony upon the Evangelists and added not a fourth part, or perhaps as many as are Printed. But it may be the Bulk of them, and the time they would take up to perform them as the rest are done, he having by him other collections and designs might make him unwilling to go on. He might also suppose that some other hand in time might add the rest in the like method. So likewise his Commentaries on the Acts are imperfect, they go no further than Chap. IX. and the year of Christ 45. whereas the whole story reacheth to about the year of Christ 60.

In the last place, according to promise, it is to be advised that all is not so well Printed as might be desired; some numbers are not so accurately placed over against other. As pag. 81. numb. 24. of Baasha. And pag. 81. The first of Jehoash should have been set two lines higher against the 15th of Jehoahaz. Sometimes a Column and Name at the head of it is needless; As pag. 49. Ahimelech. Sometimes the Name in the top of the Column mistaken; as pag. 50. Jair for Tolah and pag. 83. Ahab for Jehoshaphat. But such small things as these, as they could not be easily prevented, so they may easily be remedied by any one who will make use of the Chronology. And as for other Errata 's I hope they are not worth the pains of collecting, or else are such as will be at first sight mended by an intelligent Reader; The sheets being carefully corrected by a Reverend and worthy friend of mine in London, of long study and great skill in this kind of Learning; when I by the undeserved favor of my Superiors was called to an Honorable employment out of my own Country.

To conclude all. As I doubt not but the serious and intelligent Reader in the perusal of this Volume, will see abundant reason highly to esteem the great and profitable labors of the Pious and Learned Author; so I hope he will be pleased kindly to accept my little care and pains in publishing it with decency and advantage, and thereby endeavoring to contribute some small assistance to the study and understanding of the Holy Scriptures, and consequently the Advancement of Piety together with the most useful knowledge in the World.

SOME ACCOUNT OF THE LIFE OF THE REVEREND and most LEARNED John Lightfoot D. D.

T HE exemplary Virtue and Industry of good Men hath always had a considerable influence upon the manners of Men: Great Examples do work more powerfully than the most subtle Reasonings, and the most Elaborate Arts of Perswasion. For though Men are generally shye of an Eloquent and Witty Man, and apt to suspect an Artifice where they discern a piercing Wit, and a ready Invention; and consequently are little bettered by the strongest Arguments of Perswasion, but go on in a course of Vice, and Sloth in spite of all endeavors to reclaim them; yet there is something in a good Example which does more powerfully charm them: Here is a certain force not easily eluded: This confirms the Truth of what we should not without it so firmly have believed. Besides, it does after the most lively manner represent Virtue and Goodness to us, and its Desirableness, and its Beauties in the most sensible and familiar way that we can desire. A great Example does also convince us, That it is a possible thing to do Vertuously, and that our excuses are but pretexts and covers to our Sloth and Laziness.

Hence it is that as the Death of a virtuous and good Man is a great loss to the Community, so the preservation of his Memory, and representing his Example to those who survive him, doth greatly advance the Public good. Many excellent Persons have passed through the World with little observation; They have affected privacy, and avoided crowds, and shunned Public notice. Their Modesty hath been as great as their other Virtues; and many others, who could not be concealed while they lived, have yet been soon forgotten after their decease, for want of some to do them right in transmitting their memory to posterity.

Upon these considerations, and upon no other whatsoever, I have undertaken to give the World some small account of our Reverend and very Learned Author. I Sincerely declare I had much rather it had been done by any other hand: For, besides my want of time and leisure, and of many other helps needful for such a Work, which I could plead for my excuse; I might justly have expected that this should have been done by someone who upon all accounts was better provided for it.

Our Author, John Lightfoot D. D. was born in the Rector's House of Stoke upon Trent, in the County of Stafford, on the 29th day of March (being Tuesday ) Anno Domini 1602. As for this time of his birth I find it under his own Hand in one of his Academical Exercises, which he performed being Vice-Chancellor, in the stead of Dr. Arrow-Smith, Public Divinity Professor and Master of Trinity College in Cambridge, who was at that time Sick: He tells us there That that Doctor and Himself were born in the same year, on the same day above named, and almost in the same hour; that Doctor near New-Castle upon Tine in Northumberland, Himself near New-Castle under Line in the County of Stafford. For which he had a very dear affection, calling it, in one of his Epistles, his Mother, the Mother of his birth, and the Mother of his dearest interests. And in another, most passionately, and most elegantly, lamenting her under the miseries, that the Civil Wars had brought upon her.

He was the Son of Mr. Thomas Lightfoot Vicar of Uttoxetar in the County of Stafford; A man not to be named without a preface of honor and respect. He was born in a little Village called Shelton in the Parish of Stoke above named: He was a Man of exemplary Piety, and of an industry indefatigable, and one of the greatest examples of this last Age for his constant care of those Souls which were committed to his Charge. This he shown by his constant Preaching, and diligent Instructing and Catechizing the Youth of his Parish, which his Preaching did not excuse him from. He was a burning and shining light, and shown his love to his great Lord and Master by the unwearied care of his Sheep. He was in Holy Orders six and fifty years, and thirty six years Vicar of Uttoxetar above named. Died July 21. Anno Domini 1658. and in the eighty first year of his age.

Our Authors Mother was Mrs Elizabeth Bagnall, a Gentlewoman of a very good Family; Three of which Family were made Knights by Queen Elizabeth for their martial Prowess and Valour in the then Wars in Ireland against the Rebels. She was a Woman of exemplary Piety, and died Jan. 24. Anno Domini 1636. at the age of seventy and one.

Our Author, when he was fit to be sent to a Grammar School, was committed to the care of Mr. Whitehead School-Master at Morton -Green near Congerton in the County Palatine of Chester. There he continued till June, Anno Domini 1617. And thence he was sent to Christ College in Cambridge, where he was admitted under the Tuition of the very Learned and Pious Mr. William Chapel then Fellow of that House, and afterwards Doctor in Divinity, and Master of Trinity College in Dublin, and lastly Lord Bishop of Cork in Ireland.

While he continued in Christ College he gave great proofs of a pregnant Wit, and great proficiency in his Studies. His Tutor told some of the Heads of the University, at that time, that he had a young Pupil, meaning Lightfoot, whom he thought the best Orator of all the Undergraduates in the Town. He made an extraordinary proficiency in his Studies during his stay in that place, especially in the Latin and Greek Tongues. For the Hebrew Tongue he neglected it there, and lost that skill in it which he brought thither. And for Logic he could by no means fancy that contentious and quarrelsome study, it being very disagreeable to the quiet genius of this young Student. He could not be so happy as to stay any longer in that learned Society than till such time as he was Bachelor of Arts.

After this he was admitted as an assistant to his former Master, Mr. Whitehead, who was then Master of a famous School at Repton in the County of Darby, where he continued a year or two, and made great improvement in the Greek Tongue. His conversation there was as pleasing to the Master, as his mildness was acceptable to the Boys who were under his trust.

Sometime after this he entered into Holy Orders; and the first place of his settlement, after this, was at Norton under Hales in the County of Salop: This was near to Bellaport in the same County, which was the Mansion House of the very Learned and Worthy Sir Rowland Cotton Knight, who was his constant hearer then, his Patron afterwards, and his faithful friend whiles he lived.

This Sir Rowland Cotton was a Man of very singular learning: He was the Son of Mr. William Cotton Citizen and Draper of London: He had great skill in the Hebrew Tongue by the early instructions of Mr. Hugh Broughton, who often lodged, and, for some considerable time, resided at his Fathers House. There were few places in the Hebrew Bible which he was not able readily to read, and render into English, when he was but seven or eight years of age, and he did not only understand but readily speak the Language. This worthy Knight our Author often mentioned as his great Friend, and a person of a most exemplary life, as well as of great Learning and Judgment. I have seen a Sermon of our Authors prepared to be Preached at his Funerals, in which he bewails his death; and complains at the close of it that he was hindered by the express Command of this worthy and modest Knight, upon his death bed, from saying anything of him.

This may seem to be a digression, but it is a very pardonable one, it being designed only to take an occasion of speaking well of one who deserved well of the World, and particularly of our learned Author, whose incomparable learning and skill in the Hebrew affairs are under God in great measure owing to the Learned and Religious Gentleman.

Sir Rowland Cotton did, whiles our Author preached at the place above named, out of respect to his hopeful parts, take him into his own family, as his Chaplain: There he laid the foundation of his Rabbinical Learning, for which he is justly renowned, not only here in England but beyond the Seas. And that which put him upon it, as our Author himself would frequently relate it, was this. Sir Rowland would often question him in that Language, in which our Author was then but a Novice; and this after some time wrought upon him so effectually, that out of shame and indignation that he wanted that Learning, which his Patron had, he set himself close to the Study of the Tongues, and the Hebrew especially. He was ashamed to be baffled (as he confessed he often was) by a Country Gentleman; and that also in a piece of Learning which he by his Profession and his Character, was much more obliged to attain to than his Patron could be supposed to be. And this was the occasion of his applying himself to those very useful Studies, to which otherwise probably he would have continued a stranger.

In his Studies in this Family he made a great progress, and was greatly cherished in them by his Patron, to whom he was always very dear. With him he continued at Bellaport, till Sir Rowland left the Country and went to reside at London with his Family, at the request of Sir Allen Cotton, his Fathers younger Brother, who was Lord Mayor of the City.

Within a little while our Author followed his Patron to the City: He continued not long there before he returned into the Country again, and visited his Father and Mother at Uttoxetar above named, of whom he took a solemn leave, with a resolution to travel beyond the Seas, to their no little sorrow. But having left his Father and Mother and travailing as far as Stone in the County of Stafford, which place was then destitute of a Minister, he was, by the importunity of those who were concerned, persuaded to accept of that place: And so he did, and forthwith set his Parents at ease by letting them know that his Travels were now at an End. At this place he continued two years or thereabouts: During this time ( May 21. 1628.) he married Joice, the Daughter of William Crompton of Stone Park Esq and Widow of George Copwood of Dilverne in the County of Stafford Gentleman.

From Stone our Author removed to Hornsey near the City of London, for the sake of the Library of Zion College, to which he often resorted; and from thence in the Spring, Anno Domini 1630. he and his Family came to Uttoxetar aforesaid; where he continued till the September following, when Sir Rowland Cotton preferred him to the Rectory of Ashley in the County of Stafford: Here our Author continued in great esteem for the space of twelve years; and here he very much pursued his Rabbinical Studies. And to that end he bought a small piece of Land lying near unto his Parsonage-house, where he built a small House in the midst of a Garden, containing a Study and withdrawing room below, and a lodging Chamber above. Here he closely followed his said Studies with great delight, and unwearied diligence, and did choose to lodge here very often, though it were so near to his Family and Parsonage House. He continued in this place till June Anno Domini 1642. when upon what occasion soever it was (most probably being called up to the Assembly of Divines) unwillingly he seems to leave his abode and Country, and became a kind of Exile in London: as we may collect from his Epistle before his Handful of Gleanings upon Exodus. Where he thus bespeaks the Parishioners of S. Bartholomews behind the Exchange, That when exiled from his own, they made him theirs. But in this his destitute state, it seems, he continued not long. His parts and worth, like a great light, could not be hid; but soon were taken notice of in the City. So that he became Minister to the Inhabitants of the Parish aforesaid. Where, as we learn from that Epistle, their first meeting was with extraordinary kindness, and the same mutual affection abated not between them. About this time it was also, that another employment was laid upon him: namely to be a Member of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. Whether I shall now follow him, and give some account of his carriage and demeanour there.

In the year 1643. The Ministers of the City of London met together to consult whether they should preach on the Christmas day following as they had been wont to do, or take no notice at all of the day. One of them (whom I shall not name) of great Authority among them was against their Preaching, and was very near prevailing with the rest of his Brethren to forbear: Our Author was at that meeting (being at that time Minister at St. Bartholomews aforesaid) who was so far from consenting to the advice of that person who gave it, that he took him aside, and argued the Point with him; and did not only maintain the lawfulness of the thing in question, but the expedience of it also; and shown that the omitting it would be of dangerous consequence, and would reflect very much upon those Men who made profession of no other design but reforming what was culpable and faulty. In a word he so far prevailed with the Company, that when it was put to the question it was carried in the Affirmative, and there were not above four or five of the whole who dissented. I forbear to mention the particular arguments which our Author made use of (which I could easily have done) because I do not mention it as an instance of his Learning that he was able to maintain this cause; than which nothing can be thought more defensible; but only to let the Reader know, that though our Author lived in the late unhappy times, and conversed with Men who were extravagantly bent upon extremes, yet he did not want courage and integrity in standing against the stream.

In the debates of that Assembly at Westminster, our Author used the like freedom, and gave great proofs both of his courage and learning also, in opposing many of those Tenets, which the Divines were endeavoring to establish; of which I shall give some instances, which I do not take upon hearsay and uncertain report, but from better grounds, and such as are unexceptionable.

It is very well known that those Divines spent much time concerning Lay Elders, and their power of ruling. This they endeavored to prove from 1 Cor. XII. 28. Helps, Governments: This opinion our Author did not forbear to oppose, and did with great truth and judgment affirm that the Seventy two used the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ( Prov. 1. 5. & XI. 14. & XX. 18. & XXIV. 6.) to translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which word imports not the act but the ability of gifts fit to govern. And that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the place in hand imported helps to interpret the Languages and sense of those who spake with Tongues: as may be gathered by a diligent comparing of the 28, 29, and 30 verses together.

And whereas some would have founded Lay Elders upon the Elders of the Jewish Church, and did affirm that there were two Consistories in every City, and that they were Civil and Ecclesiastical; Our Author replied that the two Sanhedrin's or Consistories in every City are not owned by the Jewish Authors: and for that he alleged Maimonides at large. He proved that there were three Courts in Jerusalem, but that they were not distinguished into Ecclesiastical and Civil; and that there was but one Court or Consistory in every other inferior City. He granted indeed that there were Elders in the Sanhedrin that were not Priests or Levites, but withal they were Civil Magistrates.

At another time when they were for making a Court to consist of Lay Elders mixed with Presbyters to decide Ecclesiastical matters, and that from the Jewish practice; Our Author shown that in divers things the Priest had a propriety and was only concerned, and the Civil Magistrate had nothing to do, as in the case of Leprosy, and the trial of Jealousy, and judging between clean and unclean, &c. and that in those things where the Lay Judges were concerned, as in Blasphemy, Idolatry, false Doctrines, &c. the censure was Civil, it being Capital.

And when some of them affirmed that the Civil Elders in the Sanhedrin judged in all cases, our Author replied that this was impossible in the case of Leprosy: It being evident that Leprosy was infectious to all Israel, but only to the Priests. And as for that place, Deut. XVII. he affirmed that it spake not of Appeals but of Advice, not of Judicature but of Direction. For that the Judges of the inferior Courts were to go to the place which the Lord should choose to inform themselves in a matter too hard for them in judgment.

In that Assembly, in discoursing of Church Officers, there was a certain Divine who affirmed that Widows were to be esteemed as such; and for the confirmation of his opinion he alleged that it appeared from hence, viz. that they were chosen at sixty years of age. Our Author opposed that fond opinion from that very argument on which the Divine aforesaid grounded it, alleging that under the Old Testament the Officers at the Temple were dismissed at fifty years of age, and that it was therefore unreasonable to suppose that in the New any should be admitted to Office who were not under sixty. And whereas another Divine in that Assembly affirmed that the Priests were dismissed from their Service, because of the burden of carrying the Ark, &c. our Author replied that the Ark was fixed in Solomon 's time, and that the courses of the Priests were so full as that eighty opposed Uzziah; and that Josephus saith, That the courses had five thousand a piece at least in them, and their service but one week in about half a year, and that therefore they could not be supposed to be overladen with Work.

Our Author was against the Peoples election of their Ministers, which some in that Assembly attempted to prove from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which they would have to signify not Laying on of Hands, but Election. He argued against this opinion from Zonaras and Balsamon and from an Apostolical Canon, and from the notation of the Greek word. To which he added, That it was not possible for the people in those early times of Christianity to Elect their Ministers, because none were fit in those times to be such but by the gift of the Holy Ghost; and that it was not reasonable to suppose that the People did nominate and choose such who were to receive that heavenly gift.

I find also that upon a consultation whether they should add something forbidding the Directory to be turned into a set Form, that our Author spake against it as a dangerous thing so much as to intimate anything against a set Form of Prayer.

Upon that Proposition relating to Baptism, it is lawful and sufficient to sprinkle the child, our Author opposed them that worded it in that manner; it being unfit to vote that as lawful only, which everyone grants so to be. And whereas one of that Assembly attempted in a large discourse to prove that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which signifies Baptism ) imports a dipping overhead: Our Author replied at large, and proved the contrary. 1. From a passage of Ibn Ezra on Gen. 38. (2.) From R. Solomon Jarchi who in his Commentary on Exod. 24. saith, That Israel entered into Covenant with sprinkling of blood and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews expounds by sprinkling, Heb. IX. (3.) From this, That John the Baptist sometimes Preached annd Baptized in places where he could not possibly Dip those who were Baptized. In conclusion, He proposed to that Assembly to show him in all the Old Testament any one instance where the word used de Sacris & in actu transeunte implied anymore than Sprinkling. It is said indeed, That the Priests washed their Bodies, and that the unclean washed himself in Water, but this was not a transient action. And when they came to the Vote whether the Directory should run thus, The Minister shall take Water and Sprinkle, or pour it with his Hand upon the Face or Forehead of the Child; some were unwilling to have Dipping excluded; so that the Vote came to an equality within one: For the one side there being twenty four, and for the other twenty five. The business was thereupon recommitted, and resumed the day following, where our Author demanded of them, who insisted upon Dipping, the reason of their opinion, and that they would give in their proofs; Hereupon it was thus worded, That pouring on of Water, or Sprinkling in the administration of Baptism is lawful and sufficient. Where our Author excepted against the word lawful, it being all one as if it should be determined to be lawful to use Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper; and he moved that it might be expressed thus, It is not only lawful, but also sufficient. And it was done so accordingly.

Concerning the Members of a Synod the Proposition was, That Pastors and Teachers and other fitting persons are constituent Members of a Synod; This our Author opposed and gave his Interpretation of the Brethren and the whole Church, Act. XV. viz. that by Brethren was meant the uncircumcised Converts, as verse. 1, & 23. And that it was most likely the Churches of the uncircumcised, would send their Ministers, and not Laymen; And that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was meant not the Church, but the meeting of the Council.

There were many other matters debated in that Assembly in which our Author was greatly concerned, and did not fail to argue very strenuously upon occasion against those opinions that were then in vogue. I could give a particular account of what he said in the debates touching the admission of persons to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, of Private Baptism, of the Learning required in those who were to be Ordained, of the raising Doctrines from a Text, of the use of learned Languages in Sermons, &c. But I forbear these things not being willing to exceed that short account of our Author which I only undertook at first.

In the later end of the year 1643. I find our Author was preferred to the Rectory of Much-Munden in the County of Hertford, void by the Death of that excellent Person Samuel Ward D. D. the Lady Margaret Professor in the University of Cambridge. In that Rectory he continued to the day of his Death; He resided upon his Living as much as was consistent with his relation to Catharine-Hall in Cambridge, of which he was Master many years before his Death. He was uneasy when he was from his Living, and would express a great desire to be at home with his Russet-Coats, as he was wont to call his Country neighbors, when he was absent from them. His Labors in that place were very great and exemplary: He was unwearied in his Studies, which he followed early and late with indefatigable diligence; he was a most constant and painful Preacher. His Parsonage House was about a mile distant from his Parish Church, whereunto he resorted every Lord's-day, read the Prayers, and Preached Morning and Afternoon, and did many times continue there all the day, and returned not home till Night, remaining in the Church, not diverting to any other House to refresh himself, until Evening Service was all finished. He had for his Flock the care and compassions of a Father; he lived among them in great peace and with great Hospitality. There he continued without let or disturbance many years. Indeed soon after the happy Restauration of his Majesty, a Fellow of a College in Cambridge procured a grant of our Authors Living. Of this he was soon advertised by his Neighbor and worthy Friend, Sir Henry Caesar, upon which, by the favor of the late Archbishop Sheldon, our Author was confirmed in his Rectory. This great favor of the Archbishop, our Author gratefully acknowledgeth in two Epistles Dedicatory to him, prefixed to his Horae Hebraicae upon St. Mark, and St. Luke. And he would often mention the great favor he received from that worthy and very excellent Person Sir Henry Caesar, whose Neighbourhood and encouragement was one of the greatest comforts of our Authors life.

He commenced Doctor in Divinity in the year 1652. His Latin Sermon was upon those words, If any Man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha, 1 Cor. XVI. 22. When he was in the University, he Preached frequently, and to the great advantage of the Students there. He always pressed an exemplary Life upon his Auditors, and to very good purpose Preached up the necessity of human Learning, and exploded the Enthusiasm which had at that time gotten a great possession of the minds of unstable Men: He Preached up the lawfulness of Forms of Prayer in those times, when many Men were so extravagantly vain as to decry it. And for Schism and Separation from an Established Church, he was so great an Enemy to it, that he did in those times urge the necessity of Communion with a Church, which had corruption in it. And whoever will be at the pains to consider what he hath to this purpose in his Horae Hebraicae upon St. Matthew, Chap. VIII. verse. 4. and especially in his Sermon Preached at St. Michaels Church in Cornhill, before his Country-men of the County of Stafford, upon St. Joh. X. 22. (which is Printed with the rest of his Works) will be abundantly convinced of this. When he Preached at Cambridge, he did generally pitch upon some difficult Text of the Holy Scriptures which he explained to the great satisfaction of the learned Auditors. In which, I reckon, he did very considerable service to the Public. In doing so he relieved the minds of honest and inquisitive Men, who were at a stand, and defended the Holy Scriptures from the contempt of those who were profane Scoffers, and were ready upon all occasions to lessen their Authority. And indeed he was very happy this way: I have heard a very Learned and Reverend Divine (lately deceased) Profess, that he never heard our Author preach but he learned something which he did not know before. He was of very singular use in the University in those times, and his discourses were of that nature that they greatly gained upon the more Studious, and inquisitive sort of Men. He labored much in proving Infants Baptism against the Antipaedobaptists of those times: This he did upon most substantial grounds and such as commended themselves to the lovers of Truth: I doubt not but that he did confirm many by his way of proof who were wavering before. I find among our Authors Papers a letter directed to him from a very Learned Divine William Outram D. D. who was then his Auditor in Cambridge. In which he gives our Author all possible thanks for his choice and truly learned Observations (as he justly calls them) in relation to the Lord's Prayer, in which he asserted the lawfulness of Forms; and is earnest with him to grant him his Notes of his Sermons on Baptism, which (says he) I have most earnestly longed forever since they were Preached, and not without due cause: For verily had I not heard them I should not to this day have been so well reconciled to Infants Baptism, (as I bless God I now am.) I desire therefore that you would be pleased to consider what real usefulness your notes may be of; and how (for my own part) I am infinitely more persuaded by your way of probation, than by some other ratiocinations of Men ordinarily used. There are many persons now living that have great cause to bless God for our Author, and will confess the eminent service which he did in that time.

In the year 1655. Our Author was chosen Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge; which Office he discharged with great care and diligence, though he had at that time a multiplicity of affairs to divert him, especially that of perusing the sheets of the Polyglott as they were wrought off from the Press. He was extremely solicitous during his being Vice-Chancellor that he might not do any wrong to any Man, or any unkindness to his friend. He did once fear, during that year, that he had by a Sentence determined injuriously against a Friend of his. This was so great a torment to his mind, that he told a Friend that is yet alive, that he thought it would accompany him with sorrow to his grave. But the good Man was soon satisfied that what he had determined was not only just but necessary also.

Nor were our Authors Labors confined to the University and to his Rectory. For besides the many excellent Books which he wrote (of which I forbear to give any account here, because I find it done to my Hand) he was concerned in the useful undertakings which were begun and finished in his time.

Among which the Edition of the Polyglott Bible, which was finished in the year 1657. deserves to be mentioned in the first place. This excellent and useful Work was in great measure accomplished by the indefatigable pains of the Learned and Reverend Brian Walton D. D. (and afterwards Lord Bishop of Chester ) and remains a monument of the exemplary diligence and eminent Learning of that excellent Prelate. I shall only at present consider how far our Author was concerned in that Work. I find him consulted about that whole Work by Doctor Walton at his first entrance upon it in a Letter of the Doctors to him bearing date Jan. 2. 1653. In which he begs our Authors assistance, as to the Samaritan Pentateuch, which he bestowed much pains about; Vid. Dec. Chorograph. in S. Marc. Cap. X. §. 5. Nor was this the first application which had been made to him; for by that Letter it appears that our Author had modestly declined the employment upon the score of his inability, to which the Doctor in that Letter replies, that our Author had given sufficient and public Testimony to the World of his ability. I find also that Doctor Walton (as appears by his Letters bearing date Feb. 23. 1653. and April 24 1654. and June 14. 1654. and several others) sent our Author the several Alphabets of sheets as they came off from the Press, and desired him to peruse them as he had done, and note the mistakes he should meet withal. In one of which he tells him that as to the Samaritan, his Diligence and Judgment had been so exact that there would be little cause to alter, much less to censure and correct. I find also that our Author assisted in that Work several other ways, not only by procuring Subscriptions toward its encouragement, but by furnishing him with several M S S. out of the University Library, viz. a Syriac M S. of the Prophets (which the Doctor acknowledges in a Letter bearing date Nov. 7. 1655.) and a Syriac Lexicon, a MS. He assisted him likewise in rectifying the Map of Judea, as appears by another Letter dated July 23. 1656. and with certain Notes out of the Jerusalem Talmud, (as appears by another Letter Nov. 4. 1657.) Besides this our Author sent him his Chorographical Observations which we find prefixed to the Polyglott Bible under his Name.

Next to the Polyglott Bible, and in order to render that the more useful also, the greatest Work of this last age, and indeed of any other of that kind, is that incomparable Book, the Lexicon Heptaglotton, by Edmund Castell D. D. published in the year 1669. I find that Dr. Castell (a Man for his great Piety, incomparable Learning, and incredible Diligence not to be mentioned without a Preface of honor) before he entered upon that Work, consulted our Author about it, and submitted it to him either to stifle or give it life, as he expresseth himself in a Letter to him bearing date Dec. 2. 1657. To which when the Doctor had received our Authors Answer, in which he approves his excellent design, in a second Letter the Doctor returns him his thanks, and after his acknowledgments he adds. And truly (says he) had we not such an Oracle to consult with, bootless and in vain it would be to attempt such an undertaking. And a little afterwards he adds, O nos felices ter & amplius, quibus contigit, Te vivo, opus hoc tam grande, quam arduum auspicato suscepisse: Et benedictus ob hoc semper sit summus ill rerum Arbiter. This Letter is not dated, but must be written upon the beginning of that great undertaking.

I forbear to relate in how many particulars his Advice and Assistance toward that excellent Work was requested. The Doctor tells our Author in a Letter dated ( Feb. 22. 1663.) what his sense of him was in these word, your Worth and Works, so transcendent to the Vulgar way of writing, all the learned World doth and ought highly to esteem: I have and shall (as does become me) in this Work now upon me sundry times with honor mention, &c. Our Author did not only advise, and commend, and speak well: These are cheap things. He assisted by supplying with Money, and supporting the excellent undertaker: This I find acknowledged by the Doctor in a Letter bearing date, March 14. 1663. How far our Author gave his assistance this way I know not, but this I find, that in that Letter the Doctor is transported, that in these three Kingdoms (says he to our Author) there should be one found ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for such a second has never yet appeared to me) who has manifested such a sentiment of my ruined and undone condition. He does indeed except in that Letter the Bishop of Exon whose kindness to him was incomparably great.

Doctor Lightfoot indeed was very much concerned for that most Worthy undertaker, and did, I find, do his utmost to support the Good Man in that excellent Work. He wrote often to him, and failed not by all manner of ways to encourage him in his Labors. The Doctor tells him (in a Letter bearing date Nov. 15. 1664.) next to the Divine I meet with no lines like yours, that so sweetly refresh and delight my Soul when quite wearied with labor, &c. When the first Volume of that excellent Book came out, I find the Doctor giving our Author the notice of it, and promising him to transmit it, with a request to give a Censure of it, none being either more able to judge, or that will do it with greater Candor; especially he desires his more severe scanning of the Arabic. This he does in a Letter dated Jan. 14. 1667. He acquaints him also with the finishing of the Second Volume in a Letter dated to him June 9. 1669. By this it appears how far our Author was concerned in the encouraging of this excellent Work.

For the Synopsis Criti • orum undertaken by Mr. Matthew Pool, I find our Author likewise concerned. For I have seen many Letters of Mr. Pools to him full of thanks and acknowledgment, and one bearing date Jan. 7. 1673. in which he does acknowledge to have received his second Papers, and expresses his great desire of receiving the Remaining. How far our Author was concerned in that very useful design of that Diligent and Worthy Man hath not come to my knowledge, and therefore I cannot give a particular account of it. This only is not to be omitted, that a Friend of mine hath seen many short Annotations in Latin, written by his own hand, upon many Chapters of Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, which he communicated to Mr. Pool; whether for the use of his Synopsis, or somewhat else, it is uncertain.

This Reverend Man was divers years before his Death preferred by the favor of Sir Orlando Bridgeman, then Lord Keeper, to a Prebend in the Church of Eli: But in what year this was, hath not come to my knowledge: And I must confess there are many other things in which I wanted information: I did never think it would be my lot to give any account to the World of this excellent Person: had I foreseen that, I could, some years since, have been more plentifully furnished with materials to this purpose; having had the honor to be acquainted with him myself, and the opportunity (which is now passed) of informing myself better of His Life than now I have. And I do acknowledge that this account that I now give I receive for the most part, from the Hands of the Reverend, and my worthy Friend, Mr. John Strype, Minister of Low-Leyton in Essex, who hath furnished me with such an account, as (though it be short of what might have been had, yet) may be relied upon. And I thought it better to give some (though imperfect) account of this Learned and Pious Man, than that he should go without any at all.

As to his great Learning, his Works are a proof beyond all exception; I make no doubt but that the Reader will receive great benefit by them. Our Author was a very perspicacious Man, and very happy in clearing the difficulties of the Holy Scriptures, and greatly furnished with that Learning which enabled him that way. His great abilities were acknowledged by the Learned of our own Country, and those beyond the Seas. I shall not need to insist upon the Testimonies to this purpose, which I could easily produce. However I shall not forbear to mention some. Our Author had sent Doctor Castell one of his Books, at that time when he was engaged in his Lexicon. In a Letter of his (bearing date Aug. 16. 1664.) he makes this following acknowledgment: Sir, you have laid an unutterable obligation upon me by the gift of this Learned and much longed for Work—you have enriched my poor Library with an addition so excellent and delightful, that truly, when I first received it, I could not contain myself from reading it quite through, notwithstanding the importunacy of my public engagement, and the clamor of all the Work-men, Corrector, Compositors, Press-men, &c. to all whom I turned a deaf Ear till I had satisfied my Eye with the entire perusal of it. And afterwards he adds— Sir, I will never he ashamed to confess by whom I have profited: All that would understand that clear light, together with the mysterious hidden use and benefit, which the most ancient Records of the Jews bring unto Holy Writ must confess themselves; above all others, deeply indebted to your Elaborate and incomparable Writings, who have fetched out more of these profound and rich Mines than any of the best Seers in this or the precedent Ages, have been able to discover. I might have added much more from that very excellent Persons own hand. Take the suffrage of another Learned Man, Mr. Herbert Thorndike, who in a Letter to our Author bearing date May 18. 1669. expresses his esteem of his Learning in the Jews Writings, and desiring his Judgment of the Exercitations of Morinus in words too long to be transcribed. And for Foreigners I shall content myself with two only. The first is that of Monsieur Le Moin, a most Learned Minister of the Protestant Church of Roan, who in a Letter to Dr. Worthington, speaking of his Notes and Exercitations upon Josephus, he saith: In iis utor saepissime Lightfootii Talmudice Doctissimi, quem si inter Philebraeorum familiam ducem dixero, nihil certe dixero, quod assurgat ultra meritum cruditissimi illius viri. Quae de Templo, dechorographia sacra, in Matthaeum, in Actus, erudite & feliciter Conscripsit, diu est quod illa possideo, iis{que} praeclaris operibus Bibliotheca mea superbit. The other Testimony is that of the most Learned Professor of Basil, the late Doctor John Buxtorf: This great Man speaking of our Author, in a Letter of his to Doctor Castell, hath these words. Ex horis ejus Talmudicis incepi illius doctrinam & diligentiam valde amare. Illae salivam mihi moverunt, ut propediem ab ipso similia videre desiderem & gustare. Precor ipsi omnia laeta, ac meritis ejus digna. Again, in a Letter of the same Professor to our Author, dated at Basil, Dec. 12. 1663. I find he expresses the highest esteem for him, whose diligence and accuracy, and dexterity, in illustrating the Holy Scriptures he tells him he admires. Rarae hae dotes hoc nostro saeculo in viris Theologis, rari hujusmodi Scriptores, &c. as he goes on in that Letter too long to transcribe.

As no man can question the great Learning of our Author, so he will appear to be very exemplary for his indefatigable diligence, if we duly consider under what disadvantages he arrived to this great degree of knowledge. He was young when he left Cambridge, and a stranger to those Studies which he was afterward so deservedly famous for: He went as an Usher into a Country School, remote from the Books and helps which might assist him: His hours were taken up with the care of Boys, and his Head filled with their noise and importunities. After this he entered into Orders, but that did not advance him in Learning: Besides, he entered upon constant Preaching when he was very young. After this he married a Wife and soon had the charge and burden of Children, and the cares of the World to divert him from his Studies. His worldly circumstances were not large, and his family increased, and his work in Preaching was constant: He was far from the help, and the leisure which a life in the University would have given him. But this brave Man surmounts all these difficulties and disadvantages: He in his great Judgment saw that the Oriental Learning was worth his while, that Chronology, and other difficult pieces of knowledge would be of use to him, and make him serviceable to others; he was sensible of his defects, and generously does this young Divine resolve to shake off all sloth, and to make no excuses: He knew very well that what he undertook was a great Work, that it was

And now he betakes himself in good earnest to these obstruse and perplexing Studies. He defrauds himself of his rest and ease, withdraws from his Friends, and abstracts himself from the World, and all Secular entanglements, and early and late pursues his wise and worthy End. His Motto seems to have been (for we find it written, in one of his Note Books, under his Name) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 denoting his resolution to rise up early and sit up late in the pursuit after knowledge.

Our Author had not the helps of Tutors to instruct him in these Studies; he had not the time of Students in the Universities who need take no care for their daily bread; He had not the advantage of Books and learned Society which those Men have, who live in Cities; nor had he the advantages of Wealth or Dignities to provide himself of helps; nor interest in great Persons who might have encouraged his Studies; and yet when he appeared in the World he gave the greatest proofs of his abilities. He drew after him the Eyes of the Learned part of the Kingdom, and exceeded far the expectation of all Men. What would not our Author have done if he had had the advantages which he wanted? Had he been assisted by States and Kingdoms, encouraged with a supply of all Foreign helps, excited by some great Rewards, placed in a better Light, directed in his first attempts and Studies by the wisest Guids and Masters which the Age could afford?

He was not only a Man of great Learning, and exemplary Diligence, but of great Modesty and Humility, and Gratitude, and Candor: He did not swell with pride upon the account of his Learning or his Labors. He was far removed from any great opinion and conceit of himself, or a low and mean one of his neighbor. Those who knew him will confess this. Indeed he was so far from thinking highly of himself and his own performances, that some Men have thought him extreme and something faulty, and that he did not value himself as he ought to have done. There did not perhaps live in the World a Man of more profound humility, than our Author was: A Man ready to hear others speak, willing to be put in mind of anything that was a mistake or slip; full of the sense of another Mans worth, and without a just sense of his own. The most grateful and modest Man, and of the greatest Candor and Humanity, and sweetness of Temper our Author was.

He died at Eli, Decemb. 6. 1675. To the great loss of the whole Kingdom, and particularly of the Inhabitants of Munden; to whom he was a Father, a diligent Pastor, and a bountiful Friend. Among them he spent the greatest part of his time for many years: He was not at ease when he was absent from his Flock. It was not the Fleece he regarded, but the Sheep: They had also a great regard for their Shepherd, they gladly heard his Voice and did not go astray in his time.

Thus I have given some short account of this excellent Man, and of his useful Life in the World. He lived to great purpose, died much lamented, and hath left us who survive an excellent Example. God grant that we may closely and vigorously follow everything that in our Author, or any others was Virtuous and Exemplary: we shall in due time reap if we faint not.