Works

§ I have need to be baptized of thee.

He meaneth not, with the baptism of water, which he himself administered to others, but with the baptism of the Holy Ghost. For, first, Christ himself baptized none with water at all, Joh. 4. 2. but referred the administration of this Sacrament to others.

Secondly, the Baptism wherewith he baptized, was of the Holy Ghost, ver. 11. and it cannot be doubted that when John speaketh of being baptized by Christ, he meaneth the proper baptism wherewith Christ baptized.

Thirdly, it is not consonant to reason, that John should complain of the want of that which he so plentifully afforded unto others: but though he himself were not baptized, in water, yet his special deputation from God, to be the first and chief baptized, made that he needed it not.

Fourthly, be it granted that John speaketh of baptizing with water, as some Commentators would have it, yet are not his words to be understood simply of any absolute necessity that he had of baptism, but comparatively betwixt him and Christ, that it was sitter that he should be baptized by Christ, than Christ by him. For so the Phrase I have need, is used, not always to import necessity, but sometimes conveniency. And so doth the Rabbinical word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 indifferently signify, and divers words that signify necessity in other tongues.

The Emphasis of this clause is held to be in the word now: As showing that howsoever Christ was the Son of God, and should in time reveal himself mightily so to be, as Rom. 1. 4. yet now the time required that that his glory should be veiled under his humiliation, and his divinity concealed till its proper season to be revealed. This exposition is as currant as any among Expositors, how substantial let the Reader judge. For,

First, the baptizing of Christ by John, was not so great a means to veil his Divinity as it was to reveal it: for then he had the testimony from Heaven, that he was the Son of God.

Secondly, there needeth no other reason to be looked after why Christ saith, suffer it to be so now, than what he himself giveth, in the very next words following: For thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. The word now, as it lieth in the English, might be taken for the sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so ordinary in the Hebrew, words of entreating or persuasion, and might very well also suit with that sense here, if the LXX traslated them by the Greek word here used 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but they do not: therefore may we the more justly suppose the word to be emphatical in some respect, and the respect seemeth to be this. Whereas John had told the people before of Christ's baptizing with the Holy Ghost, and had told Christ in the verse preceeding, that he had need of that baptism, to that it is that our Savior giveth this answer, Suffer it to be so now, as meaning thus: That it was true indeed that he was he that should come after him, and he that should baptize with the Holy Ghost, of which baptism John had more need from him than he of Johns; yet the time of that his baptizing was not yet come, for first must he fulfil all the righteousness required of himself, before he was to pour out or bestow that baptism of the Spirit upon others: And therefore must John suffer him to be baptized now with the baptism of water, for that baptism of his with the Spirit was not yet to be exhibited.

§ For thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.

The greatest doubt and difficulty in this clause is, what our Savior meaneth here by righteousness, which being resolved upon, the other smaller words, and less scrupulous in it, will offer themselves the more readily to be understood.

First, Hilary, though somewhat obscurely, seemeth to construe it of the righteousness of the Law, for by him, saith he, all righteousness was to be fulfilled, by whom alone the Law could be fulfilled.

Secondly, but Jerome speaks it out more plainly and fully and understandeth it of all righteousness of the Law and of nature, either of which indeed were not an unproper gloss to be applied unto Christ alone; but since the word us, joineth the Baptist also in the same fulfilling with him, it is not safe to understand it of all the righteousness of the Law, because it is not pious to hold John the accomplisher of it, as well as he.

Thirdly, Theophylact, and some others with him go the same way with these Fathers named, but they go somewhat further, for they add, that Christ had fulfilled all the Law already, but only in this one particular of being baptized, and when he had performed that, he had completed all righteousness. But the word us spoileth this exposition, as well as it did that before: and it will be some work to prove that baptism, taken in its proper sense, or as John administered it, was any part of the Law that Christ was to fulfill.

Fourthly, others descant upon the words literally, and take righteousness for justice distributive, and baptism for a special part or act of it: For he that is baptized, saith Ludolphus, pleaseth God, pitieth his own soul, and edifieth his neighbor by his example, and so fulfilleth all justice, in that he doth to God, himself, and his neighbor what he ought. An Encomion of baptism, and a new invention of fulfilling the Law, which I suppose was never dreamed of before.

Fifthly, to omit other expositions much like this, which some have given, not near to the text, nor truth: Jansen and some with him, but not so largely as he, do paraphrase it thus. According as I by an humble submission desire to be baptized by thee, so it becometh us, because we are sent of God the Father, to call men away from all unrighteousness, and to teach the people, to fulfill and perform in work whatsoever is right, omitting nothing, be it never so little, which we know to be agreeable to the will of God. Therefore he importeth not, that by the receiving of baptism all righteousness is fulfilled; but that by them that are Masters and Teachers of all righteousness, nothing is to be passed over which is right, although they be not bound thereto by necessity, and though the thing itself seem never so small. Which exposition though it be good and sound in regard of the truth contained in it, yet seemeth it not to be punctual and seasonable for this place. For whereas the very marrow and pith of it lieth in this, that Christ and John being teachers of the people, must practice themselves what they teach others to practice; and therefore must Christ be baptized for example to others: let the Reader judge whether the inference be good by this, that John himself was never baptized: and consequently whether the application of such a sense to these words, be fitting and agreeable.

Sixthly, Chemnitz yet goeth nearer the text and the mark, and bringeth the word Righteousness to reflect upon men: explaining it thus: that since Christ came to confer and apply righteousness to men, and accordingly to sanctify everything and means that might conduce to convey the same unto them, therefore would he thus consecrate baptism by his own being baptized, and give vigor to it to be a seal and strengthener of righteousness and grace begun: and in this sense he saith that it becometh him to fulfill all righteousness, or everything whereby the righteousness of man may be forwarded and promoted, and because John was the Minister of Baptism; therefore in the word us, he joineth him also in the fulfilling with him. To this purpopose he and far more largely coming as close to the mark, as any we meet with, and yet [if I judge aright] not so close as to hit it in these two respects.

First, in that he seemeth to hold, and so also do many others with him, that Christ's performance of the several parts of righteousness, personally in himself, was requisite to the sanctifying of such things to others, whereas his very institution of any such a thing giveth validity sufficient to it without his own actual example: As in this very thing in hand concerning baptism, if Christ instituted that in the hand of John for a Sacrament to continue in his Church forever, I cannot see what virtue, vigor, or efficacy his being baptized by John added to it, more than his institution of it before had done, save only for the more sensible reverence of it in the eyes of the People.

Secondly, and chiefly, because it is harsh and bold, to conceive that Christ in the performance of anything that might tend to man's justification, should take a man to be a sharer and co-worker in such equality as the words thus and us do make the Baptist.

By righteousness therefore in this place may rather be understood the equity and justice of the Law, and Christ's fufilling of the same. Not the moral, for that opinion we refused before, but the other parts of it, which were either Prophetical, or figurative and tipical. Not denying his fulfilling the moral Law neither, for that he performed to a tittle, being without the least taint of sin, either in thought, word, or deed, but rather illustrating and setting forth his performance of that the more, in that he was also so punctutual to fulfill the other parts of the Law which were less material. And to this exposition of righteousness, namely, for the equity of the Ceremonial or typical Law, not only the matter or thing in hand itself, but even every word also that is in this clause do give their consent and confirmation.

For, first, if we look upon the Ceremonial Law itself, and the reason why it was given, we shall find that it was neither so exact and exquisite in regard of it's injunctions, nor so strict or necessary to be performed in itself according to the Letter, as it was in regard of its significancy of good things to come; the force and virtue of it consisting not so much in its very verbal precepts, and corporal observances, as in its representative and typical predictions and fore-showing of some better things to come thereafter. And howsoever those Rites and Ceremonies had their obedience in the practices of the Jews, yet their equity and very intent indeed they had not but in the fulfilling of Christ.

Secondly, if we look also upon baptism which was the matter now in agitation, and the baptism of Christ also, how they were both fully and plainly prefigured under legal Rites and Ceremonious observances, was shown before.

Thirdly, it was requisite that Christ should fulfill the Ceremonial Law, as well as the moral, in some kind of necessity, though not as much for the one as for the other. For as the Moral was a Law of Faith, so also was the Ceremonial a Law of hope, as the judicial was also of Charity. In the Moral Law it was shown to man what he was to do, but withal he saw by the same Law his own disability and impossibility of performing what was to be done. The sight of this driveth man to lay hold of Christ that performed that Law for him; and thus the Law, though it be according to the letter a message of death, yet in the spirit it is a doctrine of Faith unto life. The Jew being thus entered by the moral Law into the School of Faith, then came in the Ceremonial, and was as an usher of hope: for by those rites and legal observations, the memory of Christ's coming was continually kept fresh, and the eye and expectation, and the fruit and application of his performance of the moral Law for the good of men daily read in those typical and shadowed lectures: As therefore as it was absolutely necessary that Christ should fulfil the moral Law in regard of all men, so was it respectively necessary that he should answer and accomplish the Ceremonial, in regard of the Jew. For if the outward observance thereof were for nothing so much, as to lead his eye and expectation to Christ, and the very life and equity thereof were included in him, how necessary was it that for the sake of that people, and for confirmation both to them and all others, that he was Christ that was to come, that he should fulfill that part of the Law, as well as the other? At the least how fitting? And so he saith in the place in hand, Thus it becometh us to fulfill all the equity of the Ceremonial Law. Now the Ceremony to which our Savior looketh in these words, was the washing of the Priests in water, when they entered into their function, Exod. 29. 4. Lev. 8. 6. the equity of which appeared in him, when he was baptized at his entrance into his Ministry. And this indeed was the manifest and properest end and reason of Christ being baptized; namely, that by baptism he might be installed into his Ministerial office.

Not all that were to be baptized by John, for the contrary is evident, Joh. 3. 23. where John is baptizing a twelve month after this; but all those that were reckoned by the Evangelist before, from Jerusalem and Judea, of Phrarisees, Sadducees, Publicans, and Soldiers, which he now reckoneth up in this summa totalis of All the people, to show what multitudes were baptized into Christ, before Christ came to be revealed.

But it may be questioned among all this number, whether there were any women baptized by John, or no. And the doubt may seem to be equally balanced, for as the silence of the Text doth seem to deny it, so reason on the other side doth strongly affirm it.

For, first, the baptism of John was such a thing as women might receive as well as men, in regard of possibility, which they could not possibly do by Circumcision.

Secondly, it was such a thing as they might receive as well as men, in regard of capability, for women were as ready to repent, as they.

But, thirdly, that which putteth it out of all doubt, that women were baptized by him, is the testimony of our Savior, Matthew 21. 32. John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not, but the Publicans and the Harlots believed him.

§ Jesus also being baptized.

About the time, place, and manner of our Savior's baptism, the Evangelists have been so silent in this place, that what is to be resolved upon them is to be fetched from and by comparison of other texts, and collection from other places, which about the first will give very full satisfaction, about the second indifferent, and about the last, little or none at all. The time then of his being baptized, that is, the time of the year, is only, or at least, chiefly to be found, by computing the time or length of his Preaching, and therewith considering the time or season of his death. Now the length of his Preaching, or from his baptism to his death, was justly and exactly three years and an half, as was touched before: And from that very thing or in relation to it, that number is so very renowned in Scripture, being sometimes expressed in the plain terms, of three years and six months, Luke 4. 25. sometimes by half a week, Dan. 9. 27. sometimes, by a time, times, and half a time, Dan. 12. 7. Rev. 12. 14. and sometimes, by a thousand two hundred and threescore days, Rev. 11. 3. & 12. 6. and sometimes, by forty and two months, Rev. 11. 2. To evidence which account of his Ministry, first may be produced the Text of Daniel alleged instantly before, chap. 9. 27. where it is said, that Messias should confirm the Covenant for many for one week: or in that one week rather, namely, which he reckoneth the last of the seventy: for first, he nameth seven weeks by themselves, and then sixty two by themselves, ver. 25. which everyone knoweth made sixty nine; and then coming to speak of the last week which was to make up the seventy▪ he saith, that in that one week, Christ shall confirm the Covenant for many: and then describing and declaring the exact time of that his work, he saith, And in half that week shall he cause sacrifice and oblation to cease.

Now that by these weeks are meant weeks of years, or as many years as a week hath days, hardly any man ever denied, or suspected the contrary; and that then by half a week, is meant half seven years, or three years and an half, there can be as little doubt or scruple: This then the Angel Gabriel telleth was the exact time in which the Messias did confirm the Covenant, and was bringing to an end Sacrificing and other Ceremonies, or the time of his Preaching the Gospel, which was from his Baptism to his death.

Secondly, if not for proof, yet for better illustration of the same, may be produced that place of the Gospel alleged so lately also before, namely, Luke. 4. 25. where Elias is a glorious type and resemblance of Christ, in a sweet and harmonious discord and difference: For as he shut up heaven by his prayer, and there was no rain for three years and six months, so Christ opened heaven at his baptism, as it is said in the verse in hand, and continued to distil the divine dew and rain of his heavenly doctrine, as Deut. 32. 2. for the same space of time.

And thirdly, as there is such evidence for the time averred; from a Prophecy, and such illustration from a type, so is there a full confirmation of it in the Evangelical story. For John hath plainly parcelled out the three years by four Passovers: as the first, chap. 2. 13. the second, chap. 5. 1. the third, chap. 6. 4. and the fourth, chap. 13. 1. &c. and the odd half year [which since he died at the last Passover must be laid before the first] was taken up in these particulars, of his journey into the wilderness, and forty days fast, Mat. 4. 1. his return to Jordan, and abode thereabout, John 1. 29. 35. 44. his voyage into Galilee, and miracle at Cana, John 2. 1. his removal after some space to Capernaum, and some abode in it, chap. 2. 12. and thence his journey to Jerusalem, to the first Passover of the four, John 2. 13. So that it being thus apparent that the length or space of his Preaching was three years and an half, from his baptizing to his suffering, it being withal considered that he died at Easter, it will readily follow that he was baptized half a year before that time of the year, namely, in the month Tisri, or September; And it being again considered that he was baptized, when he was just entering upon a new year of his age, as shall be observed anon, it will thence likewise follow that he was born at the same time of the year also. And who is he that can imagine that the renownedness and fame of this month in the Old Testament, both before the Law and under it, was for any other thing so much as in reference and prefiguration to, and of these glorious things?

Now though there be these assured evidences of the time of the year when our Savior was baptized, yet is there but conjecture of the time of the month: And that may most constantly be conceived to have been at the Feast of Tabernacles, which began on the fifteenth day of the month, Levite. 23. 33. upon these probable and not altogether un satisfactory reasons.

First, because he died on the fifteenth day of the month Abid or Nisan, the day after the Passover, and to make the odd half year, spoken of before, an exact and just half year indeed, his baptism must be fixed on the fifteenth of Tisri.

Secondly, the two other of the three solemn Festivals, the Passover and Pentecost, Christ accomplished, or fulfilled what they signified, by his death at the one, and by the giving of the holy Ghost at the other, and there is no reason to think the third, or the Feast of Tabernacles any less figurative, or typical then the other, and as little to think that he should leave the equity of that unsatisfied more than the other, and if he answered not that in his birth and baptism, he answered it in nothing at all.

Thirdly, the very nature of the Feast of Tabernacles, and the occasion and reason of its institution have a forcible reference to such a thing. For though Moses hath given but this reason for one Custom and practice which they used in the Feast, Ye shall dwell in booths seven days, that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the Land of Egypt, Levite. 23. 42, 43. Yet had the original and institution of • he Feast a great deal more in it. For the main occasion was this: Moses having after long fasting and prayer made the peace of Israel with God about the Golden Calf, and having obtained the Tables renewed, which himself had broken, and regained the commission to build the Tabernacle, which had been suspended because of that sin; on the tenth day of the month Tisri, [which according to our account was about the two or three and twentieth day of our September ] he coming down from the Mount, bringeth these glad tidings of peace and reconciliation to the people, for which that day was observed for the day of reconciliation or expiation ever after: and the people now hearing that they must make the Tabernacle in which God would dwell among them, and that they must not remove from the place where they were, viz. from Mount Sinai, till that be finished, they then addressed them selves to pitch their tents, and make them booths for their winter abode there, and instantly fall upon the work of the Sanctuary, and this was it that was the occasion of that solemn Feast in succeeding times. Now let the substance be laid unto the shadow, and the Antitype and figure brought together, and the application is not only sweet, but also somewhat evincing. For since the occasion of that Feast was God coming to dwell among the people in his Tabernacle and that now first begun or exhibited, and this just half a year after their first delivery from Egypt; observe how fully these are answered in Christ's showing himself to the world at his baptism, in whom God dwelleth among men; and this the first revelation of him to the world, and this just half a year since John began to publish the delivery of men from the bondage of Sin and Satan, by the preaching of the Gospel.

Fourthly, the Consecration of the Temple of Solomon was at this very time, namely, in the seventh month, or the month Ethanim, which is all one with Tisri, and thence the service of it began, 2 Kings 8. 2. Now since Christ himself averreth that the Temple was a figure of his body, John 2. we may follow the Allegory with the more boldness, and apply the dedication of that, and the time of the dedication, to his consecration by baptism, to his ministerial service, and parallel them both in the very same time.

Secondly, the certain and determinate place where our Savior was baptized, cannot absolutely be fixed and resolved upon by any warrant of Scripture: though many have been so confident as to point it out, and to show a cross set in the very place of the River, and miraculous curing of Lepers in the water. The Evangelists have given no more settlement of it then this, that it was in Judea, and that it was in Jordan: Two circumstances the more remarkable.

First, because that after that baptism of our Savior, we cannot certainly find John baptizing either in the same Country, or in the same River ever again. For whereas there is mention of his being about six weeks after this in Bethabara, John 1. 28. that was both on the other side Jordan, and it was a water different from Jordan, Jud. 7. 24. and of his baptizing in Aenon, a whole twelvemonth after this, Joh. 3. 23. that was also out of the precincts of Judea, and distant somewhat from the banks of Jordan, and the waters there, the waters of the place itself and not of that River. And this showeth the reason more plainly, why Luke in the clause next before this that we have in hand, summeth up the baptism of all the people, before he speak of our Savior's: because that there were now collected out of Judea, all the harvest of believers that might be gathered in by the preaching of John, and when Christ was baptized, John was to remove to another place.

Secondly, from this, that Christ was baptized of John in Jordan, and in Judea, it will almost inevitably follow, that he was baptized in the place, where the river was dried up, and the Israelites first entered into the Land of Canaan. For if it be considered, 1. That the Army marched through the channel in two main bodies the one on the one side of the Ark, and the other, on the other. 2. That either of these main bodies were two miles distant from the Ark on either side, and consequently four miles from each other.

Thirdly, That these two great squadrons consisting either of them of so very many thousands marched in an extraordinary breadth, because they were to pass over in a reasonable time, it will follow hereupon, even past all denial, that this their passage took up all the length of Jordan, that it had in Judea, or very near it, so that the place we seek for, is within this compass: and by this we may observe the substance sweetly answering to the figure, and way made through the waters of Jordan, to the heavenly Cannan by baptism▪ in the very same place where there was to the earthly, by its drying up.

Thirdly, The manner of his baptizing differed not from the common manner that John used with others, save in one particular. For he went into the water, had water sprinkled on him, and prayed as well as they, but whether John used the same form of words in baptizing of him that he did to the other, or some other, or none at all, is some question or scruple. The least is of the first, for it may be readily resolved that he baptized not him in the same words, that he did the others, because he then should have baptized him in his own name, which who can imagine? and into him, or in his name which was to come, which had been to have pointed out another Christ. Betwixt the two latter the scales are balancing, and they weigh so even, that it is not much material which way your allowance doth turn them, for the Quaere itself is of far more curiosity then necessity: For why might not John baptize him in varied words? As, I baptize thee with water to the Preaching of the Gospel; or why might he not baptize him without any words at all, since he received baptism, not so much for a Sacrament, as for satisfaction of the typical Law? Let the Readers judgment weigh down the scale.

The invention of Auricular confession hath invented a strange Exposition of this clause. For the rest of the people, say some, standing in the waters, I know not how deep▪ after they were baptized, confessed their sins unto John before they came out, being detainded there by him, until they had so done, but Christ, because he had no sin, needed no such confession, and therefore he came suddenly out of the water after he was baptized. A gloss that includeth impossibilities. For neither was it possible that so great multitudes should be baptized in so short a time, if everyone made a singular confession of their sins to John; nor was it possible that John should endure so long in the water as this work would require, and never come out, for if they stood up to the neck in the river, I cannot think but that he also stood some deepness in the water. But this speedy coming of our Savior out of the water after he was baptized, is expressed by the Evangelist, only to show how near and close the opening of the heavens was to his baptizing, namely, that it was almost in the very same instant, as Mark explaineth it; And straightway coming up out of the water he saw the heavens opened, &c.

This it seemeth was the manner of those that were baptized, as soon as they were baptized, to come up out of the water and pray, and this explaineth that before, about confessing their sins, that it was not to John, but to God, as soon as they came out of the water. Now since Christ had no sins to confess of his own, the tenor of his prayer tended to another purpose. If we think it was for the glory of God, for the conversion of many by his Ministry which he was now beginning, for the preservation of the Elect, and the sanctifying of the Church, and the like, we think not much amiss, since we find his prayers in other places to be made and tendered to the same effect. But it seemeth rather that his prayer at this time was for what followed upon his prayer, the sending down of the Holy Ghost, and the glorifying of him by a testimony from Heaven. For, first, the Text hath laid his prayer, and the opening of the Heavens so closely, and so consonantly withal together, Jesus praying the Heavens were opened, as that it seemeth to point out what was the tenor of his prayer by the consequent upon it.

Secondly, In another place there is the like return upon the like prayer, Joh. 12. 28. Father glorify thy name; there came therefore a voice from Heaven, &c.

Thirdly, It being considered that our Savior was to enter now upon the great work of Redemption, and the preaching of the Gospel, it will be the less strange to conceive that he prayed for the visible sealing of him to that work and office by the Holy Ghost, and for a testimony of him that he was the Messias.

There is no material difference in the thing, though Luke hath put the Heaven in the singular number, and Matthew, the Heavens, in the plural, for one followeth the Idiome of the Hebrews, and the other of the Greeks. For the Hebrews cannot call the Heaven by its proper name, but in the plural or dual number 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Heavens: but the Greeks can in the singular. And so little doth the Syriac make of this difference of number in the two Evangelists, that he translateth it just cross, Matthews plural in the singular, and Luke's singular in the plural.

About the opening of the Heavens or the manner of the same, as it is of far more consequence to inquire, so it is of difficulty to resolve, because of diversity of opinions, and probabilities several ways.

First, Some deny the opening of the Heavens at all, but understand that Christ saw them opened, and the Holy Ghost descending intellectually only, or by spiritual vision, as Ezekiel saw the Heavens opened, Ezek. 1. 2. But this exposition is very improper, for John saw the same also, and the descending of the Holy Ghost was in a bodily shape and not imaginary, and the voice was Articulate and Audible, and not visionary.

Secondly, Others deny also the opening of the Heavens, but with another manner of evasion, and exposition. For there was, say they, no seisure or parting of the Heavens asunder, because they are incorruptible, but a great, glorious, and miraculous light shone round about Christ, as if the very highest Heaven had been open, and the light thereof imparted clearly to the Earth: But this opinion also is confuted by the word that Mark useth, differing from the other two. For though the phrase, The Heavens were opened, would admit of such a Metaphorical or comparative exposition, yet when Mark saith expressly, that the Heavens were cloven, or parted asunder, for so is his word in the Original, [the Syriac expresseth it by the very same word that the Chaldee Paraphrast useth in Lev. 11. for parting of the hoof] it enforceth us to look for a literal interpretation in it, and not a tropical.

Thirdly, Aquinas evadeth the real opening of them with this gloss stranger than both the other, and by another intellectual vision than that that was spoken of before: For it may also be understood, saith he, of an intellectual vision, namely, that Christ [baptism being now sanctified] saw Heaven open unto men. But this exposition the word of Saint Mark, newly mentioned, confuteth much more than it did the other.

Fourthly, Mark therefore tying us to a literal sense, and to understand a real and proper cleaving of the Heavens indeed, the doubt now only resteth, what Heaven it was, whether the Aereal or Aethereal, for so are the heavens properly distinguished, according to the significancy of the Hebrew word Shamaiim, which importeth a duality, or a thing doubled. Answer, It was only the Aereal, for that is called Heaven, and the Firmament, Gen. 1. 8, 20. as may be confirmed by these reasons:

First, Because there needed no further seisure in the Heavens, than the renting of the clouds in the middle Region, either for the descending of the Holy Ghost, or of the voice, or for the satisfying of the eyes and ears of the spectators, and hearers, that they came from Heaven.

Secondly, Because the Scripture in other places speaking of things which came but out of the clouds, yet useth the very same term to express the clouds by, that is used here, namely Heaven: As, The Lord that gave the Law out of a cloud, Exod. 19. 16. is said to have spoken from Heaven, Exod. 20. 22. So the like voice to this here, that came out of a cloud, Luke 9. 35. yet is said to come from Heaven, 2 Pet. 1. 18. And Elias that by his prayer shut up the clouds, that there was no rain, is said to have shut up Heaven, Luke 4. 25. The opening of the Heavens then was the renting of the clouds, as we see them rent, when the lightning comes forth, and out of that rent came the Holy Ghost in visible shape, and the heavenly voice. And thus did the Gospel or Preaching of Christ begin with the opening of the Heavens which the Law had shut, and thus were the heavens shaken, when the desire of all Nations came first to be revealed openly, as Hag. 2. 6, 7. The very same difference of expression that is betwixt Saint Mark and the other Evangelists, is betwixt the Hebrew, and the LXX in Isa. 64. 1. for the Original readeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , thou wouldest or hast rent, but the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , If thou open the Heavens, &c.

To him, to whom? To Christ, or to John? Why, to the eyes and beholding of them both, for in that John saith, he saw the Holy Ghost coming from or out of Heaven like a Dove, Joh. 1. 32. he maketh it past denial, that he saw the opening of the Heavens; but the word to him in this place must be reserved and referred in a singular peculiarity to Christ, and the opening of the Heavens to him, importeth a more emphatical propriety than their opening to his sight. For, the Syntax and Grammatical construction that Mark useth, maketh it impossible to fix the words to him, any other ways than upon Christ: And straightway, saith he, coming up out of the water, he saw the Heavens rent, or cloven, &c. This then being the propriety of the words, that the Heaven was opened to our Savior, and yet since it was also opened to the sight of John, it doth necessarily enforce us to understand it otherwise than only to his view or beholding, namely, to his prayer: as the phrase is used by him himself, Knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For had the Evangelist intended only to show how he saw this apertion in the Heaven, he might have joined John with him in the same sight; but he would give us to understand by the phrase that he hath used singularly of Christ alone, that the Heavens were not only opened to his sight, but for his sake. And from hence may be confirmed what was spoken before concerning his prayer, namely, that it aimed at such a thing, as Elias prayed, and the Heaven was opened and fire came down upon his Sacrifie. Thus Heaven that was shut to the first Adam, because of his sin, is opened to the second, because of his righteousness, and to all that by faith are partakers of it.

This is to be understood as that before, of Christ only, and after the same sense, or to the same purport. But since it is certain that John saw this as well as he, as is also observed before, and yet none of the three Evangelists that record the Story, have given any undoubted or plain evidence of any such a thing; it may likewise be questioned whether the rest of the people which were there present did see this sight as well as Christ and John. Theophylact is peremptory in the affirmative; For all of them, saith he, saw the Spirit coming upon Jesus, lest they should think that the voice, This is my beloved Son, had been spoken concerning John; but upon the sight of the Holy Ghost they might believe that that voice was concerning Christ. And of this opinion are very many others with him, and no marvel; for who could conceive any other thing? And yet upon the weighing of these Reasons following, we may very well be persuaded to believe the contrary, or that this Heavenly spectacle, and divine voice was conspicuous and audible to none, but only to Christ and John.

First, Because John after this doth himself tell those that were present at this time, that there had stood one among them, but they knew him not, that that was he that was to come after him. For the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , John 1. 26. must of necessity be rendered in its preterfect signification; for John spake not those words till after Christ was baptized and gone, for he was at that time in his temptation in the wilderness.

Secondly, Because Christ himself also telleth the Jews, that they had never heard his Fathers voice, John 5. 37. and among those to whom he speaketh, were divers that had embraced the doctrine and baptism of John, ver. 35. and it may very well be supposed, some that were present at his baptism at this very time. The maintainers of the contrary Opinion have spied this scruple and difficulty arising upon that Text, and have gone about to salve it, but with a very improper and dangerous plaster: holding that though they heard this voice, yet they heard not the voice of the Father, but of an Angel which spake in his Name, which shall be examined by and by.

Thirdly, It is improbable that when Christ had such another testimony from Heaven at his transfiguration▪ that he should conceal it from nine of his Disciples, and charge the three silence that heard it, and saw what was done, Matth. 17. 9. and yet should let this voice and vision from Heaven be so public, as to be heard and seen of all the people.

Fourthly, John himself telleth that this Revelation was given chiefly, if not only, for his sake, John 1. 33.

Fifthly, The preaching of the Baptist was the means that God had ordained to bring the people to the knowledge of Christ, John 1. 7, 31. and this Revelation, to bring the Paptist to it.

Sixthly, Had all the people been partakers of this sight and voice, John had needed no more to have pointed Christ out, but the people would have known him as well as he, nor could the opinion have ever prevailed, as it did, that valued John above him.

Seventhly, When John shown him forth with the finger, with Behold the Lamb of God, presently Disciples followed him, which they would have done much more, had they thus seen and heard him, pointed out from Heaven; but it is plain they did not the one, and thereupon it may be boldly concluded that they did not the other.

Eighthly, To which may be added, that God ordained preaching, partly of John, partly of Christ himself, and partly of his Disciples, the way to bring the world acquainted that he was Messias. And these divine Revelations were for the instruction and confirmation of them his preachers, who were chosen witnesses for such a purpose, that they thereupon might the more confidently confirm the people. And hereupon it is observable, that while the Baptist was at liberty, our Savior contented himself with his testimony and preaching, but when he was shut up, then instantly chose he others.

Now if any doubt of the possibility of this, and question how could John see and hear these things, and the other company that was present not do so as well as he: The answer may be readily given by example of Elisha's servant, 2 King. 6. 17. and the two men that went to Emmaus, Luke 24. For the mountain was full of Horses, and Chariots of fire, and Elisha perceived them, but his servant did not till his eyes were opened in a more special manner. And Christ it is like was in the same shape and appearance upon the way when they knew him not that he was in the house when they did, but till then their eyes were holden. Yet if any one will suppose that the people saw the slashing of the opened Heaven, and heard the noise of the voice that came from thence, and took the one for lightning, and the other for thunder, as John 12. 29. we will not oppose it, for now was the season of the year fit for lightning and thunder: but that either they saw the Holy Ghost, or distinguished the words of the voice, anymore then Paul's companions did, Act. 9. 7. compared with Act. 22. 9. the reasons alleged do enforce to deny, till better information.

The Syntax and construction of Mark, doth tie and fix these words [ He saw ] only to our Savior, as it did those before; and both for the reason mentioned; namely, to show the return and answer of his prayer. But these words of Matthew are not so strict, but that they may equally be applied unto John.

For, first, there may be observed a distinction in the verse, and a kind of difference of speech betwixt what goeth before about the opening of the Heavens, and this sight of the Holy Ghost. For of that he speaketh thus. And Jesus being baptized went straightway out of the water, and lo the Heavens were opened unto him. And then cometh he on with a distinct clause concerning the other, And he saw the Spirit of God descending, leaving it at the least in an indifferency, whether to apply it to Christ or John.

But, secondly, it seemeth rather to be understood of John, because he saith himself that this descending of the Holy Ghost was given to him for a sign, and that he saw it; and if it be not to be so taken here, none of the three Evangelists have mentioned it in the story at all.

And, thirdly, the rather may it be taken of Johns seeing it, because he saith, He saw him descending and coming, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 upon him. Had it been said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 upon himself, it must needs have been understood of Christ upon whom the Spirit came, that he saw the Spirit coming upon himself: but since it i • upon him, without any reciprocation, it may be the better applied to John, that he saw it. It is true indeed that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes signifieth reciprocally himself, as our Lexicons do give examples, and as it is of force to be taken in Saint Mark in this place, like as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes doth not signify reciprocally, as in the LXX, in Judge. 7. 24. But why should we take the word out of its commonest and properest sense, unless there were necessity to do it, which in Matthew there is not, though in Mark there be.

Fourthly, and lastly, These words he saw, being understood of John, it maketh that the three Evangelists being laid together, the relation ariseth out of them the more full, and the story more plain. For Luke telling that the Heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended, Mark addeth, that Jesus saw this, and Matthew, that John.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Gen. 2. 2. The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters in the beginning of the old world, and so doth it here, of the new: It is needless to instance, how oft in Scripture the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of God, as Gen. 41. 38. Exod. 31. 3. Numb. 24. 2. and very many other places; but it is most necessary to observe that wheresoever he is so called, it is in the Hebrew the Spirit of Elohim, in the plural number, and showeth his proceeding from more persons then one. Contrary to the opinion of the Greek Church that holdeth, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth not from the Father and the Son, but from the Father only.

As he is called the Spirit, not so much in regard of his own nature, as in regard of his manner of proceeding, so also is he called Holy, not so much in respect of his person, for the Father and Son are Spirits, and are holy as well as he, but in regard of his Work and Office, which is to sanctify the Church of God. And in this respect he is called by the Hebrews, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Holy Spirit only, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ruahh hakkodesh, the Spirit of Holiness, for this phrase the Holy Ghost, is taken from the common speech of the Jews: And so is he called by Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rom. 1. 4. and so doth the Syrian call him Rubba dekudsha, in this place.

§. The Holy Ghost descended.

This descending of the Holy Ghost was, first, partly for the sake of John, for this token had been given him, when he first began to preach and baptize, whereby to know Christ when he should come, Joh. 1. 33.

Secondly, Partly for Christ, that he might thus receive his Consecration and Institution for the Office that he was now to enter upon, the Preaching of the Gospel. This was as his anointing to instal him into his Function, as Aaaron and his Sons were with material oil to enter them into theirs, as Isa. 61. 1. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, therefore hath he anointed me, he hath sent me to Preach the Gospel. And,

Thirdly, Partly for the business and matter that was now to go in hand, namely, Christ beginning to preach accordingly. For,

First, The Gospel is the Spiritual Kingdom and Scepter of Christ, in and by which he was to rule all Nations forever, and therefore it was agreeable that the Spiritualness of that should be sealed and confirmed by the Holy Spirits showing himself even in the beginning of it. The carnal rites of Moses were now to vanish, and his Corporal and Ceremonial observances to be changed into a Spiritual Worship: and neither at Jerusalem, nor at mount Gerizim, nor elsewhere, must there be anymore adoration, with fleshly and earthly Ceremoniousness, but he that will worship God must worship him in Spirit, as Joh. 4. 21. Therefore it is no wonder, if the Holy Ghost doth now reveal himself, now when his sway of spirituality, and dominion, by sanctification is to begin.

Secondly, The Holy Ghost was departed from Israel, after the death of the last Prophets, as was observed before, and now he is to be restored again, therefore himself cometh visibly and apparently at this his restoring, and lighteth upon him to whom it belonged to give and distribute the gifts of the Spirit, to whom he pleased. For as John had told that Christ should baptize with the Holy Ghost, so is that power and privilege now sealed unto him in the sight of John, when the Holy Ghost cometh down upon him and there abideth.

§. Descended in a bodily shape.

God is said to descend, not that he moveth from place to place, or cometh where he was not before, for he is incircumscriptible, and everywhere and filleth all places: but in that he showeth this his presence upon Earth, in such or such a place, by some external sign, and visible appearance: And so he is said to come down to see whether the wickedness of Sodom were according to the cry that was come up unto him, because he revealed himself to Abraham, Lot, and the Sodomites in the visible and conspicuous representation of men: So is he said to have come down upon Mount Sinai, because of the outward revealing and expression of his presence there. And so the Chaldee Paraphrast understandeth the Trinities descending, Gen. 11. 5. for a conspicuous appearance of it, for he translateth, The Lord revealed himself to take vengeance, &c. And so is the Holy Ghost said to descend in this story, and in that in Act. 2. not but that he was present in the same places before, by his power and Godhead, but that he revealed and expressed his presence by so sensible an evidence, and by, and in so revealed a work.

§. In a bodily shape.

First, It was convenient that the Holy Ghost should reveal himself at this time: First, for the sake of John, who was to have a sensible sign, whereby to inform him which was the Messias, as Joh. 1.

Secondly, In regard of the Holy Ghost himself, whose work in the Church was now in a more special and frequent manner to be shown under the Gospel, namely, that he might be expressed and revealed to be a personal substance, and not an operation of the Godhead only, or qualitative virtue. For qualities, operations and acts cannot assume bodily shapes, nor ought but what is in itself substantial.

Thirdly, That a full and clear, yea, even a sensible demonstration of the Trinity might be made at this beginning of the Gospel. For it may be observed in Scripture, that the Holy Ghost hath a special regard to express this mystery upon singular occasions, that we might learn to acknowledge the three Persons in one Godhead, as he also doth the two natures of Christ, that we might acknowledge them in one person. So the very first thing that is taught in all the Bible, is this very mystery: For when Moses beginneth the Story of the Creation, he beginneth also to teach that the three Persons in the Trinity were co-workers in it. God Created, there is the Father. God said, there is the Word, or the Son. And the Spirit of God moved, there is the Holy Ghost. And the very same mystery is intimated by the Prophet, treating upon the very same Subject, Isa. 42. 5. Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the Heavens, and they that stretched them out: That we might learn, that Of him, through him, and to him, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are all things, Rom. 11. 36. So Moses also when he is to teach concerning the creation of man, he first teacheth that it was the Trinity that created him, Gen. 1. 26. And God said, Let us make man after our Image. He saith, Let us, to show the Trinity of persons: and he saith, In our Image, not in our Images, to show the unity of essence; That every man, even from the reading of the story of his Creation might learn to remember his Creators in the days of his youth; as Solomon with the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Boraiecha, answereth the same mystery, Eccles. 12. 1. So likewise at the confusion of Tongues the Trinity is expressed, Gen. 11. 7. Let us go down and confound their Language: as it is also at the gift of Tongues, I will send the Comforter from the Father, Joh. 15. 26. Act. 1. 4. Such a one also was the blessing pronounced by the Priest upon the people, when he dismissed them from the daily service of the Temple, in the name of the Trinity, Numb. 6. 24, 25, 26. the name Jehovah or the Lord, three times repeated, for denotation of the three Persons, as Paul explaineth it, 2 Cor. 13. 13. When Moses also beginneth to rehearse the Law to Israel, and to explain it, the first thing he teacheth them is the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, Deut. 6. 4. Hear O Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord, is one. Three words answering the three Persons, and the middle word our God, deciphering fitly the second, who assumed our nature, as is well observed by Galatinus. To these may be added, the entrance of Moses his revelation with the Name of the Lord, three times rehearsed, Exod. 34. 6. The Vision of Isaiah with three Holies, Isa. 6. 3. The beginning of Psal. 50. and of Psal. 136. and many of the like nature, which the heedful reader will observe himself. How fitting then was it that at the beginning of the new world, and the new Law, and the baptism of Christ, the three Persons should be revealed, especially since he ordained baptism to be administered in their Names; Baptize them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Matth. 28. 19.

§. Like a Dove.

It is thought by Austin, and after him by Aquinas, that this was a very living Dove, not of the flock indeed of common Doves, but immediately created by God for this purpose, but created as true a living Dove, as any of them: and the reason they give for this their opinion is this. Because it is not to be said that Christ alone had a true body, and that the Holy Ghost appeared deceiveably to the eyes of men, but that both those are to be said to be true bodies: for as it was not fit that the Son of God should deceive men, so was it not fit that the Holy Ghost should deceive them neither. But it was no difficulty to the Creator of all things, to make a true body of a Dove, without the help of other Doves, as it was not hard for him to frame a true body in the womb of the Virgin without the seed of man. So they, too punctual where there is no necessity, nor indeed any great probability. For,

First, What needed there a real living Dove, when an apparent only would serve the turn? For the descending of the Dove was, that there might be a visible demonstration of the Holy Ghost his resting upon Christ, and anointing him for his Ministration: so that the visibility of the Spirit was as much as was required, and there needed no reality of a living body.

Secondly, The Text saith expressly in all the Evangelists, that it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , like or as it were a Dove; which plainly showeth the similitude to such a thing; and not the being of the very thing itself.

Thirdly, In apparitions of the like nature, when the furthest end of the body appearing, was but for visibility, the bodies that were seen, were not of the very existency and nature of those that they represented, but of another. As the Angels that appeared in human shapes, had not very living human bodies, but only bodies assumed and framed to such a representation: And so the fire in the bush, on Sinai, and with the cloven Tongues, was not very real fire, but only a visible resemblance of it; and the like must be held of this Dove, or else it will be such an apparition as never was before, nor since.

Fourthly, The parallel betwixt the appearing of our Savior, in human flesh, and the appearing of the Holy Ghost, in a living Dove, is not only very improper, but also somewhat dangerous. For if they appeared alike, then may the Holy Ghost be said to be a very Dove [for Christ was a very man,] and that were improper, and in its kind, to be incarnate, [for Christ was incarnate,] and that is dangerous. And,

Fifthly, As for fallacy or deceiving there could be none, no more than there had been in all other apparitions since the world began, since in such things, the verity and reality of the body that appeared, was not looked after, but only the conspicuity, and the spirit that lay hid under that body.

Now reasons why the Holy Ghost appeared in the shape of a Dove, rather than of any other creature, are conceived, some to have concerned Christ, some to have concerned the Holy Ghost himself, and some to have concerned man. As,

First, To show Christ's innocence, purity, simplicity, charity, and love, for all these qualities are observable in a Dove.

Secondly, To show the like graces of the Holy Ghost; and Aquinas and Ludolphus do parallel the seven graces of the Spirit, Isa. 11. 2, 3. to seven properties of a Dove; as if any be so curious as to see them, he may, in Lud. in loc. and Aquin. par. 3. quest. 39. Art. 6.

Thirdly, To show what innocence and harmlessness should be in those that are baptized.

Fourthly, To answer the figure in Noah's flood; for as a Dove did at that time bring tidings of the abating of the waters, so doth it now of the abating of the wrath of God, upon the preaching of the Gospel. These are the common and most current reasons that are given by Expositors, to which may be added:

Fifthly, That since Christ was to have visible testimony from Heaven, it was fittest it should be by the likeness of a fowl of Heaven; For it was not fitting that fire should have come thence upon him, for he was to baptize, and not to be baptized with fire: and for a cloud to come from thence upon him, was reserved till another time, namely, at his transfiguration: and what then can be imagined to descend upon him, but a bird? And what bird so sit as a Dove which was the only fowl that was clean, and allowed for sacrifice? Lev. 1. 14.

In the strictness of the Greek, it is coming upon him, which is to the very same signification: especially the addition of the Baptist himself being laid unto it, viz. that it abode upon him, Joh. 1. 32. Some conceive and that not improperly, that the Dove sat upon his head: which if it did, it was like the inscription in the golden plate, that was on the fore-head of the High Priest, and declared him to be Kodesh Laihovah, The Holy one of the Lord, Exod. 28. 36. How long the Dove sat upon him, is not to be questioned, because not to be answered, it is not unlike, that it did so, all the while he was in the sight of John at this time, especially seeing that the Text saith, that straightway this Spirit drove him into the wilderness.

The testimony of two witnesses, is a confirmation past denial, and greater witnesses than these two could not be produced, the Father and the Holy Ghost, because a testimony could not be given to a greater than to Christ. Nor could these two witnesses have properly gone single, one without the other: the descending of the Dove to point out to whom the voice was intended, and the descending of the voice explaining what was meant by the descending of the Dove.

§. A voice.

Both the Talmudic, and the latter Rabbins make frequent mention of Bath Kol, Filia vocis, or an Echoing voice, which served under the second Temple, for their utmost refuge of revelation: For when Urim and Thummim, the Oracle was ceased, and Prophecy was decayed and gone, they had [as they say] certain strange, and extraordinary voices upon extraordinary occasion, which were their warnings, and advertisements in some special matters. Infinite instances of this might be adduced, if they might be believed; one allegation in the Talmud shall serve for all, concerning Jonathan the Chaldee Paraphrast. When Jonathan the Son of Uzziel, say they, had composed the Targum of the Prophets, there came Bath Kol, or a divine voice, and said, who hath revealed my secrets to the Sons of men? And when he went about to explain the Chetubbim, or the books of Holy Writ, there came a Bath Kol, or a divine voice again, and said, It is enough. What is the reason? Because in them is revealed the end of the Messias. In Megillah.

Now here it may be doubly questioned: First, Why they called it Bath Kol, The Daughter of a voice, and not a voice itself? And secondly, Whether this voice that we have in hand, were such a voice as that or no? To the first, If the strictness of the Hebrew word Bath be to be stood upon, which it always is not, it may be answered, that it is called the Daughter of a voice, in relation to the Oracle of Urim and Thummim: for whereas that was a voice given from off the Mercy Seat, within the veil, and this upon the decay of that Oracle, came as it were in its place, it might not unfitly, nor improperly be called a Daughter, or successor of that voice. But to the second, and which is more material and pertinent to the subject in hand, it may be answered, that this voice was not of the nature of their Bath Kol, upon these two reasons.

First, Because this voice came descendingly from Heaven, but their Bath Kol cannot be proved to have descended; or at least to have constantly come from Heaven. For the Migremus hinc, which gave warning of the destruction of the City, came not from above, but from the Temple, as Isa. 66. 6. And this can hardly be denied to have been one of their Bath Kol voices: And if we will believe the Jewish Authors in every place where they give examples of this their Bath Kol, it will appear rather to be such a voice as came to Samuel, which was so far from a perpendicular descending voice, that he could not distinguish whether it were the call of Eli.

Secondly, Because, whereas the Jews repute their Bath Kol, both the last and the lowest kind of divine Revelation among them, this kind of a voice from Heaven, was both most ancient, as Gen. 21. 17. & 22. 11. and also most honorable, Exod. 20. 22. Deut. 4. 33, 36.

§. From Heaven.

The opinion that these words were spoken by an Angel, deputed by God for that purpose, which some do hold, is not only improper, but also dangerous: improper, because it crosseth a plain and facile Text; and dangerous, because it bringeth a created Angel into a kind of equality, and compartnership with the sacred Trinity. For,

First, Why should there be any surmise of such an Angel, uttering these words, unless it might be thought that God could not utter them himself?

Secondly, As Paul saith, To which of the Angels said God at any time, Thou art my Son? So may it be said much more, which of the Angels ever durst or might call Christ his Son?

Thirdly, Peter speaking of the Parallel, or like voice to this, which was uttered at our Savior's transfiguration, he saith, it came from the excellent glory, which doubtless showeth more than from an Angel, 2 Pet. 1. 17.

In Mark and Luke it is, Thou art my beloved Son, &c. whereas Matthew expresseth it, This is: which though it show some difference, yet is it not material: nor doth the difference breed so much difficulty, as it doth satisfaction to the Reader, and fullness to the story: For the two Evangelists first named, relate it as spoken to Christ, for the sealing of his person, and in answer to his prayer; but the other expresseth it only as spoken of Christ, and not to him, but pointing him out to the notice of John.

Now this whole speech is taken from 2 Sam. 7. 14. Psal. 89. 26, 27. and Isa. 42. 1. and when it is uttered again from Heaven, at our Savior's transfiguration, this addition Hear him, is put to it; Matth. 17. 5. Luke 9. 35. sealing him then for the great Prophet of his Church, whom all must hear, Deut. 18. 15. as it sealeth him now for the high Priest of his Church, being now to enter into his Ministry.

Agreeable to this age of Christ, when he began his Ministry, was the age of the Priests, when they entered their Office, Numb. 4. 3. the age of Joseph, when he came to promotion, Gen. 41. 46. and the age of David, when he began to Reign, 2 Sam. 5. 4. Now how this is to be understood is some controversy: Some there are that take it thus, that Jesus was now fully and perfectly thirty: Others thus, that he now began or drew on to be full thirty, and so preaching three years and six months, that he died at thirty three years old and an half.

But this interpretation, the phrase used by the Evangelist, and the common and ordinary manner of the Scriptures reckoning of the ages of men, and of other things doth sufficiently contradict: For,

First, In that Luke saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he was baptized, beginning to be as it were thirty: the word beginning to be, denieth his being thirty complete; and the word as it were, denieth his drawing upon thirty complete likewise: For if he were full thirty, then he began not to be so: and if he were drawing on to full thirty, then was he not drawing to as it were thirty, but to thirty indeed. By the phrase therefore, is to be understood, that he was now nine and twenty years of age complete, and just now entering upon his thirtieth: and this the Evangelist hinteth so clearly, that it needeth not much confirmation: For that he was in his thirty current and not completed, is plain by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as it were thirty, that is, thirty years old, after a certain reckoning: and that he was but now entering upon this his thirty current, is as plain by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he began but to be so.

To which also, secondly, may be added the common and current use of Scripture in reckoning of ages, either of men or beasts, to account the year which they are now passing, for a year of their age, be it never so newly or lately begun: Examples of this it is needless to give, the thing is so usual and obvious to every eye.

So that now to take up the times of the world, and of our Savior, according to this computation, they result to this.

First, That since he was born in the year of the World 3928. stilo veteri, but newly begun, he was baptized in the year of the World 3957. but newly begun, by the same style likewise.

Secondly, That since he was born in Tisri, he was also baptized in Tisri.

Thirdly, That since his last residence in Bethlehem, to his first appearing publicly in the work of the Gospel, were full seven and twenty years: all which time he had lived either in Nazareth, the Town of his Mother, or in Capernaum, the Town of his supposed Father, and so his birth in Bethlehem, is utterly grown out of the thoughts and observation of the people.

Fourthly, That he hath now three years and a half to labor in the Gospel from his Baptism to his crucifying, Rabbi Janna said, Three years and a half the glory of God stood upon Mount Olivet, and preached, saying, Seek the Lord while he may be found, call upon him while he is near. Midr. Tillin.

Fifthly, That he lived but two and thirty years and an half: and that his thirtieth year was the first year of his preaching, and not the last year of his private life. Compare the date of David's reign in Jerusalem, 1 Chron. 29. 27. The time that David reigned over Israel, was forty years: Seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty three years reigned he in Heirusalem. Exactly, Seven years and six months reigned he in Hebron, 2 Sam. 5. 5. and then thirty and two years and six months reigned he in Jerusalem.

Sixthly, That if Jerusalem were destroyed exactly forty years after our Savior's death, as it is apparent it was, both in Christian and Heathen Stories, then that destruction of it befell just in the four thousand year of the world, and so as the Temple of Solomon had been finished Anno mundi exactly 3000, so in Anno mundi exactly 4000. both the City and the Temple that then was, was destroyed never to be repaired or rebuilt again. And from that time most properly began the Kingdom of Heaven, and the new Jerusalem, when that earthly Kingdom, and that old City were utterly ruined.

§. Being [as was supposed] the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

At every descent in this Genealogy, the word Jesus is to be understood, otherwise the first and last descents are improper, and different in style from all the rest. For Joseph was not the Son of Heli, but only his Son in Law, and Adam was no more the Son of God, than any of the other holy men, that were named before. The supply therefore is thus to be made to make all proper, Jesus, being as was supposed the Son of Joseph, Jesus the Son of Heli, Jesus the Son of Matthat, &c. Jesus the Son of Seth, Jesus the Son of Adam, Jesus the Son of God.

And the like style of Genealogy, Moses useth, Gen. 36. 2. Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon, where Anah is not called the daughter of Zibeon, for he was a man and not a woman: no more was Joseph the Son of Heli, for he was only his son in Law, but the word Aholibamah is to be supplied thus, Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, Aholibamah the daughter of Zibeon.

Heli or Eli [for the name seemeth to be the same with his in 1 Sam. 1. 3. &c.] was not the natural Father of Joseph, for Matthew told us plainly before, that it was Jacob that begot Joseph, but Heli was the Father of Mary, and Father-in-Law of Joseph only: Now because it is not used in Scripture to mention any women in a pedigree, or to run the line from the Mother, but from the Father to the Son, therefore Mary is not here named at all, but intimated or included, when the line begins from her Father, and calleth her husband his son, which he was only because of her.

So that Luke intending to show Christ the seed of the woman, must of necessity reckon by Mary the daughter of Heli, as Matthew intending to show him the heir of the Crown of David, doth reckon by Joseph the heir male apparent. In comparing and laying together these men that Matthew and Luke have named, in the ancestry of Joseph and Mary, betwixt the returning out of the captivity, and the times of our Savior, we find that everyone man in the stock of Joseph, did almost outlive two of those in the line of Mary, the one line affording twenty descents betwixt those two periods, and the other but one above half so many: which easily and readily confuteth that opinion that some have strangely held, that the persons in the two Genealogies have been the same men, only under different names: and it helpeth somewhat to settle the times between those two periods, against the different miscountings of several men, some stretching them longer than the eleven persons named in Matthew could stretch to live, and some cutting them shorter than the twenty named in Luke could be comprehended in.

Neri was the natural father of Salathiel: he seemeth to have been so named from the candle which the Lord reserved for David and his house, 2 Chron. 21. 7.

2 Sam. 5. 14. 1 Chron. 3. 5. It is like that he was named after Nathan the Prophet, who brought David word of the promise, 2 Sam. 7. and of the cotinuance of his house, which failed in the race of Solomon: but continued in the race of this Nathan, till the King came that was to sit on David's Throne forever. Here again the number of persons in the Genealogy of Mary, betwixt David and the captivity, exceed the number in the Genealogy of Joseph, in Matth. 1.

In Moses it is said Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber, Gen. 10. 24. & 11. 12. And so is it briefly reckoned, 1 Chron. 1. 24. Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, without any mention of Cainan at all, nor is there any memorial of such a son of Arphaxad throughout all the Old Testament, nor indeed was there ever any such a man in the world at all. Here therefore is an extraordinary scruple, and a question of no small difficulty meeteth us; where Luke found the name of this man, which is not to be found elsewhere in all the Bible? And whether it be not an error in the Text, and were not a miscarriage in the Evangelist, to reckon a man for an ancestor of Christ, that the world never saw, or that never was upon the Earth.

Answer, It is easy indeed to resolve, where Luke found this name of Cainan, and from whence he took it, namely from the Greek Bible, or the Septuagint, which hath inserted it in those places of Moses that are alleged; but when this is resolved, the greater scruple is yet behind, of his warrantableness so to do, and of the purity of the Text, where it is so done.

The Seventy Translatours indeed read Gen. 10. 24. thus, Arphaxad begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Sala, and Sala begat Eber. And in Chap. 11. they say, Arphaxad lived one hundred and thirty five years, and begat Cainan, And Cainan lived one hundred and thirty years and begat Sala, and Cainan lived after he begat Sala three hundred and thirty years. And from hence hath Saint Luke without controversy taken in Cainan into this Genealogy, a man that never was in the world, but the warrantableness of this insertion will require divers considerations to find it out. As let the Reader be pleased seriously to ruminate upon these.

First, That the Seventy Translatours did that work unwillingly, and for fear: For the Scripture was the Treasure of the Jews, which made them more glorious than any Nation under Heaven. Therefore to communicate this their riches to the Heathen, whom they abominated and detested, was as much against their heart as what was most. So that had not the fear of the power of Ptolemy brought them to the work of the Translation, more than their own good will, there had been no such thing done. Ptolemy Lagus, the Father of Ptolemy Philadelphus, for whom they translated, had carried away an hundred thousand Jews captive into Egypt, as saith Aristeas, so that the fear and dread of that house lay upon them, that they durst deny it nothing, which otherwise they would most vehemently have done such a thing as this, to have communicated their Scriptures to the Heathen in a vulgar Tongue.

Secondly, The Translation then being undertaken for fear, and with so ill a will [that as Aristeas, who was present at the work, saith, the Translatours were very unwilling to go for Egypt, though he interpret it, because loath to go from Eliazar the High Priest] and that the Jews kept a mournful fast every year, sorrowing for that work of the Translation. It cannot be expected that the Translation will be done with anymore fidelity, than barely what will keep the Translatours out of danger.

Thirdly, Therefore they strive as much as they can, to conceal the Truth and Treasure of the Scripture from the Heathen, and as much as they dare to delude them. Their chief means for this, is to use an unpricked Bible, in which the words written without vowels, might be bended divers ways, and into divers senses, and different from the meaning of the Original, and yet if the Translation were questioned, they might prick or vowel the word, so as to agree to their Translation. How they have dealt in this kind, there is none that ever laid the Hebrew Bible, and the Septuagint together, but hath observed.

Fourthly, Their differences from the Original, which were innumerable, were partly of ignorance, they themselves not being able to read the Text always true in a Copy unvowelled. But this ignorance was also voluntary in them, they not caring to mistake, so that they might do it with their own security.

Their general care was, that since of necessity they must Translate the Bible, as little of it might be imparted and revealed by the Translation as was possible.

Their particular and special heed was also, that those places of the Text, which Translated Literally, or according to the true meaning, might prove dangerous any ways to the Nation of the Jews, or bring them into distaste with the potent King for whom they Translated, should be so tempered and qualified that no hazard might arise, nor any such matter might be seen.

Fifthly, It was a common speech among the Jews, and rang ordinarily in their Schools, and Pulpits, That the seventy Souls of Jacob's family, that went down into Egypt, were equivalent, or answerabe in worth to all the seventy Nations of the World.

This was a dangerous doctrine for the Jews, if it should come to be known, (as it could not choose but be) especially when their puissant enemies should find the numbers agreeable, of seventy Souls, Gen. 46. and seventy Nations, Gen. 10. To prevent any such danger, the Translators thought it a sure way, to spoil the just number in both places, and so they did reckon seventy five Souls, and seventy two Nations, both which accounts are followed by Saint Luke, Act. 7. and in this place.

Sixthly, The several persons reckoned Gen. 10. Everyone of which was the Father and original of a several Nation, be just seventy. The Translatours to spoil the sum, which might prove perilous, have added two more, and both of the same name, Cainan, the one the immediate son of Sem, the other his Grandchild, or the son of Arphaxad. For ver. 22. of that Chapter, they read thus. The sons of Sem were Elam, and Ashur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram, and Cainan; and verse. 24. thus, Arphaxad begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Sala.

In which additions, these two things are very observable.

First, The place where they have thrust in these two men: Namely, so close to Sem, as could not possibly be closer, unless they would have had him to have had two sons of the same name, Cainan.

Secondly, The name itself, that they have thus chosen twice over, namely Cainan, which signifieth mourning or lamenting. So Enoch called his son, Gen. 5. 9. Because of the lamentable corruption of Religion in those times: And it is without doubt, the Translatours in the iterated choice of this word, or heavy and doleful name, intended to show some inward sorrow: the cause of which may be best imagined, by laying the name, and the place of it together.

The blessing of Noah upon Japheth, God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Sem, Gen. 2. 27. The Jews themselves of old, understood, to aim at the Greek Tongue, viz. that God should use that as a means for the admission of the Heathen to the secrets and mysteries of the Jews Religion. This was their vexation at all times, to hear, or to think of the Gentiles being called, as appears by Jonah, Chap. 4. 1. by the Nazarites, Luke 4. 28. and by them of Jerusalem, Act. 22. 21, 22. For Moses had plainly told them, that their calling in, should be the others casting off, Deut. 32. 21.

Therefore, it could not but be a most vehement sorrow, and main vexation to these Translators, that they, perforce, and so sore against their wills, must be made the instruments, by translating the Bible into Greek, to let Japheth, or the Heathen, into the tents of Sem.

This sorrow, as their Nation expressed by a mournful Fast, so did they themselves among other things, by a lamenting and sorrowing name, Cainan twice over, put in so close to Sem, as if they called on him to mourn with them, because his tents were now unlocking for the entrance of the Gentiles.

Seventhly, God using the Septuagint, as the Key for admission of the Heathen, and as an Harbinger to the New Testament, left it not there, but therein used it also in allegations from the Old, yet oftentimes differing from the letter of the same, but never without special reason.

Eighthly, Saint Luke, as he followed the Doctor of the Gentiles, Saint Paul, so he wrote his Gospel for the Gentiles: therefore whereas Matthew writing his for the Jews, deriveth the Genealogy, but from Abraham the first Father of the Jews, This Evangelist writing for the Gentiles, fetcheth the Line from Adam, the common Father of all, both Jews and Gentiles.

This is the aim and scope of this Genealogy, and the reason why it is set at Christ's Baptism:

First, To show that there was no distinction of persons in the promise given to Adam, for all Nations were then equally in his loins: for this, the holy line runs down to him.

Secondly, That therefore all Nations have equal interest in the Messias, and that in the Preaching of the Gospel, which Christ began from his Baptism, there should be no difference of people made, as there was before. This being the intent of the Pedegrees placing here, as the very placing of it doth inevitably evince, it is not only warrantable, but also admirably divine, that Luke taketh in Cainan from the Seventy.

For, first, writing for Heathens, he must follow the heathens Bible in his quotations.

Secondly, In Genealogies he was to be a Coppier, not a Corrector.

Thirdly, and chiefly, In following this insertion of the Seventy, he embraceth not their error, but divinely draweth us to look at their intent.

When Jude mentioneth Michaels striving with Satan about the body of Moses, he approveth not the story as true, which he knew to be but a Talmudic Parable: but from the Jews own Authors, he useth this as an argument against them, and for their instruction.

So though Luke from the Seventy, the Bible of the Heathen, have alleged Cainan the son of Arphaxad, he alledgeth it not as the truth more than the Hebrew, but from the Septuagint's own authority, or from the matter which they inserted in distaste of the calling of the Heathen, he maketh comfortable use and instruction to the Heathen concerning their calling.

First, They put in two men, Gen. 10. that they might dissemble their arrogating of singularity above all Nations, and to make Ptolemy believe, that there was no such distinction of people held by them: [but they thought otherwise.]

Luke reserves the one of these in his pedigree (for the other could not come in it,) to teach the Gentiles really, what they did in dissimulation, that there was no such distinction of Nations in the sight of God, even the Seventy themselves being witnesses.

Secondly, They used a mournful name for the men whom they inserted, in detestation of the coming in of the Gentiles; Luke reserves this also for the comfort of the Gentiles, which were now to be called in: To teach them from the Jews own confession, that the divulging of the Gospel in vulgar languages, should bring Japheth into the tents of Sem: which thing was now ready to begin, when Christ at his Baptism is anointed to Preach the Gospel, and to send it abroad to be Preached both to Jew and Gentile. And what the Seventy in their Cainan sorrowed to see afar off, Luke in his Cainan calls to behold now with comfort near at hand.

Thus are the Censers of Korah and his company though ordained for an evil end by them, yet reserved in the Sanctuary for a good by the command of GOD.

Thus hath the Evangelist shown Christ to be the seed of the woman, promised to Adam, and descended from him: And that, he that was proclaimed the seed of the Woman to Adam, in the garden, was now pointed out and proclaimed the Son of God, from Heaven to John, at Jordan. And thus doth the Evangelist conclude this Genealogy with a clear expression of Christ's two natures, his humanity, for he was the son of Adam; his divinity, for he was the Son of God: And this lesson, of these two natures being knit and united in the person of our Savior, the Evangelists all of them teach very frequently as they go along, as a thing of chief and choice observation: which we shall take up and observe, as we proceed.

§ I have need to be baptized of thee.

He meaneth not, with the baptism of water, which he himself administered to others, but with the baptism of the Holy Ghost. For, first, Christ himself baptized none with water at all, Joh. 4. 2. but referred the administration of this Sacrament to others.

Secondly, the Baptism wherewith he baptized, was of the Holy Ghost, ver. 11. and it cannot be doubted that when John speaketh of being baptized by Christ, he meaneth the proper baptism wherewith Christ baptized.

Thirdly, it is not consonant to reason, that John should complain of the want of that which he so plentifully afforded unto others: but though he himself were not baptized, in water, yet his special deputation from God, to be the first and chief baptized, made that he needed it not.

Fourthly, be it granted that John speaketh of baptizing with water, as some Commentators would have it, yet are not his words to be understood simply of any absolute necessity that he had of baptism, but comparatively betwixt him and Christ, that it was sitter that he should be baptized by Christ, than Christ by him. For so the Phrase I have need, is used, not always to import necessity, but sometimes conveniency. And so doth the Rabbinical word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 indifferently signify, and divers words that signify necessity in other tongues.

The Emphasis of this clause is held to be in the word now: As showing that howsoever Christ was the Son of God, and should in time reveal himself mightily so to be, as Rom. 1. 4. yet now the time required that that his glory should be veiled under his humiliation, and his divinity concealed till its proper season to be revealed. This exposition is as currant as any among Expositors, how substantial let the Reader judge. For,

First, the baptizing of Christ by John, was not so great a means to veil his Divinity as it was to reveal it: for then he had the testimony from Heaven, that he was the Son of God.

Secondly, there needeth no other reason to be looked after why Christ saith, suffer it to be so now, than what he himself giveth, in the very next words following: For thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. The word now, as it lieth in the English, might be taken for the sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so ordinary in the Hebrew, words of entreating or persuasion, and might very well also suit with that sense here, if the LXX traslated them by the Greek word here used 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but they do not: therefore may we the more justly suppose the word to be emphatical in some respect, and the respect seemeth to be this. Whereas John had told the people before of Christ's baptizing with the Holy Ghost, and had told Christ in the verse preceeding, that he had need of that baptism, to that it is that our Savior giveth this answer, Suffer it to be so now, as meaning thus: That it was true indeed that he was he that should come after him, and he that should baptize with the Holy Ghost, of which baptism John had more need from him than he of Johns; yet the time of that his baptizing was not yet come, for first must he fulfil all the righteousness required of himself, before he was to pour out or bestow that baptism of the Spirit upon others: And therefore must John suffer him to be baptized now with the baptism of water, for that baptism of his with the Spirit was not yet to be exhibited.

§ For thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.

The greatest doubt and difficulty in this clause is, what our Savior meaneth here by righteousness, which being resolved upon, the other smaller words, and less scrupulous in it, will offer themselves the more readily to be understood.

First, Hilary, though somewhat obscurely, seemeth to construe it of the righteousness of the Law, for by him, saith he, all righteousness was to be fulfilled, by whom alone the Law could be fulfilled.

Secondly, but Jerome speaks it out more plainly and fully and understandeth it of all righteousness of the Law and of nature, either of which indeed were not an unproper gloss to be applied unto Christ alone; but since the word us, joineth the Baptist also in the same fulfilling with him, it is not safe to understand it of all the righteousness of the Law, because it is not pious to hold John the accomplisher of it, as well as he.

Thirdly, Theophylact, and some others with him go the same way with these Fathers named, but they go somewhat further, for they add, that Christ had fulfilled all the Law already, but only in this one particular of being baptized, and when he had performed that, he had completed all righteousness. But the word us spoileth this exposition, as well as it did that before: and it will be some work to prove that baptism, taken in its proper sense, or as John administered it, was any part of the Law that Christ was to fulfill.

Fourthly, others descant upon the words literally, and take righteousness for justice distributive, and baptism for a special part or act of it: For he that is baptized, saith Ludolphus, pleaseth God, pitieth his own soul, and edifieth his neighbor by his example, and so fulfilleth all justice, in that he doth to God, himself, and his neighbor what he ought. An Encomion of baptism, and a new invention of fulfilling the Law, which I suppose was never dreamed of before.

Fifthly, to omit other expositions much like this, which some have given, not near to the text, nor truth: Jansen and some with him, but not so largely as he, do paraphrase it thus. According as I by an humble submission desire to be baptized by thee, so it becometh us, because we are sent of God the Father, to call men away from all unrighteousness, and to teach the people, to fulfill and perform in work whatsoever is right, omitting nothing, be it never so little, which we know to be agreeable to the will of God. Therefore he importeth not, that by the receiving of baptism all righteousness is fulfilled; but that by them that are Masters and Teachers of all righteousness, nothing is to be passed over which is right, although they be not bound thereto by necessity, and though the thing itself seem never so small. Which exposition though it be good and sound in regard of the truth contained in it, yet seemeth it not to be punctual and seasonable for this place. For whereas the very marrow and pith of it lieth in this, that Christ and John being teachers of the people, must practice themselves what they teach others to practice; and therefore must Christ be baptized for example to others: let the Reader judge whether the inference be good by this, that John himself was never baptized: and consequently whether the application of such a sense to these words, be fitting and agreeable.

Sixthly, Chemnitz yet goeth nearer the text and the mark, and bringeth the word Righteousness to reflect upon men: explaining it thus: that since Christ came to confer and apply righteousness to men, and accordingly to sanctify everything and means that might conduce to convey the same unto them, therefore would he thus consecrate baptism by his own being baptized, and give vigor to it to be a seal and strengthener of righteousness and grace begun: and in this sense he saith that it becometh him to fulfill all righteousness, or everything whereby the righteousness of man may be forwarded and promoted, and because John was the Minister of Baptism; therefore in the word us, he joineth him also in the fulfilling with him. To this purpopose he and far more largely coming as close to the mark, as any we meet with, and yet [if I judge aright] not so close as to hit it in these two respects.

First, in that he seemeth to hold, and so also do many others with him, that Christ's performance of the several parts of righteousness, personally in himself, was requisite to the sanctifying of such things to others, whereas his very institution of any such a thing giveth validity sufficient to it without his own actual example: As in this very thing in hand concerning baptism, if Christ instituted that in the hand of John for a Sacrament to continue in his Church forever, I cannot see what virtue, vigor, or efficacy his being baptized by John added to it, more than his institution of it before had done, save only for the more sensible reverence of it in the eyes of the People.

Secondly, and chiefly, because it is harsh and bold, to conceive that Christ in the performance of anything that might tend to man's justification, should take a man to be a sharer and co-worker in such equality as the words thus and us do make the Baptist.

By righteousness therefore in this place may rather be understood the equity and justice of the Law, and Christ's fufilling of the same. Not the moral, for that opinion we refused before, but the other parts of it, which were either Prophetical, or figurative and tipical. Not denying his fulfilling the moral Law neither, for that he performed to a tittle, being without the least taint of sin, either in thought, word, or deed, but rather illustrating and setting forth his performance of that the more, in that he was also so punctutual to fulfill the other parts of the Law which were less material. And to this exposition of righteousness, namely, for the equity of the Ceremonial or typical Law, not only the matter or thing in hand itself, but even every word also that is in this clause do give their consent and confirmation.

For, first, if we look upon the Ceremonial Law itself, and the reason why it was given, we shall find that it was neither so exact and exquisite in regard of it's injunctions, nor so strict or necessary to be performed in itself according to the Letter, as it was in regard of its significancy of good things to come; the force and virtue of it consisting not so much in its very verbal precepts, and corporal observances, as in its representative and typical predictions and fore-showing of some better things to come thereafter. And howsoever those Rites and Ceremonies had their obedience in the practices of the Jews, yet their equity and very intent indeed they had not but in the fulfilling of Christ.

Secondly, if we look also upon baptism which was the matter now in agitation, and the baptism of Christ also, how they were both fully and plainly prefigured under legal Rites and Ceremonious observances, was shown before.

Thirdly, it was requisite that Christ should fulfill the Ceremonial Law, as well as the moral, in some kind of necessity, though not as much for the one as for the other. For as the Moral was a Law of Faith, so also was the Ceremonial a Law of hope, as the judicial was also of Charity. In the Moral Law it was shown to man what he was to do, but withal he saw by the same Law his own disability and impossibility of performing what was to be done. The sight of this driveth man to lay hold of Christ that performed that Law for him; and thus the Law, though it be according to the letter a message of death, yet in the spirit it is a doctrine of Faith unto life. The Jew being thus entered by the moral Law into the School of Faith, then came in the Ceremonial, and was as an usher of hope: for by those rites and legal observations, the memory of Christ's coming was continually kept fresh, and the eye and expectation, and the fruit and application of his performance of the moral Law for the good of men daily read in those typical and shadowed lectures: As therefore as it was absolutely necessary that Christ should fulfil the moral Law in regard of all men, so was it respectively necessary that he should answer and accomplish the Ceremonial, in regard of the Jew. For if the outward observance thereof were for nothing so much, as to lead his eye and expectation to Christ, and the very life and equity thereof were included in him, how necessary was it that for the sake of that people, and for confirmation both to them and all others, that he was Christ that was to come, that he should fulfill that part of the Law, as well as the other? At the least how fitting? And so he saith in the place in hand, Thus it becometh us to fulfill all the equity of the Ceremonial Law. Now the Ceremony to which our Savior looketh in these words, was the washing of the Priests in water, when they entered into their function, Exod. 29. 4. Lev. 8. 6. the equity of which appeared in him, when he was baptized at his entrance into his Ministry. And this indeed was the manifest and properest end and reason of Christ being baptized; namely, that by baptism he might be installed into his Ministerial office.

Not all that were to be baptized by John, for the contrary is evident, Joh. 3. 23. where John is baptizing a twelve month after this; but all those that were reckoned by the Evangelist before, from Jerusalem and Judea, of Phrarisees, Sadducees, Publicans, and Soldiers, which he now reckoneth up in this summa totalis of All the people, to show what multitudes were baptized into Christ, before Christ came to be revealed.

But it may be questioned among all this number, whether there were any women baptized by John, or no. And the doubt may seem to be equally balanced, for as the silence of the Text doth seem to deny it, so reason on the other side doth strongly affirm it.

For, first, the baptism of John was such a thing as women might receive as well as men, in regard of possibility, which they could not possibly do by Circumcision.

Secondly, it was such a thing as they might receive as well as men, in regard of capability, for women were as ready to repent, as they.

But, thirdly, that which putteth it out of all doubt, that women were baptized by him, is the testimony of our Savior, Matthew 21. 32. John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not, but the Publicans and the Harlots believed him.

§ Jesus also being baptized.

About the time, place, and manner of our Savior's baptism, the Evangelists have been so silent in this place, that what is to be resolved upon them is to be fetched from and by comparison of other texts, and collection from other places, which about the first will give very full satisfaction, about the second indifferent, and about the last, little or none at all. The time then of his being baptized, that is, the time of the year, is only, or at least, chiefly to be found, by computing the time or length of his Preaching, and therewith considering the time or season of his death. Now the length of his Preaching, or from his baptism to his death, was justly and exactly three years and an half, as was touched before: And from that very thing or in relation to it, that number is so very renowned in Scripture, being sometimes expressed in the plain terms, of three years and six months, Luke 4. 25. sometimes by half a week, Dan. 9. 27. sometimes, by a time, times, and half a time, Dan. 12. 7. Rev. 12. 14. and sometimes, by a thousand two hundred and threescore days, Rev. 11. 3. & 12. 6. and sometimes, by forty and two months, Rev. 11. 2. To evidence which account of his Ministry, first may be produced the Text of Daniel alleged instantly before, chap. 9. 27. where it is said, that Messias should confirm the Covenant for many for one week: or in that one week rather, namely, which he reckoneth the last of the seventy: for first, he nameth seven weeks by themselves, and then sixty two by themselves, ver. 25. which everyone knoweth made sixty nine; and then coming to speak of the last week which was to make up the seventy▪ he saith, that in that one week, Christ shall confirm the Covenant for many: and then describing and declaring the exact time of that his work, he saith, And in half that week shall he cause sacrifice and oblation to cease.

Now that by these weeks are meant weeks of years, or as many years as a week hath days, hardly any man ever denied, or suspected the contrary; and that then by half a week, is meant half seven years, or three years and an half, there can be as little doubt or scruple: This then the Angel Gabriel telleth was the exact time in which the Messias did confirm the Covenant, and was bringing to an end Sacrificing and other Ceremonies, or the time of his Preaching the Gospel, which was from his Baptism to his death.

Secondly, if not for proof, yet for better illustration of the same, may be produced that place of the Gospel alleged so lately also before, namely, Luke. 4. 25. where Elias is a glorious type and resemblance of Christ, in a sweet and harmonious discord and difference: For as he shut up heaven by his prayer, and there was no rain for three years and six months, so Christ opened heaven at his baptism, as it is said in the verse in hand, and continued to distil the divine dew and rain of his heavenly doctrine, as Deut. 32. 2. for the same space of time.

And thirdly, as there is such evidence for the time averred; from a Prophecy, and such illustration from a type, so is there a full confirmation of it in the Evangelical story. For John hath plainly parcelled out the three years by four Passovers: as the first, chap. 2. 13. the second, chap. 5. 1. the third, chap. 6. 4. and the fourth, chap. 13. 1. &c. and the odd half year [which since he died at the last Passover must be laid before the first] was taken up in these particulars, of his journey into the wilderness, and forty days fast, Mat. 4. 1. his return to Jordan, and abode thereabout, John 1. 29. 35. 44. his voyage into Galilee, and miracle at Cana, John 2. 1. his removal after some space to Capernaum, and some abode in it, chap. 2. 12. and thence his journey to Jerusalem, to the first Passover of the four, John 2. 13. So that it being thus apparent that the length or space of his Preaching was three years and an half, from his baptizing to his suffering, it being withal considered that he died at Easter, it will readily follow that he was baptized half a year before that time of the year, namely, in the month Tisri, or September; And it being again considered that he was baptized, when he was just entering upon a new year of his age, as shall be observed anon, it will thence likewise follow that he was born at the same time of the year also. And who is he that can imagine that the renownedness and fame of this month in the Old Testament, both before the Law and under it, was for any other thing so much as in reference and prefiguration to, and of these glorious things?

Now though there be these assured evidences of the time of the year when our Savior was baptized, yet is there but conjecture of the time of the month: And that may most constantly be conceived to have been at the Feast of Tabernacles, which began on the fifteenth day of the month, Levite. 23. 33. upon these probable and not altogether un satisfactory reasons.

First, because he died on the fifteenth day of the month Abid or Nisan, the day after the Passover, and to make the odd half year, spoken of before, an exact and just half year indeed, his baptism must be fixed on the fifteenth of Tisri.

Secondly, the two other of the three solemn Festivals, the Passover and Pentecost, Christ accomplished, or fulfilled what they signified, by his death at the one, and by the giving of the holy Ghost at the other, and there is no reason to think the third, or the Feast of Tabernacles any less figurative, or typical then the other, and as little to think that he should leave the equity of that unsatisfied more than the other, and if he answered not that in his birth and baptism, he answered it in nothing at all.

Thirdly, the very nature of the Feast of Tabernacles, and the occasion and reason of its institution have a forcible reference to such a thing. For though Moses hath given but this reason for one Custom and practice which they used in the Feast, Ye shall dwell in booths seven days, that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the Land of Egypt, Levite. 23. 42, 43. Yet had the original and institution of • he Feast a great deal more in it. For the main occasion was this: Moses having after long fasting and prayer made the peace of Israel with God about the Golden Calf, and having obtained the Tables renewed, which himself had broken, and regained the commission to build the Tabernacle, which had been suspended because of that sin; on the tenth day of the month Tisri, [which according to our account was about the two or three and twentieth day of our September ] he coming down from the Mount, bringeth these glad tidings of peace and reconciliation to the people, for which that day was observed for the day of reconciliation or expiation ever after: and the people now hearing that they must make the Tabernacle in which God would dwell among them, and that they must not remove from the place where they were, viz. from Mount Sinai, till that be finished, they then addressed them selves to pitch their tents, and make them booths for their winter abode there, and instantly fall upon the work of the Sanctuary, and this was it that was the occasion of that solemn Feast in succeeding times. Now let the substance be laid unto the shadow, and the Antitype and figure brought together, and the application is not only sweet, but also somewhat evincing. For since the occasion of that Feast was God coming to dwell among the people in his Tabernacle and that now first begun or exhibited, and this just half a year after their first delivery from Egypt; observe how fully these are answered in Christ's showing himself to the world at his baptism, in whom God dwelleth among men; and this the first revelation of him to the world, and this just half a year since John began to publish the delivery of men from the bondage of Sin and Satan, by the preaching of the Gospel.

Fourthly, the Consecration of the Temple of Solomon was at this very time, namely, in the seventh month, or the month Ethanim, which is all one with Tisri, and thence the service of it began, 2 Kings 8. 2. Now since Christ himself averreth that the Temple was a figure of his body, John 2. we may follow the Allegory with the more boldness, and apply the dedication of that, and the time of the dedication, to his consecration by baptism, to his ministerial service, and parallel them both in the very same time.

Secondly, the certain and determinate place where our Savior was baptized, cannot absolutely be fixed and resolved upon by any warrant of Scripture: though many have been so confident as to point it out, and to show a cross set in the very place of the River, and miraculous curing of Lepers in the water. The Evangelists have given no more settlement of it then this, that it was in Judea, and that it was in Jordan: Two circumstances the more remarkable.

First, because that after that baptism of our Savior, we cannot certainly find John baptizing either in the same Country, or in the same River ever again. For whereas there is mention of his being about six weeks after this in Bethabara, John 1. 28. that was both on the other side Jordan, and it was a water different from Jordan, Jud. 7. 24. and of his baptizing in Aenon, a whole twelvemonth after this, Joh. 3. 23. that was also out of the precincts of Judea, and distant somewhat from the banks of Jordan, and the waters there, the waters of the place itself and not of that River. And this showeth the reason more plainly, why Luke in the clause next before this that we have in hand, summeth up the baptism of all the people, before he speak of our Savior's: because that there were now collected out of Judea, all the harvest of believers that might be gathered in by the preaching of John, and when Christ was baptized, John was to remove to another place.

Secondly, from this, that Christ was baptized of John in Jordan, and in Judea, it will almost inevitably follow, that he was baptized in the place, where the river was dried up, and the Israelites first entered into the Land of Canaan. For if it be considered, 1. That the Army marched through the channel in two main bodies the one on the one side of the Ark, and the other, on the other. 2. That either of these main bodies were two miles distant from the Ark on either side, and consequently four miles from each other.

Thirdly, That these two great squadrons consisting either of them of so very many thousands marched in an extraordinary breadth, because they were to pass over in a reasonable time, it will follow hereupon, even past all denial, that this their passage took up all the length of Jordan, that it had in Judea, or very near it, so that the place we seek for, is within this compass: and by this we may observe the substance sweetly answering to the figure, and way made through the waters of Jordan, to the heavenly Cannan by baptism▪ in the very same place where there was to the earthly, by its drying up.

Thirdly, The manner of his baptizing differed not from the common manner that John used with others, save in one particular. For he went into the water, had water sprinkled on him, and prayed as well as they, but whether John used the same form of words in baptizing of him that he did to the other, or some other, or none at all, is some question or scruple. The least is of the first, for it may be readily resolved that he baptized not him in the same words, that he did the others, because he then should have baptized him in his own name, which who can imagine? and into him, or in his name which was to come, which had been to have pointed out another Christ. Betwixt the two latter the scales are balancing, and they weigh so even, that it is not much material which way your allowance doth turn them, for the Quaere itself is of far more curiosity then necessity: For why might not John baptize him in varied words? As, I baptize thee with water to the Preaching of the Gospel; or why might he not baptize him without any words at all, since he received baptism, not so much for a Sacrament, as for satisfaction of the typical Law? Let the Readers judgment weigh down the scale.

The invention of Auricular confession hath invented a strange Exposition of this clause. For the rest of the people, say some, standing in the waters, I know not how deep▪ after they were baptized, confessed their sins unto John before they came out, being detainded there by him, until they had so done, but Christ, because he had no sin, needed no such confession, and therefore he came suddenly out of the water after he was baptized. A gloss that includeth impossibilities. For neither was it possible that so great multitudes should be baptized in so short a time, if everyone made a singular confession of their sins to John; nor was it possible that John should endure so long in the water as this work would require, and never come out, for if they stood up to the neck in the river, I cannot think but that he also stood some deepness in the water. But this speedy coming of our Savior out of the water after he was baptized, is expressed by the Evangelist, only to show how near and close the opening of the heavens was to his baptizing, namely, that it was almost in the very same instant, as Mark explaineth it; And straightway coming up out of the water he saw the heavens opened, &c.

This it seemeth was the manner of those that were baptized, as soon as they were baptized, to come up out of the water and pray, and this explaineth that before, about confessing their sins, that it was not to John, but to God, as soon as they came out of the water. Now since Christ had no sins to confess of his own, the tenor of his prayer tended to another purpose. If we think it was for the glory of God, for the conversion of many by his Ministry which he was now beginning, for the preservation of the Elect, and the sanctifying of the Church, and the like, we think not much amiss, since we find his prayers in other places to be made and tendered to the same effect. But it seemeth rather that his prayer at this time was for what followed upon his prayer, the sending down of the Holy Ghost, and the glorifying of him by a testimony from Heaven. For, first, the Text hath laid his prayer, and the opening of the Heavens so closely, and so consonantly withal together, Jesus praying the Heavens were opened, as that it seemeth to point out what was the tenor of his prayer by the consequent upon it.

Secondly, In another place there is the like return upon the like prayer, Joh. 12. 28. Father glorify thy name; there came therefore a voice from Heaven, &c.

Thirdly, It being considered that our Savior was to enter now upon the great work of Redemption, and the preaching of the Gospel, it will be the less strange to conceive that he prayed for the visible sealing of him to that work and office by the Holy Ghost, and for a testimony of him that he was the Messias.

There is no material difference in the thing, though Luke hath put the Heaven in the singular number, and Matthew, the Heavens, in the plural, for one followeth the Idiome of the Hebrews, and the other of the Greeks. For the Hebrews cannot call the Heaven by its proper name, but in the plural or dual number 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Heavens: but the Greeks can in the singular. And so little doth the Syriac make of this difference of number in the two Evangelists, that he translateth it just cross, Matthews plural in the singular, and Luke's singular in the plural.

About the opening of the Heavens or the manner of the same, as it is of far more consequence to inquire, so it is of difficulty to resolve, because of diversity of opinions, and probabilities several ways.

First, Some deny the opening of the Heavens at all, but understand that Christ saw them opened, and the Holy Ghost descending intellectually only, or by spiritual vision, as Ezekiel saw the Heavens opened, Ezek. 1. 2. But this exposition is very improper, for John saw the same also, and the descending of the Holy Ghost was in a bodily shape and not imaginary, and the voice was Articulate and Audible, and not visionary.

Secondly, Others deny also the opening of the Heavens, but with another manner of evasion, and exposition. For there was, say they, no seisure or parting of the Heavens asunder, because they are incorruptible, but a great, glorious, and miraculous light shone round about Christ, as if the very highest Heaven had been open, and the light thereof imparted clearly to the Earth: But this opinion also is confuted by the word that Mark useth, differing from the other two. For though the phrase, The Heavens were opened, would admit of such a Metaphorical or comparative exposition, yet when Mark saith expressly, that the Heavens were cloven, or parted asunder, for so is his word in the Original, [the Syriac expresseth it by the very same word that the Chaldee Paraphrast useth in Lev. 11. for parting of the hoof] it enforceth us to look for a literal interpretation in it, and not a tropical.

Thirdly, Aquinas evadeth the real opening of them with this gloss stranger than both the other, and by another intellectual vision than that that was spoken of before: For it may also be understood, saith he, of an intellectual vision, namely, that Christ [baptism being now sanctified] saw Heaven open unto men. But this exposition the word of Saint Mark, newly mentioned, confuteth much more than it did the other.

Fourthly, Mark therefore tying us to a literal sense, and to understand a real and proper cleaving of the Heavens indeed, the doubt now only resteth, what Heaven it was, whether the Aereal or Aethereal, for so are the heavens properly distinguished, according to the significancy of the Hebrew word Shamaiim, which importeth a duality, or a thing doubled. Answer, It was only the Aereal, for that is called Heaven, and the Firmament, Gen. 1. 8, 20. as may be confirmed by these reasons:

First, Because there needed no further seisure in the Heavens, than the renting of the clouds in the middle Region, either for the descending of the Holy Ghost, or of the voice, or for the satisfying of the eyes and ears of the spectators, and hearers, that they came from Heaven.

Secondly, Because the Scripture in other places speaking of things which came but out of the clouds, yet useth the very same term to express the clouds by, that is used here, namely Heaven: As, The Lord that gave the Law out of a cloud, Exod. 19. 16. is said to have spoken from Heaven, Exod. 20. 22. So the like voice to this here, that came out of a cloud, Luke 9. 35. yet is said to come from Heaven, 2 Pet. 1. 18. And Elias that by his prayer shut up the clouds, that there was no rain, is said to have shut up Heaven, Luke