PuritanSearch

SECTION I.

From the Creation to the Flood were 1656. years, as appeareth, Gen. 5. & 6. & 7. by these parcels.

ADAM at 130 years old hath Seth, ver. 3.
Seth at 105 years old hath Enoch, ver. 6.
Enoch at 90 years old hath Cainan, ver. 9.
Cainan at 70 years old hath Mahalaleel, ver. 12.
Mahalaleel at 65 years old hath Jared, ver. 15.
Jared at 162 years old hath Enoch, ver. 18.
Enoch at 65 years old hath Methuselah, ver. 21.
Methuselah at 187 years old hath Lamech, ver. 25.
Lamech at 182 years old hath Noah, ver. 28, 29.
Noah at 600 years old seeth the Flood, Gen. 7. 11.

Total 1656. which whole year of the World, was taken up with the Flood, viz. from the 17 day of the second Month, or Marheshvan, Gen. 7. 11. to the 27 day of the same month come twelve-month, Gen. 8. 14.

SECTION II.

From the Flood to Terah’s death, and the Promise then given to Abram, were 427 years, as appeareth Gen. 11. by these particulars.

SEM at 2 years after the Flood begat Arphaxad, ver. 10.
Arphaxad at 35 years old begat Salah, ver. 12.
Salah at 30 years old begat Eber, ver. 14.
Eber at 34 years old begat Peleg, ver. 16.
Peleg at 30 years old begat Reu, ver. 18.
Reu at 32 years old begat Serug, ver. 20.
Serug at 30 years old begat Nachor, ver. 22.
Nachor at 29 years old begat Terah, ver. 24.
Terah at 130 years old begat Abram.
Abram at 75 years old hath the Promise, Gen. 12. 4.

Total 427. Which sum being added to 1656, which was the age of the World at the Flood, amounteth to 2083. and it resulteth, that the Promise was given to Abram in the year of the World 2083.

But here is the great question moved, Whether Abram were the eldest son of Terah, yea or no? If he were, then was he born when Terah was 70 years of age, Gen. 11. 26. and not as this Table layeth it, at his 130. And if he were not his eldest son, why hath Moses named him first of all his sons?

Answer, First, He was not his eldest son: for, 1. He married his brother Harans daughter [for so all men hold Sarah to have been] and she was but ten years younger then himself, Gen. 17. 17. which was impossible, if her Father were younger then he. 2. He is said to be but 75 years old, when he departed out of Haran, Gen. 12. 4. And this was after his Fathers death, Act. 7. 4. Now had he been born at Terah’s 70, he had been 135 years old when his Father died: We must therefore compute and reckon backward thus, that since he was but 75 years old when his Father died, it must needs be concluded that he was born when Terah was 130 as is laid down in the Table.

Answer, Secondly, He is reckoned first of Terah’s sons, as Sem is of Noah's, not because he was the first in time, but the first in dignity. For that Sem was not the eldest son of Noah, is clear by comparing these places, Gen. 5. 32. Noah was 500 years old when he begat his first son, and Gen. 7. 11. when Noah was six hundred years old, was the Flood of waters upon the Earth, and then was one of his sons an hundred years old: But Sem was not so till two years after, Gen. 11. 10. And yet is he ever named the first of his sons, Gen. 5. 32. & 6. 10. & 7. 13. & 9. 18. & 10.

There are some, that not content with this plain, necessary, and undeniable explication of the difficulty, do hold that Abram took two journeys into Canaan, one before his Fathers death, and another after: whereas Moses and Steven well compared together, do plainly show the contrary, and fully, and sufficiently clear the matter under scruple: That which hath made men to fall into the mistake of his two journeys into Canaan hath been this, that they have taken the words of God in Act. 7. 3. Get thee out of thy Country, &c. and his words in Gen. 12. 1. Get thee out of thy Country, &c, to be of the same time and spoken in the same place, whereas there is a vast difference in the words themselves, and so was there of the time and place where they were spoken. Steven telleth, that while Abraham was in Mesapotamia or Chaldea, as ver. 4. before he dwelt in Horam, God appeared to him, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy Country, and from thy kindred, but not a word of departing from his Fathers house, for he took his Father and his whole household along with him, and dwelt with them a good while in Haran, Gen. 11. 31. And Terah died in Haran, ver. 32. Then the Lord said unto Abram, for so should Gen. 12. 1. be translated, and not, Now the Lord had said: And his saying was this, Get thee out of thy Country, and from thy kindred, and from thy Fathers house too, for that also he now left behind him, namely Nahor and all his Fathers Family, but only Lot and Sarah that were fatherless children: And this difference considered, as necessarily it must, it doth make this difficulty which hath cost so much canvasing so easy, as a thing needeth not to be more.

SECTION III.

From the promise given to Abram upon his Father Terah’s death to the delivery of the people of Israel out of Egypt, and to the giving of the Law, were 430 years, Exod. 12. 40. Gal. 3. 17.

THIS sum being joined to that before of 2083. it maketh the world to be in the two thousand five hundred and thirteenth year of her age, when Israel was delivered and the Law given.

This space of time of 430 years betwixt the promise and the Law, the Divine Wisdom and Providence cast into two equal portions, of 215 years before the people's going down into Egypt, and 215 years of their being there.

The former moyety was taken up in these parcels:

Five and twenty years betwixt the giving of the promise and the birth of Isaac, compare Gen. 12. 4. with Gen. 21. 5.

Sixty years betwixt the birth of Isaac, and the birth of Jacob, Gen. 25. 26.

An hundred and thirty years betwixt the birth of Jacob and Israel's going into Egypt, Gen. 27. 9.

The latter in these:

Ninety five years from their going into Egypt, to the death of Levi.

Forty years from the death of Levi to the birth of Moses.

Eighty years from the birth of Moses to their delivery.

SECTION IV.

From the coming of Israel out of Egypt, to the laying of the foundation of Solomon's Temple, were 480 years, 1 King. 6. 1. and seven years was it in building, ver. 38.

SO that join these 487 that passed from the coming out of Egypt to the finishing of the Temple, to the 2513 years, of which age the world was when they came out of Egypt, and it will appear that Solomon's Temple was finished exactly in the three thousandth year of the World.

This sum is made up of these many parcels.

Israel in the Wilderness 40 years.
Joshua ruled 17 years.
Othniel judged 40 years, Judge. 3. 11.
Ehud judged 80 years, Judge. 3. 30.
Deborah, &c. 40 years, Judge. 5. 31.
Gideon, 40 years, Judge. 8. 28.
Abimelech, 3 years, Judge. 9. 22.
Tolah, 23 years, Judge. 10. 2.
Jair, 22 years, Judge. 10. 3.
Jephthah, 6 years, Judge. 12. 7.
Ibsan, 7 years, Judge. 12. 9.
Elon Judged 10 years, Judge. 12. 11.
Abdon, 8 years, Judge. 12. 14.
Sampson, 20 years, Judge. 15. 20. & 16. 31.
Eli, 40 years, 1 Sam. 4. 18.
Samuel and Saul, 40 years, Acts 13. 21.
David, 40 years, 1 King. 2. 11.
Solomon, 4 years, 1 King. 6. 1.

Total 480. Now among all these parcels, there is no number that hath not a Text to warrant it, but only the date of the Government of Joshua, which yet cannot be doubted of to have been seventeen years; seeing that so many years only are not specified by express Text of all the 480 mentioned, 1 King. 6. 1. And here also may the reader observe that the years that are mentioned in the book of Judges, for years of Israel's oppression, as Judge. 3. 8, 14. &c. are not to be taken for a space of time distinct from the time of the Judges, but included in the sum of their times.

Now it thus falling out, as it is more then apparent, that Solomon's Temple was finished and perfected in the year of the world 3000. This belike hath helped to strengthen that Opinion that hath been taken up by some, That as the World was six days in creating so shall it be six thousand years in continuance, and then shall come the everlasting Sabbath. And indeed the observation could not but please those that were pleased with this opinion: for when they found that the first three thousand years of the World did end, in the perfecting of the earthly Temple, it would make them to conclude the bolder, that the other three thousand should conclude in the consummation of the spiritual.

SECTION V.

From the finishing of Solomon's Temple, to the falling away of the ten Tribes, were 30 years.

FOR Solomon reigned 40 years, 1 King. 11. 42. and in the eleventh year of his reign was the Temple finished, 1 King. 6. 38. And so count from that year to the expiration of his reign, and the beginning of his son Rehoboam, and it will appear easily, that the falling away of the ten Tribes was 30 years after the Temple was finished, and in the year of the World 3030.

SECTION VI.

From the falling away of the ten Tribes under Jeroboam, to the captivity of Judah into Babylon, were 390.

THESE are thus reckoned in a gross sum by Ezekiel, Chap. 4, 5. I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity according to the number of days, three hundred and ninety days. So shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel, ver. 6. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days, I have appointed thee each day for a year.

Now these are not to be taken for two different and distinct sums, as if it were 390 years from the falling away of the ten Tribes, to the captiving of the ten Tribes, and 40 years from thence to the captiving of Judah, for it was but 200 years and a little above an half, between the two first periods, and above an hundred years between the two last: but the forty years are to be reputed and counted within the 390, as the last years of them; and marked out so singularly because of Judah's rebellion in and under so clear and powerful preaching of Jeremy, who prophesied so long a time among them.

Now for the casting of these 390 years into parcels as the Books of Kings and Chronicles have done them, the surest and clearest way, is to make a Chronical table of the collateral Kingdoms of Judah and Israel while they last together, from year to year, as they will offer themselves to parallel one another. In which course some considerable scruples will arise before the Student as he goeth along, which unless he see and resolve, he will never be able to make the account right, and which unless he frame to himself such a Chronical table as is mentioned, he will never see nor find out. He will by the very Table, as he goeth along see, that sometimes the years are reckoned complete, as Rehoboams seventeen are counted, 1 King. 15. 1. Sometimes current, as Abijams three, 1 King. 15. 1, 2, 9. and Elahs two, 1 King. 16. 8. But this will breed no difficulty, since it is ordinary in Scripture thus variously to compute, and since the drawing of his Table will everywhere show him readily this variety: But these things will he find of more obscurity, and challenging more serious study and consideration.

First, It is said that Jeroboam reigned two and twenty years, 1 King. 14. 20. and Nadab his Son two years, Chap. 15. 25. yet that Nadab began to reign in the second year of Asa, which was in the one and twentieth year of Jeroboam, and so Nadabs two years fall within the sum of his fathers two and twenty.

Now the reason of this accounting is this: It is said in 2 Chron. 13. 20. that the Lord stroke Jeroboam and he died: that is, with some ill and languishing disease, that he could not administer nor rule the Kingdom, therefore was he forced to substitute his son Nadab in his life time, and in one and the same year both Father and Son died.

Secondly, It is said that Baasha began to reign in the third year of Asa, 1 King. 13. 28. and reigned four and twenty years, ver. 33. then it followeth that he died in the six and twentieth year of Asa, as the Text reckoneth the years current, 1 Kings 16. 8. And yet in the six and thirtieth year of Asa, Baasha came up and made war against Judah, 2 Chron. 16. 1. So that this war will seem to be made by him nine or ten years after he is dead.

But the resolution of this from the original is easy: For that Text in the Chronicles meaneth not that Baasha made war against Judah in the six and thirtieth year of Asaes reign, but in the six and thirtieth year of Asaes kingdom: that is, six and thirty years from the division of the Tribes under Rehoboam: For Rehoboam reigned seventeen years. Abijam his son three years, and in the sixteenth year of Asa was this war made: thirty six years in all from the first division. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 therefore should there be rendered the Kingdom, and not the Reign, and the thing were clear. Now the Text dateth this war, not from the time of Asaes reign, but from the time of the division of the Tribes: because that though they were divided hitherto in regard of their Kings, yet not totally in regard of their converse and affection, for some of the revolted ones affected still the house of David: but Baasha to make the division sure: buildeth Ramah, that none might go in or out to Asa King of Judah, and this was as a second division; and therefore the Text reckoneth from the first.

Thirdly, It is said, 1 King. 16. 23. that in the one and thirtieth year of Asa King of Judah, began Omri to reign over Israel twelve years, six years reigned he in Tirzah. And yet in verse. 29. it is said, that In the eight and thirtieth year of Asa, began Ahab the son of Omri to reign.

Now how can there possibly be twelve years reign betwixt Asaes thirty first and thirty eight?

Answer, Omri began to reign as soon as ever he had slain Zimri, which was in the twenty seventh of Asa: but he was not sole and entire King till his thirty first: For Tibni his competitor and corrival for the Crown, held him in agitation and wars till Asaes thirty first. And then was he overcome, and Omri acknowledged absolute King by Tibnies soldiers, and so from thence forward he reigned sole King in Tirzah.

But yet the doubt remaineth how Omri beginning his monarchy in the thirty first of Asa, and ending it in his thirty eight, can be said to have reigned but six years, whereas it was eight current.

Answer, The six complete years only are reckoned: for the thirty first of Asa was even ending when Tibni was conquered, and the thirty eight but newly begun when Omri died: Such another kind of reckoning may be observed in casting up the age of Abraham and Ishmael at their Circumcision, compared with the age of Abraham at Ishmael's death.

Fourthly, The beginning of the reign of Joram the son of Jehoshaphat hath three dates. The first in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat his father, compare 2 Kings 22. 51. and 2 King. 1. 17. and 2 King. 3. 1.

The second in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab, 2 King. 8. 16. This was in the two and twentieth year of his father Jehoshaphat.

And the third at his father Jehoshaphat’s death, 2 Chron. 21. 1.

Now the resolution of this Ambiguity is thus. The first time he was made Viceroy, when his father went out of the Land for the recovery of Ramoth Gilead: and because Ahab the King of Israel, went with him, Ahaziah his son is made Viceroy in that Kingdom also.

The second time he was Viceroy again in his Father Jehoshaphat’s absence upon his voyage into Moab with Jehoram, 2 King. 3. and from this time doth the Text date the fixed beginning of his reign, as is plain, 2 King. 8. 17. 2 Chron. 21. 20. For Jehoshaphat after this time was little at home, but abroad, either in his own Land, perambulating it, to reduce the people to true Religion, or in Moab to reduce that to subjection, 2 Chron. 19. 20.

Fifthly, But a greater doubt meeteth you by far when you come to cast up the times of his son Ahaziah. For whereas Joram was thirty and two years old when he began to reign, and reigned eight years in Jerusalem, 2 King. 6. 17. 2 Chron. 21. 20. and so died when he was forty years old; and instantly the inhabitants of Jerusalem set Ahaziah upon his throne, who was his youngest son, yet was this Ahaziah forty two years old when he began to reign, 2 Chron. 22. 1. and so will prove to be two years older then his father.

Answer, The book of Chronicles in this place meaneth not that Ahaziah was so old when he began to reign; for the book of Kings telleth plainly that he was but two and twenty, 2 King. 8. 26. but these two and forty years have relation to another thing; namely, to the kingdom of the house of Omri, and not to the age of Ahaziah. For count from the beginning of the reign of Omri, and you find Ahaziah to enter his reign in the two and fortieth year from thence; as he will readily see, that shall make such a Chronical Table as is mentioned.

The Original words therefore Ben arbaguim ushethajim shanah, are not to be translated as they be, Ahaziah was two and forty years old, but Ahaziah was the son of the two and forty years, as Seder Olam hath acutely observed long ago.

Now the reason why his reign is thus dated differently from all others the Kings of Judah, is, because he in a kind was an imp of the house of Omri: for Athaliah his mother, was Ahab's daughter, 2 King. 8. 18. And she both perverted her husband Joram, and brought up this her son Ahaziah in the Idolatry of the house of Ahab; therefore is not Ahaziah fit to be reckoned by the line of the Kings of Judah, but by the house of Omri and Ahab: see the Evangelist Matthew setting a special mark upon the house of Joram, at the notes on Matth. 1. 8.

Sixthly, There is yet one scruple more arising concerning the beginning of the reign of this Ahaziah. For the same book of Kings saith, that he began to reign in the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab, 2 King. 8. 25. and in the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab, 2 Kings 9. 29.

Answer, The resolution of this doubt will be easy to him that hath such a Chronical Table as we have spoken of before his eyes. For there will he see that Jehoram reigned one year before his Father Ahab's death: For in the twentieth year of Ahab, which was the seventeenth of Jehoshaphat, did Ahaziah the son of Ahab, begin to reign, 1 King. 22. 51. being made Viceroy, when his Father went to Ramoth Gilead.

He reigning but that year, Jehoram his son was Viceroy or began to rule in his stead, the next year, namely in Ahab's one and twentieth. Ahab in his two and twentieth died: and so Jehoram became absolute and entire King, and reigned so eleven years: so that his reign hath a double reckoning, he reigned as Viceroy twelve years, but as entire King but eleven.

7. Amaziah began to reign in the second year of Joash King of Israel, 2 King. 14. 1. this was the eight and thirtieth year of his father Joash King of Judah, three years current before his death: And the reason was, because his father had cast himself into so much misery and mischief, through his Apostasy and murder of Zacharias, 2 King. 12. 17, 18. 2 Chron. 24. 23, 24, 25. that he was become unfit and unable to manage the Kingdom.

8. Uzziah or Azariah the son of this Amaziah, being but sixteen years of age in the seven and twentieth year of the reign of Jeroboam the second, 2 King. 15. 1, 2. it appeareth that he was but four years old at his fathers death: Therefore was the Throne empty for eleven years, and the rule managed by some as Protectors in the Kings minority.

9. There is also an interregnum or vacancy of twenty two years in the Kingdom of Israel, between Jeroboam the second, and Zachariah: whereof what the reason should be, is not easy to determine: whether through wars from abroad, which Jeroboam might have provoked against his house by the conquest of Hamath and Damascus, 2 King. 14. 28. or through war at home, as appeareth by the end of Zachariah, 2 King. 15. 10. or through what else it was, it is uncertain, but most sure it was that the Throne was so long without a King, since Jeroboam beginning to reign in the fifteenth year of Amaziah, and reigning forty one years, 1 King. 14. 23. died in the fifteenth of Uzziah; and Zechariah began not to Reign till the eight and thirtieth, 2 Kings 15. 8.

10. Hoshea is said to slay Pekah in the twentieth year of Jotham the Son of Uzziah, 2 King. 15. 30. whereas Jotham reigned but sixteen years in all, 2 King. 15. 33. But the reason of this accounting is because of the wickedness of Ahaz, in whose reign this occurrence was, and the Holy Ghost chooseth rather to reckon by holy Jotham in the dust, then by wicked Ahaz alive: For in the slaughter of Pekah, the Lord avenged upon Pekah the blood-shed and misery he had caused in Judah, for he had slain of the men thereof 120000 in one day, 2 Chron. 28. 6. Now Ahaz had caused this wrath upon the people in withdrawing them from the ways of the Lord, therefore when the Lord avengeth this injury of his people upon Pekah, the time of it is computed from Jotham who was holy and upright, and not from Ahaz who had caused the mischief.

11. There is a scruple of no small difficulty about the reckoning of this twentieth year of Jotham, if it once be spied out: And that is this; If Pekah began to reign in the two and fiftieth or last year of Uzziah, and reigned twenty years, as 2 King. 15. 27. and if Jotham began to reign in the second year of Pekah, 2 King. 15. 33. then certainly the twentieth year of Pekah, the year when Hoshea slew him, was but the nineteenth year of Jotham, and not the twentieth.

Answer, In this very difficulty, hath the Text fixed the time of Uzziahs becoming Leprous, which else-where is not determined: and it showeth that it was in the last year of his reign, when he assayed to offer incense in the Temple, and was struck with the Leprosy, a disease with which the Priests who were to be the Judges of it, could not be touched nor infected, and his son Jotham was over the house judging the land, 2 King. 15. 5. till the day of his death. Now that last year of Uzziah is counted for the first of Jotham, in this reckoning that we have in hand, and although he began to reign as absolute and sole King in the second year of the Reign of Pekah, yet began he to reign as Viceroy, in the diseasedness of his father, the year before.

12. It is said Hoshea the son of Elab, began to reign in the twelfth year of Ahaz, 2 King. 17. 1. whereas he had slain Pekah in the fourth of Ahaz, or the twentieth of Jotham: which showeth that he obtained not the Crown immediately upon Pekahs death, but was seven or eight years before he could settle it quietly upon his head. It is like that Ahaz in this time did disquiet Israel, when his potent enemy Pekah was dead, in revenge of that slaughter that he had made in Judah, and that he kept Hoshea out of the Throne, and for this is called the King of Israel, 2 Chron. 28. 19. as well as for walking in the ways of those Kings.

13. It is said that Hezekiah began to reign in the third year of Hoshea the son of Elab, 2 King. 18. 1. Now Hoshea beginning in the twelfth of Ahaz, 2 King. 17. 1. it is apparent that Hezekiah began in the fourteenth, and so reigned two or three years with his father Ahaz, who reigned sixteen years, 2 King. 16. 2.

The reason of this was, because of the wickedness of Ahaz, and because of the miseries and entanglements that his wickedness had brought him into, as a Chron. 28. 16, 17, 18▪ and Chap. 29. 7, 8, 9. And this showeth the zeal of Hezekiah, in the work of Reformation, the more, in that he assayed and perfected it so much in the very time of his wicked Father.

14. But yet there ariseth another doubt in the computation of the times of Hezekiah, parallel with the times of Hoshea; For whereas he began to reign in the third year of Hoshea, as is clear before, then the seventh year of Hoshea should be counted his fifth year, and yet it is called but his fourth, 2 King. 18 9.

Answer, The beginning of Hezekiah's reign, is of a double date: He began indeed to be Viceroy, and to bear the rule in the third of Hoshea, which was the 14th year of his father Ahaz, but the time of that year was but short, that he was in the royalty, and he did but little or nothing of note that year, but the next year, which was the fifteenth of Ahaz, and the fourth of Hoshea, on the very first day of the year, or the first of Nisan, he began the Reformation, and stirred bravely in the restoring of Religion, 2 Chron. 29. 3. and therefore that is owned as the most remarkable and renowned beginning of his dominion: And so the seventh of Hoshea, and his fourth year fall in together. In his sixth year the ten Tribes are captived, 2 King. 18. 10. And so the parallelling of the two Kingdoms of Judah and Israel in their Chronical Annals is at an end, and now the times of the Kingdom of Judah lie in an easy and continued Chronicle, to the captivity in Babel, without any great scruple: Only about those turbulent times of Jehoachaz and Jehoiakim, there is a little difficulty: For there passed some years between the death of Josiah, and the reign of Jehoiakim, in troubles and distempers, though the Text hath mentioned the three months only of Jehoachaz: The gross sum of 390 between the division and the burning of the Temple, keepeth all right, and showeth how much space this was, when all the other particulars are taken up, as the 480 between the delivery out of Egypt, and building of Solomon's Temple do, by the time of the rule of Joshua, though the Text expressly hath not determined it.

So that now add these 390 years mentioned by Ezekiel, which was the exact space between the falling away of the ten Tribes, and the destruction of Jerusalem, to the 3030 years, of which age the world was when the ten Tribes fell away, and we find that Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, and the Babylonians, in the year of the world 3420.

SECTION VII.

From the burning of the Temple by Nebuzaradan, 2 King. 25. Jer. 52. to the return from Babel, 2 Chron. 36. 22. Ezra 1. 1. were fifty years.

IT hath been no small controversy among the learned, that have handled the current of these times that we are about, where to begin the seventy years of the captivity in Babel, so renowned in the Scripture, Jer. 25. 11, 12. & 29. 10. 2 Chron. 36. 21. Zech. 1. 12. For since there were three captivities of Jerusalem by the Babylonian, namely in the third year of Jehoiakim, 2 Chron. 36. 6. Dan. 1. 1. In the year of Jehoiachin, 2 Chron. 36. 9, 10. and in the eleventh of Zedekiah, 2 King. 25. 2, 3. Jer. 52. 4, 5. it may very well be questioned, where those seventy years of captivity did begin, and where those 390 years from the falling away of the ten Tribes should terminate.

To omit varieties of opinions and reasons that fix these periods, some here, some there; these reasons do plainly and sufficiently demonstrate, that the seventy years of Judah's captivity in Babel, did begin from the third year of Jehoiakim.

First, Because Daniel that measured out the whole space of that captivity, and that giveth account of the state of the people that time, beginneth from thence, Dan. 1.

Secondly, Because it is most proper to begin the seventy years captivity by Babel from the very first time that any captivity by Babel began.

Thirdly, It is prophesied by Jeremy, Chap. 25. 11. that not only the Jews, but also all Nations round about them should serve the King of Babel seventy years. So that those seventy years are to be counted the time and space of the absolute Monarchy of Babel, and they are to begin from the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar the first Monarch.

Now the beginning of his Monarchy is easy to settle, viz. in the third of Jehoiakim, from these Texts: Jer. 32. 1. 52. 12. It is true indeed that in Jer. 25. 1. the fourth of Jehoiakim is called his first, and so it might be very well: for the first of Nebuchadnezzar might take up part of two years of his reign, as any one year of the King takes up much time of two Lord Mayors, he entering his year in the Spring, and they in Autumn. Thus do the seventy years begin from the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar, but the 390 that we have been so long upon do not there end, but they end at this nineteenth, or at the eleventh of Zedekiah, when the City and Temple was utterly ruined, and the captivity entirely consummate, as the chain of the years drawn out to the length, do really fix it; and as the very intent and style of the Prophet doth the like, who in that sum doth comprehend the whole time of the people's being in their own Land, after the revolt under Jeroboam: So that nineteen years complete out of the seventy, must we take into that sum, and so there are but fifty years of that captivity to the time of their delivery under Cyrus remaining; which sum being added to the age of the world, at the burning of the Temple 3420 doth make the world to be 3470 years old at the first of Cyrus, when the captivity did return.

SECTION VIII.

From the return of the Jews out of Babel, to the death of Christ 490 years.

THIS is so plain in Dan. 9. in the seventy weeks, or seventy time seven years there mentioned, from the Commandment going forth from Cyrus to restore and build Jerusalem, to the cutting off of the Messias, that it needeth as little to confirm it, as to tell that seventy times seven is four hundred and ninety. For if the Angel speak not of a fixed and certain time in this sum, he nameth this sum to no purpose in the world, but he doth so clearly fix the time, the two termini of its extent, and some particular links of it as it passed, that nothing can be more clear, evident, and perspicuous. Now add these 490 years, which reach to the death of Christ, to the age of the world 3470. at the time when they began, and it resulteth, that our Savior died in the year of the world 3960. Out of which subduct the two and thirty years of our Savior's life, and it appeareth that he was born in the year of the world 3928. that year being then but newly begun, stilo veteri, or according to the account used from the beginning of the world, from Tisri or September: so that that year was his first year, and 3929 his second year, at the which the wise men came to visit him; 3930 his third year, and so 3960 half passed, or at Easter, his two and thirtieth and an half, at which age he died.

And now he that desireth to know the year of the world, which is now passing over us this year 1644 will find it to be 5572 years just now finished since the Creation, and the year 5573 of the worlds age, now newly begun this September at the Aequinox.

SECTION I.

S. LUKE. CHAP. I.

The Preface or Epistle Dedicatory. The occasion and warranty of Luke's writing the Gospel.

F OR AS MUCH as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of these things which are most surely believed among us. 2. Even as they delivered them unto us which from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and Ministers of the Word: 3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order most excellent Theophilus. 4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed.

Reason of the Order.

FOrasmuch as none of the Evangelists have made a Preface to their story, but only Luke, this of his may serve as a general one for all the rest. And like the beautiful gate of the Temple, may be as an entrance, or inlet into the glorious and royal Fabric of the Gospels.

Harmony and Explanation.

Ver. 1. Many have taken in hand.

HE condemneth not the undertakings of these men▪ as very many Expositors hold he doth; for first, he saith, they had taken in hand a declaration of those things which were most surely believed. Secondly, He saith, they had done it even as the eye-witnesses and Ministers had delivered it. Thirdly, He maketh his own undertaking of the like nature with theirs, when he saith, It seemed good to me also: But he mentioneth these their writings as only human Authorities [undertaken without the injunction of the Holy Ghost] which his divine one was to exclude: So the Books of Jasher, of Gad, of Iddo, of the wars of the Lord, &c. are cited by the Old Testament, neither as altogether disapproved, nor yet approved above human: In the loss of them there perished none of the Canonical Scriptures, but only the works of men; no more did there in the loss of these.

Vers. 2. Eye-witnesses ] these were the twelve Apostles. Ministers ] these were the 70 Disciples. From their Sermons and Relations, many undertook to write Gospels, of a godly intention and holy zeal. Of which the Evangelist here speaking aimeth neither at the Gospel of Matthew nor Mark, though they were written when he thus speaketh; for the first was an eye-witness, and one of the twelve, and the other [it is like] a Minister or one of the 70. and so wrote not from the intelligence of others, as those did of whom the Evangelist speaketh, but by their own.

Vers. 3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from above ] For so might 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be best translated; and so it signifieth John 3. 3. 31. & 19. 11. James 1. 17. &c. And thus taken, it showeth Luke's inspiration from Heaven, and standeth in opposition to the many Gospels mentioned, ver. 1. which were written from the mouths and dictating of men, ver. 2. but his intelligence for what he writeth was from above.

[ Most excellent Theophilus ] In most probability, a Noble-man of Antioch, and fellow Citizen with Luke; converted by Paul at his Preaching there, Acts 11. 26. Luke adhered to his Master, and forsook him not, 2 Tim. 4. 11. but Theophilus staying at Antioch after Paul's departure, what he wanted in verbal instructions from the mouth of his Master, when he went away, Luke doth in this his Gospel supply by writing, that so he might know the certainty of these things wherein he had been Catechized.

Theophilus in Greek is the same in signification with Jedidiah in Hebrew, the name of Solomon, the Lord's beloved, or with the glorious title of Abraham, the Friend of God.

And thus was that Prophecy most sweetly fulfilled, Isaiah. 60. 14. The sons of the afflictors shall come bending to thee, &c. when in that Town, which had been the residence, and bare the name of Antiochus, [the sharpest enemy that ever Israel groaned under] the professors of the Gospel were first named Christians, and such an Evangelist hath his Original.

Reason of the Order.

FOrasmuch as none of the Evangelists have made a Preface to their story, but only Luke, this of his may serve as a general one for all the rest. And like the beautiful gate of the Temple, may be as an entrance, or inlet into the glorious and royal Fabric of the Gospels.

Harmony and Explanation.

Ver. 1. Many have taken in hand.

HE condemneth not the undertakings of these men▪ as very many Expositors hold he doth; for first, he saith, they had taken in hand a declaration of those things which were most surely believed. Secondly, He saith, they had done it even as the eye-witnesses and Ministers had delivered it. Thirdly, He maketh his own undertaking of the like nature with theirs, when he saith, It seemed good to me also: But he mentioneth these their writings as only human Authorities [undertaken without the injunction of the Holy Ghost] which his divine one was to exclude: So the Books of Jasher, of Gad, of Iddo, of the wars of the Lord, &c. are cited by the Old Testament, neither as altogether disapproved, nor yet approved above human: In the loss of them there perished none of the Canonical Scriptures, but only the works of men; no more did there in the loss of these.

Vers. 2. Eye-witnesses ] these were the twelve Apostles. Ministers ] these were the 70 Disciples. From their Sermons and Relations, many undertook to write Gospels, of a godly intention and holy zeal. Of which the Evangelist here speaking aimeth neither at the Gospel of Matthew nor Mark, though they were written when he thus speaketh; for the first was an eye-witness, and one of the twelve, and the other [it is like] a Minister or one of the 70. and so wrote not from the intelligence of others, as those did of whom the Evangelist speaketh, but by their own.

Vers. 3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from above ] For so might 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be best translated; and so it signifieth John 3. 3. 31. & 19. 11. James 1. 17. &c. And thus taken, it showeth Luke's inspiration from Heaven, and standeth in opposition to the many Gospels mentioned, ver. 1. which were written from the mouths and dictating of men, ver. 2. but his intelligence for what he writeth was from above.

[ Most excellent Theophilus ] In most probability, a Noble-man of Antioch, and fellow Citizen with Luke; converted by Paul at his Preaching there, Acts 11. 26. Luke adhered to his Master, and forsook him not, 2 Tim. 4. 11. but Theophilus staying at Antioch after Paul's departure, what he wanted in verbal instructions from the mouth of his Master, when he went away, Luke doth in this his Gospel supply by writing, that so he might know the certainty of these things wherein he had been Catechized.

Theophilus in Greek is the same in signification with Jedidiah in Hebrew, the name of Solomon, the Lord's beloved, or with the glorious title of Abraham, the Friend of God.

And thus was that Prophecy most sweetly fulfilled, Isaiah. 60. 14. The sons of the afflictors shall come bending to thee, &c. when in that Town, which had been the residence, and bare the name of Antiochus, [the sharpest enemy that ever Israel groaned under] the professors of the Gospel were first named Christians, and such an Evangelist hath his Original.

SECTION II.

S. JOHN. CHAP. I.

The fitness and necessity of the second Person in the Trinity, his being incarnate, and his being the Redeemer, rather then either of the other, asserted and proved, by his being the Creator, the giver of the promise, and substance and tenor of the types and Prophecies of the Old Testament.

IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made . 4. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5. And the light shined in darkness, and the darkness comprehend it not. 6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that light. 9. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. 13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14. And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, [and we behold his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father] full of grace and truth.

Reason of the Order.

THE Preface being made, the story is to begin, and that it doth here from Christ's Divinity, most Divinely. For whereas the other Evangelists begin their relations no further back, then from the birth or conception of our Savior, or at the furthest, of his Forerunner; John draws the Reader back to behold him in the Old Testament, in the Creation of the world, and in the promises to the Fathers. And therefore this portion is first to be begun withal, and of itself will justify its own order. Especially it being considered, that the Person of Christ is first to be treated of, before his actions, and in his Person, the divine nature, [which John here handleth] before the human.

Harmony and Explanation.

FROM Gen. 1. 1. the Evangelist showeth that the redemption was to be wrought by him by whom the Creation was, namely, by the Word, or the second Person in the Trinity, as being sittest for that great work: as whereby confusion, both in the external works of the Trinity, as also in the term of Sonship might be avoided: In the external works of the Trinity, when the Creator of man became his Redeemer, and in the term of Sonship, when the Son of God, and the Son of Man were but one and the same person.

Ver. 1. [ The Word ] He is so called in the Old Testament. First, as the Author of the Creation, Psal. 33. 6. Secondly, as the Author of the Promise, 2 Sam. 7. 2. compared with 1 Chron 17. 19. Thirdly, as the very Subject of the Covenant and Promise itself, Hag. 2. 5. Deut. 30. 12. compared with Rom. 10. 6, 7. So that these things being laid together and well considered, they show why John calleth the Son of God the Word, rather then by any other name. First, because he would show that as the world was created by the Son, so it was most fit it should be redeemed. Secondly, that as in him the promise was given, so in him was fit should be the performance. Thirdly, that as he was the Subject of the Covenant in the Old Testament, so also was he the Substance of it in the New.

From such places as these forenamed, where the Son of God is called the Word in the Old Testament, it became most familiar and ordinary among the Jews to use this title personally for him. And this may be a second reason deduced from that that was named before, why the Evangelist here useth it, namely as a name most familiarly and comely known amongst his own people. Examples hereof might be alleged out of the Chaldee Paraphrast, even by hundreds: It will suffice to allege some few, Gen. 28. 20, 21. If the word of the Lord will be my help, &c. The word of the Lord shall be my God, Exod. 19. 17. Moses brought forth the People to meet the word of the Lord, Isaiah. 1. 14. Your appointed Feasts my word abominateth, and ver. 16. Put away the evil of your doings from before my word, and Chap. 45. 2. My word shall go before thee, &c. So Isaiah 48. 11. & 49. 5. 15. & 51. 5. Jer. 24. 6. & 27. 5. 18. & 29. 14. 23. Hos. 1. 7. 9. Zach. 2. 5. and in hundreds of other places: And so likewise in some of the writings of the Talmudists, and Philo Judaeus in lib. De mundi opificio, explaineth this title.

This term, and in this sense also, was got even among the Heathen: for so Mercury Trismegistus useth it often in Pinmandro: as, The will of God contained his word. And, God with his word produced another intellect, which is a fiery God, and a Divine Spirit. And again, The word of God compacted the pure workmanship of nature. And, The working intellect together with the Word.

So likewise Orphe • s, as he is alleged by Justin Martyr.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.

But Mahomet, in his Alcaron goeth yet further. Eise or Jesus (saith he) is the word of God, and this being the word of God, is reputed among the Saracens as the proper name of Jesus Christ, so that no other man is called by this name, but Jesus only, whom in Arabic they call Eise. Sam. Maroch. lib. de advent. Messiae cap. 27. Drus. in praeter. in loc.

And the word was with God, &c. ] The Evangelist goeth not about so much, immediately to show the eternity of the word, or of the second Person in the Trinity, as he doth to declare how requisite it was that that Person should be incarnate rather then the first or the third, because by him the Creation was wrought, and answerably by him it was fittest should be the redemption, &c. Therefore the words in the beginning, have not reference to the words eternal being, but to his giving of being to the Creature: For as they are Moses his own Phrase, Gen. 1. 1. so are they to be taken in his sense, and further back then the Creation it is not possible to bring his words, and by those of his must these be understood. They trace not therefore his Divinity beyond the Creation, nor yet do they find it to have begun there, but this they say only, that then the word, was, and by him were all things made. And this was enough for the answering of Ebion and Cerinthus, which held that Christ was not before the Virgin Mary: And this being concluded, that the word was in the beginning, and created all things, his eternal being before the Creation will readily infer itself.

The Evangelist useth this manner of speech, The word with God.

First, to show the subsistence of the Son of himself, and his coexistence with the Father; his subsistence, he was, his co-existence, He was with God. Secondly, the distinction of the persons, He was with God, and the unity of the Essence, he was God. Thirdly, the relation between the Father and the Son; The Son is said to be with the Father, as children are apud Patrem, but not e contra. Fourthly, the Phrase, He was with God, is in Antithesis, or opposition to that that is said afterward, The word dwelt among us; And this doth illustrate the doctrine and benefit of the incarnation the more, when it shall be observed, that he that in the beginning was the word, and was with God, and was the Creator, did in the fullness of time, become flesh, and dwell with men, and became their Redeemer.

[ And the word was God ] God in the clause next preceding is taken personally for God the Father, but here essentially for the Godhead.

Moses all along the Story of the Creation called God Elohim, by a word plural, to denote the distinction of Persons; but at last, in Gen. 2. 4. he calleth him Jehovah Elohim, to signify also the unity of Essence. So David when he had spoken of the Lord and his word, 2 Sam. 7. 21. and the Lord and his Servant, 1 Chron. 17. 19. He presently concludeth, that there is but one God, though those titles might seem to make them more. There is none like thee, neither is there any God besides thee, ver. 22. So the Evangelist here, when he hath named The Word, and God, and the word being with God, as two persons distinct one from another, lest this distinction should breed the supposal of difference, and the mention of more persons, the surmisal of more God's, he preventeth betimes, and stoppeth all such misconstructions by saying, The Word was God.

Ver. 2. [ The same was in the beginning with God ] He had said, the same thing immediately before, but not in the same respect. For there he spake of the words coexistency with the Father, as he explaineth himself after it, The word was God; but here he speaketh of the words co-working with the Father in the works of the Creation, and accordingly explaineth himself after also, By him were all things made.

Ver. 3. [ By him were all things made ] Not as an instrumental cause only, as the Asians pleaded, but as the efficient; For so the word By often importeth. 1 Cor. 1. 9. 1 Thes. 5. 24. 2 Cor. 1. 1. Prov. 8. 15, 16. Ephes. 1. 1. Col. 1. 1. And so may 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be understood, Col. 1. 16.

[ And without him was nothing made that was made. ] In this place there hath been great difference of readings, as was observed before, as see Chrys. in loc. Vulg. lat. Alcum. in loc. &c. but Ignatius Martyr, Epist. ad Antioch. Tatianus in Harmon: Chrysostom in loc. and other of the ancients, and the Arabic, Syriac, Italian, Spanish, French, Dutch, and all Latin translations that are not wedded to the vulgar, read as we do; and so the very sense of the place requireth to read: And so some of the Romanists themselves read, forsaking their own vulgar: as the Rhemists in margin: Maldonado. &c. For how crabbed, harsh and strained a sense the best is, that can be made of their reading; see in Alcuin: in loc. Victorin: adversus Arium. lib. 3. Aquin. per. 1. quaest. 18. art. 4.

Concerning the repetition of this, it being the same in effect with that before, All things were made by him; observe, that first, it is to heighten the expression, or to enforce the sense: for so the Hebrews usually do by an affirmative and negative in the same sentence, as 2 King. 20. 15. Jer. 38. 25. Lam. 3. 2. Secondly, that the two distinct clauses may seem to distinguish of the Creatures, and in the affirmative to understand the visible Creatures, which Moses had taught evidently were made by the Word; and in the negative, the invisible, of which there might be the more doubt, whether they were made by him or no, because Moses hath made no such plain expression. Or, thirdly, that the affirmative may mean the Words creating of all things, and the negative his disposal and ordering of all things; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; without him was nothing that hath been; either created, or disposed, as Joh. 5. 17.

Ver. 4. [ In him was life ] This hath allusion to Adams naming his wife Eve, or life, upon the apprehension of the Promise given him after his fall, Gen. 3. 15.

And the Evangelist having considered the Word in the former verse, as the Author of Nature, he cometh now to treat of him as the Author of Grace: there, as the Creator: here, as the Redeemer. For having related there, that by him all things were made, and amongst all things man received his natural life and being: he goeth on now to show, that by the same Word also, man when he was fallen and perished, and had incurred the penalty of dying the death, he re-obtained a new and a better life, namely by Faith, and laying hold upon him in the promise, as Hab. 2. 4.

[ And the life was the light of men ] The life of the promise was the light that shone in the world, and to which all the Patriachs and Prophets, and all the holy Men of God, that lived before the fulfilling of it, had an eye and respect as to a light shining in a dark place, and whereby they guided all their devotions, and whereto they aimed all their actions: And this light then shone, and yet shineth in all the types, shadows, figures, and predictions of the Law, and of the Prophets, as we daily read them, and that darkness and mystical cloudiness which lay over them, did not comprehend it, but that it gave some shine in that obsureness; And yet did they not reach to that brightness of revealing of Christ, but that it was necessary that the Gospel should be Preached: the beginning of which is mentioned in the very next verse, namely the Preaching of John.

Ver. 6. [ There was a man sent, &c. ] Here may the Reader look back, and see the method and intention of the Evangelist, and the reason why he calleth him by this name the Word, rather then any other. For first, he was the Word by whom all things; and among them man, were created. Secondly, The Word, by which man, being fallen, was recovered and obtained life. Thirdly, The Word of light, direction, and consolation to the holy Patriarchs. Fourthly, The Word of promise, in the darkness of the Law and Prophets: And he is now come to be the Word incarnate, and the publisher of the Gospel, which began from John, Mark 1. 1. And thus hath the Evangelist made the whole Old Testament, no other then a veiled Gospel, speaking of Christ, though somewhat obscurely, from the beginning to the end. As in the Creation ver. 3. In the promise, ver. 4. In the expectation of the Fathers, ibid. Fifthly, In the darkness of the Law and Prophets, ver. 5. And sixthly, in the necessity of a clearer revelation of him by his own coming, ibid.

Ver. 7. [ To bear witness of the light, &c. ] The light in this verse, and those that follow, is taken personally for Christ himself, whereas in ver. 4, 5. it is taken virtually only there, for the light that flowed from Christ, and therefore it is said that light was in him: here for Christ the light itself, for so is he called, ver. 9. See Isai. 10. 17. and 42. 6. & 49. 6. Mic. 7. 6. Num. 24. 17. Psal. 84. 1. Mal. 4. 2. &c. For first, Christ revealeth the Father and his will, Joh. 1. 18. & 16. 25. and whatsoever maketh manifest is light, Ephes. 5. 13. Secondly, He is the brightness of the glory, and express image of the Father, Heb. 1. 3. who is a light without any darkness at all, 1 Joh. 1. 5. Thirdly, He enlighteneth the hearts of his by Faith, Ephes. 5. 14. Fourthly, Christ held out in the Gospel, filled the world full of the light of knowledge, in comparison of what it was under the Law, Isai. 11. 9. Psal. 19. 3.

[ That all might believe ] The word All joineth the Gentiles with the Jews, which hitherto had been secluded: And in the same sense is Christ's Lightning of everyone that cometh into the world, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ver. 9. to be understood for his general and universal enlightening of the world, with the shining of the Gospel: For there is a comparison made here by the Evangelist, betwixt the light of the promise under the Law, and the light of the Gospel and Christ in it.

Ver. 10. [ He was in the world. ] Not virtually and invisibly only, in his power and providence, but even visibly, sensibly, and apparently, in audible voice and conspicuous shape, before he came in human nature, as Gen. 15. and 18. and 32. Exod. 3. Josh. 6. yea, even to the sight and hearing of wicked and heathen men. Gen. 4. and 20. and 21. and 31. Dan. 3. 24, 25. Exod. 14.

Ver. 11. [ He came among his own ] This speaketh of his incarnation, and of his own Nation the Jews, amongst whom he came and conversed in human flesh, yet they refused him. They were his own by choice, Deut. 7. 6. by purchase, Exod. 19. 4, 5. by Covenant, Deut. 26. 18. and by kindred, Heb. 2. 16.

Ver. 12. [ Power to become the Sons of God ] The people of the Church, are called the Sons of God, Gen. 6. 2. And after the dispersion at Babel [where the Heathen became the Sons of men, Gen. 11. 5.] this title was appropriated only to the Jews, Exod. 4. 22. Hos. 11. 1. But now when the Jews, Christ's own people, should not receive him when he so came amongst them, this privilege should be conferred upon what Heathen or Gentiles so ever should receive him, that they should be henceforward, as the Jews had been hitherto, the Sons of God, or the Church of Christ.

[ That believeth on his Name. ] That is, In, or On him: For the Name of God in Scripture, doth often stand for God himself, as Psal. 71. 1. Mic. 6. 9. Act. 3. 16. &c. For God is without any mixture or composition, but a most pure and simple essence, and therefore his name and himself are not two several things, as they be in the creatures, but one and the same, R. Menahem or Exod. 60.

Ver. 13. [ Which are born not of blood. ] Greek, Not of bloods in the plural number. That is not of the kindred, descent, or continued Pedegree from the Patriarchal line, or the blood of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and successively: For John the Evangelist speaketh much to the same tenor here, that John the Baptist doth, Mat. 3. 9. That Christ would adopt the Heathen for the Sons of God, as the Jews had been, though they had no relation at all to the Jewish blood or stock.

[ Nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man. ] The Evangelist hath traced Moses all along from the beginning of the Chapter, and so he doth here. He used the Phrase of the Sons of God, in the Verse preceding, from Gen. 6. 2. And this Clause that we have in hand, he seemeth to take from the very next Verse after; My Spirit shall no more strive with man, because he also is flesh: Where, as Moses by flesh, understandeth the brood of Cain, men that followed the swing of lust, sensuality, and their own corruption: and by Man, the Family of Seth, or Adam, that was regulated by Religion and reason, till that Family grew also fleshly like the other: so doth John here the like. For having in the next foregoing words, excluded one main thing (that was much stood upon) from any claim or challenge, towards the adopting of the Sons of God, or forwarding of the new birth, and that is descent from Abraham, and from those holy men successively, that had the promise: So doth he here as much for two other, which only can put in for title to the same; and those are, first, the will of the flesh, or ability of nature; Secondly, the will of man, or power of morality.

Ver. 14. [ And the word became Flesh, ] Now hath the Evangelist brought us to the great Mystery of the Incarnation, in the description of which may be observed; First, the two terms, the word, and Flesh, expressing Christ's two natures; and the word was made, or became, their hypostatical union. Secondly, the word flesh is rather used by the Evangelist, then the word man; though oftentimes they signify but the same thing, as Gen. 6. 12. Psal. 65. 2. Isa. 40. 5, 6.

First, to make the difference and distinction of the two natures in Christ, the more conspicuous; and that according to the common speech of the Jews, who set flesh and blood in opposition to God, as Matth. 16. 17. Gal. 1. 16.

Secondly, to magnify the mercy of God in Christ's incarnation, the more, in that flesh being in its own nature, so far distant from the nature of God; yet that he thus brought these two natures together, as of them to make but one person for the reconciling of man and himself together.

Thirdly, to confirm the truth of Christ's humanity, against future Heresies, which have held that he had not a true and real human body, but only Fantastical, or of the air.

Fourthly, to explain what he said before, that Believers became the Sons of God; that is, not by any change of their bodily substances, but by participation of divine grace: for Christ on the contrary, became the Son of Man, by assuming of flesh, and not by changing into it.

Fifthly, to show the Plaister fitly applied unto the Sore, and the Physic to the Disease; for whereas in us, that is, in our flesh, there dwelleth no good, but sin, death, and corruption; he took upon him this very nature, which we have so corrupted, sequestering only the corruption from it, that in the nature he might heal the corruption.

Sixthly, he saith, he was made or became flesh, and not he was made man, lest it should be conceived that Christ assumed a person; for he took not the person of any man in particular, but the nature of man in general.

[ Was made flesh. ] Not by alteration, but assumption; not by turning of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God; not by leaving what he was before, that is, to be God, but by taking on him what he was not before; that is, to bo man.

And the Evangelist saith rather, He was made flesh, then he assumed it. i. e. that he might set out the truth and mystery of the Incarnation to the life, both for the hypostatical union of the two natures, and their inseparablity, being so united. For, first, whereas Nestorius said, that the word was not that man that was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary; but that the Virgin indeed brought forth a man, and he having obtained grace in all kind of virtue, had the word of God united unto him, which gave him power against unclean Spirits; And so he made two several Sons, and two several persons of the two natures: his Heresy is plainly and strongly confuted by this phrase, he was made flesh, which by the other, he assumed it, might have had more pretext and color. Secondly, whereas Eutyches, Valentius, and others averred, that Christ had not a true human body, but only a body in appearance: This also confuteth them home, and taketh away all probability of any such thing, which the word assumed might have left more doubtful; since we know that Angels assumed bodies, and those bodies were not truly human: So that in this manner of speech, The word was made flesh, is evidently taught: First, that there are two distinct natures in Christ, the God-head, and the Man-hood; for he saith not, the word was turned into, but was made, or became flesh. Secondly, that these two natures do not constitute two persons, but only one Christ, for he saith, he was made flesh, and not assumed it. Thirdly, that this union is hypostatical, or personal; for he saith, the word was made flesh, and not joined to it. And lastly, that this union is indissoluble and never to be separated: For Angels in assumed bodies laid them by again, and were parted from them, but the word being made flesh, the union is personal, and not to be dissolved.

[ And dwelt among us, &c. ] That is, among us his Disciples: for so the next clause, we saw his glory, importeth: And this Evangelist speaketh the same thing more at large, 1 Joh. 1. 1.

[ Full of grace and truth. ] For these words follow next in Grammatical construction and connection; lying thus. And the word became flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. The reason of the Parenthesis, and we saw his glory, may seem to be: First, because he would explain what he meant by Us, before he left it, viz. us Disciples, that saw his glory. Secondly, because the Apostles beheld not the very fullness of his grace and truth, till they had beheld the fullness of that glory, which he shown on earth.

[ Grace and truth. ] As the Soul hath tow noble faculties, the understanding and the will, the objects of which are, verum & bonum, [truth and goodness:] so the whole tenor of Scripture doth run upon these two, and they are indeed the sum of all, as Psal. 25. 10. and 40. 12. and 36. 5. and 138. 2. Hos. 2. 19. &c. Now Christ being the substance of the promises, which had the original from grace, and their performance in truth; they being in him yea, and in him Amen; the Evangelist saying, that he dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; holdeth out, that he was the performance and accomplishment of all the promises of grace, and the truth of all the types and prophecies before the Law, and under it, that tended to such a purpose; and in him was the fullness of that mercy and truth, that the Patriarchs, Prophets, and holy men looked after, and he the whole tenor, scope, and subject of the Scriptures.