The humiliation of the Sonne of God by his becomming the Son of man, by taking the forme of a servant, and by his sufferings under Pontius Pilat, &c. Or The eighth book of commentaries vpon the Apostles Creed: continued by Thomas Jackson Dr. in Divinitie, chaplaine to his Majestie in ordinarie, and president of Corpus Christi Colledge in Oxford. Divided into foure sections.

CHAP. XXVII. Of such repentance as Judas found: of his casting downe the thirty pieces of silver in the Temple: and of the difficulties or varietie of opinions, by which of the Prophets it was foretold.

1 ONe historicall relation concerning Iudas and his fearefull end, there is, which is by S. Matthew, (who of all the foure Evangelists citeth the te∣stimonie of the Prophecie, where∣in part of it was foretold) left somewhat ambi∣guous for the circumstances of time, wherein it happened. Some perhaps would at the first sight, conceive from St. Matthews words, that Iudas did cast downe the hire of his treason in the Temple, immediatly after the chief Priests and Elders had bound our Saviour, and led him to Pontius Pilat the Governour. But if wee consider other cir∣cumstances of time related by S. Iohn, and S. Luke, it is farre more probable that Iudas was not tou∣ched with sorrow or grief: whether of mind or of body or of both, untill our Saviour was sen∣tenced to the death of the Crosse by Pontius Pilat. For the first thing, which the chief Priests and Elders did, after they themselves had past sen∣tence on our Saviour, was the delivery of him to the Secular power, and their importunat sollici∣tation of Pilat to put their sentence in execution. It was a memorable document of deadly hypo∣crisie in the Priests and Elders, that they would

not enter into the Common-hall or publique Court of Justice to indite him there, being im∣mediatly after to celebrate the usuall service for that day in the Temple. It was againe an extra∣ordinary courtesie in Pilat towards them, that he would vouchsafe to take their accusations in the pavement or Court adjoyning to the Pretorium. But as well the curtesie of the one, as the hypo∣crisie of the other, friendly conspired to accom∣plish the will of God, which was to have his onely Sonne made that day a sacrifice of atonement for the sinnes both of the Jews, and Gentiles; where∣as if Pilat had stood upon points of Authoritie or prerogative: it is more then probable, the Priests and Elders would rather have deferred their accusations for that instant then have en∣tred into the Pretorium or Common-hall. But having once obtained their desire in the Pave∣ment, they immediately returned into the Tem∣ple, where Iudas attended them. And having re∣solved (as hee thought) to have set his house or worldly businesse in such order, as Ahitophel had done his; hee went forth and hanged himself. So that albeit Iudas had seene his Master dead in law, that is, sentenced to death by the high Priest and Pontius Pilat, upon the Jews importunat ac∣cusations and testimonies against him: Yet the Traitor having no witnesse produced against him besides his owne conscience, No Judge or ap∣pointed Executioner besides himself: did die an accursed death, before his Master had made an atonement for the sinnes of the world. So the

Psalmist by way of imprecation had foretold; Let sudden destruction come upon him unawares (or as others) let destruction come upon him, and let the net, that hee hath made for others, catch himself: into that very destruction let him fall, Psalm. 35.8. How this imprecation though not directed a∣gainst Iudas alone, did punctually fall upon him, will better appeare anon in the discussions, how the imprecations reiterated in the 109. Psalme, were most punctually fulfilled in him. That which for the present I intended to advertise the Reader of, is briefly this; That if we referre the time of Iudas death, unto this point of time in∣timated, the parallel betwixt St. Matthews rela∣tion of his fearefull end, and other sacred passa∣ges in the Evangelists and Apostles, will be more cleare. St. Matthews relation yee have in the 27. Chapter. 3. Then Iudas which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought againe the thirty pieces of silver to the chief Priests and Elders, saying; I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood: And they said, What is that to us? See thou to that. And hee cast downe the pieces of silver in the Temple, and depar∣ted, and went and hanged himself. And the chief Priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not law∣full to put them into the Treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they tooke counsell, and bought with them the Potters field to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood un∣to this day. (Then was fulfilled that which was spo∣ken by the Prophet Ieremiah saying, And they took the

thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was va∣lued, whom they of the children of Israel did value: and gave them for the Potters field, as the Lord ap∣pointed mee.)

2. But where this casting downe of the thir∣tie pieces of silver in the Temple, was foretold or by whom, there is, and hath been great vari∣etie of opinions amongst learned Interpreters, as well Ancient as Moderne; so great, that many of them have rather soiled, then any way cleared the meaning of the Evangelist: and left the in∣vestigation of the truth, more difficult to the ingenuous and sagacious Reader, then if they had not medled with it, or left it (untoucht) to his privat search. The first difficulty is about the Grammaticall signification of some words in the Originall. The second pitcheth upon a misno∣mer of the Prophet, as whether that Prophecie, which the Evangelist said was fulfilled in this fact of Iudas, was uttered or written by Zachariah, or the Prophet Ieremiah, or respectively by both. The third, admitting thus much was either onely foretold, or both foretold, and forepictured either by Ieremiah or by Zachariah or by both, whether they spoke in their owne persons or in the per∣son of Iudas or of Christ or of both. The first difficulty or rather discord about the literall sense of the Prophets words, as they are related by the Evangelist, hath been occasioned partly by the Translation of the Septuagint, and partly by the Author of the vulgar Latin. For whereas wee reade as well in St. Matthew, as in the Prophet

Zachariah, And I cast them ad figulum, to the Potter; the vulgar Latine hath it, And I cast them ad Sta∣taarium, to the Statue maker in the house of the Lord. The Septuagint thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cast them into the furnace or to the metal-mel∣ter. The Greek might import (though not so di∣rectly as the Latine) a Potters furnace. But if we take Statuarius (which is the expression of the vulgar Latine) in its proper sense, for a Statue maker whether in stone or of metall wrought with toole or molten, there could be no use of such an Artificer in that Temple, wherein all Sta∣tues or Images of what stuffe soever they could be made were most strictly forbidden; Or in that people among whom the erecting or making of them was a crime capital. To avoid this absurditie in their Authenticated Translation, the Sectaries of the Romish Church by the [Statuarie] would have us understand GOD himself, who is the former or fashioner of all things. And for this In∣terpretation, they alledge some ancient Greek Fathers, but whose Authority, they themselves will sleight, or passe such censures upon their Authors, as they will not permit us in like case to doe, whensoever they make against their pre∣tended Catholick tenets. The most learned In∣terpreters in the Romish Church, do partly be∣wray, and sometimes openly professe, that this Interpretation is too farre fetcht, and farre wide from the meaning of the Prophet (whosoever he was,) as he is alledged by the Evangelist. What then could move so many of them to embrace, or

rather not to disclaime these roving collections? Onely the authority of the Trent Councell, which hath so fettered them in this and other like points, that they dare not say that their rea∣sonable Soules are (under God) their owne: but are content to sacrifice learning, reason, and com∣mon sense to many illiterat resolutions of wil∣full, partial, and corrupt men in that Councel as∣sembled. If the ingenuous Reader will not be∣leeve me in this particular, let him take the pains to satisfie himself, by observing how Ribera and Castrus with some other men very well learned, and ingenuous (so farre as they durst) have utter∣ly lost themselves in their Commentaries upon the 11. of Zacharie.

3. Concerning the second difficultie, many both in the Romish and reformed Churches, will in no case admit of a misnomer in the Evangelists writing, but will have the words cited by him to be the Prophet Ieremiahs owne words, though no where extant in his own works, which now we have. Yet in some other works of his, which no Christian living this day, hath seene: but of which S. Hierom had seen an Hebrew Copy, as he him∣self relates; but unto which it doth not appeare that he gave any credit, it being imparted to him by one of the sect of the Nazarens. The words of the pretended prophecy answer so punctually and identically to every apex or title of S. Matthews quotation or paraphrase upon the Prophet; as we may more then suspect, justly presume that pas∣sage which S. Hierom relates, to have been squared

on purpose to S. Matthews allegation, after the publishing of this Gospel. For such supposititious or bastard books, were obtruded upon the Church before S. Hieroms or Origens dayes.

Amongst many Interpretations upon this 11. of Zachariah, which Iunius in his parallels hath dili∣gently recited, he approves onely of one or two: the one, that Zachariah was binomius, had two names, Ieremiah and Zachariah, a thing not unfre∣quent in sacred histories, especially where their names, whether they be two or more, have but one signification or importance. Now the ety∣mologie of Ieremiah and Zachariah, according to his Interpretation of them, have the very same signification. The other which after this, Iunius likes best, is that Zachariah had the Prophet Iere∣miah for his Master or Instructer, though not viva voce, yet partaker of his spirit by tradition or undoubted relation of his propheticall predi∣ctions, from such as had beene acquainted with Ieremiah, during the time of Zedechiahs raigne, or in the beginning of the Babylonish captivitie. This good Writer was afraid lest Ieremiah should have lived too long, if he had been acquainted with Zachariah, upon his return from Babylon, or about the building of the second Temple, as some others before Iunius had avoucht, whose opinion in the maine point he likes well of, to wit, that al∣beit the testimony alledged by S. Matthew be distinctly found in the Prophet Zachariah, yet is ascribed by the Evangelist himself purposely to Ieremiah, because Zachariah had learned it from

Ieremiah, as Daniel had done the end of the cap∣tivitie.

4. For my part, if I could be fully perswaded (as I am not to the contrary) that the reason why S. Matthew did purposely ascribe these words in the Prophet Zachariah, unto Ieremiah, was be∣cause the Prophet Zachariah had Ieremiah in this and many other Prophecies for his Instructer or guide; I should think it no soloecisme to say, that Zachariah had been acquainted with Ieremiah himself, either about the beginning of the Baby∣lonish Captivitie, or that Ieremiah had lived un∣till this peoples returne to Jerusalem and to the Inheritance and possessions of their forefathers. For that divers of that generation, wherein Iere∣miah prophecied, and whilest the first Temple was standing, did live so long, as Iunius thinks it improbable Ieremiah should live, is cleare from that of Ezra 3.12. Many of the Priests and the Le∣vites, and chief of the Fathers, who were ancient men, who had seen the first house; when the foundation of the house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice: and many shouted aloud for joy. Howbeit, I am not of opinion, that men in those dayes did by strength of nature make up so many yeares here on earth, as this history implyes these many Priests and Levites did, but rather that God by his speciall providence and goodnesse, did at this time reiterate or renew that Covenant of life, which once he made to Phinehas and Eleazar. And Ieremiah and Baruch the sonne of Neriah, had this speciall priviledge bestowed upon them, that

their lives should be given unto them for a prey, in all places whither soever they went. Againe, it is very probable, seeing Ieremiah during the time of his imprisonment did by the appoint∣ment of the Lord buy the field of Hananeel his un∣cles sonne, and cause the Evidences subscribed to be put up by Earuch in an earthen vessell, that they might continue many dayes: that hee expected to see the returne of this people from captivity unto the possessions of their Fathers: that hee himself did hope to enjoy the benefit of this his bargaine, which hee made in a strange time, as worldlings would think. But so hee made it for the confir∣mation of this peoples faith in Gods promises, that fields and possessions, which then lay deso∣late, should be repossest by this people and their posterity: and Inheritances should bee sold and alienated to the next of kinred, (as this of Hana∣neels was to Ieremiah) according to the Law.

5. Maldonat in his Comments upon St. Mat∣thew is very free, and not afraid, as Iunius and other good Writers are, to admit of a misnomer, neither occasioned by the Evangelists forgetful∣nesse, nor from mistake of letters, or abbrevia∣tures by the Transcribers, but rather by a volun∣tary intersertion of the Prophet Ieremiah his name by some bold Transcriber or Interpreter, when as the Evangelist had onely said, The Pro∣phet, (as his usuall maner is) without any intima∣tion what Prophet it was, leaving that wholly to the diligent Readers search or observation. For so he doth in that remarkable Prophecie; Behold

a virgin shall conceive, and beare a Sonne, &c. hee saith no more, then all this was foretold by the Prophet, without any mention or intimation of Isaiahs name: nor doth hee name the Prophet Hosea, when hee records the fulfilling of his Pro∣phecie, Out of Egypt have I called my Sonne, Matt. 2.15. And in verse 23. of the same Chapter, hee shall bee called a NAZARENE. Hee giving the reason why Ioseph, by the disposition of the Di∣vine providence did divert his intended returne unto Bethleem, where Christ was born, and took up his dwelling in Nazareth, saith this was done, that it might bee fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets, not so much as intimating the name of any one Prophet, by whom this was foretold. And if the curious Reader would observe his al∣legations of Propheticall testimonies, through∣out his whole Gospel, he shall find the Prophets name, (whose testimony hee most faithfully re∣cords) concealed or omitted three times as often, as it is exprest. And in those few places, wherein the Prophets name, whose authority hee alled∣geth, is exprest, it may without any danger bee questioned whether they were so exprest or in∣terserted by Interpreters or Transcribers. For the addition of names, or change of some vow∣els, doth no way vitiate the divine truth of Pro∣phecie; though the custome of later Interpreters or Translators, bee farre more commendable to expresse the Prophets name, or the Chapter and verse, to which the Evangelical story referres, in the margin, not in the body of the Text, Howe∣ver

the misnomers of persons or places inserted to the body of the discourse, doth no way corrupt the true sense, and meaning, either of historicall or Propheticall truth: the errour is imputable onely to the Transcriber or Interpreter, not to the Author.

6. But for this place now in question, I know it is objected by good Writers, (both as well of the Reformed, as Romish Church) that the most ancient copies of St. Matthews Gospel now ex∣tant, have the name of Ieremiah, not of Zachariah: and therefore it is a presumption at least, that the name was not interserted by any Interpreter or Transcriber, but exprest by the first Author him∣self. Yet this is a presumption onely, no just proofe, because there may be for ought we know, more ancient copies of S. Matthew, then any man of later yeeres hath seene or published to the world; as of later yeeres some copies of the Sep∣tuagint and of St. Iohns Gospel, have been com∣municated unto the Christian world, which are more ancient, then those which in former ages were most common. Again, no man can make such proof, that any Greek Manuscript of S. Mat∣thew now extant is more ancient then the Syriack Testament, in which the name of the Prophet Ieremiah is not to bee found, although the sub∣stance of S. Matthews Text concerning the ful∣filling of this Prophecie bee plaine, and full. Lastly, I think, scarce any of the Romish Church would affirme, that such Manuscripts, as they have seene, are more ancient, then their first

vulgar Latin Translation of the Books of Moses. And now, if it bee no prejudice to the substance of truth in their most ancient Translation, to in∣tersert names, and places, not so much as heard of in Moses his time, nor added by the Seventy Interpreters: or other expressions of the He∣brew names (used by Moses) by the Grecians: but new names imposed by the Grecians upon places otherwise called in more ancient times: it can no way disparage the true sense or meaning of S. Matthew, although very ancient Interpre∣ters or Transcribers have interserted the name of Ieremiah instead of Zachariah into the body of his Text. But where doth the most ancient vul∣gar Translator make any such intersertion of names into the body of Moses his writings? To omit other places, so he doth Numb. 34.11. where we reade, as the Hebrew verbatim hath it, And the coast shall goe downe from Shepham to Riblah, the ancient vulgar Latin makes this intersertion, de Sephama descendent termini in Reblata contra fon∣tem Daphnen; The coast or border shall descend from Sephama to Riblah over against the foun∣taine called Daphne, that is, to that Antioch where Christs followers were first named Christians. It is not probable that the first Author of the vulgar Latin was more ancient, then that Hebrew copie of those Apocryphal books ascribed to Ieremiah, by the sect of the Nazarenes. Now this testimony alledged by St. Matthew, being extant in that Apocryphal book before any Latin Tran∣slation of the Bible; and more antient then any

Greek transcript of S. Matthew, as yet publickly knowne: the Interpreters Greek or Latine might with the same confidence intersert the Prophet Ieremiah his name into the body of the text, as the vulgar Latine doth the name of the foun∣taine Daphne into the history of Moses. The most ancient and best Authority, which the Author of the vulgar Latine can pretend for this interserti∣on, is from the Author of the 2. Book of Macca∣bees. I could not therefore condemne Maldonat for speaking inconsequently either to the truth it self, or to the Authority of the Romish Church, wherein he lived, for his ingenuous free opinion concerning this misnomer in the text of S. Mat∣thew, which is a farre grosser error in Transcripts or instruments of the Law then of the Gospel.

7 But whether we admit of Maldonats or Iuni∣us opinion, as the more probable: the third diffi∣culty proposed will not be dissolved by one, or both; And that was, how the Author of the pro∣phecy, whose accomplishment S. Matthew records (were it Ieremiah, Zachariah, or some other) should sustaine the person of Iudas the Traitor, and the person of our Saviour CHRIST, who was be∣trayed, of whom the forecited Prophecy was to be literally fulfilled. That it was fulfilled by Iudas fact, is granted by all: but how it was fulfilled of our Saviour, is a question, which most Interpre∣ters leave undetermined. For the resolution or determination of it, there might be another que∣stion premised, to wit, whether he or they, who∣soever they were, who did foretell Iudas his cast∣ing

down the thirtie pieces of silver to the Por∣ter in the Temple, did fore-signifie this by way of vision, or did withall fore-picture it by like mat∣ter of fact. But the resolution of this latter questi∣on (neither altogether impertinent, nor absolute∣ly necessary) might be referred to the determina∣tion of the like question, moved by Interpreters upon that of Hosea 1.2. Goe, take unto thee a wife of whoredomes, and children of whoredomes: for the land hath committed great whoredome, departing from the Lord However they have determined or shall determine that question concerning Hosea, as whether indeed he did take a wife of fornication unto him, or onely spake symbolically, (as if his sayings were to be construed for his deeds) nei∣ther part of the determination will determine the present difficulty, how either Ieremiah or Zacha∣riah should represent either our Saviour Christ or Iudas, either by word or deed. The shadow of this seeming stumbling block, hath affrighted some learned Commentators out of the right way, into which they had upon good deliberati∣on entred. To instance in one, it was well obser∣ved by Castrus upon the 11. of Zachariah.

Nihilominus sicut Za∣charias in sua personâ re∣ferebat Christum, ita & facto suo. Nam quemad∣modum pro suo munere pastoritio exigebat preti∣um, fidem, & pietatem ex

corde, & datum est preti∣um vile, triginta argen∣teorum: ita Christus posta∣labat à Iudaeis pro suo E∣vangelizandi munere, ut sibi crederetur, & ut Deus coleretur: At illi pretio triginta argenteorum eum estimaverunt. Et sicut Pro∣pheta indignatus quòd tam vili pretio fuisset aestima∣tus, & pretium projecit, et eos qui pretium illi dede∣runt: ita Christus proje∣cit Iudaeos, & tradidit Ro∣manis devastandos. Ne verò dicamus Zachariam Iudae personam & Christi simul retulisse, videtur veriùs diversam esse prophetiam Zachariae & Jeremiae. Nam & Hie∣ronymus super 27. Mat∣thaei sic ait, Legi nuper in quodam Hebraico vo∣lumine, quod Nazareae sectae mihi Hebraicus ob∣tulit, Jeremiae apocryphum, in quo haec ad verbum scriptareperi.

Zachariah, he grants, did represent Christ both by personal office and by matter of fact. Zachariah did de∣mand faith, & hearty piety of his flock for his propheticall paines amongst them, and they tender him a base reward, thirty pieces

of silver: So Christ required of the Jews for his Evangeli∣call function amongst them, onely this, that they would be∣leeve him, and worship God: and they value him at 30. pie∣ces of silver. Again, as the Pro∣phet with indignation renoun∣ced both the base stipēd which was offered to him, & the flock which did tender it: so Christ cast off the Jews which had thus disesteemed him, and de∣livered thē over to be destroy∣ed by the Romans. But (saith this Author) lest wee should grant that the Prophet Zacha∣riah did by the same fact or re∣solutiō represent both the per∣son of Christ and of Iudas, it is more probable that the pro∣phecy of Zachariah is different from that of Ieremiah, which S. Matthew alledgeth. For Hierom upon the 27. of S. Matthew tels us, he had lately read a book of Ieremiah in the Hebrew tongue, which one of the sect of the Nazarens had imparted unto him, in which he found S. Mat∣thews allegatiō word for word. Thus farre Castrius.

Desinit in piscem mulier formosa supernè.

He begins his verdict in the spirit of wisedome and discretion, continueth it perplexedly, and concludeth it according to the foolishnesse or for∣getfulnesse of the flesh. For that inconvenience which he so much feared, will be never a whit the lesse, albeit we grant him, that S. Matthews words, do not referre to the forecited place of Zachariah, but to those books of Ieremiah, which S. Hierom had seene; or to any other Prophet whatsoe∣ver, whether his works be extant or lost. And thus being blencht in his right course by the sha∣dow, hee falls foule upon that very stumbling block, or rather a farre worse then that, which he sought to avoid. For by his conclusion the of∣ten forementioned allegation of S. Matthew can∣not be literally, or concludently referr'd to any Prophet at all.

Notes

• See Jer. 45. ver. 5. & 39
• Vide Nebri∣sensis quin∣quagenam. C. 14.