Works

VERS. II.

A Disciple corrupting his food publicly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as did Jesus of Nazareth. To corrupt their food publicly is a phrase amongst the Rabbins, to denote a mingling of true Doctrine with Heresy, and the true worship of God with Idolatry. This was the accusation they framed against our Savior at this time, that he taught Heterodox and destructive principles, such especially as would tend to turn off, and alienate the people from their obedience to the Romans. Aruch recites this passage of the Talmud more cautiously, for instead of as Jesus of Nazareth did, he hath it, as Jeroboam did.

VERS. VII.

DID Pilate do this, as yielding to Herod a jurisdiction in capital matters, within the City of Jerusalem upon those that were Galileans? Probably he did it, either in flattery to the Tyrant; or else that he might throw off from himself both the trouble and the odium that might arise upon the occasion of condemning Jesus, whom he judged to be an innocent man, and in some measure pitied him, looking upon him as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a sort of a delirant person, one not very well in his wits: which opinion also Herod seems to have conceived of him, by putting upon him that fools coat wherewith he clothed him: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which I should willingly enough render white and shining, but that I observe our Evangelist when he hath occasion to mention such a Garment, calls it a white and shining robe expressly: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Chap. IX. 29. his Garment was white and glittering. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Acts I. 10. two men in white apparel.

VERS. XXX.

SO they do say Revel. VI. 6. from whence, among other Arguments, it may be reasonably supposed, that that Chapter treats of the plagues and afflictions that should fore-run the destruction of Jerusalem, and indeed the destruction and overthrow itself. Weigh the place accurately, and perhaps thou wilt be of the same mind too. Nay I may further add, that perhaps this observation might not a little help (if my eyes fail me not) in discovering the method of the Author of the Book of the Revelations.

VERS. XXXI.

COnsult John the Baptist 's expression, Matth. III. 10. now also the Ax is laid to the root of the Tree, viz. then when the Jewish Nation was subdued to the Government of the Romans, who were about to destroy it. And if they deal thus with me a green and flourishing Tree, what will they do with the whole Nation, a dry and sapless trunck?

VERS. XXXIV.

THEY cast lots for his seamless Coat, John. XIX. 23, 24. Moses is supposed to have ministered in such a Garment. In what kind of Garment did Moses attend the seven days of Consecration? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a white Vestment. Rabh Cahnah saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a white Vestment wherein there was no seam. The Gloss is, The whole Garment was made of one thread, and not as our cloths are, which have their sleeves sewed to the body with a seam. But he gives a very senseless reason why his Coat was without a seam: viz. to avoid the suspicion lest Moses should at any time hide any Consecrated Money within the seams of his Coat.

VERS. XXXVI.

VInegar was the common drink of the Roman Soldiers; and hence those to whom the custody of Crucified persons was committed, had it always ready by them Idem jussit vinum, &c. He commanded that no Soldier should drink Wine in their expedition, but that everyone should content himself with Vinegar.

Cujus viri, &c. The provision this man (viz. Misitheus) made in the Common-wealth was such, that there never was any greater frontire City which had not Vinegar, Bread-corn, and Bacon, and Barley, and Chaff, laid up for a whole year, &c. Thou shalt give us as much Hay, Chaff, Vinegar, Herbs and Grass as may suffice us.

Hence it may become less difficult to reconcile the Evangelists amongst themselves, speaking of Wine given him mixed with Mirrhe, and of Vinegar too: viz. a twofold Cup, one before he was nailed to the Cross, i. e. of Wine mingled with Myrrh, the other, of Vinegar, while he hung there. The first given by the Jews according to their custom: the second, by the Soldiers in abuse and mockery. But if you will grant a third Cup, then all difficulty vanisheth indeed. Let the first be Wine mingled with Myrrh; the second, Vinegar mingled with Gall; the third, mere Vinegar. Which the Soldiers gave to Malefactors, if they had desired drink, being that which they drank themselves. Hence the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the vessel filled with Vinegar was always in readiness, that the Soldiers might drink when they had a mind, and persons also upon the Cross if they stood in need of it.

VERS. XLII.

CHrist is now upon the Cross, as old Joseph was in the Prison between two Malefactors. There, one of them was delivered, the other hanged: Here, one obtains salvation the other perisheth. The Faith of this Thief is admirable; kept even pace with that of the Apostles, if in some circumstances it did not go beyond it. The Apostles acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah: and so doth he; with this addition which I question whether they did so clearly own and know or no: viz. that Christ should reign and have his Kingdom after his death. He seems to have a sounder judgment concerning Christ's Kingdom, than the Apostles themselves, as may be gathered from their question, Acts I. 6.

It pleased God in this last Article of time to glorify the riches of his grace in a singular and extraordinary manner, both in the conversion of a sinner, and the forgiveness of his sins. I say in such an Article of time which the world had never before seen, nor ever was like to see again, viz. in the very instant wherein the Messiah was finishing his redemption. It was not unknown to either of the Thieves that Jesus was therefore condemned to die, because he had professed himself the Christ: Hence that of the Impenitent Malefactor, If thou art Christ, save thyself and us. And if the Penitent Thief did for a while join with the other in his petulant reproaches (which seems intimated to us Matth. XXVII. 44.) yet was his heart touched at length, and perhaps, upon his observation of that miraculous darkness which at that time had covered the world.

VERS. XLIII.

I. LET us here first consider the phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in Paradise. In common Jewish speech 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Garden of Eden. In what sense, we may collect from these following passages: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Rabbins have a Tradition. There are four that went into Paradise: namely, Ben Azzai, Ben Zumah, Acher, and R. Akibah. R. Akibah saith unto them, when you come to the stones of pure Marble, do not ye say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Waters, Waters, (i. e. Alas these Waters will hinder us from going forward) for it is written, he that telleth lies, shall not dwell in my presence. (Now, it would be a lie to call white Marble, Water.) Ben Azzai 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 looked with some curiosity about him, and he died: Of him the Scripture speaks, Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his Saints. Ben Zumah looked with some curiosity about him and he was disturbed in his intellectuals: Of him the Scripture speaketh, Hast thou found Honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith and vomit it.

Aruch reciting these words saith, It is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Paradise, under the signification 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Garden of Eden which is reserved for the just. This place is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Heavens where the souls of the just are gathered together. And the Talmudic Gloss hath it much to the same sense. These four by God's procurement 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 went up into the firmament.

Whiles we are reading these passages, that story may easily occur to mind, of St. Paul's being caught up into Paradise, 2 Cor. XII. and perhaps the Legend before us, is but the ape of that story. In the story it is observable that Paradise and the third Heaven are one and the same thing: in the Legend, Paradise and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the highest Heavens. For so the Doctors Comment upon the word in Psal. LXVIII. 5. There are seven Classes or Degrees of just persons, who see the face of God, sit in the house of God. Ascend up unto the hill of God, &c. and to every Class or Degree, there is allotted their proper dwelling place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Paradise. There are also seven abiding places in Hell. Those that dwell in Paradise, they shine like the shining 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Firmament, like the Sun, like the Moon, like the Firmament, like the Stars, like Lightning, like the Lilies, like burning Lamps .

II. Our Savior therefore telling the Penitent Thief, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise, he speaks in the common dialect, and to the capacity of the Thief, viz. that he should be in Heaven with Christ, and with all just persons that have left this world: Nor indeed would I fetch the explication of that Article of our Creed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He descended into Hell, from any passage in the Scripture sooner than this here: adding this, that we must of necessity have recourse to the Greek Tongue for the signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which they generally use, to denote the state of the dead, as well the blessed as the miserable. Those who would expound that passage in 1 Pet. III. 19. of his going down from the Cross into Hell to preach to the Spirits in Prison there, do very little regard the scope of the Apostle, and are absolute strangers to his meaning in it. For,

• 1. In that he shuts up the generation before the flood in an infernal prison, he falls in with the received opinion of that Nation, which was, that that generation had no part in the world to come: And that they were condemned to boiling waters in Hell.
• 2. He compares the present Generation of the Jews, with that Generation before the flood. That Christ did of old preach even to that Generation, and so he hath done to this: That that Generation perished through its disobedience, and so will this. He runs much upon the same parallel in his second Epistle, Chap. III. 6. &c. We must observe that the Apostle makes his transition from the Crucifixion and Resurrection of our Savior, directly to the Generation before the flood, passing over all those Generations that came between, on purpose that he might make the comparison betwixt that, and the Age he lived in.

VERS. LIII.

MAR Zutrah saith that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of the Linnen in which they wrapped up Books, when it grew old, they make shrowds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the dead of the precept, for this is to their disgrace. The Gloss adds, That they do it of the linen wherein they fold up the Book of the Law. He who had suffered death by the sentence of the Sanhedrin or Magistrate, they were wont to call him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The dead of the precept, because he was executed according to the precept: And such an one to them was our Jesus. Now as to one that was condemned to death by the Magistrate, they had an opinion, that by how much the more disgracefully they dealt with him, by so much the greater atonement was made for him. Hence that expression, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they did not openly bewail him, that that very setting him at naught (no man lamenting him) might redound to his atonement. And from thence perhaps, if the Women at Jerusalem had bewailed any other person, as they bewailed our Savior, that other person might have said, ye Daughters of Jerusalem weep not for me lest ye cut short my atonement. But Christ speaks to them upon a far different account. And under this notion they wrapped one that had been so Executed in some ragged, torn, old, dirty winding-sheets, that this disgrace being thrown upon him, might augment his expiation. But this good Arimathean behaves himself otherwise with Jesus, as having conceived quite another opinion concerning him.

VERS. LIV.

THE Vulgar reads, Et Sabbatum illucescebat: The Sabbath began to dawn. Not ill rendered. Beza reads, Et Sabbatum succedebat: And the Sabbath succeeded. Not properly. One would have thought it had been more congruously said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it began to be dark toward the Sabbath: For the night before the Sabbath was coming on: But

I. The Sabbatical Candles that were lighted in honor of the Sabbath, were now set up. There are three things which it is necessary a man should warn those of his own House of, on the Evening of the Sabbath, when Night is coming on: Have you paid your Tenths? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Have you begun your Erubhick Society? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Light up your Candle. Men and Women are bound to light up a Candle in their Houses upon the Sabbath day. If a Man hath not Bread to eat, yet he must beg from door to door to get a little Oil to set up his light. These things being noted, the Evangelist may not be improperly understood thus, The Sabbath began to shine with the lights set up; respect being had to these Sabbath Candles. But I do not acquiesce here.

II. The Evening of the Sabbath was called amongst the Jews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Light. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 By the light of the fourteenth day, they make a search for Leven, by the light of a Candle. By the light of the fourteenth day: that is, on the Evening, or in the night that immediatdly preceeds that day. So Rambam upon the place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The search for Leven is in the night of the fourteenth day: although the eating of leavened bread is not forbidden before the noon of the fourteenth day. But they instituted this, because it is most convenient searching in the night time by Candle light: and at that time also, all persons are at home.

The Woman that miscarries on the light (i. e. the Evening) of the eighty first day, the Shammean School absolves her from any offering, but the School of Hillel doth not. The Gloss hath iit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on the light of the eighty first day, i. e. in the night of the eighty first day▪ The question disputed there is this: The Woman that had been brought to bed of a Girl, was bound to the purification of eighty days. When those days were at an end, then she was bound to offer, Levite. XII. 5, 6. Now therefore seeing the oblation was to be brought on the eighty first day; the question is, what if the Woman should happen to miscarry within the very night that begins the eighty first day, must she the next day offer one or two Sacrifices? one for the Girl, and one for that of which she hath miscarried: The Shammean School will have but one; but the School of Hillel saith two.

Pesikta speaking concerning a vowed Sacrifice, from Levite. VII. 17. hath this passage: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Perhaps it may be eaten on the light (i. e. the Evening) of the third day. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Text saith upon the third day. It is eaten until the third day. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is not eaten on the light (i. e. the evening, or the night) of the third day. For then the third day was actually begun. But now in this phrase, they restrain the word especially to the beginning of the night; though sometimes it is taken for the whole night, as in that Tradition newly quoted, concerning the Woman that miscarried: And so the Gloss upon Pesachin. Maimonides o discoursing about putting away the Leven which ought to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on the light of the fourteenth day: i. e. on the night that begins the fourteenth day, hath this passage; By prescription of the Scribes, they search for, and cast out their Leven 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the night; namely the beginning of that night that ushers in the fourteenth day. Much to the same sense the Gemarists concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the light. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 How comes twilight to be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 light? from thence, because it is written, In the twilight, in the evening of the day, Prov. VII. 9. Rambam thinks it so called by a rule of contraries; for so he in Pesachin ▪ the night is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 light, by the same rule that they call many other things by their contraries.

But the Gemarists upon the place affirm, That the evening is not improperly called light, and prove it from that expression Psal. CXLVIII. 3: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Praise him all ye stars of light. However unsuitably therefore it might sound in the ears of Greeks or Latins, when they hear the evening, or beginning of the night, expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , yet with the Jews it was a way of expression very usual: and they could readily understand the Evangelist speaking in their own vulgar way, when he would tell us the night of the Sabbath drew on, but expresseth it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the light of the Sabbath began to shine.

VERS. LVI.

IF our Savior was taken down from the Cross about Sun set as it was provided, Deut. XXI. 23. Jos. VIII. 29. then had the Women this interim of time to buy their Spices, and dispatch other businesses, before the entry of the Sabbath day.

• I. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Between the Suns. So they called that space of time that was between the setting of the Sun, and the appearance of any Star.
• II. Might they not have that space of time also that was between the first and second Star? We may judge something from this passage. In the evening of the Sabbath, if he see one Star and do any work, he is acquitted: but if he see two Stars, let him bring his Trespass-offering.
• III. Might they not have some further allowance in the case of Funerals? we may judge from this passage: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They do all works necessary about the dead (on the Sabbath day) they anoint him, they wash him, provided only that they do not stir a limb of him, &c. It was not safe for these Women to show themselves too buisie in preparing for his interment: especially seeing Jesus died as a Malefactor, and was odious to the people; this might exasperate the people against them, and so much the more too, if they should in the least measure violate the Sabbath day. But further, besides the honor they gave to the Sabbath, it was not prudence in them, to break it, for a work which they thought they might as well do when the Sabbath was done and over.

VERS. V.

A Parable. A certain Priest (who had a foolish servant) went some where without the City: the Servant seeking about for his Master; goes into the place of burial, and there calls out to people standing there, did you see my Master here? They say unto him, is not thy Master a Priest? He said yes: Then said they unto him, thou fool, whoever saw a Priest among Tombs? So say Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh, thou fool, is it the custom to seek the dead among the living? or perhaps the living among the dead? Our God, is the living God, but the God's of whom thou speakest, are dead, &c.

VERS. XIII.

ONE of these was Cleophas, verse. 18. whom we have shewn to be the very same with Alpheus, in another place; both from the agreement of the Name (for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 writ in Hebrew serves for both names) and also by comparing Joh. XIX. 25. with Mark XV. 47. and Matth. XXVII. 56. that Peter was the other I do not at all question, grounding my confidence upon verse. 34. of this Chapter; and 1 Cor. XV. 5. This Cleophas, or Alpheus we see, is the speaker here, and not Peter, being older than Peter, as being the Father of four of the Apostles.

VERS. XV.

AFter that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked and went into the Country. But what form that was, it would be something bold to determine. But it seems to be different from the form of a Gardener, and indeed not the form of any Plebeian; but rather of some Scholar, because he instructs them while they were upon the road, and giveth thanks for them when they sat at meat. So Beracoth , If two eat together, the one of them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a learned man, the other of them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an unlearned man; he that is the learned man gives thanks. Hence that passage Janneus the King calls out Simeon ben Shetahh, Vice-President of the Sanhedrin, and a Doctor to say grace after Supper; and thus he begins: Blessed be God for the meat which Janneus and his guests have eaten; to whom the King, How long wilt thou persist in thy frowardness? Saith the other, Why, what should I have said? Must we bless God for the meat that we have eaten, when as I have eaten none at all?

VERS. XXI.

WE trusted it had been he that should have redeemed Israel: viz. in the sense that that Nation had, of a Redemption which they hoped for from the Gentile yoke. But the poverty and meanness of Jesus gave them no ground to hope any such thing should be brought about by Arms, as that people had generally dreamed: they hoped however it might have been miraculously accomplished, as their first redemption from Egypt had been.

It is worthy our observation what notice the Rabbins take of the third day . Abraham lifted up his eyes the third day, Gen. XXII. 4. It is written, After two days will he receive us, in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight, Hos. VI. 2. It is written, concerning the third day of the Tribes: Joseph said unto them, the third day, Gen. XLII. 18. Concerning the third day also of the spies: Hide yourselves there three days, Jos. II. 16. And it is said of the third day of the promulgation of the Law. And it came to pass on the third day, Exod. XIX. 16. It is written also of the third day of Jonas, Jonas was in the belly of the Fish three days and three nights, Jon. I. 17. It is written also of the third day of those that came up out of the Captivity. And there abode we in Tents three days, Ezra VIII. 15. It is written also of the third day of the resurrection from the dead. After two days will he receive us, and the third day he will raise us up. It is written also of the third day of Esther. And on the third day Esther put on her Royal apparel, Esther V. 1. The Targumist adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on the third day of the Passover. And that indeed is the day we are at present concerned in, namely, the third day of the Passover. If these things were taken so much notice of concerning the third day, at that time in the Schools and Synagogues (as I see no reason why it should be denied) then these words of Cleophas may seem to look a little that way, as speaking according to the vulgar conceptions of the Jews. For whereas it had been plain enough to have said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , today is the third day; but he further adds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , beside all this, and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this too; there seems a peculiar force in that addition, and an emphasis in that word. As if the meaning of it were this: That same Jesus was mighty in word and deed, and shown himself such an one, that we conceived him the true Messiah, and he that was to redeem Israel: And besides all these things which bear witness for him to be such, this very day bears witness also. For whereas there is so great an observation amongst us concerning the third day; this is the third day since he was Crucified, and there are some Women amongst us, that say they have been told by Angels, that he is risen again.

VERS. XXX.

IT is strange that any should expound this breaking of bread, of the Holy Eucharist, when Christ had determined with himself to disappear in the very distribution of the bread, and so interrupt the Supper. And where indeed doth it appear that any of them tasted a bit? For the Supper was ended before it began.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If three eat together they are bound to say grace . That is, as it is afterwards explained: One of them saith let us bless—but if there be three, and himself, then he saith, bless ye . Although I do not believe Christ tied himself exactly to that custom of sayiny let us bless; nor yet to the common form of blessing before meat, yet is it very probable he did use some form of blessing, and not the words, this is my body.

VERS. XXXII.

BEZA saith, In uno exemplari, &c. In one Copy we read it written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; was not our heart hid? Heinsius saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in optimis codicibus, legitur. It is written hidden in the best Copies. Why then should it not be so in the best Translations too? But this reading favors his Interpretation which amounts to this: were we not fools that we should not know him while he was discoursing us in the way? I had rather expound it by some such parallel places as these: My heart waxed hot within me, while I was musing the fire burned, Psal. XXXIX. 3. His word was in mine heart as a burning fire, Jerem. XX. 9. The meaning is, that their hearts were so affected and grew so warm, that they could hold no longer, but must break silence and utter themselves. So these, were we not so mightily affected while he talked with us in the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures, that we were just breaking out into the acknowledgment of him, and ready to have saluted him as our Lord?

That is a far fetched conceit in Taanith : R Alai bar Barachiah saith, If two disciples of the wise men journey together, and do not maintain some discourse betwixt themselves concerning the Law, they deserve to be burnt: according as it is said, It came to pass, as they still went on and talked, behold a Chariot of fire, and Horses of fire, &c. 2 Kings II.

VERS. XXXIV.

I. THAT these are the words of the Eleven appears from the case in which the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . They found the Eleven and them that were with them, saying. They having returned from Emmaus found the Eleven and the rest saying to them when they came into their presence; The Lord is risen indeed and hath appeared unto Simon. But do they speak these things amongst themselves as certain and believed? or do they tell them to the two Disciples that were come from Emmaus as things true and unquestionable? It is plain from St. Mark that the Eleven did not believe the Resurrection of our Savior, till he himself had shown himself in the midst of them . They could not therefore say these words, The Lord is risen and hath appeared to Simon; as if they were confidently assured of the truth of them. But when they saw Simon so suddenly and unexpectedly returning, whom they knew to have taken a journey toward Galilee, to try if he could there meet with Jesus, they conclude hence, Oh! surely the Lord is risen, and hath appeared to Simon, otherwise he would not have returned back so soon.

Which brings to mind that of the Messenger of the death of Maximin . The messenger that was sent from Aquileia to Rome, changing his Horses often, came with so great speed, that he got to Rome in four days. It chanced to be a day wherein some games were celebrating, when on a sudden as Balbinus and Gordianus were sitting in the Theatre, the Messenger came in: and before it could be told, all the people cry out, Maximin is slain, and so prevented him in the news he brought, &c.

We cannot well think that any worldly affairs could have called away these two from the Feast before the appointed time, nor indeed from the company of their fellow Disciples, but something greater, and more urgent than any worldly occasions. And now imagine with what anguish and perplexity poor Peter 's thoughts were harrast for having denied his Master: what emotions of mind he felt, when the Women had told him, that they were commanded by Angels to let Peter particularly know that the Lord was risen, and went before them into Galilee, and they might see him there, Mark XVI. 7. That it seems to me beyond all question that one of these Disciples going toward Emmaus was Peter, who as soon as he had heard this from the Women, taking Alpheus as a companion of his journey, makes toward Galilee, not without communicating before hand to his fellow disciples the design of that progress: They therefore finding him so suddenly and unexpectedly returned, make the conjecture amongst themselves, that certainly the Lord had appeared to him, else he would never have come back so soon. Compare but that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. XV. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: and nothing can seem expressed more clearly in the confirmation of this matter.

Object. But it may be objected, that those two returning from Emmaus found the Eleven Apostles gathered and sitting together. Now if Simon was not amongst them, they were not Eleven. Therefore he was not one of those two.

Answ. I. If it should be granted that Peter was there and sat amongst them, yet were they not exactly Eleven then, for Thomas was absent, Joh. XX. 24. 2. When the Eleven are mentioned we must not suppose it exactly meant of the number of Apostles then present, but the present number of the Apostles.

VERS. XXXVII.

WHereas the Jews distinguished between Angels, and Spirits, and Daemons; Spirits are defined by R. Hoshaiah to be such to whom souls are created, but they have not a body made for those souls. But it is a question whether they included all spirits or souls under this notion, when it is more than probable that apparitions of Ghosts, or deceased persons who once had a body, were reckoned by them under the same title. Nor do I apprehend, the Disciples had any other imagination at this time, than that this was not Christ indeed in his own person, as newly raised from the dead; but a Spectrum only in his shape, himself being still dead. And when the Pharisees speak concerning Paul, Acts XXIII. 9. That if an Angel, or a Spirit hath spoken to him, I would easily believe, they might mean it of the Apparition of some Prophet, or some other departed just person, than of any soul, that had never yet anybody created to it. I the rather incline thus to think, because it is so evident that it were needless to prove how deeply impressed that Nation was with an opinion of the Apparitions of departed Ghosts.

VERS. XLIV.

IT is a known division of the Old Testament into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Law, the Prophets, and the Holy Writings; by abbrevation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

I. The Books of the Law, and their order need not be insisted upon, called commonly by us, the Pentateuch: but by some of the Rabbins the Heptateuch: and by some Christians the Octateuch: R. Samuel bar Nachman saith, R. Jonathan saith, Wisdom hath hewn out her seven Pillars [Prov. IX. 1.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 These are the seven Books of the Law. The Book of Numbers completes the seven Books of the Law. But are there not but five Books only? Ben Kaphra saith the Book of Numbers is made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 three Books. From the beginning of the Book to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And it came to pass when the Ark set forward [Chap. X. 35.] is a Book by itself. That verse and the following is a Book by itself: And from thence to the end of the Book, is a Book by itself.

The reason why they accounted this period [ Chap. X. 35. 36.] to be one Book by itself, was, partly because it does not seem put there in its proper place: partly because in the beginning of it, it hath the letter Nun inverted thus [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so after the end of it in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which in both places is set for a boundary and limit, to distinguish that period from the rest of the Book. Whatever therefore goes before, from the beginning of the Book to that period, is reckoned by them for one Book; and whatever follows it, for another Book; and the period itself for a third.

Eulogius speaking concerning Dosthes or Dositheus a famous seducer of the Samaritans, hath this passage, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. He adulterated the Octateuch of Moses with spurious writings, and all kind of corrupt falsifyings. There is mention also of a Book with this title, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Christians Book, An Exposition upon the Octateuch. Whether this was the Octateuch of Moses, it is neither certain, nor much worth our enquiry, for Photios judgeth him a corrupt Author: besides that it may be shewn by and by that there was a twofold Octateuch besides that of Moses. Now if any man should ask how it come to pass that Eulogius (and that probably from the common notion of the thing) should divide the Books of Moses into an Octateuch; I had rather any one else rather than myself should resolve him in it. But if any consent that he owned the Heptateuch we have already mentioned, we should be ready to reckon the last Chapter of Deuteronomy for the eighth part.

Ibn Ezra will smile here, who in that his obscure and disguised denial of the Books of the Pentateuch, as if they were not writ by the pen of Moses, he instances in that Chapter in the first place, as far as I can guess, as a testimony against it. You have his words in his Commentary upon the Book of Deuteronomy, a little from the beginning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But if you understand the mystery of the twelve, &c. i. e. of the twelve Verses of the last Chapter of the Book (for so his own Country-men expound him) thou wilt know the truth, i. e. that Moses did not write the whole Pentateuch; an argument neither worth answering, nor becoming so great a Philosopher. For as it is a ridiculous thing to suppose that Chapter that treats of the death and burial of Moses should be written by himself, so would it not be much less ridiculous to affix that Chapter to any other volume than the Pentateuch. But these things are not the proper subject for our present handling.

II. There also was an Octatuech of the Prophets too. All the Books of the Prophets are eight, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremy, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve. For the Historical Books also, were read in their Synagogues under the notion of the Prophets, as well as the Prophets themselves whose names are set down. You will see the title prefixed to them in the Hebrew Bibles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the former Prophets, as well as to the others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the latter Prophets. The Doctors give us the reason why they dispose the Prophets in that order that Jeremiah is named first, Ezekiel next, and Isaiah last, which I have quoted in Notes upon Matth. XXVII. 9. and let not the Reader think it irksome to repeat it here.

Whereas the Book of Kings ends in destruction, and the whole Book of Jeremy treats about destruction; whereas Ezekiel begins with destruction, and ends in consolation: and whereas Isaiah is all in consolation, they joined destruction with destruction, and consolation with consolation.

III. The third division of the Bible is intitled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Holy Writings. And here also is found an Octateuch by somebody, (as it seems) though I know not where to find it.

Herbanus the Jew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , was a man excellently well instructed in the Law, and holy Books of the Prophets, and the Octateuch, and all the other Writings. What this Octateuch should be, distinct from the Law and the Prophets, and indeed what the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , all the other writings besides should be, is not easily guessed. This Octateuch perhaps may seem to have some reference to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Hagiographa, or Holy Writings (for it is probable enough, that speaking of a Jew well skilled in the Holy Scriptures he might design the partition of the Bible, according to the manner of the Jews dividing it) but who then can pick out books that should make it up? Let the Reader pick out the eight, and then I would say that the other four are the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , all the other Writings. But we will not much disquiet ourselves about this matter.

It may be asked why these Books should be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Scriptures, when the whole Bible goes under the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the holy Scriptures. Nor can any thingbe more readily answered to this than, that by this title they would keep up their dignity, and just esteem for them. They did not indeed read them in their Synagogues, but that they might acknowledge them of most Holy and Divine Authority 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of them they confirm their Traditions, and they expound them mystically: Yea and give them the same title with the rest of the Holy Scriptures.

This is the order 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Hagiographa, Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticles, the Lamentations, Daniel, the Book of Esther, Ezra, and the Chronicles. It is here disputed, that if Job was in the days of Moses, why then is not his Book put in the first place? the answer is, they do not begin with vengeance, or affliction, and such is that Book of Job. They reply, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ruth also begins with affliction, viz. with the story of a Famine, and the death of Elimelech 's Sons. But that was (say they) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an affliction that had a joyful ending. So they might have said of the Book and affliction of Job too. We see it is disputed there why the Book of Ruth should be placed the first in that rank, and not the Book of Job. But we might inquire whether the Book of Psalms ought not have been placed the first, rather than the Book of Ruth.

IV. In this passage at present before us who would think otherwise, but that our Savior alludes to the common and most known partition of the Bible? and although he name the Psalms only, yet that under the title he includes that whole volume. For we must of necessity say, that either he excluded all the Books of that third division, excepting the Book of Psalms, which is not probable; or that he included them under the title of the Prophets, which was not customary; or else that under the title of the Psalms he comprehended all the rest. That he did not exclude them, reason will tell us; for in several Books of that division is he himself spoken of as well as in the Psalms; and that he did not include them in the title of the Prophets, reason also will dictate: because we would not suppose him speaking differently from the common and received opinion of that Nation. There is very little question therefore, but the Apostles might understand him speaking with the vulgar: and by the Psalms to have meant all the Books of that Volume, those especially, wherein anything was written concerning himself. For, let it be granted that Ruth as to the time of the History, and the time of its writing might challenge to its self the first place in order (and it is that kind of priority the Gemarists are arguing) yet certainly amongst all those Books that mention anything of Christ, the Book of Psalms deservedly obtains the first place; so far that in the naming of this, the rest may be understood. So St. Matthew Chap. XXVII. 9. under the name of Jeremiah, comprehends that whole Volume of the Prophets, because he was placed the first in that rank which observation we have made in Notes upon that place.

VERS. XLV.

WHere it is said that by the imposition of the hands of the Apostles the gift of Tongues and of Prophesy was conferred ( they spake with tongues, and they prophesied, Acts XIX. 6.) by Prophesy, nothing may be better understood than this very thing, that the minds of such were opened, that they might understand the Scriptures: and perhaps their speaking with tongues, might look this way, in the first notion of it, viz. that they could understand the original wherein the Scriptures were writ.

VERS. L.

HOW many difficulties arise here?

I. This very Evangelist ( Acts I. 12.) tells us that when the Disciples came back from the place where our Lord ascended, they returned from Mount Olivet, distant from Jerusalem a Sabbath days journey. But now the Town of Bethany was about fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, Joh. XI. 18. and that is double a Sabbath days journey.

II. Josephus tells us that the Mount of Olives was but five furlongs from the City, and a Sabbath days journey, was seven furlongs and an half. About that time there came to Jerusalem a certain Egyptian, pretending himself a Prophet, and persuading the people that they would go out with him to the Mount of Olives, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; which being situated on the front of the City, is distant five furlongs. These things are all true: 1. That the Mount of Olives lay but five furlongs distance from Jerusalem. 2. That the Town of Bethany was fifteen furlongs. 3. That the Disciples were brought by Christ as far as Bethany. 4. That when they returned from the Mount of Olives, that they travelled more than five furlongs. And, 5. Returning from Bethany they travelled but a Sabbath days journey. All which may be easily reconciled, if we would observe; That the first space from the City toward this Mount was called Bethphage, which I have cleared elsewhere from Talmudic Authors, the Evangelists themselves also confirming it. That part of that Mount was known by that name to the length of about a Sabbath days journey, till it come to that part which was called Bethany. For there was Bethany, a tract of the Mount, and the Town of Bethany. The Town was distant from the City about fifteen furlongs, i. e. two miles, or a double Sabbath days journey: but the first border of this tract (which also bore the name of Bethany ) was distant but one mile, or a single Sabbath days journey only.

Our Savior led out his Disciples, when he was about to ascend, to the very first brink of that Region or tract of Mount Olivet which was called Bethany, and was distant from the City, a Sabbath days journey. And so far from the City itself did that tract extend itself which was called Bethphage: and when he was come to that place where the bounds of Bethphage and Bethany met and touched one another, he there ascended: in that very place where he got upon the Ass, when he rode into Jerusalem, Mark XI. 1. whereas therefore Josephus saith, that Mount Olivet was but five furlongs from the City, he means the first brink and border of it. But our Evangelist must be understood of the place where Christ Ascended, where the name of Olivet began, as it was distinguished from Bethphage.

And since we have so frequent mention of a Sabbath days Journey, and it is not very foreign from our present purpose to observe something concerning it, let me take notice of these few things:

I. The space 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of a Sabbath days bounds was two thousand cubits. Naomi said to Ruth, we are commanded to observe the Sabbaths, and the Feasts: But we are not to go beyond 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 two thousand cubits. It is ordained by the Scribes that no Man go out of the City beyond two thousand cubits. Instances of this kind are endless. But it is disputed upon what foundation this constitution of theirs is built. Whence comes it to be thus ordained concerning the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 two thousand cubits? it is founded upon this, Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day, Exod. XVI. 29. Where are these two thousand cubits mentioned? they have their Tradition from hence, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 abide ye every man in his place, Exod. XVI. 29. These are four cubits. Let no man go out of his place. These are two thousand cubits. It is true indeed we cannot gain so much as one cubit out of any of these Scriptures, much less two thousand; however, we may learn from hence the pleasant art they have of working, anything out of anything.

Asai ben Akibah saith, they are fetched from hence in that it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 place, place. Here place is said [Let no man go out of his place] and it is said elsewhere, I will appoint thee a place, Exod. XXI. 13. As the place that is said elsewhere, is two thousand cubits, so the place, that is spoken of here, is two thousand cubits. But how do they prove that the place mentioned elsewhere, is two thousand cubits? I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee that kills a man unawares: This teacheth us that the Israelites in the Wilderness (i. e. those that had slain any one) betook themselves to a place of refuge. And whether did they flee? To the Camp of the Levites.

Now therefore, when the Israelites▪ Camp in the Wilderness were distant from the Tabernacle and from the Levite's Camp that was pitched about the Tabernacle, two thousand cubits, which thing they gather from Jos. III. 4. and whereas it was lawful for them at that distance to approach the Tabernacle on the Sabbath day, hence they argue for the two thousand cubits, as the Sabbath days journey which we are now enquiring into. But by the way let us take notice of the four cubits which they gathered from those words, abide ye every man in his place. Which must be thus understood: If any person through ignorance, or by any accident, had gone beyond the limits of the Sabbath, and afterward came to know his transgression, he was confined within four cubits, so that he must not stir beyond them, till the Sabbath was done and over.

They further instance in another foundation for the two thousand cubits: ye shall measure from without the City on the East side two thousand cubits, Numb. XXXV. 5. But another Scripture saith, from the wall of the City and outward, ye shall measure a thousand cubits [verse. 4.] the thousand cubits are the suburbs of the City, and the two thousand cubits are the Sabbatical limits. Maimonides very largely discourseth in what manner and by what lines they measured these two thousand cubits from each City: but it makes very little to our purpose. Only let me add this one thing, that if any one was over-taken in his journeying, in the fields, or wilderness, by the night when the Sabbath was coming in, and did not exactly know the space of two thousand cubits, then he might walk 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 two thousand ordinary paces: and these were accounted the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Sabbatical bounds

So far from the City was that place of Mount Olivet where Christ Ascended, viz. that part of the Mount where Bethphage ended, and Bethany began. Perhaps the very same place mentioned 2 Sam. XV. 32. or certainly not far off where David in his flight taking leave of the Ark and Sanctuary, looked back, and worshipped God. Where if any one would be at the pains to inquire why the Greek Interpreters retain the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ros, both here and in Chap. XVI. I. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And David came unto Ros. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And David passed on a little way from Ros: He will find a knot not easy to be untied. The Talmudists would have it a place of Idolatry, but by a reason very far fetched indeed . The Jewish Commentators with a some more probability conceive, that it was a place from whence David when he went toward Jerusalem, looking toward the place where the Tabernacle was seated, was wont to worship God.

SECT. I. Different Readings, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

I T is observed by all that treat upon this Evangelist, that the reading doth vary in some Copies, and this instance is alleged for one.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . These things were done in Bethabarah, but in other Copies it is, in Bethany.

But Drusius, Vulgati codices, &c. The vulgar hath it, in Bethabarah. which Epiphanius in the place above mentioned calls Bethamarah. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Of this reading Petavius is silent.

It might easily happen that Bethabarah should change into Bethamarah, partly considering the affinity of the characters, which (saith he) tanta est in antiqua Scripturâ, ut vix discerni possit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & contra, is so great in ancient writings, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 can hardly be distinguished; partly that the alternate use of Mem and Beth is so very common in those Countries.

Nor indeed is it much wonder that Bathamara should change into Bethania, since Bethamara being writ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a place of Wool; and Bethania being writ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a place of Sheep.

But it seems very strange how Bethabarah should ever change into Bethany unless upon some such occasion as these:

Either that Bethabarah might be taken for the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. the House of Exposition or the School (in which sense we meet with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) whence for Explication it is annexed by some hand or other in the Margine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the House of Tradition, or Doctrine: as if the Evangelist were to be understood in this manner, these things were done or disputed in a certain School beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. And so that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being so very known and obnoxious, might steal from the Margin into the Text and common use.

Or perhaps, secondly; upon the suspicion of a Tautology if Bethabarah and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be found together 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be looked upon as the same thing with a place beyond Jordan: therefore they might substitute the word Bethany as signifying Batanaea or Bashan to some such sense as this. These things were done in Batanea beyond Jordan, &c. But it is our province at present to inquire rather into the situation of Bethabarah, than into the original and derivation of Bethany.

SECT. II. The noted passages over Jordan.

AMong the various ways of writing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Hebrew, these two especially deserve our consideration at present. Beth-barah, which we meet with in Judge. VII. and Bethabarah, or a place of passage, where they passed over Jordan. They must both come under our enquiry whiles we are seeking the place in hand: And first of the latter.

Doubtless there was no part of Jordan but might be passed by Boat from one side to the other, as men's different occasions might call them; but we are now considering the public and common passages that led over that River from one Country into another.

I. There is a Bridge over Jordan, betwixt the Lake of Samochon and Gennesaret in the way that leadeth to Damascus, which hath the name of Jacob's Bridge, of which our Country-man Biddulph (who hath himself travelled over it) speaks to this purpose:

At the foot of this rocky Mountain runs a pleasant River called Jordan, which divideth Syria from Galilee. Over this River is built a goodly Bridge, which bears the name of Jacob's Bridge upon this twofold account. 1. Because in this place Jacob met with his Brother Esau. 2. Because here he wrestled with the Angel.

As to matter of fact, that there is and was such a Bridge I do not much question; but for the reasons why it is so called, as it is not much to our purpose to examine, so they seem to have little else but conjecture in them.

II. Jordan also had a Bridge over it at Chammoth near Tiberias at the very efflux of the River out of the Sea of Gennesaret; as we have elsewhere shewn from the Talmudic Authors, against the mistake of the Tables which place Tiberias at a great distance thence. Tam Dominus Rex quam Principes omnes, Tyberiadem usque perveniunt, ubi circa pontem, unde ex mari, Jordanis fluenta se dividunt, castrametatur. i. e. As well the Lord the King, as all the Princes came even unto Tiberias, and pitched their tents near the Bridge where the streams of Jordan from the Sea, do divide themselves.

Juxta Tiberiadem secus pontem unde de lacu Genezar, Jordanis fluenta se dividunt, cum exercitu sua castra locavit. i. e. With his Army he pitched his Tents near Tiberias by the Bridge, from whence the streams of Jordan from the lake of Gennesaret, do divide themselves. Read this and view the situation of Tiberias in the Tables, and correct the mistake.

III. That was a most known and frequent passage from Jericho which we so often read of in the Holy Scriptures; which yet seems rather to have been by Boat than Bridge. See the 2 Sam. XIX. 18. and 2 Kings II. 8.

SECT. III. The Scythopolitan Country

THere was a fourth, and that the greatest passage betwixt Chammoth and Jericho, but at a great distance from either; for the finding out of which, we are to consider what is intimated, 1 Kings IV. 12. And all Bethshean, which is by Zartanah beneath Jesreel. And again 1 Kings VII. 46. In the plain of Jordan did the King cast them, in the Clay ground, between Succoth and Zarthan. We will begin with Bethshean.

I. Bethshean, or Scythopolis was in the lot of Manasseh, Judge. I. 27. Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean, which is Scythopolis. So that it was within the limits of Samaria, though indeed one of the Decapolitan Cities, and within the jurisdiction of the Gentiles, as we have shown elsewhere.

II. It was the utmost bound of Samaria toward Galilee. The bounds of Galilee, on the South is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Samaria and Scythopolis as far as the River Jordan.

III. The City was half a Leagues distance from Jordan, saith Borchard, and yet extends its jurisdiction beyond Jordan. That of Aethicus in his Cosmography is well known. Fluvius Jordanis, saith he, &c. The River Jordan hath its head in Mount Libanus, runs about to the Lake of Tiberias, from whence going out, hath its current through the midst of Scythopolis, and issues in the dead Sea. Jordan divided Scythopolis in the midst; not the City (for that was at some considerable distance from the River) but the Country itself; so that part of the Country was on this, and part of the other side Jordan.

It was a noble City of the Syrogrecians, and had considerable jurisdiction, not only within the confines of Manasseh, but extended itself beyond, even to Perea.

SECT. IV. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ The great Plain: the Scythopolitan passage there.

OF this great Plain which took in the whole breadth of the Country of Manasseh from Jordan toward the West, a very long way, Josephus frequently speaks: describing the situation and portion of Ephraim and Manasseh, he thus expresseth himself.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Tribe of Ephraim extended itself, in length, from the River Jordan, to Gadarah (Gazarah or Gezer, Josh. XVI. 3. and Chap. XXI. 21.) in breadth, from Bethel, and ends at the great Plain.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. The half Tribe of Manasseh extends itself in longitude from Jordan to the City Dor. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But in latitude (from Ephraim) it reacheth to Bethshean, which is now called Scythopolis. So that that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or great plain, to those that were journeying from Galilee, began from Bethshean, and extended itself in latitude to the confines of Ephraim. Hence that which we meet with in the same Josephus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . They that passed over Jordan came into the great Plain before which the City Bethsan lies, or as it is in 1 Maccab. V. 52. They went over Jordan into the great plain before Bethshean.

In the Book of Judith Chap. I. verse. 8. it is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The great plain of Esdrelom: That is in truth, the great Valley of Jezrael. So Jezrael in the place above quoted, 1 Kings IV. 12. by the Greek Interpreters is rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Insomuch that when it is said of Judah and his Army (for him it is whom this passage concerns) that in his return from the Land of Gilead, he passed over Jordan into this great plain, and that (as it should seem) not very far from Bethshean, it is evident that the great and common passage over Jordan was hereabout, by which not only the Scythopolitans went over from their Country on this side Jordan, to that beyond, but those also of Samaria, and those of the lower Galilee passed over here to Perea.

Here would I seek for Jacob's Bridge where he passed over Jordan with his Staff, when he went into Mesopotamia, and returned back with a Family; and not where it is commonly now shewn. At least, the mention of Succoth, Gen. XXXIII. 17. which had its situation on the bank of Jordan, exactly opposite to Zartanah a Town near Bethshean, puts it out of all question that Jacob returned that way. And indeed whether Scythopolis might not derive something of its appellation from the word Succoth, I cannot well tell: methinks the name of Scythians hath some smack of such a kind of original, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 qu. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . for they always dwelt, and removed from one place to another in Tents.

SECT. V. Beth-barah, Judge. VII. 24.

NEither was this Beth-barah at any very great distance from this passage. For so we have it Judge. VII. 24. Gideon sent messengers throughout all Mount Ephraim, saying, come down against the Midianites, and take before them the waters unto Beth-barah and Jordan. And this they did.

It is hard to say whether Kinichi with more reason said, That these waters were not the waters of Jordan: or Jarchi, more absurdly, that they divided Syria from Canaan. There were, no doubt, some waters in the Valley of Jezreel. (For there the battle was, at least if that may be called a battle where there was not one Sword unsheathed by the Conqueror. See Judge. VI. 33.) When the Midianites fled, Gideon summons the Ephraimites by messengers, that they would take those waters beforehand, which the routed enemy in their flight must necessarily pass through, before they could arrive at the Bridge or Ferry over Jordan (spoken of even now) that lay in their way home. When both Armies had pitched the Field, the Midianites lay on the North toward Galilee, and the Gideonites on the South near Mount Ephraim, Chap. VII. 1. There was a River in the Vale, (at which waters probably Gideon distinguished betwixt his Followers that lapped like a Dog, and those that did not.) This River at length discharged itself into Jordan above the Bridge or passage that led into Perca. When therefore the Midianites lay on the Northern bank of this River, and so were not capable of attaining the passage over Jordan till they had made through these waters first; it was the Ephraimites care and business to maintain the opposite bank, and that indeed all the whole space from the place where the fight began to Beth-barah and Jordan that the Enemy might be blocked up from all possibility of escape or retiring.

Whether therefore this passage of which we have spoken, was called Beth-barah from that place so neas Jordan, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beth-abarah, from the Etymology before mentioned, it is no absurdity for the further bank of Jordan which lay contiguous to the Bridge or passage over it, to be called Bethrbarah beyond Jordan, either upon the one or the other account. For (however the Learned Beza comes to question it) the Lexicons will tell you that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth beyond Jordan: especially that common threefold division 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judea, Galilee, and beyond Jordan. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . On the East of the River Jordan: as Ptolemy expresseth it. And Beza himself confesseth that trans Jordanem, beyond Jordan, is the proper signification of the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , beyond, Matth. IV. 15.

Let us therefore place the Bethabarah we are seeking for, where John was baptizing, on the further • ide of Jordan, in the Scythopolitan Country, where the Jews dwelt amongst the Syro-Grecians, as in all the Decapolitan Regions, where Christ might something more safely converse, from the vexations of the Scribes and Pharisees, Joh. X. 40. being as it were out of their reach and jurisdiction there. And so we find John Baptizing first at the passage at Jericho, because through the greatness of the Road there was always a considerable concourse of people; and next, at the passage at Scythopolis for the same reason.

Further, had I either leisure or will to play any longer about the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , we might suppose it written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bethaania which in the Syriac Idiom (amongst whom it is no unusual thing to change 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) agrees with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bethshania.

SECT. I. A Legend not much unlike that of the Chapel of Loretto.

FOrasmuch as our Evangelist makes only a transient mention of Nazareth in this place, not relating anything that our Savior did there, we shall take as transient notice of it at this time, by the by only enquiring into its situation, as what we may have occasion to discourse more largely upon in another place.

But what indeed need we be very solicitous about the situation of this Town, when the place we would especially look for there, that is, the House of the Blessed Virgin, hath taken its leave of Nazareth, and by the conveyance of Angels hath seated its self in Loretto in Italy. Of which thing amongst many others Cardinal Baronius gives us this grave relation.

Porro domus illa, &c.

Let us repay one Legend with another.

In truth I should easilier incline to believe this Story than that of Loretto, because there is some reason to apprehend this R. Chaninah no other than Haninah ben Dusa a notorious Magcian . Unless you will also say that the Chapel at Loretto took that jaunt by the help of Magic.

A huge Stone of its own accord takes a skip from the Land of Israel, and stops up the Mouth of the Den in Babylon where Daniel and the Lions lay. But so much for Tales.

SECT. II. The situation of Nazareth.

THE situation of Nazareth according to Borchard, Breidenbach, and Saligniac, ought to be measured and determined from Mount Thabor. For so they unanimously: A Nazareth duabus leucis contra orientem est Mons Thabor: From Nazareth two leagues Eastward is Mount Tabor. Nor is there any cause why with respect to that Region of Galilee, in which they place this City, we should dissent from them, seeing there are others of the same opinion. Now the Mount Tabor was in the very confines that divided Issachar from Zebulon, Jos. XIX. 22. And the coast [i. e. of Issachar] reacheth to Tabor and Shahazimath. But what coast should this be, Northor South? The North coast, saith Josephus .

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [the Manassites] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . i. e. next to Manasseh is Issachar, having for its bounds of longitude, Mount Carmel and the River [Jordan,] and of latitude, Mount Tabor. That is, The latitude of Issachar is, from Manasseh to Mount Tabor, as Josephus plainly makes out in that place. Mount Tabor therefore, lay as it were in the midst betwixt the Coasts of Samaria and upper Galilee: Having on this side Issachar toward Samaria, and on that side Zebulon toward the aforesaid Galilee.

Josephus describes Mount Tabor where these things seem something obscure, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . We have already seen where Scythopolis lay, and where the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the great plain, near Scythopolis. But what should that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , great Plain be, that lieth so behind Tabor toward the North, that Tabor should be betwixt it and Scythopolis? Is not Zebulon so called in Josephus? yea, and Issachar too, at least a great part of it, if we consult the same Josephus So that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Scythopolis or Manasseh is distinctly called by him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The great Plain of Samaria .

And the lower Galilee is described by the Talmudists by this character, that it produceth Sycamines, which the upper Galilee doth not . Now the Sycamine Trees were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the vale, 1 King. X. 27. And hence seems to arise the distinction between the upper, and the lower Galilee, the lower so called, because more plain and Champaigne; the upper, because more Hilly and Mountanous.

I am deceived if the upper Galilee, be not sometimes by way of Emphasis called Galilee; nor without cause, whenas the lower might be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the great plain. So Cana hath the adjunct of Cana of Galilee, perhaps that it might distinguish that Cana which bounds, both the Galilees; of which more in its proper place. That passage which we meet with in our Evangelist, Chap. IV. 43, 44. He departed from thence [from Samaria] and went into Galilee, for Jesus himself testified that a Prophet hath no honor in his Country. It looks this way: that is, he would not go into Nazareth, but into Galilee, viz. the upper, and so came to Cana.

Nazareth therefore was in the lower Galilee, in the very confines of Issachar and Zebulon, and is commonly received within Zebulon, its self being distant sixteen miles or more from Capernaum; for from Capernaum, Mount Tabor is distant ten miles or thereabouts.

SECT. III. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ben Nezer.

I Am not abundantly satisfied in the common writing of the word Nazareth by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; much less that Nazarenus should be expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when the sacred Amanuenses write it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But I can hardly suppress a just indignation when I read what the Jews scribble about 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ben Nezer.

The Rabbins have a Tradition: Those that are taken out of the Kingdom, behold they are properly Captives, but those that are taken by Thieves, they are not to be called Captives.

The Tradition is to be distinguished. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as to Kingdom and Kingdom there is no difficulty. That is, as to Kingdoms which are equal. But between the Kingdom of Ahasuerus, and the Kingdom of Ben Nezer there is. Between Thieves and Thieves there is no difficulty, but between ben Nezer, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Thieves of the world, (viz. common Thieves) there is. There [in Palestine] Ben Nezer is called a King. Here [in Babylon ] he is called a Robber 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gloss. Ben Nezer was a Thief and took Cities and ruled over them and became the Captain of Robbers.

It is very suspicious to what purpose they have invented that name for the most infamous Robber, to call him the Son of Nezer. By those very Letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they write the City Nazareth. Read on and the suspicion will increase.

I considered the horns, and behold there came up among them another little horn, [Dan. VII. 8.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This is Ben Nezer. Aruch quoteth this passage under the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this manner: There came up among them another little horn. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This is the Kingdom of the Cuthites. Now what they meant by the Kingdom of the Cuthites, may be conjectured from The Winter is past [Cant. II. 11.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This is the Kingdom of the Cuthites. And a little after: The time is coming when the Kingdom of Cuth shall be destroyed, and the Kingdom of Heaven shall be revealed.

It is easy imagining what they would point at by the Kingdom of the Cuthites; the Christians no doubt: (unless they will pretend to some Samaritan Kingdom.) And if so, it is as obvious whom they design by Ben Nezer. Let them show whence came the name of the Tetrarchy of the Nazarens in Celosyria: Of which Pliny , Caelosyria habet Apamiam Marsyâ amne divisam. A Nazarinorum Tetrarchiâ Bambycen, quae alio nomine Hierapolis vocatur, Syris vero Magog.

SECT. IV. Certain horrid practices in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Caphar Nachum.

HAving spoken of Nazareth, it will not be amiss to make some mention of Capernaum, which however distant many miles, yet was it the place where our Savior dwelt, as Nazareth was his native soil. We have considered its situation in another Treatise, being in the Country of Gennesareth, a little distance from Tiberias, There is another Capernahum mentioned by Gulielmus Tyrius , that lay upon the Coast of the Mediterranean, as this did upon the coast of Gennesaret. In loco quae dicitur Petra incisa, juxta antiquum Tyrum, inter Capharnaum & Doram, oppida Maritima: In a place called Petra Incisa, near old Tyre, betwixt Capernaum and Dor, two Sea-coast Towns.

It is uncertain whether the name be derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The former denotes pleasantness: the latter, comfort. And though our Capernaum might justly enough take its name from the pleasantness of its situation, according to the description that Josephus giveth of it . Yet the oriental Interpreters write it the latter way. The Rabbins also mention such a Town written in the same Letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of which perhaps it will not be tedious to the Reader to take this Story.

Chanina R. Joshua's Brother's Son went into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Capernaum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Heretics (or Magicians, for the word signifies either) enchanted him. They brought him into the City sitting upon an Ass: on the Sabbath day, which was forbidden by their Law. He went to his Uncle R. Joshua 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who besmeared him with a certain Ointment, and he was recovered. It should seem that by some kind of Enchantments they had thrown him into a Delirium so far that he had forgot both himself and the Sabbath day. There is another Story immediately follows that.

A certain Disciple of R. Jonathan's flies over to these Heretics: [That himself might be entered amongst them, and become one too.] Jonathan finds him out employed in castrating Birds and Beasts. They sent to him [Jonathan] and said it is written, cast in thy Lot amongst us and let us all have one purse. He fled; and they followed him, saying, Rabbi, come and give us a cast of thy office toward a young Birde. He returned and found them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 committing Adultery with a Woman. He asketh them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Is it the manner of the Jews to do such things as these? They answer, Is it not written in the Law, cast in thy lot amongst us, and let us all have one purse? He fled and they pursued him to his own house, and then he shut the doors against them. They call to him and say, O Rabbi, Jonathan, go, and rejoicing tell thy Mother, that thou didst not so much as look back toward us, for if thou hadst looked back, thou hadst then followed us as vehemently as we have now followed thee.

Whiles I read these things, I cannot but call to mind the Nicolaitans and such who indulged to themselves a liberty of all obscene filthiness; nor is what we have related unworthy our observation, with respect to Heresies of this kind. Should this Capernaum be the same (as probably it is) with that Capernaum which we meet with so frequently in the Evangelists, it is something observable what is said of it. Thou Capernaum, which art exalted unto Heaven shalt be brought down to Hell.

SECT. V. Some short remarks upon Cana, Joh. II. 2.

IT is very disputable which should be the first letter of the word Cana, whether Caph, or Koph, for we find both.

I. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Kanah with the initial letter Koph, is a City in the Tribe of Aser, Josh. XIX. 28. where the Greek for Canah have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and MS. Alex. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

II. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Kene, a word not very much differing in the sound, occurs amongst the Talmudists,