Works

VERS. II.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They do constitute two High-Priests at one time. True indeed but they promoted a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sagan, together with an High Priest.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Sagan, as to his degree, was the same to the High Priest, as he that was next or second to the King.

They substituted indeed on the Vespers of the day of expiation, another Priest to the High Priest, that should be in readiness, to perform the office for the day, if any uncleanness should by chance have befallen the High Priest .

It is storied of Ben Elam of Zipporim, that when a Gonorrhea had seized the High Priest, on the day of expiation he went in and performed the Office for that day. And another story of Simeon ben Kamith, that, as he was walking with the King on the Vespers of the day of expiation, his Garments were touched with another's spittle; so that Judah his Brother went in and ministered. On that day the Mother of them, saw her two Sons High-Priests.

It is, not without reason, controverted whether the Sagan were the same with this deputed Priest; the Jews themselves dispute it. I would be on the negative part; for the Sagan was not so much the Vice-High Priest, as (if I may so speak) one set over the Priests. The same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the ruler of the Temple; of whom we have such frequent mention amongst the Doctors: upon him chiefly did the care and charge of the Service of the Temple lie.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The ruler of the Temple saith to them, go out and see, if it be time to slay the Sacrifice. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Ruler saith, come and cast your lots, who shall slay the Sacrifice, who shall sprinkle the blood, &c. The gloss is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Ruler is the Sagan.

He is commonly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Sagan of the Priests. Which argues his supremacy amongst the Priests, rather than his Vicegerency under the High Priest.

When the High Priest stands in the circle of those that are to comfort the mourners, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Sagan, and he that is anointed for the battle, stand on his right hand, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the head of the Fathers house, those that mourn, and all the people, stand on his left hand.

Mark here the order of the Sagan; He is below the High Priest, but above the Heads of all the Courses.

2 Kings XXIII. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Priests of the second order. Targum. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Sagan of the Priests. And Chap. XXV. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zephaniah the second Priest. Targum. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zephaniah the Sagan of the Priests.

Caiaphas therefore was the High Priest, and Annas the Sagan, or Ruler of the Temple. who, for his independent dignity is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or High Priest, as well as Caiaphas; and seems therefore to be named first, because he was the others Father-in-law.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 There was a dissention between Hanan, and the Sons of the chief Priests, &c. It was in a judicial cause, about a Wife, requiring her dower, &c. Where the scruple is, who should these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 these Chief Priests be? Whether the Fathers, and heads of the Courses, or the High Priest only, and the Sagan. It was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Counsel of Priests: which we have already spoken to, at Matth. XXVI. 3. Now the question is, whether by the Sons of the chief Priests be meant, the Sons of the Fathers of Courses, or the Fathers of Courses themselves, or the Sons of the High Priest and the Sagan, where the High Priest in that Court was like 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Prince in the Sanhedrin, and the Sagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Father of the Sanhedrin.

Moses was made a Sagan to Aaron. He put on his Garments, and took them off: (viz. on the day of his Consecration.) And as he was his Sagan in life, so he was in death too.

VERS. V.

THE Jews have a Tradition that some such thing was done, by the cloud that led Israel in the Wilderness. Instead of many instances take the Targumist upon Cant. II. 6. There was a cloud went before them, three days journey 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to take down the hills, and raise the valleys. It slew all fiery Serpents in the Wilderness, and all Scorpions: and found out for them a fit place to lodge in.

What the meaning of the Prophet in this passage was, Christians well enough understand: the Jews apply it to levelling and making the ways plain for Israel 's return out of Captivity, for this was the main thing they expected from the Messiah, viz. to bring back the Captivity of Israel.

R. Chanan saith, Israel shall have no need of the Doctrine of Messiah the King, in time to come; for it is said, to him shall the Gentiles seek, Isai. XI. 10. but not Israel. If so, why then is Messiah to come, and what is he to do when he doth come? He shall gather together the Captivity of Israel, &c.

VERS. VIII.

WE do not say the Baptist played with the sound of those two words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Banaia, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Abanaia. He does certainly with great scorn deride the vain confidence and glorying of that Nation (amongst whom nothing was more ready, and usual in their mouths, than to boast that they were the Children of Abraham ) when he tells them, that they were such Children of Abraham, that God could raise as good as they, from those very stones.

VERS. XI.

IT would be no sense to say, he that hath two Coats, let him give to him that hath not two; but to him that hath none. For it was esteemed for Religion by some, to wear but one single Coat or Garment. Of which more elsewhere.

VERS. XIII.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 When the Rabbins saw, that the Publicans exacted too much, they rejected them, as not being fit to give their testimony in any case. Where the Gloss hath it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 too much, that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , More than that which is appointed them. And the Father of R. Zeirah is commended in the same place, that he gently and honestly executed that trust. He discharged the Office of a Publican for thirteen years: when the Prince of the City came, and this Publican saw the Rabbins, he was wont to say to them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Go my people, enter thou into thy Chambers, Isai. XXVI. The Gloss is, Lest the Prince of the City should see you, and taking notice what numbers you are, should increase his tax yearly.

VERS. XIV.

LEVIT. XIX. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Neither lie one to another. Job XXXV. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The oppressed. See Psal. LXXII. 4. & CXIX. 122.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. The manner of sycophants is, first to load a person with reproaches, and whisper some secret, that the other hearing it, may by telling something like it, become obnoxious himself.

A word used also by the Rabbins, The King distributeh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , wages to his Legions. The King is not admitted to the intercalation of the year, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because of the Opsonia: That is, lest he should favor himself in laying out the years, with respect to the Soldiers pay.

VERS. XXII.

IF you will believe the Jews, there sat a golden Dove upon the top of Solomon 's Scepter. As Solomon sat in his throne, his Scepter was hung up behind him: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at the top of which there was a Dove, and a golden crown in the mouth of it.

VERS. XXIII.

A Parable. There was a certain Orphaness brought by a certain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Epitropus, or Foster-father, an honest good man. At length he would place her in Marriage. A scribe is called to write a bill of her dower, Saith he to the girl, what is thy name? N. saith she. What the name of thy Father? She held her peace. To whom her Foster-father, why dost thou not speak? Because, saith she, I know no other Father but thee. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that educateh the child is called a Father, not he that begets it. Note that Joseph, having been taught by the Angel, and well satisfied in Mary, whom he had espoused, had owned Jesus for his Son from his first birth; he had redeemed him as his first-born, he had cherished him in his childhood, educated him in his youth, and therefore no wonder if Joseph be called his Father, and he was supposed to be his Son.

II. Let us consider what might have been the judgment of the Sanhedrin in this case, only from this story. There came a certain Woman to Jerusalem, with a child, brought thither upon shoulders. She brought this child up, and he afterward had the carnal knowledge of her. They are brought before the Sanhedrin, and the Sanhedrin judged them to be stoned to death: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not because he was undoubtedly her Son, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but because he had wholly adhered to her.

Now suppose we that the blessed Jesus had come to the Sanhedrin upon the decease of Joseph, requiring his Stock and Goods as his heir: Had he not in all equity obtained them as his Son? Not that he was beyond all doubt and question his Son, but that he had adhered to him wholly from his cradle, was brought up by him as his Son, and always so acknowledged.

III. The Doctors speak of one Joseph a Carpenter . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Abnimus Gardieus asked the Rabbins of blessed memory, whence the earth was first created? they answer him, there is no one skilled in these matters, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but go thou to Joseph the Architect. He went and found him standing upon the rafters.

It is equally obscure who this Joseph the Carpenter, and who this Abnimus was, although as to this last, he is very frequently mentioned in those Authors. They say, That Abnimus, and Balaam were two the greatest Philosophers in the whole world. Only this we read of him, That there was a very great familiarity betwixt him and R. Meir.

I. There is neither need, nor reason, nor indeed any foundation at all for us to frame, I know not what, marriages, and the taking of Brothers Wives, to remove a scruple in this place, wherein there is really no scruple in the least.

1. Joseph is not here called the Son of Heli, but Jesus is so; for the word Jesus, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , must be understood, and must be always added in the Reader's mind to every race in this Genealogy, after this manner. Jesus (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph, and so the Son of Heli, and of Matthat, yea and at length, the Son of Adam, and the Son of God. For it was very little the business of the Evangelist either to draw Joseph 's Pedigree from Adam, or indeed, to show that Adam was the Son of God: which not only sounds something harshly, but in this place very enormously, I may almost add, blasphemously too. For when St Luke, Vers. 22. had made a voice from Heaven declaring that Jesus was the Son of God, do we think the same Evangelist, would in the same breath pronounce Adam the Son of God too? So that this very thing teacheth us what the Evangelist propounded to himself in the framing of this Genealogy, which was, to show that this Jesus who had newly received that great testimony from Heaven, this is my Son, was the very same that had been promised to Adam by the seed of the Woman. And for this reason hath he drawn his Pedigree on the Mother's side, who was the Daughter of Heli, and this too, as high as Adam to whom this Jesus was promised. In the close of the Genealogy he teacheth in what sense, the former part of it should be taken: viz. that Jesus, not Joseph, should be called the Son of Heli, and consequently that the same Jesus, not Adam, should be called the Son of God; indeed in every link of this chain, this still should be understood, Jesus the Son of Matthat, Jesus the Son of Levi, Jesus the Son of Melchi, and so of the rest.

And thus the Genealogical style agrees with that of Moses, Genes. XXXVI. 2. : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Which words, if you should render, Aholibamah the Daughter of Anah, the Daughter of Zibeon, you emasculate Anah, and make a Woman of him, who was a Man, and the Father of Aholibamah, Vers. 24, 25.

2. Suppose it could be granted that Joseph might be called the Son of Heli (which yet ought not to be) yet would not this be any great solecism, that his Son-in-law, should become the Husband of Mary his own Daughter. He was but his Son by Law, by the Marriage of Joseph 's Mother, not by Nature and Generation.

There is a discourse of a certain person, who in his sleep saw the punishment of the damned. Amongst the rest 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which I would render thus, but shall willingly stand corrected, if under a mistake. He saw Mary the Daughter of Heli amongst the shades. R. Lazar ben Josah saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That she hung by the gl • ndles of her breasts. R. Josah bar Haninah saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That the great bar of Hell's gate hung at her ear.

If this be the true rendering of the words, which I have reason to believe it is, then thus far at least it agrees with our Evangelist, that Mary was the Daughter of Heli; and questionless all the rest is added in reproach of the blessed Virgin, the Mother of our Lord: whom they often vilify elsewhere under the name of Sardah.

VERS. XXVII.

I. THAT Pedaiah the Father of Zerubbabel, 1 Chron. III. 19. is omitted here, is agreeable with Ezra V. 2. Hagg. I. 1, &c. but why it should be omitted, either here or there, is not so easy to guess.

II. As to the variation of the names both here and 1 Chron. III. this is not unworthy our observation. That Zerubbabel and his Sons, were carried out of Babylon into Judea; and possibly they might change their names, when they changed the place of their dwelling. It was not very safe for him to be known commonly by the name of Zerubbabel in Babylon, when the import of that name was, the winnowing of Babel; so that he was there more generally called Sheshbazzar. But he might securely resume the name in Judea, when Cyrus, and Darius had now fanned and sifted Babylon. So his two Sons Meshullam and Hananiah, could not properly be called, one of them Abiud, the glory of my Father, and the other Rhesa, a Prince, while they were in Babylon, but in Judea, they were names sit and suitable enough.

III. Of the variation of names here, and in Matth. I. I have already spoken in that place. To wit, that Neri was indeed the Father of Salathiel; though St. Matthew saith, Jeconiah (who died childless, Jerem. XXII. 30.) begat him: not that he was his Son by nature, but was his heir in succession.

VERS. XXXVI.

I Will not launch widely out into a controversy that hath been sufficiently bandied already. I shall dispatch as briefly as I may, what may seem most satisfacton in this matter.

I. There is no doubt, and indeed there are none but will grant, that the Evangelist hath herein followed the Greek Version. This in Genes. XI. 12, 13. relates it in this manner: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Arphaxad lived an hundred and five and thirty years, and begat Cainan; and Cainan lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat Salah: And Cainan lived, after he had begot Salah, three hundred and thirty years.

Consulting about this matter, I cannot but observe of this Author, that he partly follows the Greek Version, in adding to Arphaxad an hundred years, and partly not, when he omits Cainan: for so he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Arphaxad when he was an hundred and thirty five years of age, begot Salah. Nor can I but wonder at him that translates him, that he should of his own head insert, Arphaxad was an hundred and thirty five years old, and begat a son named Cainan. Cainan was an hundred and thirty years old and begat Salah. When there is not one syllable of Cainan in Theophilus. A very faithful Interpreter indeed!

1. I cannot be persuaded by any arguments, that this passage concerning Cainan was in Moses his Text, or indeed in any Hebrew Copies which the Seventy used; but that it was certainly added by the Interpreters themselves, partly, because no reason can be given how it should ever come to be left out of the Hebrew Text; and partly because there may be a probable reason given, why it should be added in the Greek: especially when nothing was more usual with them, than to add of their own, according to their own will and pleasure.

I might perhaps acknowledge this one slip, and be apt to believe that Cainan had once a place in the original, but by I know not what fate or misfortune left now out; but that I find an hundred such kind of additions, in the Greek Version, which the Hebrew Text will by no means own, nor any probable reason given to bear with it. Let us take our instances only from proper names, because our business at present is with a proper name.

Gen. X. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Elisa is added among the sons of Japheth. And Vers. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , another Cainan among the sons of Shem.

Gen. XLVI. 20. Five Grand-children added to the sons of Joseph, Malachi. IV. 5. The Tishbite.

Exod. I. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the City On, is added to Pithon, and Raamses.

2 Sam. XX. 18. the City Dan is added to Abel. Not to mention several other names of places in the Book of Joshua.

Now, should I believe that these names ever were in the Hebrew Copy? when as some of them are put there without any reason; some of them against all reason (particularly Dan being joined with Abel, and the Grand-children of Joseph ) and all of them with no foundation at all.

II. I question not but the Interpreters, whoever they were, engaged themselves in this undertaking, with something of a partial mind, and as they made no great Conscience of imposing upon the Gentiles, so they made it their Religion to favor their own side: And according to this ill temperament and disposition of mind, so did they manage their Version; either adding, or curtailing at pleasure, blindly, lazily and audaciously enough: sometimes giving a very foreign sense, sometimes a contrary, oftentimes none: And this, frequently to patronize their own Traditions, or to avoid some offense they think might be in the Original, or for the credit and safety of their own Nation. The tokens of all which, it would not be difficult to instance in very great numbers, would I apply myself to it: but it is the last only that is my business at this time.

III. It is a known story of the thirteen places which the Talmudists tell us were altered by the Seventy two Elders, when they writ out the Law (I would suppose in Hebrew) for Ptolomey. They are reckoned up , and we have the mention of them sprinkled up and down ; as also, where it is intimated as if eighten places had been altered.

Now if we will consult the Glosses upon those places, they will tell us that these alterations were made, some of them, lest the sacred Text should be cavil'd at; others, that the honor and peace of the Nation might be secured. It is easy therefore to imagine that the same things were done by those that turned the whole Bible. The thing itself speaks it.

Let us add, for example's sake, those five souls which they add to the Family of Jacob: numbering up five Grand-children of Joseph, who as yet were not in being, nay seven, according to their account, Genes. XLVI. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Children that were born to Joseph in the Land of Egypt, even nine souls.

Now, which copy do we think it is most reasonable to believe, the Greek, or the Hebrew? and as to the question, whether these five, added in the Greek, were anciently in Moses his Text, but either since lost by the carelessness of the Transcribers, or rased out by the bold hand of the Jews, let reason and the nature of the thing judge. For if Machir, Gilead, Sutelah, Tahan and Eden, were with Joseph, when Jacob with his Family went down into Egypt (and if they were not, why are they numbered amongst those that went down?) then must Manasseh at the age of nine years, or ten at most, be a Grand-father; Ephraim at eight or nine. Can I believe that Moses would relate such things as these? I rather wonder with what kind of Forehead the Interpreters could impose such incredible stories upon the Gentiles, as if it were possible they should be believed.

IV. It is plain enough to any one that diligently considers the Greek Version throughout, that it was composed by different hands, who greatly varied from one another both in style and wit. So that this Book was more learnedly rendered than that, the Greek reading more elegant in this Book than in that, and the Version in this Book, comes nearer the Hebrew than in that: And yet in the whole, there is something of the Jewish craft, favoring and patronizing the Affairs of that Nation. There is something of this nature in the matters now in hand, the addition of Cainan, and the five souls to the Seventy that went down into Egypt.

How mightily the Jewish Nation valued themselves beyond all the rest of mankind, esteeming those Seventy souls that went down with Jacob into Egypt, beyond the Seventy Nations of the world; he that is so great a stranger in the Jewish Affairs and Writings, that he is yet to learn, let him take these few instances, for it would be needless to add more.

Seventy souls went down with Jacob into Egypt, that they might restore the Seventy Families dispersed by the confusion of tongues. For those Seventy souls were equal to all the Families of the whole world. And he that would be ruling over them, is as if he would usurp a tyranny over the whole World.

How good is thy love toward me O thou Congregation of Israel? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is more than that of the Seventy Nations.

The Holy blessed God created Seventy Nations, but he found no pleasure in any of them, save Israel only.

Saith Abraham to God, Didst thou not raise up seventy Nations unto Noah? God saith unto him, I will raise up that Nation unto thee, of whom it is written, how great a Nation is it? The Gloss is: That peculiar people, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 excelling all the Seventy Nations, that holy Nation: as the holy language excels all the seventy languages.

There are numberless passages of that kind: Now, when this arrogant Doctrine and vain-gloryiny, if familiarly known amongst the Gentiles, could not but stir up a great deal of hatred, and consequently danger to the Jews, I should rather think the Interpreters might make such additions as these, through the caution and cunning of avoiding the danger they apprehend, than that ever they were originally in the Text of Moses. To wit, by adding another Cainan, and five souls to those Seventy in Jacob's retinue, they took care that the Gentiles should not in the Greek Bibles find exactly the Seventy Nations in Gen. X. but seventy two (or seventy three if we reckon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Elisa also) as also not Seventy, but Seventy five souls that went down into Egypt.

It was the same kind of craft they used in that Version Deuter. XXXII. 8. whence that comparison between the Seventy Souls, and the Seventy Nations took its rise. Moses hath it thus, When the most high, divided the Nations, when he separated the Sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the number of the Children of Israel. But they render it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He set the bounds of the Nations, according to the number of the Angels of God. A sense indeed most foreign from that of Moses, yet what served to obscure his meaning so far as might avoid any danger that might arise from the knowledge of it. Making the passage itself so unintelligible that it needs an Oedipus to unridle it: unless they should allude to the Jewish Tradition (which I do a little suspect) concerning the Seventy Angels set over the Seventy Nations of the world.

V. But now if this Version be so uncertain, and differs so much from the original, how comes it to pass that the Evangelists and Apostles should follow it so exactly, and that even in some places, where it does so widely differ from the Hebrew fountain?

Answ. I. It pleased God to allot the Censers of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, to sacred use, because they were so ordained and designed by the first owners. So doth it please the Holy Ghost to determine that Version to his own use, being so primarily ordained by the first Authors. The minds indeed of the Interpreters, were not perhaps very sincere in the Version they made, as who designed the defense and support of some odd things: So neither were the hearts of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram sincere at all, but very perverse in offering their Incense; but so long as their Incense had been dedicated to sacred use, it pleased God to make their Censers holy. So the Greek Version designed for sacred use, as designed for the Holy Bible; it was so kept and made use of by the Holy Ghost.

II. Whereas the New Testament was to be wrote in Greek, and come into the hands chiefly of the Gentiles, it was most agreeable, I may say, most necessary for them to follow the Greek Copies, as being what the Gentiles were only capable of consulting; that so they examining the Histories and quotations that were brought out of the Old Testament, might find them agreeing with, and not contradicting them. For instance, when they consult their Greek Bibles for the names from David backward to Adam and there find Cainan the Son of Arphaxad. If St. Luke should not also have inserted it, how readily might they have called his veracity in question, as to the other part of the Genealogy, which had been extracted out of Tables and Registers, not so familiarly known?

III. If there be any credit to be given to that Story of Greek Version which we meet with in Aristeas and Josephus, then we may also believe that passage in it, which we may find in Aristeas. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. When the Volumes of the Law had been read through, the Priests, and interpreters, and Elders, and Governors of the City, and all the Princes of the people standing by, said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Forasmuch as this Interpretation, is rightly, religiously, and in everything so very accurately finished, it is fit that all things should continue as they are, and no alteration should be made. When all had by acclamations given their approbation to these things, Demetrius commanded 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. that according to their custom, they should imprecate Curses upon any that should by addition, or alteration, or diminution, ever make any change in it. This they did well in, that all things might be kept entire and inviolate forever.

If this passage be true, it might be no light matter to the Jew when quoting anything in Greek, out of the Old Testament, to depart in the least from the Greek Version; and indeed it is something a wonder, that after this, they should ever dare to undertake any other. But supposing there were any credit to be had to this passage, were the sacred Pen-men any way concerned in these Curses and Imprecations? who saith they were? But however, who will not say, that this was enough for them to stop the mouths of the cavilling Jews, that they, following the Greek Version had often departed from the truth of the original, to avoid that Anathema, at least if there were any truth in it?

Object. But the clause that is before us (to omit many others) is absolutely false; for, there was neither any Cainan the Son of Arphaxad, nor was Jesus the Son of any Cainan that was born after the flood.

Answ. I. There could be nothing more false as to the thing itself, than that of the Apostle, when he calleth the preaching of the Gospel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , foolishness, 1 Cor. I. 21. and yet according to the common conceptions of foolish men, nothing more true. So neither was this true in itself, that is asserted here, but only so in the opinion of those for whose sake the Evangelist writes. Nor yet, is it the design of the Holy Ghost to indulge them in anything that was not true, but only would not lay a stumblingblock at present before them. I am made all things to all men, that I might gain some.

II. There is some parallel with this of St. Luke, that in the Old Testament, 1 Chron. I. 36. The sons of Eliphaz, Teman and Omar, Zephi and Gatam, Timnah and Amalek. Where, it is equally false that Timnah was the Son of Eliphaz, as it is that Cainan was the Son of Arphaxad. But far, far be it from me to say that the Holy Ghost was either deceived himself, or would deceive others! Timnah was not a man but a Woman, not the Son of Eliphaz, but his Concubine, not Amalek 's Brother but his Mother, Gen. XXXVI. 12. Only the Holy Ghost teacheth us by this shortness of speech to recur to the original story from whence these things are taken and there consult the determinate explication of the whole matter: which is frequently done by the same Holy Spirit, speaking very briefly in Stories well known before.

The Gentiles have no reason to Cavil with the Evangelist in this matter, for he agrees well enough with their Bibles; And if the Jews, or we ourselves should find fault, he may defend him from the common usage of the Holy Ghost, in whom it is no rare and unusual thing, in the recital of stories and passages well enough known before, to vary from the original, and yet without any design of deceiving, or suspicion of being himself deceived; but according to that Majesty and Authority that belongs to him, dictating and referring the Reader to the primitive story, from whence he may settle and determine the state of the matter, and inquire into the reasons of the variation. St. Stephen imitates this very custom while he is speaking about the burial of the Patriarchs, Acts VII. 15, 16. being well enough understood by his Jewish Auditory, though giving but short hints in a story so well known.

III. It is one thing to dictate from himself, and another thing to quote what is dictated from others, as our Evangelist in this place doth. And whenas he did without all question write in behalf of the Gentiles, being the companion of him who was the great Apostle of the Gentiles, what should hinder his alleging according to what had been dictated in their Bibles?

When the Apostle names the Magicians of Egypt, Jannes and Jambres, 2 Tim. III. 9. he doth not deliver it for a certain thing, or upon his credit assure them, that these were their very names, but alledgeth only what had been delivered by others, what had been the common tradition amongst them, well enough known to Timothy, a thing about which neither he nor any other would start any controversy.

So when the Apostle Jude speaks of Michael contending with the Devil about the body of Moses, he doth not deliver it for a certain and authentic thing, and yet is not to be charged with any falsehood, because he hath not dictate of his own, but only appeals to something that had been told by others, using an argument with the Jews, fetched from their own Books and Traditions.

IV. As it is very proper and even necessary toward the understanding some sentences and schemes of speech in the New Testament, to inquire in what manner they were understood by those that heard them from the mouth of him that spoke them, or those to whom they were written: So let us make a little search here, as to the matter now in hand. When this Gospel first appeared in public amongst the Jews and Gentiles; the Gentiles could not complain that the Evangelist had followed their Copies; if the Jews found fault, they had wherewithal to answer and satisfy themselves. And that particularly as to this name of Cainan being inserted, as also the five souls being added to the retinue of Jacob: The learned amongst them knew from whence he had it: for what reason this addition had been made in the Greek Version, and that St. Luke had faithfully transcribed it thence: So that if there were any fault, let them lay the blame upon the first Authors, and not him that transcribed it.

V. To conclude: Before the Bible had been translated for Ptolemy (as is supposed) into the Greek tongue, there were an infinite number of Copies in the Hebrew. In Palestine, Babylon, Egypt, even everywhere in every Synagogue: and it is a marvelous thing that in no antiquity there should not be in the least hint or mention of so much as one Hebrew Copy amongst all these, that agrees with the Greek Version. We have various Editions of that Version which they call the Septuagint, and those, pretty much disagreeing among themselves, but who hath ever heard or seen one Hebrew Copy, that hath in everything agreed with any one of them? The Interpreters have still abounded in their own sense, not very strictly obliging themselves to the Hebrew Text.

VERS. I.

IN St. Matthew it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , was led up of the Spirit. By which I would suppose our Savior caught up the Holy Spirit into the air, and so carried into the Wilderness. The reasons of this conjecture are, I. Because we read of the like thing done to Philip, Acts VIII. 39, 40. The same also is supposed concerning Elijah, 1 Kings XVIII. 12. and 2 Kings II. 16. II. It is probable the Devil also might snatch Jesus up into the air, having this occasion, to pretend himself no other than the Holy Ghost who had caught him up and brought him already into the Wilderness: and under this notion he might require that worship from him, as if he himself was indeed the Holy Ghost. III. We must not pass by the method St. Luke takes in describing the order of the temptations, somewhat different from that of St. Matthew. The temptation upon the pinnacle of the Temple is mentioned by St. Matthew, and that most truly, the second in order; but in St. Luke it is reckoned the third; adding, That when the Devil had ended all his temptation he departed from him for a season. But now, according to St. Luke, how did Christ get down from the pinnacle again? He tells us, That he was carried up thither by the Devil, and there (according to his method in the story) the temptation was ended; How then did Christ get down again? Observe but what follows; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee; and then join the stories, as they are joined in St. Luke. The Devil set him on the pinnacle of the Temple, and there urgeth him to cast himself down; but when he could not persuade him, he leaves him standing on the pinnacle, and all the temptation was ended; Jesus by the power of the Spirit returning into Galilee. May we not suppose that the Evangelist would by this give us to understand that Christ, after the temptation was ended, was carried through the air by the Holy Ghost into Galilee, as he had been caught up before by him, and been brought into the Wilderness, yea and under that pretense, or upon that occasion, by the Devil himself had been snatched up to the pinnacle of the Temple and to a very high Mountain?

VERS. II.

MOSES in his dealings with God, fasted forty days, three times one after another. It was sufficient for Christ, having withal so great a conflict with the Devil, to do it but once. Moses his first quadragesimal, was Exod. XXIV. 18. His second time was after he had destroyed the golden Calf, Deut. X. 10. The third was after the Tables of the Law had been made anew, Exod. XXXIV. 28. About that very time of the year wherein Moses ended his last forty-days Fast, Christ began his, viz. about the middle of the Month Tisri, and how long he continued it on in the Month Marheshvan, it is not difficult to apprehend.

VERS. V.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In momento. So the vulgar. Now what quantity of time a moment contains, if it be worth the while to inquire, the Doctors tell us.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 How much is a moment? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is the fifty eight thousand, eight hundredth, eighty eighth part of an hour. Very accurately calculated truly!

VERS. XIII.

THE Devil had now found by experience, how much in vain it was for him to attempt our Savior by suggestions, or those kinds of allurements, by which he inveigles mankind, and therefore watches for an opportunity of trying his arts upon him some other way: which at last he doth, both by himself and by his instruments. And when that season drew near, and the Devil returned to his proper business, we find there is mention made of Satan entering into Judas, and that now the Prince of this world cometh, Joh. XIV. 30.

VERS. XVI.

THat we may frame the better judgment of this action of our Savior's, let us a little look into the customs of the Synagogue.

I. They read standing up. Piske 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : and Rabbenu Asher, They do not read in the Law, otherwise than standing up. Nay it is unlawful for him that readeth, to lean upon anything. Whence comes it that he that readeth in the Law is bound to stand up? Rabh Abhu saith, Because the Scripture saith, do thou stand by me. Nor ought any one to lean any way, as it is in the Jerusalem. R. Samuel bar Isaac, going into a Synagogue he found one expounding, and leaning against a pillar. He saith to him, This is not lawful: For as the Law was given with reverence, so are we to handle it with reverence too.

They preferred the Law above the Prophets, and the Law and the Prophets above the Hagiographa, or Holy Writings. They yielded that honor to the Prophets, that even they should not be read but standing up. Whence that is particular, which they say concerning the Book of Esther. A man may read out of the Book of Esther, either standing or sitting. But not so out of the Law. Christ in this, followed the customs of the Synagogue, in that while he read the Law he stood up, while he taught it he sat down.

II. He that read in the Prophets was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Maphtir; and was appointed to that office by the ruler of the Synagogue.

Rabh Bibai was a great man 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in taking care of the things of God. And Mar was a great man 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in taking care of the things of the Town. The Gloss is: Of the things of God, that is, about the Collectors of the Alms, and the distribution of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the ordering of those that were to expound, and read the Prophets.

It is probable that Christ did at this time offer himself as a Maphtir, one that would read in the Prophets, and preach upon what he read; not before hand appointed to it by the Ruler of the Synagogue, but rather, approved on when he had offered himself. For those of Nazareth had heard of some miracles he had wrought at Capernaum, verse. 23. and therefore no wonder if they were very desirous to hear something from him answerable to those great things he had done.

III. Piske 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that reads in the Prophets, ought not to read less than one and twenty verses. Here our Savior doth not seem to have observed the custom of the Synagogue, for he read but two verses. And yet he did nothing but what was both allowable and usual: that is worth our taking notice of, which we meet with, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If any one expound or preach on the Sabbath day, they read out of the Prophets, three, or five, or seven verses, and are not so careful to read just one and twenty.

If there be an Interpreter or expounding on the Sabbath day: was there not always one on every Sabbath day? So that neither Moses nor the Prophets might be read, unless one stood by that could expound? It seems abundantly evident both from the Traditions and the rules that concerned such an one.

These words therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I would understand in such a sense; If either the Interpreter should in his Exposition, enlarge himself into a Sermon, or any other should preach, &c. For the Interpreter did sometimes Comment and Preach upon what they read. And probably Christ did at this time both read and properly interpreted.

Jose the Maonite expounded in the Synagogue of Maon. Hear O ye Priests, hearken O House of Israel, and give ye ear O House of the King, Hos. V. 1. He said, The Holy blessed God, is about to snatch away the Priests and set them in judgment, saying unto them, Why have ye not labored in the Law? Have you not had the use and enjoyment of four and twenty portions belonging to the Priests? They say unto him, They have not given us anything. Hearken O ye House of Israel, Why have you not given those four and twenty portions to the Priests, which I have commanded you in the Law? They answer him, Because of those who are of the house of the Prince, who devour all themselves. Give ear O house of the King, for judgment is toward you; For to you I have said, that this should be the rule concerning the Priests; To you therefore and over you is it turned a rule of judgment. Rabbi [the Prince] heard this and was displeased with it.

After these things did King Ahasuerus promote Hamon the Son of Hammadetha.

Rabh Joseph expounded it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 After these things, the King promoted Hamon of Hammadetha the Agagite, the son of Cuza, the son of Aphlet, the son of Dio, the son of Diasot, the son Paros, the son of Nidan, the son of Baalkan, &c. See loc. and compare it with the Targumist upon Esther, Chap. III. 1.

A reader in the Prophet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 enlargeth upon Shemaa [the manner and form of the thing we have ] he passeth before the Ark, and lifteth up his hands, (that is, in order to give him blessing) but if he be a child, his Father or his Master doth these things in his stead, &c. But the Gloss tells us, That these things are to be understood of an ordinary reader of the Prophets: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Now Christ was an extraordinary Reader. However, he read here, which he hid not do in any other Synagogue; for this was the Synagogue to which he belonged, and he read as a member of that Synagogue.

VERS. XVII.

I. THE Minister of the Church kept the sacred Books in his custody, and brought them out to be read, when they met together in the Synagogue.

The High Priest came to read (on the day of expiation) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Minister of the Synagogue, takes the Book of the Law, and giveth it to the Ruler of the Synagogue, &c. Where the Gloss is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Chazan of the Synagogue, that is, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Minister. From him did our Savior receive the Book, and to him he returned it again.

II. If it be asked whether he received the Book of the Prophet Isaiah by itself, or joined with the other Prophets, it is not easy to determine it. We may gather something from what vulgarly obtained amongst them.

The Rabbins deliver; Let a man frame the Law, and the Prophets, and the Holy Writings into one volume. They are the words of R. Meir. But R. Judah saith, Let the Law be apart, by itself: the Book of the Prophets by itself: and the Book of the Holy Writings by itself. And the Wise-men say, Every Book by itself.

But we may ask, if every Prophet was by himself? Isaiah by himself, Jeremiah by himself, &c. It is probable they were: For so they sometimes divided the Law into single Quintanes, or fifth parts.

All know what title the Books of the Law do bear in the front of the Hebrew Bibles, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The five Quintanes of the Law. Genesis is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the first Quintane: Exodus is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the second Quintane; and so of the rest. Concerning the dividing of every of these quintanes into particular Volumes, consult the Tract Sopherim, in the place already quoted.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They fold up the Book of the Law in the cloth of the Quintanes, and the Quintanes in the cloth of the Prophets and Hagiographa; but they do not fold up the Prophets and Hagiographa in the cloth of the Quintanes, nor the Quintanes in the cloth of the Law. And a little after, They lay the Law 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 upon the Quintanes, and the Quintanes upon the Prophets and Hagiographa, but not the Prophets and Hagiographa upon the Quintanes, nor the Quintanes upon the Law. That is, not any one single Quintane, upon all the Quintanes made up into one Volume. So the Gloss hath it; A Quintane, that is, A Book of the Law, in which there is only one Quintane.

Seeing therefore that the Book of the Law was sometimes divided in this manner into distinct Books, we may judge as well, that the greater Prophets might be thus divided also, and the twelve lesser made up into one Volume. Hence perhaps that passage: The Reader of the Prophet might skip from one Text to another; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but he might not skip from Prophet to Prophet: but in the twelve Prophets it was lawful. For they were all made up in one Volume ready to his hand; and so were not the greater Prophets.

Give me leave therefore to conjecture that on that Sabbath wherein these things were transacted in the Synagogue at Nazareth, that Section which was to be read in the Prophets, was according to the Rubric in the Prophet Isaiah; and upon that account the Minister of the Synagogue, delivered that Book to our Savior when he stood up to read.

In the Talmudic Language I would render it thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Hebrew, unroling the Book. But then how should we render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Vers. 20? Even in the very same words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rolling up the Book.

The High Priest after the reading of the Law 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , rolling, or folding up the Book, puts it into his bosom: And yet

It is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which we must not render they do not fold up, but) they do not unfold, or unrol the Book of the Law in the Synagogue.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They unrol a Prophet in the Congregation, but they do not unrol the Law in the Congregation. That is, as the Gloss hath it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They unrol from one place or passage, to another passage in another place. So they were wont to do in the Prophets but not in the Law. And upon this account was it permitted for the Reader to skip in the Prophet from one place to another, because it was permitted them to unrol the Prophet, either a single Prophet, or the twelve lesser, in the Synagogue; but as to the Law, it was not allowed them so to do.

And they put the question, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 How far may he skip? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 So that he that Interprets do not break off. The Gloss is, Let him not skip from the place he reads, unless that he may 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unrol the Book, and be ready to read the place to which he skips, when the Interpreter ceaseth.

And because it was not lawful for him so to unrol the Law in the Synagogue. On the Kalends of the month Tebeth, if it proved to be the Sabbath day, they brought three Books of the Law and read in one of them, the place for the Sabbath, in another, that for the Kalends, in the third, that for the Feast of dedication .

The words therefore of our Evangelist 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to me seem not barely to mean, that that he unfolded, or opened the Book, but that, being opened he unrolled it from folio to folio, till he had found the place he designed to Read and Expound. Which, though it was not the Section appointed by the Rubric for the day: yet did not Christ much recede from the custom of the Synagogue, which allowed the Reader to skip from one place to another.

VERS. XXIII.

YOU will say unto me this Proverb: Physician, heal thyself. I would express it thus in the Jerusalem language 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Physician, heal thine own lameness.

VERS. XXV.

THIS number of three years and six months is much used both in the Holy Scriptures, and in Jewish Writings; concerning which, we have more largely discoursed in another place. And although both in the one and the other, it is not seldom used allusively only, yet in this place I can see nothing hinder why it should not be taken according to the letter in its proper number, however indeed there will be no small difficulty to reduce it to its just account. That there was no rain for three years together is evident enough from 1 Kings XVII. &c. But whence comes this addition of six months?

Elijah said to Ahab, as the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If there shall be these years. These words include three years at the least, because he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Years, in the plural, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Years, in the Dual.

And Chap. XVIII. The word of the Lord came to Elijah in the third year, saying, Go show thyself unto Ahab, and I will send rain upon the earth. In the third year, where then shall we find the six Months?

I. Doubtless both our Savior, and his Apostle St. James, Chap. V. verse. 17. in adding six months, do speak according to the known and received opinion of that Nation; which is also done elsewhere sometimes, in Historical matters in the New Testament.

St. Stephen tells us, Acts VII. 16. that the bones of the twelve Patriarchs were carried over from Egypt, and buried in Shechem, when Holy Writ mentions only the bones and burial of Joseph. Wherein he speaks according to the vulgar opinion of the Nation .

Again Vers. 30. he tells us, That Moses was forty years old when he fled into the Land of Midian, and that he tarried there forty years more, when Moses himself mentions nothing of this circumstance: This he speaks agreeably to the opinion of that people .

II. Neither our Savior, nor St. James say that Elijah shut up the Heavens three years and six months; but Christ tells us, That the Heaven was shut up, in the days of Elias, three years and six months. And St. James, That Elias prayed that it might not rain, and it rained not upon the Earth by the space of three years and six months.

May I therefore have leave to distinguish in this manner. Elijah shut up the Heaven for three years, that there might be no rain, as in the Book of Kings. And there was no rain for three years and a half, as our Savior and St. James relate.

III. The words of Menander in Josephus, may help a little toward the untying this knot. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Menander also makes mention of this drought in the acts of lihobalus King of Tyre, saying: There was no rain from the month of October, to the month of October the year following.

It is true, he shortens the space of this drought, by making it continue but one year; but however, having placed the beginning of it in the Month of October, gives us a key, that opens us a way into things more inward and secret.

IV. Consider the distinction of the former and the latter rain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Deut. XI. 14. Jerem. V. 24. Joel II. 23.

The Rabbins deliver 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The former is in the Month Marheshvan, the latter, in the Month Nisan.

The Targumist in Joel II. 23. Who hath given you the first rain in season 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the latter, in the month Nisan. See also our Note upon Chap. II. verse. 8.

R. Solomon upon Deut. XI. differs a little, but we are not solicitous above the order, which should be the first either that in the Month Marheshvan, or that in the Month Nisan; that which makes to our purpose is, that rains were at those stated times, and for the rest of the year generally there was no rain.

V. Those six Months mentioned by our Savior and St. James must be accounted before the beginning of the three years, and not tackt to the end of them, as is very evident from this, that it is said, The third year, Elijah shown himself to Ahab, &c.

In the beginning therefore of those three years, we believe Elijah shut up Heaven, upon the approach of that time wherein the rains were wont to fall in the Month of Marheshvan, and opened Heaven again the same Month at the end of three years. Nor is it nothing that Menander speaks of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the drought, taking its beginning in the Month October, which in part answers to the Jews Marheshvan; For consult that passage Chap. XVIII. Ahab said unto Obadiah, Go into the land unto all the fountains and all the valleys, perhaps we may find grass to save the Horses alive. No one will say this search was made in Winter but in the Summer: not before, or in the Month Nisan, when the rains were wont to fall, for what hay or grass could be expected at that time? but when the year grew on to the Summer, then was it a seasonable time to inquire after hay and grass. Reckon therefore the time of Ahab 's and Obadiah 's progress in this search: the time, wherein Elijah and Obadiah meeting together, Ahab fell in with them: the time, wherein the Israelites and the Prophets of Baal were gathered together at Mount Carmel; when Elijah sacrificed there, and the followers of Baal were killed; and certainly it will be more probable that the unlocking of the Heavens, and the fall of the rains happened in that usual and ordinary season, the Month Marheshvan than any other part of the year. Three years agone, in that month when the rains were expected, according to the common season of the year, Elijah shut Heaven up, that it should not rain; and now at the close of three years, when the season for those rains recurred, he unlocks the Heavens, and the rains fall abundantly.

VI. Now, go back from Marheshvan, the Month wherein the Prophet locked up Heaven, to the Month Nisan preceeding, and those six Months between they were also without rain according to the ordinary course of the year and climate. In the Month Nisan it rained, the rest of the year to Marheshvan, it was fair and held up: when that Month came, the rains were expected, but Elijah had shut the Heavens up, and they remained shut up for the space of three years ensuing. So that, though he did not shut up Heaven above the space of three years, yet there was no rain for three years and six months.

VERS. XXVII.

THese instances galled those of Nazareth upon a twofold account.

I. That they looked upon themselves as vilified by these examples; especially if we consider the occasion upon which our Savior brought them. Thou hast wrought miracles in Capernaum, do something also here, in thine own City. No, you are unworthy of it, as Israel of old was unworthy of the Prophets Elijah and Elisha, who were therefore sent amongst the Gentiles.

II. That by these instances he plainly intimated the calling of the Gentiles, than which nothing could be more grating in the year of the Jews. Elijah was sent to a Heathen Woman, and an Heathen Man was sent to Elisha: and both of them were turned from Heathenism to the true Religion. Those words therefore of Naaman, 2 Kings V. 17, 18. I would thus render, Thy servant will henceforth offer neither Burnt-offering, nor Sacrifice to strange God's, but unto Jehovah. And concerning this thing the Lord pardon thy servant (viz. concerning my former Idolatry) that when my Master went into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and leaned on my hand, I also bowed myself in the house of Rimmon; for that I bowed myself in the house of Rimmon the Lord pardon thy servant concerning this thing.

VERS. XXIX.

BY what authority, or by what legal process could those of Nazareth do this? There was indeed a Court of Judicature consisting of three men, because there was a Synagogue, but it was not in the power of that Court to decree anything in capital matters. It may be asked whether that license that was permitted the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Zealots, extended thus far: He that steals the consecrated dishes, and curseth by a Conjurer, (that is curseth God in the name of an Idol) and goes in to an Heathen Woman (that is, openly, as Zimri, Numb. XXV. 6.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Zealots stay him. And the Priest that ministers in his uncleanness, his brethren the Priests beat out his brains with clubs. But doth this license of the Zealot belong to all persons upon all occasions? When Nathaniel said, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? He does not seem there to reflect so much upon the smallness and insignificancy of the Town, as the looseness and pravity of its manners.

VERS. XXXIII.

AN expression something unusual. Perhaps it points toward the Pythonick, or Necromantick Spirit; how these are distinguished amongst the Doctors, we may see Both of them (though in a different manner) invited and desired the inspirations of the Devil. But of this thing I shall treat more largely, at Chap. XIII. 11.

VERS. I.

FOR they were wont to teach also without the Synagogue, and Beth Midrash, in the highways and in the streets. Rabban Johaman ben Zacchai taught in the street, before the mountain of the Temple, the whole day. See the Gloss upon it. Ben Azzai taught in the streets of Tiberias.

This custom R. Judah forbad in this Canon. Let not the Doctors teach their disciples in the streets. And accordingly he severely rebuked R. Chaijam because he taught his Brothers Sons in the street.

And yet it is related of the same R. Judah, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Judah sat laboring in the Law [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , laboring in the word and doctrine, as the expression is 1 Tim. V. 17.] before the Babylonish Synagogue in Zippor; there was a Bullock passed by him to the slaughter, and it lowed: This Bullock because he did not deliver from the slaughter, he was struck with the Tooth-ach for the space thirteen years.

VERS. V.

IN the Talmud's way of expressing it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Laborious all night. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Labouring all the day.

VERS. VII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If indeed they were joined in such a kind of partnership, which Maimon speaks of , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

VERS. XII.

THE walled Cities are more holy than the land of Israel in general 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because they cast out the Leprous from them. Which must be understood (if we allow of the Rabbins for Interpreters) of Cities that had been walled from the days of Joshua. If this City which the Evangelist here mentions, were of that number, no Leper would have been suffered in it, unless absolved from his uncleanness by the Priest. For the Leprosy remained after that absolution, and the sick man was not healed, but restored to the Church. That the man is here said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , full of Leprosy; the passage may not impertinently be compared with Levite. XIII. 12, 13.

Whether he had been purified by the Priest before or no; however, Christ sends him to the Priest, to offer what was required from the Leper that was cleansed. The Law of Moses hardly supposeth the Leper healed, when he was made clean. It is a question indeed whether the Disease was ever cureable, but by a miracle. And therefore is this man sent to the Temple, to show himself to the Priest, and offer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for a tistimony unto them, verse. 14. That is, that he might bear witness, that the Leprosy, an incurable disease, was now healed by miracle as formerly it had been in Miriam and Naaman, and so there was now a great Prophet arisen in Israel.

VERS. XVII.

IN Talmudic Writing it is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on a certain time.

VERS. XXVII.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The House of Tribute. This thing is like a King of flesh and blood, passing by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the House of Tribute. He saith to his servants, pay the tax to the Publicans.

VERS. XXXIX.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Is not the old better? The Gloss is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Old Wine: That is, of three years old.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Wine of three leaves. The Gloss is, Of three years: because from the time that the Vine had produced that Wine, it had put forth its leaves three times.

VERS. I.

I Have spoken to this already, in notes upon Matth. XII. Let me add a few things in this place.

It is a controversy amongst the Jewish Doctors, and the Baitheuseans, about the exposition of these words that concern the offering of the sheaf of the first fruits; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 On the morrow of the Sabbath, Levite. XXIII. 10, 11.

Gloss. The Baithuseans desired that the first day of the Passover should be on the Sabbath, that the offering of the sheaf might fall on the first day of the week: And that the Feast of Pentecost might also fall on the first day of the week: For they interpreted those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Priest shall wave the sheaf on the morrow of the Sabbath, as if the sense of them were on the morrow of the Sabbath of the Creation.

Against this the Rabbins dispute, with one consent, and indeed truly enough affirming that by the morrow after the Sabbath must be understood the morrow after a sabbatical day, or after the first day of the Feast. So the Targumist, Siphra, Solomon, Menatiem, &c. So also the Greek Version. We may see their Arguments . The principal Argument is that of Rabban Johanan disputing with a Baithusean, in the place last quoted. One Scripture (saith he) saith, you shall number fifty days, (that is, from the day wherein you offer your sheaf, unto Pentecost) Levite. XXIII. 16. Another Scripture saith, ye shall count seven Sabbaths, Levite. XXIII. 14. Deut. XVI. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This, if the first day of the Feast happen on the Sabbath. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That, if the first day of the Feast happen in the middle of the week.

His meaning is this: If the first day of the Seven-days Feast of the Passover happen on the Sabbath, then, the sheaf being offered the next day after, the Feast of Pentecost will fall on the next day after the seventh Sabbath. But if that first day happen in the middle of the week, then from the offering of the sheaf the next day, we must not count seven Sabbaths, but fifty days.

For instance: suppose we, the Lamb eaten on the third day of the Jewish week which with us is Tuesday: Wednesday was the first day of the Feast, and on Thursday the sheaf was offered; then on Thursday again, accounting fifty days, is the Feast of Pentecost. Here Seven Sabbaths come between, and four days after the last Sabbath, before the Pentecost. Where, numbering by Sabbaths shortens the space of time, but numbering by fifty days, fixes the matter beyond scruple. And at once it concludes these two things: I. That the offering of the sheaf was not restrained to the next day after the Sabbath, but to the day after the sabbatical day, viz. the first day of the Feast. II. That the day of Pentecost was not restrained to the first day of the week, as the Baithuseans would have it, but might fall on any day of the week.

What should be the Baithuseans reason why they so earnestly contended to reduce the day of Pentecost always to the morrow after the Sabbath, or the first day of the week, is not easy to comprehend. Perhaps he that disputes the matter with Rabban Johanan gives some hint of it, when he tells us, Our master Moses loved Israel, and knowing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that the Feast of Pentecost should be but for one day, did therefore appoint it, on the morrow after the Sabbath, that Israel might rejoice two days together.

Whatever the reason was, it is certain they misunderstood that phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as to the offering the sheaf, the morrow after the Sabbath, when it was to be understood of the morrow after a Sabbatical day. And so the Greek Version, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , And he shall offer the sheaf before the Lord to be accepted for you, on the morrow after the first day of the Feast.

Let us take an instance of this in the last Passover our Savior kept.

The Paschal Lamb was eaten on the fifth day of the week, our Thursday; The first day of the Feast was the sixth day of the week, our Friday; the day on which our Lord was Crucified. The day declining towards night (about the time that our Lord was buried) they went out that were deputed by the Sanhedrin to reap the sheaf: and on the morrow (that is their Sabbath) whiles our Savior slept in the grave, they offered that sheaf. That day therefore was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the second day, and from thence they counted the weeks to Pentecost. The Sabbaths that came between, taking their name from that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that second day. The first Sabbath after that was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the first Sabbath after the second day; and the next Sabbath after that was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the second Sabbath after the second day, and so of the rest.

The first day of the Passover is called the Sabbath, and they counted after that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seven Sabbaths that had relation to that. Note that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That had relation or alliance.

VERS. XII.

COmpare this kind of phrase with what is said, R. Johanan in the name of R. Jose saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 How doth it appear that the Holy blessed God doth pray? From thence that it is said, I will bring them to my holy mountain and make them joyful 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the house of my prayer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is not said, of their prayer, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of my prayer. Whence it follows, that the Holy blessed God doth pray. But how doth he pray? Saith Rabh Zutra bar Tobijah; Rabh saith; Let it be my good pleasure that my mercy overcome my wrath.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Holy Blessed God made him a Tabernacle and prayed in it: as it is said, his Tabernacle is in Salem, and his dwelling place in Zion. Now, what doth he say, when he prayeth? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let it be my good pleasure, that I may see my dwelling place built.

I cannot but laugh at their triflings, and yet withal observe the opinion that Nation had, and compare it with this phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The prayer of God. They will have it that God prays not by way of supplication, but authority: So let it be. Thus our Blessed Lord sometimes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Father I will, Joh. XVII. 24. Whether the phrase in this place should be thus interpreted, I do not determine.

VERS. XXXVIII.

I. COncerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 measures heaped up and stricken off.

R. Meir saith, it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A tenth. A tenth to every Lamb Whence is hinted that there were two 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 decimaries (or tithing measures) in the Temple: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 One heaped up, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the other stricken off. The heaped up, was that by which they measured all their bread corn for holy uses. [. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] That which was stricken off, was that whereby they measured the cakes, or the High-Priests loaves.

All the measures in the Temple were heaped up, besides that of the High-Priests. Now the Gloss giving the reason why this was not heaped up as well as the other, tells us, It was because he was to divide the flower into two tenths; if therefore the measure was heaped up, some of the fine flower would spill upon the ground, as he moved it this way and that way in dividing it.

Rabh Papa asked 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The filling of the Priests hand, whereof we have mention, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Was it by the measure stricken off, or heaped up? R. Aba saith to Rabh Jesse, the filling of the Priests hand, of which we have mention, was neither by the measures stricken off nor heaped up, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but by measures floating over.

II. Everyone may observe our Evangelist in his repetition of this Sermon upon the Mount, doth omit many things that are set down in St. Matthew; those especially that have relation to the dictates and glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees, about Man-slaughter, Oaths, Divorces, &c. or their customs in their Prayers, Fasts, and Alms, &c. Writing for the Service of the Gentiles, he passeth over what respected the Jews.

VERS. II.

SO was Tabi to his Master Rabban Gamaliel: of whom we meet with several things up and down, particularly that in Beracoth, fol. 16. 2. When his servant Tabi was dead, he received consolations for him. His disciples say unto him, Master, thou hast taught us, that they do not use to receive consolations for their servants; He answered them saying, my servant Tabi, was not as other servants, he was most upright.

VERS. V.

I. IT was no unusual thing for one single man to build a Synagogue at his own charge. If any man build an House, and afterward consecrate it to a Synagogue, it is of the nature of a Synagogue. Gloss. Any one that builds a Synagogue, and gives it to his sellow-Citizens, &c.

And the Doctors in that Treatise dispute much upon this question, whether it be lawful to sell a Synagogue, or to alienate it to any civil use: and amongst the rest, they suppose someone building a Synagogue, but would at last reserve it to his own proper use.

II. They had no scruple as to a Gentile building it, since the holiness of the place consisted not so much in the building, as in its being set apart, and dedicated to holy use, of which we have some instance in Herod 's building the Temple. Such an one had this Centurion approved himself toward the Jewish Nation, that concerning his liberty, and devotion in being at the charges of building, they found no reason to move any scruple.

VERS. XII.

A Mongst the Talmudists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A dead corps going out, is commonly a phrase which is first understood of carrying the Corps out of the Court-gate.

At what time do they take their beds lower? from the time that the person deceased is carried out of the Court-gate of his twn house.

Secondly it is taken also for carrying the Corps out of the City, For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the burying places were not near the City.

The infant dying before it be thirty days old 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is carried out in the bosom: and is buried by one Woman and two Men.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An infant of thirty days old, is carried out in a little Coffin. R. Judah saith, not in a Coffin that is carried on men's shoulders, but in their arms.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A child of three years old is carried out in a bed. And so onward from that age.

R. Simeon ben Eliezer saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For the dead that is carried out on his bed, there are many mourners. If he be not carried out on his bed [but in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Coffin ] there are not many mourners.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If the deceased person be known to many, then many accompany him.

There were ordinarily at such Funerals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Those that carried the Bier, and some to take their turns, and some also to take their turns again. For as as the Gloss hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Everyone desired that office.

There were also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Those that stoood in order about the mourners to comfort them.

VERS. XIV.

IN Syriac 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He approached to the Bier. The Talmudists would say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He came to the bed of the dead. Which indeed is the same, 2 Sam. III. 31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 David followed after the Bed. The Targumist, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 After the Bier.

Jacob said to his Sons, beware ye 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that no uncircumcised person touch my Bed, lest he drive away thence the divine presence.

VERS. XXXVII.

I. WOmen of an ill name amongst the Jews were such as these:

She who transgresseth the Law of Moses, and the Jewish Law. The Gloss is, The Jewish Law, that is, what the Daughters of Israel follow, though it be not written.

Who is she that transgresseth the Law of Moses? She that gives her husband to eat of what is not yet tithed. She that suffers his embraces while her Menstrua are upon her. She that doth not set apart a loaf of bread for herself. She that voweth, and doth not perform her vow.

How doth she transgress the Jewish Law? If she appears abroad with her head uncovered. If she spin in the streets. If she talk with everyone she meets. Abba Saul saith, If she curse her Children. R. Tarphon saith, If she be loud and clamorous. The Gloss is, If she desire coition with her husband within doors, so very loud that her neighbors may hear her.

Maimon, upon the place: If when she is spinning in the street, she makes her arms so naked that men may see them. If she hang either Roses, or Myrtle, or a Pomegranate, or any such thing either at her eyes or cheeks. If she play with young men. If she curse her husbands father in the presence of her husband, &c.

II. However, I presume the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sinner sounds something worse than all this, which also is commonly conjectured of this Woman, viz. that she was actually an Adulteress, and every way a lewd Woman. It is well known what the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sinners, signifies in the Old Testament, and what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sinners, in the New.

VERS. XXXVIII.

SHE washed his feet as they lay stretched out behind him: of which posture we treat more largely in our Notes upon Joh. XII.

VERS. XLVII.

IF we consider these two or three things we shall quickly understand the force and design of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for, &c.

I. That this was not the first time when this Woman betook herself to our Savior nor is this the first of her receiving remission of her sins. It is supposed, and that not without good reason, that this was Mary Magdalene. If so, then had her seven devils been cast out of her before; and at that time her sins had been forgiven her, our Lord at at once indulging to her the cure both of her body and her mind. She therefore having been obliged by so great a mercy, in gratitude and devotion now throws herself at the feet of Christ. She had obtained remission of her sins before this action: And from thence came this action, not from this action her forgiveness.

II. Otherwise the similitude which our Savior propounds about forgiving the debt, would not be to be the purpose at all. The debt is not released because the debtor loves his creditor, but the debtor loves because his debt is forgiven him. Remission goes before, and love follows.

III. Christ doth not say, she hath washed my feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head, and anointed me with ointment 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , therefore her sins are forgiven; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. For this cause I say unto thee, her sins are forgiven her. He tells Simon this that he might satisfy the murmuring Pharisee.

VERS. II.

WHence should she have this name?

I. We have observed above in our Notes upon Matth. XXVII. 56. that there is mention made in the Talmudic Authors of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Maria Magdilaseen Nashaia, the Daughter of Maria a plaiter of Womens hair; who, they say was the Wife of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Papus ben Judah, but an. Adulteress. They make this Papus co-temporary with Rabban Gamaliel (he of Jafneh ) and R. Joshua ; and with R. Akibah : who all lived both before and after the destruction of Jerusalem: So that the times do not very much disagree. And probable it is, that the Gemarists retained some memory of our Mary Magdalene in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Magdila.

II. We further observe in our Notes upon Joh. XII. that there was a certain Town near Jerusalem called Magdala, of a very ill fame, which perhaps was Bethany itself; or be it it some other, yet might our Mary (if she was the Sister of Lazarus ) not unfitly be called Magdalene, either as she might have lived there some time, being there married, or have imitated the whorish customs of that place. But I am apt to think that Bethany itself might go under the name of Magdala.

As to the number seven, we contend not, when there is hardly anything more usual than to put this certain number for an uncertain. Our difficulty is, whether these words are to be taken according to their letter, or according to the Jewish sense who were wont to call vices by the name of Devils: as, An evil affection is Satan . Drunkeness by new wine is a devil. If this Mary be the same with the Woman that was a sinner in the foregoing Chapter, as is believed, then by devils seems to be understood the vices she was addicted to; especially when both the Pharisee and Evangelist call her a sinner, rather than Demoniac. But this we leave at the choice of the Reader.

VERS. III.

WE meet with such a name in Haman 's Genealogy. The King promoted Haman the Hammadethite, the Agathite 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Son of Chuza, &c. The Targumist, Esth. 5. reckoning up the same Genealogy mentions not this name, and differs in others. Only this let us take notice of by the way, That Chuza is a name in the Family of Hamon the Edomite, and this Chuza here was in the Family of Herod, who himself was of the blood of the Edomites.

VERS. XVIII.

GOD's measure is not like the measure of flesh and blood. The measure of flesh and blood is this: An empty vessel is receptive, but a full one can take in no more. But God's measure is this, The full vessel is receptive of more, but the empty vessel receives nothing; according as it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If hearing thou wilt hear; that is, if thou hearest thou shalt hear, if thou dost not hear thou shalt not hear. The Gloss is, If thou accustom thyself to hear, then thou shalt hear, and learn and add. That is not much unlike, God doth not give wisdom, but to him with whom is wisdom already.

VERS. III.

EITHER my computation of times very much deceives me, or the Winter was now coming on when the Apostles were sent forth, and yet Christ forbids that they should be clothed with a double garment. It was not much that that they should be forbid to take money or provision for their journey, because they were to have their food administered to them, as the reward of their preaching the Gospel. But to strive with the cold and winter without sufficient clothing seems something hard.

I. It was not an unusual thing in that Nation that some, out of a more Religious severity, did cloth themselves but with a single garment: of which thing we have already spoken in Notes upon Mark XIV: 51. to which probably that passage may have some reference: R. Jose saith, Let my portion be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with those who die of the disease in their bowels: for, saith Mar, Very many righteous men die of the disease in their bowels, viz. a disease contracted by the austerities of their life, both as to food and clothing. And so it is said particularly of the Priests.

The Priests walked barefoot upon the pavement, they used water and were not clad 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but with a single garment. And from this custom, their natural vigor languished, and their bowels grew infirm.

For this very reason was there a Physician appointed in the Temple, upon whom the charge lay of remedying this evil. Whom we might not unfitly call the Bowel-Doctor.

Now it may be inquired whether our Lord from this example prescribed this severity to his Apostles, not allowing them more than a single garment, when this journeying of theirs to Preach the Gospel was a Winters work. For they returned from this journey a little before the Passover. Compare the 10th. Vers. of this Chapter, and so on, with Joh. VI. 4. and so on. But let us a little enlarge upon this subject.

In both the Talmuds, there are reckoned up eighteen several garments wherewith the Jew is clothed from head to foot, amongst the rest two shoes, two buskins. &c. but those which are more properly called garments, and which are put upon the body, are reckoned these:

1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mactoren ] which word is variously rendered by several men. By the Gloss 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I suppose a Mantle: By Aruch 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Cloake; by others, an Hood. In the Gloss upon Bava bathra it is made the same with Talith.

Resh Lachish went to Bozrah, and seeing some Israelites eating of fruits that had not been tithed, forbad them. Coming before R. Jonathan, he saith to him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even while thy Mactoren, or Cloak is upon thee, go and recall thy prohibition.

2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Kolbin of thread. Which the Babylonians call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Kolbon. The ordinary Jewish garment was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Talith, the outward garment, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chaluk, the inward. But in the place quoted is no mention of Talith in so many syllables at all; but instead of it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Greek word for an Hebrew one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Coat.

Speaking of the Scribes, Moreover they wore garments distinguished by the Phylacteries, which were certain borders of purple. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. They used long robes or a certain sort of garment which we may call Dalmaticks, or Kolobia, which were wove in with large borders of purple.

That he means the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Talith, the thing itself declares; for those borders of purple were no other than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Zuzith, certain skirts, hung and sewed on to the Talith.

3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Woolen shirt, the inward garment. Whence the Gloss. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Chaluk was the shirt upon his skin. Hence that boast of R. Jose , That the roof of his house, had not throughout his whole life, seen what was within that shirt of his.

II. And now the question returns, viz. whether by those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the place before us should be meant, those two kinds of garments, the Talith and the Chaluk, that is that they should take but one of them; or those two kinds doubled; that is, that they should take but one of each. Whether our Savior bound them to take but one of those garments, or whether he forbad them taking two of each.

I conceive he might bind them to take but one of those garments: for, although 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when joined with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be applied to some particular garment, yet, when it is not so joined, it may signify only clothing in general. When our Lord commands them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not to put on two coats . The foregoing words may best explain what he means by it: for when he cuts them short of other parts of garments and necessaries, such as a scrip, a staff, and sandals, we may reasonably suppose he would cut them short of one of the ordinary garments▪ either the Talith or the Chaluk.

This may seem something severe, that he should send them out in the Winter time half naked: But, 1. This well enough became that Providence which he was determined in a more peculiar manner to exert toward them, as may be gathered from Luke XXII. 35. and to the charge of which he would commit them. Of such a kind and nature was his Providence in preserving them, as was shewn toward the Israelites in the Wilderness, which suffered not their garments to wax old, which kept their bodies from decay and diseases, and their feet unhurt by all their travel. 2. It suited well enough with the mean and low estate of that Kingdom of Heaven, and the Messiah, which the Apostles were to Preach up and propagate, so that from the view of the first publishers, the Jews might learn to frame a right judgment concerning both the Messiah and his Kingdom, viz. they might learn to believe in the Messiah, when they should observe him capable so wondrously to protect his messengers, though surrounded with such numberless inconveniences of life: and might further be taught, not to expect a pompous Kingdom, when they see the propagators of it, of so mean a degree and quality.

The words of the Baptist 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He that hath two coats let him impart, &c. may be also understood in this sense, that he that hath both the Talith and the Chaluk, may give to him that is naked and hath neither, either the one or the other.

VERS. VIII.

SO is the expression again Vers. 19. in which sense the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that Prophet must be taken. John I. 21, 25. that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one of the old Prophets that is risen again.

Although they looked for no other Prophet (excepting Elias only) before the appearing of the Messiah, yet doth it seem that they had an opinion that some of the ancient Prophets should rise again, and that the time was now at hand wherein they should so do; and that because they made such frequent mention of it in their common talk, that someone of the old Prophets were risen again.

VERS. XXX.

THE Jews have a fiction that Moses shall come with Elias, when Elias himself comes. The Holy Blessed God said to Moses, As thou hast given thy life for Israel in this world, so in the ages to come, when I shall bring Elias the Prophet amongst them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 you two shall come together.

But the rise and foundation of this opinion is very ridiculous indeed, having its first ground from Nahum I. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But Moses when an infant was thrown into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Exod. II. And Elias went up into Heaven 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2 Kings II. This it is for such as these to allegorize the Holy Scriptures!

They also feign that Moses was raised up at the same time with Samuel by the Witch of Endor.

Samuel thought that day had been the day of judgment, and therefore he raised Moses along with himself.

Moses did not die [for the just die not] but went up into the highest, to minister before God.

VERS. XXXI.

THE French and the Italian Translation do render this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 too loosely. The French, Dissoyent sur le issue; the Italian, Dicevane il successo suo. And I wish the English have not done it too narrowly: They spake of his decease. It were better, they spake of his departure. For the ascent of Christ into Heaven, was as well his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as his death; nay I may say more, if at least in the word Exodus, there be any allusion to the Israelites going out of Egppt. For that was in victory and triumph, as also the ascent of Christ into Heaven was.

There is no question but they did indeed discourse with him about his death and the manner of it, viz. his crucifixion; whereas Moses and Elias themselves did depart without any pain or anguish; but I should think however, that there is more contained in that word; and that the expression 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the time of his receiving up, Vers. 51. hath some reference to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his departure.

We meet with the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek Version, Prov. XXX. 12. There is a generation accounteth itself righteous, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but yet hath not washed its going out: obscurely enough indeed, and beside the Text. They read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when in the original it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and yet is not washed from its filthiness.

VERS. LI.

IT is a difficulty amongst some why there should be any mention 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of his receiving up, when there is no mention of his death. But let it be only granted that under that expression 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is included the ascension of Christ, and then the difficulty is solved: The Evangelist seeming from thence to calculate. Moses and Elias had spoken of his departure out of this world; that is, of his final departure, when he took leave of it at his ascension into heaven: And from thence forward, till the time should come wherein he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face toward Jerusalem, resolving with himself to be present at all the Feasts that should precede his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or receiving up.

He goes therefore to the Feast of Tabernacles, and what he did there, we have it told us John VII. After ten weeks or thereabout, he went up to the Feast of Dedication, Chap. XIII. 22. and Joh. X. 22. and at length to the last Feast of all, his own Passover, Chap. XVII. 11.

VERS. LII.

IT may be a question whether the Jews in their journeying to and from Jerusalem would ordinarily deign to lodge in any of the Samaritan Towns. But if necessity should at any time compel them to betake themselves into any of their Inns, we must know that nothing but their mere hatred to the Nation could forbid them. For, Their land was clean, their waters were clean, their dwellings were clean, and their roads were clean. So that there could be no offense or danger of uncleanness in their dwelling, and so long as the Samaritans in most things came the nearest the Jewish Religion of all others, there was less danger of being defiled either in their meats, or beds, or tables, &c.

VERS. LV.

WHat Elias once did to those of Samaria, the Sons of Zebedee had an ambition to imitate in this place; dreaming (as it should seem) that there were those thunders and lightnings in their very name Boanarges, that should break out at pleasure for the death and destruction of those that provoked them. But, could you not see O ye Sons of Zebedee, how careful and tender your master was from the very bottom of his soul, about the lives and well-being of mankind? How he healed the sick, cured those that were possessed with Devils, and raised the dead: and will you be breathing slaughter and fire, and no less destruction to the Town, than what had happened to Sodom? Alas! you do not know, or have not considered what kind of spirit and temper becomes the Apostles of the Messiah.

VERS. LX.

THE Jews accounted of the Gentiles as no other than dead. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the people of the earth (that is, the Gentiles) do not live. And as the Gentiles, so even amongst themselves, these four sorts are so esteemed. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 These four are accounted as dead, the blind, the leprose, the poor, and the childless.

VERS. I.

WHY the Vulgar should have seventy and two, they themselves, I suppose are able to give no very good reason. Much less the Interpreter of Titus Bostrensis when in the Greek Copy before him he saw only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , why he should render Septuaginta duos, seventy two, who can tell?

Ibn Ezra upon the story of Eldad and Medad hath this passage: The wise men say, that Moses took six out of every tribe, and the whole number amounted to seventy and two: but whereas the Lord had commanded only seventy, the odd two were laid aside. Now if God laid aside two of those who had been enrolled, and endowed with the Holy Spirit, that so there might be the just number of seventy only, we can hardly imagine why our Savior should add two, to make it LXXII and not LXX. It was said to Moses at Mount Sinai, Go up thou and Aaron, and Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel: so will the holy blessed God ordain to himself in the world to come 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a counsel of Elders of his own people. Now the number of this Consistory, the Doctors determine to be no other than seventy. A Council of Seventy two was never heard of amongst the Jews, but once only at Jabneh.

R. Simeon ben Azzai saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I received it from the mouths of the LXXII Elders, on the day when they made R. Eliezar ben Azariah one of the Sanhedrin. Nor did they then remove Rabban Gamaliel, although he had displeased them.

VERS. III.

IT is added in another Evangelist, Be ye wise as serpents, &c. with which we may compare that in Midr. Schir. The holy blessed God saith concerning Israel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Those that belong to me are simple as Doves, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but amongst the Nations of the world, they are subtle as serpents.

VERS. IV.

I. WE have a passage something like this elsewhere: If thou meet any man salute him not; that is, (as is commonly expounded) do not hinder thy journey by discoursing with any in the way. But the same reason doth not hold in this place; the business of these Disciples not requiring such mighty expedition. They were commanded out two by two to this or the other place or City where Christ himself was to come in person; nor was it necessary they should run in so great hast, that they should make no stay in the way. Only having appointed them to such and such places, their business indeed lay nowhere but in those very places to which they had been particularly sent, to proclaim the coming of Christ there, and not to be telling it in the way. The twelve Apostles that were sent, their business was to declare the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, these, the coming of the King himself. No wonder therefore if the Apostles were not forbidden to salute any in the way, for their Province was where ever they came, to tell the world that the Kingdom of Heaven was come; but these were only to give notice that the Messiah was coming, and that, in those places only to which he was to come, and not to any whom they should meet cursorily in the way.

II. It was a very usual thing in that Nation upon some accounts not to salute any in the way, no not any person at all. He that is mourning for the dead, let him not salute any person, for the first seven days of his mourning. If thirteen fasts had been celebrated by order of the Sanhedrin for the imploring of rain, and yet no rain had fallen, then they diminish from their business, and from building, and from planting, and from espousals and marriage 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and from saluting each other, as men under the rebukes of heaven. That is, they abstained from all these things. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Religious do not use to salute one another; but if any of the common people do at any time salute them, they return it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a very low voice, with all gravity, veiling themselves, and sitting in the posture of mourners or excommunicate persons.

Whether that of the Apostle, Salute one another with an holy kiss, might not have some reference to this usage, might be a matter for our enquiry if there were place for it, but I forbear.

What therefore doth our Savior intend by this prohibition, Salute no man by the way? would he imitate this Jewish custom, that he would have them taken for mourners everywhere?

I. He would have all that belonged to him, conformable to himself, that everyone from the quality of the messengers, might in some measure judge what he was that sent them; as we have already hinted concerning the twelve Apostles. He himself was a man of sorrows, and if his messengers do represent some such thing either in their looks or behavior, the people might the easilier guess, what kind of person he was that commissioned them.

II. Christ had a twofold end in designing them to the places, to which he in his own person had determined to come: namely, that thither all persons should assemble themselves to his Doctrine for the healing of their souls: and that those that were diseased might be gathered thither, in order to a cure. Now it was very fit and convenient, that the behavior of those that were to assemble the people to these ends, should be mournful and solemn, to testify the fellow-feeling they had with the afflicted and miserable.

VERS. VIII.

THE Traditional Canons were so very precise and curious, about not eating unless what were clean, what had been duly tythed, and from which the Trumah had been duly separated, that it might be almost a wonder, the strict Traditionists should not be famished, if they lived and fed only by Canon. Let not the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the religious serve at the table of a laick, unless all things be rightly prepared and decimated.

From the irksomness and perplexity of this niceness doth our Savior acquit and absolve his followers, partly that he might introduce the Gospel-liberty; partly also consulting the necessity of his Disciples, who, if they had been bound up to that strictness in meats, what could they do, when their converse was to lie chiefly amongst persons perfectly unknown to them.

VERS. XVIII.

LUcifer falling from heaven, Isa. XIV. 12. is the King of Babylon divested of his Throne and Dominion. So is Satan in this place. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I beheld, I would refer it to this very time. When I sent you forth, I saw Satan's fall at hand, that he should be immediately despoil'd of his power and tyranny. For when the Messiah had determined to exhibit himself, and in order thereunto, to send out so numerous a multitude of persons that should publish his appearance, it was absolutely necessary, and it could not otherwise be, but that the power of Satan should sink, and his government be shaken.

It is probable these LXX Disciples were sent out upon the approach of the Feast of Tabernacles, and when there now remained about half a year to the death of Christ. In which interval of time, Christ showed himself more openly, both by the preaching of these persons, and also in his own personal exhibition of himself than before he had done. All which things determining in his death, whose death was also the death of Satan, might give him a very just occasion of saying, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven, thrown out of his throne and kingdom. Compare Revel. XII. 8. where heaven is to be interpreted the Church.

VERS. XXV.

VERS. XXVI.

AN expression very common in the Schools, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what readest thou? when any person brought a Text of Scripture for the proof of anything. The Rabbins have a Tradition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that the disease of the Squinancy came into the world upon the account of tithes: (the Gloss hath it, for eating of fruits that had not been tithed.) R Eliezar ben R. Jose saith, it was for an evil tongue. Rabba saith, and it is the saying also of R. Joshua ben Levi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what readest thou? The King shall rejoice in God, everyone that sweareth by himself shall glory: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [thence comes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] for the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped. And a little after upon another subject: R. Simeon ben Gezirah saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what or how readest thou? If thou know not, O thou fairest among Women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, Cant. I. 8.

We will not be very curious in enquiring whether our Savior used the very same form of speech 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or any other. In this only he departs from their common use of speech, in that he calls to another to allege some Text of Scripture, whereas it was usual in the Schools, that he that spoke that, would allege some place himself.

VERS. XXVII.

IN this answer of the man, there are these two things observable.

I. That our Savior brings in this clause, which in so many terms is not in Moses where the rest are. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where the Greek both of the Roman and Alexandrian Edition render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with all thy might; but where is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? I pass by other copies, wherein though is some varying, yet there is not this which is now before us.

Our Savior hath the same clause elsewhere , but not in the same order, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with all thy mind and with all thy strength: here it is, with all thy strength, and with all thy mind. What shall we say therefore? Shall we suppose it writ to this sense in the Hebrew, in their Phylacterics? this we can hardly think. Was it added by the Greek Interpreters, and so the Evangelists take it from thence? we see it not so. What then, doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? both strength and mind? Here indeed the hinge of the question turns. That it denotes strength no one doubts, yea and the Rabbins suppose it denotes Mammon too, with whom the Syriac and Targumist agree, but still where doth it signify 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the mind?

1. Take such a Gloss as is frequently in use amongst the allegorizing Doctors. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 With what measure he shall meet to thee, do thou praise him exceedingly. Where we see they play with the sound of words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is a very common thing with them to do. Ibn Ezra 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of the same sense with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 exceedingly, exceedingly: and intends thus much; love him exceedingly, as much as ever thou art able, and let thy love le perfect in thine heart.

2. To this we may add if we think fit, what they commonly require in all Religious services, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the preparation and the intention of the mind. From all which we may conceive that this was the common interpretation of that clause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with thy whole mind, was not added without just cause, but upon some necessity, there being something of obscurity in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so we might be apt to apply it only to our bodily or outward strength and might. Moses his words therefore are rendered by the Evangelists not strictly and according to the letter as they are in him or were in the Parchments in the Phylacteries, but both according to their full sense and tenor, as also according to the common and received interpretation of that Nation.

R. Levi bar Chaiothah went to Cesarea, and heard them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reciting their Shemaah (or their Phylacteries) Hellenistically (i. e. in Greek) &c. Now whether the clause we are now handling was inserted there, it would be in vain to inquire, because not possible but to know. But if the Jews thought it included in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is not unlikely; then is it probable that the Hellenists used it expressly in the Greek tongue.

I cannot but take notice of the words of the Jerusalem Targumist just now alleged▪ : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What should that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mean? Aruch quoting this passage hath it thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seems to be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is redundant, which is not unusual with the Babylonian Talmud, but with the Jerusalem hardly ever, or very rarely.

The second thing observable in this man's answer is, that he adds, And thy neighbor as thyself: which indeed was not written in the Schedules of their Phylacteries: otherwise I should have thought the man had understood those words of our Savior 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 how readest thou? as if he had said, How dost thou repeat the sentences of the Phylacteries; for he reciteth the sentence as it was in their Phylacteries, only adds, and thy neighbor, &c. Now the usual expression for the recitation of their Phylacteries was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which, word for word is, they read the Shemaa, which also is rendered by some; when indeed they commonly repeat them without book. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that reads the Book (of Esther) orally: i. e. as the Gemara explains it, without book, or by heart. It is quaeried, Why they repeat those two Sections every day? R. Levi saith, because the Ten Commandments (of the Decalogue) are comprehended therein. Showing further, how they are comprehended, saving only (which is very observable) the Second Commandment. Afterward indeed they confess, it was very fitting they should every day repeat the very Decalogue itself, but they did not repeat it, lest the Heretics should say, that only those Commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sinai. However, they did repeat those passages wherein they supposed the Decalogue was summed up.

Whether therefore this Lawyer of ours understood the words of our Savior, as having respect to that usage of repeating their Phylacteries; or whether he of his own accord and according to his own opinion would be giving the whole sum of the Decalogue, he shows himself rather a textual than a traditional Doctor, although the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Lawyer, seem to point out the latter rather.

VERS. XXIX.

THIS doubt and form of questioning he had learnt out of the common School where it is taught in Aruch in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He excepts all Gentiles, when he saith, thy neighbor.

An Israelite killing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a stranger Inhabitant, he doth not die for it by the Sanhedrin, because it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If any one lift up himself against his neighbor. It is not necessary to say, he does not die upon the account of a Gentile. For they are not esteemed by them for their neighbor.

The Gentiles amongst whom and us there is no war, and so those that are keepers of sheep amongst the Israelites, and the like; we are not to contrive their death: but if they be in any danger of death, we are not bound to deliver them. e. g. If any of them fall into the Sea, you shall not need to take him out: for it is said thou shalt not rise up against the blood of thy neighbor; but such an one is not thy neighbor.

VERS. XXX.

THIS was the most beaten and frequented road in the whole land of Israel, and that not only as it led to Perea, but also upon the account of that great traffick that was between these two Cities, especially because of the Courses that were as well in Jericho as Jerusalem. Of which we have discoursed elsewhere . To which I shall superadd this passage out of Jerusalem Taanith . The former Prophets instituted four and twenty Courses, and for every Course 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Stationary Classis of Priests, Levites, and Israelites in Jerusalem. It is a tradition. Four and twenty thousand, was the Stationary number out of Jerusalem. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And half that Station out of Jericho. Jericho could indeed have produced an entire Station, but that it would give the preference to Jerusalem, and therefore it produced but half.

Here therefore you may see in this Historical Parable, why there is such particular mention made of a Priest and Levite travelling that way, because there was very frequent intercourse of this sort of men between twese Towns, and that upon the account of the Stations above-mentioned.

It is with great confidence, I find, but upon what foundation I cannot tell, that the Commentators generally make Adummim the scene of this robbery, above all other places. It is true the road betwixt Jerusalem and Jericho was dangerous enough, and for that reason (as is commonly believed) there was placed a band of Soldiers betwixt Aelia and Jericho, for the safeguard of passengers: but, whereas it is said that the place is called Adummim, i. e. a place of redness, from the blood that was spilled by robbers there: this seems to have very little force in it: because the place had that name of Adummim even in Joshua 's days, when we can hardly suppose, the times to have been so pestered with robberies, as they were when our Savior uttered this parable. See the place , where if we consider the situation of the going up to Adumntim, it will appear, it was not very distant from Jericho.

The Rabbins term it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 next to death, beyond which condition, on this side death was only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one just expiring.

VERS. XXXI.

WHAT could be the reason this Priest and this Levite, should thus pass by a man in such a miserable condition? Was he not an Israelite? It is true they had learnt out of their own Schools, not to succor a Gentile, no nor a keeper of Sheep though he was an Israelite; now was this wounded man such an one? or did they think they should have contracted some pollution by touching one half head? The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , passed by on the other side, seems to hint, as if they passed by him keeping their distance from him. Let them tell the reason themselves: For my part I would impute it wholly to the mere want of Charity.

VERS. XXXIII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans: That is, so as to be obliged by them for any courtsie done to them. But would this Jew half dead reject the kindness of the Samaritan at this time? This person being of a Nation (than which the Jews hated nothing more) is brought in showing this kind • ess to the Jew, on purpose to give the plainer instance who is our neighbor. It might seem more proper to have said that the Samaritan acknowledged the wounded man for his neighbor, in being so kind to him: but our Savior intimates that he was the wounded man's neighbor, thereby teaching us, that even a stranger, yea an enemy (against the Doctrine of their own Schools) is no other than our neighbor.

VERS. XXXIV.

IT is a Tradition. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They spread a Plaister for the sick on the Sabbath day: That is, upon condition they had mingled it with Wine and Oil on the Evening of the Sabbath. But if they have not mixed it on the Evening of the Sabbath, it is forbidden. A Tradition. R. Simeon ben Eleazar saith, That it is allowed by R. Meir, both to mingle the Oil and the Wine, and also to anoint the sick on the Sabbath day.

VERS. XXXV.

A Ruch in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A shekel of the Law is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Selaa, and is of the value of sour pence. So that the half shekel is two pence. A price that was to be paid yearly by everyone, as a ransom for his soul or life. Whence not unsitly, we see two pence are paid down for the recovery of this man's life that had been wounded and half dead.

The Rabbins retain this Greek word using 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 however the Author of Aruch, calls it Ismaelitick, or Arabic. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Tavern or Inn, saith he, in the Ishmaelitish language is called Pandak. It is true indeed, the Arabic Version useth this word in this place, but it is well known whence it takes its original. Two men went into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Inn, one a just, the other a wicked man. They sat down apart. The wicked man saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the host: Let me have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one pheasant, and let me have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Conditum or Hippocras. The just man said to the Host, let me have a piece of bread and a dish of Lentiles. The wicked man laughed the just man to scorn. See how this fool calls for Lentiles when he may have dainties: on the contrary the just man, see how this fool eateth when his teeth are to be immediately dashed out. The just man saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the Host, give me two cups of Wine that I may bless them: he gave them him, and he blessed them, and rising up gave to the Host a piece of Money for the portion that he had eaten, and departed in peace. But there was a falling out betwixt the wicked man and his Host about the reckoning, and the Host dashed out his teeth.

VERS. XXXVIII.

OUR Savior is now at the Feast of Tabernacles: and visits Bethany where there had grown a friendship betwixt himself and Lazarus his Family, upon his having east out so many Devils out of Mary his Sister. For it is no foreign thing to suppose she was that Mary that was called Magdalene, because Bethany itself was called Magdala. As to the name Martha see Notes upon John XI. and the name Magdala, see Notes upon John XII.

VERS. I.

WHAT kind of request is this, that this Disciple, whoever he is, doth here make? was he ignorant of, or had he forgot that form of Prayer which the Lord had delivered to them in his Sermon upon the Mount? If he had not forgot it, why then doth he require any other? Doth de mean, Lord teach us to pray, for John hath taught his Disciples? or thus, teach us a Form and rule of Prayer like that which John had taught his. This latter is the most probable, but then it is something uncertain what kind of form that might be which the Disciples of John were taught. As to this enquiry we may consider these things:

I. It is said of the Disciples of John 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , They fast often, and make Prayers. Where, upon many accounts I could persuade myself that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ought to be taken here in its most proper sense, for Supplications. To let other things pass, let us weigh these two:

1. That the Jews daily and common prayers, ordinary and occasional, consisted chiefly of Benedictions and Doxologies, which the title of that Talmudic Tract which treats of their prayers, sufficiently testifies, being called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Benediction, as also that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tephillah, the general Nomenclature for Prayer, signifies no other than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 praising, i. e. Benediction, or Doxology. To illustrate this matter we have a passage or two not unworthy our transcribing.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Perhaps a man begs for necessaries for himself, and afterward prayeth. This is that which is spoken by Solomon when he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 To the prayer, and to the supplication. I omit the Versions, because the Gemarists interpret it themselves. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rinna is Tephillah, and Tephillah is Bakkashah. Their meaning is this: the first word of Solomon 's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rinnah signifies Prayer ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 • s the Gloss hath it) i. e. Prayer with Praise, or Doxology. The latter word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tephillah, signifies Petition, or Supplication, [Gloss, beging for things necessary. ]

It cannot be denied but that they had their petitionary or supplicatory prayers, but then, the benedictory or doxological prayers were more in number, and more large and copious: especially those which were poured out occasionally or upon present emergency. Read the last Chapter of the Treatise I newly quoted and judge as to this particular: Read the whole Treatise, and then judge of the whole matter.

2. It may be reasonably supposed that the Baptist taught his Disciples a Form of Prayer different from what the Jewish Forms were: It stands with reason that he that was to bring in a new Doctrine (I mean new, in respect to that of the Jewish) should bring in a new way of Prayer too, that is a Form of Prayer that consisted more in Petition and Supplication, than the Jewish Forms had done; nay and another sort of petitions than what those Forms which were petitionary had hitherto contained. For the Disciples of John had been instructed in the points of Regeneration, justifying Faith, particular Adoption, Sanctification by the Spirit, and other Doctrines of the Gospel, which were altogether unknown in the Schools or Synagogues of the Jews. And who would imagine therefore that John the Baptist should not teach his Disciples to pray for these things?

II. It is probable therefore that when this Disciple requested our Savior that he would teach his Disciples 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as John had done: he had respect to such kind of Prayers as these, because we find Christ so far condescending to him that he delivers him a Form of Prayer merely petitionary, as may appear both from the whole structure of the Prayer, as also in that the last close of all the Doxology, For thine is the Kingdom, &c. is here left wholly out; being asked for a Form that was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he took care to deliver one to them that was merely supplicatory. This is confirmed by what follows concerning the man requesting some loaves of his neighbor, adding withal this exhortation, Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find. Which two things seem to answer those two things by which Supplicatory Prayer is desined; these are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sheelah, asking: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bakkashah, seeking: for if there may be any difference in the meaning of these two words, I would suppose it thus, Bakkashah, or seeking may respect the things of God: so seek ye first the Kingdom of God, &c. and Sheelah, or asking may respect those things which are necessary for ourselves: which texture we find very equally divided in this present Form of Prayer, where the three first petitions are in behalf of God's honor, and the three last in behalf of our own necessaries.

It was in use amongst the Jews, when they fasted to use a peculiar sort of Prayer, joined with what were daily, terming it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Prayer of the fast. This we have mentioned in Taanith where it is disputed whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 those that fasted for certain hours only, and not for the whole day, ought to repeat that Prayer of the Fast: As also, in what order and place that Prayer is to be inserted amongst the daily ones. Now if it should be granted that John had taught his Disciples any such form that might be particularly adapted to their fastings, it is not very likely this Disciple had any particular reference to that, because the Disciples of Christ did not Fast, as the Disciples of John did. It rather respected the whole frame of their Prayers which he had instructed them in, which consisted chiefly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Petitions and Supplications.

Object. But prob • bly this Disciple was not ignorant that Christ had already delivered to them a Petitionary Form in that Sermon of his upon the Mount, and therefore what need had he to desire, and for what reason did he importune another?

A • sw. It •• likely he did know it, and as likely he did not expect the repetition of the same again: but being very intent upon what John had done for his Disciples, did hope for a Form more full and copious, that might more largely and particularly express what they were to ask for, according to what he had observed probably in the Form that bad been prescribed by John, but the divine wisdom of our Savior knew however that all was sufficiently comprehended in what he had given them. And as the Jews had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 short summary of those eighteen Prayers epitomized: so would he have this Form of his a short summary of all that we ought to ask for.

VERS. IV.

I Am much deceived if this petition is not, amongst other things, and indeed principally and in the first place directed against the visible apparitions of the Devil, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The evil one: as also his actual obsessions: by which the phrase of God's leading us into temptation is very much sof • ned.

The Doxology For thine is the Kingdom, &c. is le •• out, because it was our Savior's intention in this place to deliver to them a Form of Prayer merely petitionary, for which very same reason also Amen is omitted too. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He shall say Amen at thy giving of thanks. And indeed they commonly ended all their Prayers, even those that consisted most of Petition, with Thanksgiving and Benediction; concluding in this manner, Blessed be them O Lord who hast thus done, or thus commanded, or the like, and then was it answered by all, Amen. This we may observe in those Psalms that conclude any portion of that Book, and end with Amen , upon what subject soever the Psalmist is engaged, either throughout the whole Psalm, or immediately before the bringing • orth of Amen, still he never doth mention Amen, without some foregoing Doxology and Benediction, Blessed be the Lord God, &c. Amen and Amen. In St. Matthew therefore we find Amen, because there is the Doxology: In St. Luke it is wanting because the Doxology is so too. You may see more of this in Notes upon Matth. VI.

VERS. XV.

I. AS to this name of Beelzebub I have elsewhere discoursed, and do still assert the reading of it with the letter l in the end of it, viz. Beelzebul, against the Syr • ack, Persiam, Vulgar, and other Translations which read it Beelzebub. The Italian cautiously indeed but not purely, Beelzebu, that he might not strike upon either the one or the other reading; but in the mean time I will not answer for the faithfulness and candor of the Interpreter.

II. Amongst the Jews we may observe three Devils called the chief, or Prince of the Devils: 1. The Angel of Death: who is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Prince of all the Satan's. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Devil Ashmodeus. Of him afterwards. 3. Beelzebul in this place. Now as to vindicating the writing of it by l in the end of the word, and not b.

III. It is a question whether there were such a thing as Beelzebub in rerum naturâ. Why should not the deity of the place take his farewell, when Ekron, the place of this Deity was wholly obliterated? When there was no more an Idol, nor Oracle at Ekron, did not the Demon cease to be Beelzebub any longer, although it did not cease to be a Demon? Wherever therefore Ekron was under the second Temple, or the place where it had been under the first, you can hardly persuade me there was any Idol or Oracle of Beelzebub, and so not Beelzebub himself. I will not here dispute whether A • hor the Cyrenians tutelary God against flies hath any relation or affinity with the name of Ekron. Let it be granted that Beelzebub might change his soil upon some occasion, and remove from Ekron to Cyrene; but then how should he come to be the Prince of the Devils, when all his business, and power was only among flies?

It may not be improbable perhaps, that he might be first or chief of those Demons, or Baalim, that Ahab brought among the Israelites, and so Ahaziah his Son, in the midst of his affliction and danger might fly to refuge to that Idol, as what had been the God of his Father: But what is it could move the Ages following at so long distance of time from this, that they should esteem this Demon, Beelzebub, the prince of the Devils? Here I confess myself not well satisfied: But as to Beelzebul, something may be said.

IV. I have already shewn in notes upon Matth. XII. that the Jewish Doctors (and such were these who contended with our Savior) did give Idolatrous worship the denomination of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zebul, or Dung, for the ignominy of the thing; and so was the Nation generally taught by these Rabbins. I gave some instances for the proof of it, which I shall not here repeat, but add one more. It is said of Joseph (when his Mistress would have tempted him to Adultery) that he came into the house to do his business. R. Judah saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It was a day of fooling, and of dunging, it was a day of theatres. Where the Gloss upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zebul, Stercoration, saith thus: It is a word of contempt, and so it is expounded by R. Solomon in the Treatise Avodah Zarah, and Tosaphoth, viz. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to Sacrifice (that is, to Idols) and they prove it out of Jerusalem Beracoth, where it is said, he that seeth a place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where they dung, (that is, offer sacrifice to an Idol) let him say, whoso offereth Sacrifice to strange God's, let him be accursed. Which words we have also alleged out of the Jerusalem Talmud.

V. Now therefore, when Idolatry was denominated Zebul amongst the Jews, and indeed reckoned amongst the grievousest of sins they could be guilty of, that Devil whom they supposed to preside over this piece of wickedness, they named him Beelzebul and esteemed him the prince of the Devils, or (if you will pardon the expression) the most deviliz'd of all Devils.

VI. They give the like title to the Devil Asmodeus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Asmodeus the King of the Devils. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Devil, the prince of the spirits. Which elsewhere is expounded, d 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Devil Ashmodeus. For in both places we have this ridiculous tale: There was a certain Woman brought forth a son in the night time, and said to her son, (a child newly born you must know) go and light me a Candle that I may cut thy Navel; As he was going, the Devil Asmodeus meeting him, said to him, go and tell thy Mother, that if the Cock had not crowed, I would have killed thee, &c.

The very name points at Apostasy, not so much that the Devil was an Apostate, as that this Devil provoked and enticed people to apostatize: Beelzebul amongst the Gentiles, and Asmodeus amongst the Jews, the first Authors of their apostasy. Whether both the Name and Demon were not found out by the Jews to affright the Samaritans. See the place above quoted Whenas Noah went to plant a Vineyard 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Demon Asmodeus met him and said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let me partake with thee, &c. So that it seems they suppose Asmodeus had an hand in Noah's drunkenness. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when he (that is, Solomon) sinned, Asmodeus drove him to it. &c. They call the Angel of death by the name of Prince of all Satan's; because he destroys all mankind by death, none excepted.

VERS. XXXI.