Works

VERS. I.

SO it is in Mark XI. 27. but in Matth. XXI. 23. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Chief Priests and Elders of the people. Now the question is, who these Elders should be, as they are distinguished, from the Chief Priests and the Scribes. The Sanhedrin consisted chiefly of Priests, Levites, and Israelites, although the original precept was for the Priests and Levites only. The command is, that the Priests and Leviies should be of the great Council, as it is said, thou shalt go unto the Priests and Levites: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but if such be not to be found, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 although they were all Israelites, behold, it is allowed.

None will imagine that there ever was a Sanhedrin, wherein there were Israelites only and no Priests or Levites; nor on the other hand, that there ever was a Sanhedrin wherein there were only Priests and Levites, and no Israelites. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 therefore or the Scribes, seem in this place to denote either the Levites, or else, together with the Levites those inferior ranks, of Priests, who were not the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Chief Priests: And then the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Elders, may be the Israelites, or those Elders of the Laity, that were not of the Levitical Tribe. Such an one was Gamaliel the present President of the Sanhedrin, and Simeon his Son, of the Tribe of Judah.

VERS. XXXVII.

WHY doth Moses say, Exod. XXXII. 13. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? R. Abin saith, the Lord said unto Moses, I look for ten men from thee, as I looked for that number in Sodom. Find me out ten righteous persons among the people, and I will not destroy thy people. Then said Moses, behold here am I and Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar, Phineas and Caleb, and Joshua, but saith God, these are but seven, where are the other three? When Moses knew not what to do, he saith, O Eternal God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do those live that are dead? Yes, saith God. Then saith Moses, if those that are dead do live, remember Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

VERS. XLII.

WHereas St. Matthew tells us, That no man was able to answer him a word, to that Argument whereby he asserted the Divinity of the Messias, it is plain that those evasions were not yet thought of, by which the Jews have since endeavored to shift off this place. For the Talmudists apply the Psalm to Abraham; the Targumist (as it seems) to David: others ( as Justin Martyr tells us) to Hezekia, which yet, I do not remember I have observed in the Jewish Authors. His words are in his Dialogue with Tryphon . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I am not ignorant that you venture to explain this Psalm (when he had recited the whole Psalm) as if were to be understood of King Hezekiah.

The Jewish Authors have it thus: Sem the great, said unto Eleazar (Abraham's servant) when the Kings of the East and of the West came against you, what did you? He answered and said, The Holy blessed God took Abraham, and made him to sit on his right hand. And again, The Holy blessed God had purposed to have derived the Priesthood from Shem; according as it is said, thou art the Priest of the most high God, [Gen. XIV.] but because he blessed Abraham before he blessed God, God derived the Priesthood from Abraham. For so it is said, And he blessed him and said, Blessed be Abraham of the most high God, possessor of Heaven and Earth, and blessed be the most high God, Abraham saith unto him, who useth to bless the servant before his Lord? Upon this God gave the Priesthood to Abraham, according as it is said, The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand. And afterward it is written the Lord sware and will not repent, thou art a Priest forever for the speaking (for so they render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) of Melchizedek. Midras Tillin and others also in the explication of this Psalm, refer it to Abraham. Worshipful Commentators indeed!

VERS. XLVI.

IN Garments to the feet; which their own Rabbins sufficiently testify. R. Johanan asked R. Banaah 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what kind of Garment is the inner garment of the Disciple of the wise men? It is such an one that the flesh may not be seen underneath him. The Gloss is, It is to reach to the very sole of the foot, that it may not be discerned when he goes bare-foot. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What is the Talith, that the Disciple of the wise wears? that the inner Garment may not be seen below it to an hand breadth.

What is that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Luke XV. 22. the first Robe? Is it the former robe, that is, that which the Prodigal had worn formerly? or the first, i. e. the chief and best robe? It may be quaeried whether it may not be particularly understood the Talith, as what was in more esteem than the Chaluk, and that which is the first Garment in view to the beholders. I saw amongst the spoils 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Babylonish Garment, Jos. VII. Rabh saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a long Garment called Melotes. The Gloss is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Talith of purest Wool.

VERS. XXIV.

JERUSALEM shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled: And what then? in what sense is this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , until, to be understood? Let everyone have his conjecture, and let me be allowed mine. I am well assured our Savior is discoursing about the fall and overthrow of Jerusalem; but I doubt whether he touches upon the restauration of it: Nor can I see any great reason to affirm that the times of the Gentiles will be fulfilled before the end of the world itself. But as to this controversy, I shall not at present meddle with it. And yet, in the mean time cannot but wonder that the Disciples having so plainly heard these things from the mouth of their Master what concerned the destruction both of the place and nation, should be so quickly asking, Lord wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel? Nor do I less wonder to find the Learned Beza, expounding the very following Verse after this manner: Then shall there be the signs in the Sun, &c. That is after those times are fulfilled which were alloted for the salvation of the Gentiles, and vengeance upon the Jews, concerning which St. Paul discourses copiously, Rom. XI. 25, &c. When indeed nothing could be said clearer for the confutation of that Exposition than that of Vers. 32. Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away till all be fulfilled. It is strange this should be no more observed, as it ought to have been by himself and diverse others, when in truth these very words are as a gnomon to the whole Chapter. All the other passages of the Chapter fall in with Matth. XXIV. and Mark XI. where we have placed those Notes that were proper, and shall repeat nothing here. Which method I have taken in several places in this Evangelist, where he relates passages that have been related before, and which I have had occasion to handle as I met with them.

VERS. IV.

THEY are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , verse. 52. Captains of the Temple: And in the singular number, the Captain of the Temple, Acts IV. 1. but who should this, or these be?

I. All know, that there was a Roman Garrison in the Castle of Antonia, whose charge especially was to suppress all Tumults and Seditions in the Temple: But was the Tribune or the Centurions of that Garrison called by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Captains of the Temple? Surely rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Captains of the Castle of Antonia. And indeed it appears not that the Roman Captains had conspired against the life of Christ, that Judas should betake himself to them to make a bargin for the betraying of him.

II. The conjecture might be more probable of those Rulers in the Temple, concerning whom we have this mention. These are the Rulers that were in the Temple: Johanan ben Phineas Governor of the Seals, Ahijah set over the drink offerings: Matthiah ben Samuel that presided over the Lots, &c. But to me it seems beyond all doubt that the Captains of the Temple, were the Captains of the several Watches. In three places the Priests kept Watch and Ward in the Temple, viz. in Beth Abtenes, Beth Nitsots, and Beth Mokad. The Levites also in one and twenty places more. Whereas therefore these Watches or Guards consisted everyone of several persons, there was one single person set over each of them, as their Captain or the head of that Watch. And this way looks that of Pilate. Matth. XXVII. 65. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ye have a watch of your own, let some of them be sent to guard the Sepulcher.

III. The Captain of the Temple therefore, distinctively and by way of eminence so termed, I would suppose him whom they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Ruler of the Mountain of the House, who was the chief of all the heads of those Wards. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Ruler of the Mountain of the Temple, takes his walks through every watch, with Torches lighted before him: and if he found any upon the Watch that might not be standing on his feet, he said, Peace be with thee; but if he found him sleeping, he strack him with a stick, and it was warrantable for him to burn the Garments of such an one. And when it was said by others, what is that noise in the Court? the answer was made, it is the noise of a Levite under correction, and whose Garments are burning for that he slept upon the Watch. R. Eliezer ben Jacob said, they once found my Mother's Son asleep, and they burnt his Cloaths. Compare this passage with Revel. XVI. 15. Behold I come as a Thief; Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his Garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

It is easy distinguishing this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This Captain of the mountain of the Temple, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Ruler of the Temple or the Sagan. The former presided only over the Guards; the latter over the whole Service of the Temple. And so we have them distinguished, Acts IV. verse. 1. there is the Captain of the Temple, and Annas who was the Sagan.

VERS. XIX.

THE words of the institution of the Holy Eucharist throughout the whole contain a reflection, partly by way of Antithesis, partly by way of Allusion.

I. This is my body. ] Upon the account of their present celebration of the Passover these words might very well have some reference to the body of the Paschal Lamb. The body (I say) of the Paschal Lamb. For the Jews use this very phrase concerning it. They bring in a Table spread, on which are bitter Herbs, with other Herbs, unleaven'd Bread, Pottage 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Body of the Paschal Lamb. And a little after: He eateth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Body of the Passover. From whence our Savior's meaning may be well enough discerned, viz. that by the same signification that the Paschal Lamb was my body hitherto; from hence forward let this Bread be my body.

II. Which is given for you. ] But the Apostle adds, which is broken for you: Which indeed doth not so well agree with the Paschal Lamb, as with the Lamb for the daily Sacrifice; for as to the Paschal Lamb, there was not a bone of it broken, but that of the daily Sacrifice was broken and cut into several parts; and yet they are both of them the Body of Christ in a figure. And although, besides the breaking of it, there are these further instances wherein the Paschal Lamb, and that of the daily Sacrifice did differ, viz. 1. That the daily Sacrifice was for all Israel, but the Paschal for this or that Family. 2. The daily Sacrifice was for the atonement of sin, the Passover not so. 3. The daily Sacrifice was burnt, but the Passover eaten: yet in this they agreed, that under both, the body of our Savior was figured and shadowed out, though in a different notion.

III. This do in remembrance of me. ] As you kept the Passover in remembrance of your going out of Egyt. Thou shalt remember the day of thy going out of Egypt all the days of thy life. Ben Zuma thus explains it; the days of thy life, that is, in the day time: all the days of thy life, that is, in the night time too. But the wise men say, the days of thy life, that is, in this age: all the days of thy life, that the days of the Messiah may be included too. But whereas in the days of the Messiah there was a greater and more illustrious redemption and deliverance, than that out of Egypt, brought about; with the Jews good leave, it is highly requisite, that both the thing itself, and he that accomplished it should be remembered. We suspect in our Notes upon 1 Cor. XI. as if some of the Corinthians in their very participation of the Holy Eucharist did so far Judaize, that what had been instituted for the Commemoration of their redemption by the death of Christ, they perverted to the Commemoration of the going out of Egypt: and that they did not at all discern the Lord's body, in the Sacrament.

Under the Law there were several eatings of Holy things. The first was that which Siphra mentions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 When the Priests eat of the Sacrifice, and atonement is made for him that brings it: There were other eatings, viz. of the Festival Sacrifices of the Tenths, Thanksgiving Offerings, &c. which were to be eaten by those that brought them; but these all now have their period; and now, Do ye this, and do it in remembrance of me.

IV. This cup which is shed for you. ] This seems to have reference to that cup of Wine that was every day powered out in the Drink-Offerings, with the daily Sacrifice, for that also was poured out for the remission of Sins. So that the bread may have reference to the body of the daily Sacrifice, and the cup, to the Wine of the Drink-Offering.

V. My blood of the New Testament. ] So St. Matthew, and St. Mark, with reference to the blood of Bulls and of Goats, with which the Old Testament was confirmed, Exod. XXIV. Heb. IX. 10.

VI. The New Testament in my blood. ] So our Evangelist, and so the Apostle, 1 Cor. XI. with reference to the whole ministry of the Altar, where blood was poured out: Nay, with respect to the whole Jewish Religion; for here was the beginning or entry of the New Covenant. And indeed it seems that the design of that frequent Communion of the Lord's Supper in the first Ages of the Church among other things, was, that those who were converted from Judaism, might be sealed and confirmed against Judaism; the Sacrament itself being the mark of the cessation, the Old Testament, and the beginning of the New.

VERS. XXI.

WHAT can be desired more as a demonstration that Judas was present at the Eucharist? And whereas the contrary is endeavored to be proved out of Joh. XIII. nothing is made out of nothing; for there is not one syllable throughout that whole Chapter of the Paschal Supper, but of a Supper before the Feast of the Passover.

VERS. XXVI.

THE Vulgar and Interlinear, sicut junior. We, as the younger, very well. For, as Beza hath it upon the place, proprie dicitur de aetate: it is properly to be understood of age. I ask therefore,

I. Whether Peter was not the oldest of the whole company? What reason can any have to deny this? It was necessary that someone of them should be the first both in number and order, and it was as sit and equal, that the oldest amongst them should be reckoned the first. And who will you say, was older than Peter? Hence was it that he had the first place in the Catalogue of the Apostles because he was the oldest. For this reason he sat at Table in the uppermost place next our Lord: for this reason did our Savior so often direct his discourse so immediately to him: and for this reason were his answers to Christ taken in the name of all the rest, viz. because the oldest. Which brings to mind 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Interpreter of the Doctor, in the School of the Rabbins, who was the Interlocutor between the Master and the Disciples, and for that reason the chief •• the School, but without any primacy. Whereas therefore St. Peter after our Savior's Ascension into heaven, was (to speak vulgarly) the Prolocutor in that Sacred College; what more probable reason can be offered why he was so, than his seniority? Were not others as capable of speaking as he? had they not equal Authority, Zeal, Faith, Knowledge with him, &c? but he indeed was the eldest man.

II. I cannot therefore but suspect from the proper signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , younger, (to which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the greater, respecting age, does answer) that someone amongst them, had been challenging some privilege and primacy to himself upon the account of seniority: and unless any can make it out that there was somebody older than Peter, pardon me, if I think that he was the chief in this Contention, and that it was chiefly moved betwixt himself and the two Sons of Zebedee. For it seems unlikely, that the other nine would have contended for the primacy with Peter, James and John; whom Christ had so peculiarly distinguished in their presence, with marks of his favor. So that the struggle seems to be especially between these three, and Peter the beginner of the strife: which appears partly in that our Savior rebukes him by name; and partly in that he could not forget, without some grudge, that request of the two Brothers, Lord, let us sit one on thy right hand, the other on thy left.

VERS. XXXI.

LET us change the Name and person: Thomas, Thomas: or Philip, Philip, Satan hath desired, &c. but I have prayed, &c. And who would from hence have pick • out an Argument for the Primacy of Thomas, or Philip, over the rest of the Apostles, and the universal Church? And yet this do the Romanists in the behalf of Peter. Who would not have taken it rather as a severe chiding? As if he should have said, Thou Thomas or Philip, art thou so hot in contending for the Primacy, whiles Satan is so hot against all of you? and whilst you are at strife amongst yourselves, he is at strife against you all? under such a notion as this, I doubt not, our Savior did speak to Peter; and that in these words he found a severe reprimand rather than any promotion to the Primacy.

VERS. XXXII.

THERE seems an emphasis in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Faith. As to the other Apostles indeed, that Christian courage and magnanimity which they ought to have exerted in that difficult time did fail them, but their Faith was nothing so near shipwreck as Peter 's Faith was. They indeed deserted their Master and fled, Mark XIV. 50. which they▪ seem to have not done without some connivence from himself, Joh. XVIII. 8. But when Peter renounced and abjured his Lord, how near was he becoming 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Apostate, and his Faith from suffering a total shipwreck? Certainly it was Peter 's advantage that Christ prayed for him, but it was not so much for his honor that he should stand in need of such a Prayer beyond all others.

VERS. XXXVI.

DOTH our Savior give them this counsel in good earnest?

I. He uses the common Dialect. For so also the Rabbins in other things. He that hath not wherewithal to eat but upon mere Alms, let him beg, or sell his Garments to buy Oil and Candles for the Feast of Dedication, &c.

II. He warns them of a danger that is very near, and in a common way of speech, lets them know, that they had more need of providing Swords for their defense against the common enemy, than be any way quarrelling amongst themselves. Not so much exhorting them to repel force with force, as to give them such an apprehension of the common rage of their enemies against them, that might suppress all private animosities amongst themselves.

VERS. XXXVII.

THAT is, my business is done: yours is but beginning. While I was present, the Children of the Bride-Chamber had no reason to weep. But when I am taken away and numbered amongst the transgressors, think what will be done to you, and what ought to be done by you, and then think if this be a time for you to be contending with one another.

VERS. XLIII.

I. IN his Temptations in the Wilderness there was no Angel by him, for St. Matthew saith, Chap. IV. 11. Then the Devil leaveth him, and behold Angels came and ministered unto him: that is, Not till the Devil had first left him. But in the midst of this trial, there was an Angel strengthening him: and why so? by reason of his Agony you will say, and that very truly: But whence arose this Agony and of what kind was it? It was occasioned (you will say) from a sense of Divine indignation and wrath. This dare not I say, or imagine, that God was angry, or conceived any indignation against him at all. And if the anguish and agony of his mind was the result of the Divine wrath pressing in upon him, I do not see what kind of comfort an Angel could minister against the wrath of God. It is rather an argument God was not angry with him, when he sent an Angel to comfort him.

II. It is not to be doubted but that Christ was now wrestling with a furious enraged Devil, yea a Devil loosed from his chain, and permitted without any check or restraint from Divine Providence to exert all his force and rage against him. Which was permitted by God, not from any displeasure against his Son, but that even human nature might by this her combatant, get a conquest over this insulting enemy. For it had been a small thing to have vanquished the Devil by mere Divine power.

III. However therefore it is not here related in express terms, yet could I easily persuade myself that the Devil might at this time appear to our Savior in some visible shape. When he tempted him in the Wilderness he put on the disguise of some good Angel, or rather some kind of resemblance of the Holy Ghost. But in this last temptation he puts on himself, and appears in his own colors, viz. in some direful formidable figure on purpose to terrify our Lord. And from thence it was that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he began to be sore amazed and to be very heavy, Mark XIV. 33. and here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be in an agony. Nor do I rashly, and without any ground suppose this, but upon these reasons:

I. Whereas that old Dragon assaulted the first Adam in a Garden in a visible shape, it is not absurd to imagine he did so now to the second Adam in a Garden, in a visible shape.

II. This our Evangelist tells us concerning his Temptation in the Wilderness, That when the Devil had ended all the Temptation he departed from him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a season. Here he takes the season to return , and I see no reason why he should not at this time, as well as in the Wilderness, assume some visible shape. Then indeed he addressed himself in a charming and grateful shape to have enticed and deceived him; but now, in a frightful and horrid one, to have amazed and terrified him. He had already experienced how vain a thing it was to go about to cheat and allure him, what remained therefore, but to shake his mind (if possible) with fright and terror?

III. For when he had no greater invention in his whole Store-house, by which he could distress and shake the minds of mortals, than the horrid apparition of himself, none will conceive he would neglect this engine, that, if it could be, through his eye he might disturb his soul. That therefore which the Jews fain or dream about Solomon, that he saw the Angel of Death (that is the Devil) gnashing his teeth, and that a Disciple of Rabbi did so too, I suppose acted in good earnest here; namely that Christ saw the Devil, that old Dragon, gaping at him, with all horror he could put on. And in this sense would I understand that of the Messenger of Satan buffeting the Apostle : viz. That the Devil did appear visibly to him in some frightful shape to afflict and terrify him. And perhaps that vehement desire he had to sift the Disciples ( verse. 31.) respects this same thing, namely that he might be permitted to assault them with such kind of affrightments.

VERS. XLIV.

DJodorus Siculus speaking of a Country where Alexander the Great had to do with Porus, hath this passage, There are Serpents there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Which by their bites would occasion most bitter deaths: they are horrible pains, that afflict any that are struck by them, and an issue of sweat like blood seizeth them. I would ascribe this bloody sweat of our Savior to the bite of that old Serpent, rather than to the apprehension of Divine wrath.

VERS. XLVII.

OUR Savior had to do with a frightful and terrifying Devil, but this Traitor seems possessed with a tame and gentle one. He converses with the Apostles, and there is no token of a Devil dwelling in him. He is present at the Passover, at the Eucharist, and the very lips of Christ, and still no sign of Satan being his inmate. But when once the Devil hath done his work by thee, then Judas, take heed of thy Devil.

As to this treacherous contrivance of Judas, let us frame the most gentle opinion of it that the matter can bear. For instance, that he might perhaps think with himself, that it was not possible for Christ to be apprehended by the Jews, having already seen him working such stupendous miracles, and more than once strangely delivering himself from them. And be it further, that when he said to them, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he, lay hold of him. He said it scoffingly, as believing they could not be able to lay hold on him. Grant we, in a word, that when he saw him condemned he repented himself, having never suspected that matters would have gone so far▪ presuming that Christ would easily have made his escapes from them, and himself should have got thirty pieces of silver by the bargain: Let us grant (I say) that this was his contrivance, and color it over with as plausible excuses as we can; yet certainly was there never anything could be more impiously done by mortal man, than for him thus to play with the Holy of holies, and endeavor to make merchandize of the Son of God. However, I suspect much worse things hatched in the breast of this Traitor: viz. that Christ did really not please him, and with the great cheifs of that Nation though he supposed him the true Messiah: Yet not such • n one as answered their carnal expectation.

The Rabbins dinstinguish between lawful kisses, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kisses of folly: Saying that all kisses are kisses of folly excepting three : which they there reckon up. But what kind of kiss was this? a kiss of folly? Alas it is too low and dwarfish a term for this gygantick monster.

VERS. LIII.

THE Serpent himself is now come in Judas, and the seed of the Serpent was that Rout that came with him, to whom it was so fatal to bruise the heel of the Messiah, and now was the hour for that wickedness. It was anciently foretold and predetermined both as to the thing itself and the instruments, and now all fences lie open, and you may do what you please. The chains of the Devil himself are now loosed, and it is permitted to him without the least check or restraint of Divine Providence to exert all his Furies at pleasure, for now is the power of darkness.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , darkness is the Devil amongst the Allegorists. It is said, on the first day of the Creation, the Angel of death (i. e. the Devil) was created, according as it is written, there was darkness upon the face of the deep: that is, the Angel of death, who darkeneth the eyes of men.

VERS. II.

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

VERS. VII.

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

VERS. XXX.

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

VERS. XXXI.

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

VERS. XXXIV.

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

VERS. XXXVI.

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

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

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

VERS. XLII.

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

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

VERS. XLIII.

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

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

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

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

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

VERS. LIII.

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

VERS. LIV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

VERS. LVI.

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

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

VERS. V.

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

VERS. XIII.

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

VERS. XV.

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

VERS. XXI.

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

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

VERS. XXX.

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

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

VERS. XXXII.

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

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

VERS. XXXIV.

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

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

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

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

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

VERS. XXXVII.

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

VERS. XLIV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VERS. XLV.

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

VERS. L.

HOW many difficulties arise here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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