The works of the Reverend and learned John Lightfoot D. D., late Master of Katherine Hall in Cambridge such as were, and such as never before were printed : in two volumes : with the authors life and large and useful tables to each volume : also three maps : one of the temple drawn by the author himself, the others of Jervsalem and the Holy Land drawn according to the author's chorography, with a description collected out of his writings.

CHAP. I. (Book 1)

VERS. I.

Βίβλος Γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The Book of the Generation of Iesus Christ.

ע 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:

TEN a Stocks came up out of Babylon: 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Priests. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Levites. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉a 1.1 Israelites. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Common Persons, as to the Priesthood: such whose Fa∣thers indeed were sprung from Priests, but their Mothers unfit to be admitted to the Priests Marriage Bed. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Proselytes. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Liberti, or Ser∣vants set Free. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nothi: for such as were born in Wedlock; but that which was unlawful. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nethinims. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bastards: such as came of a certain Mo∣ther, but of an uncertain Father. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Such as were gathered up out of the Streets, whose Fathers and Mothers were uncertain.

A defiled Generation indeed! and therefore brought up out of Babylon in this com∣mon sink, according to the Opinion of the Hebrews, that the whole Jewish Seed, still remaining there, might not be polluted by it. :〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For Ezra went not up out of Babylon, until he had rendred it pure as flower. They are words of the Babylonian Gemara, which the gloss explains thus: He left not any there that were illegitimate in any respect, but the Priests and Levites only, and Israelites of a pure and undefiled stock. Therefore he brought up with him these ten kinds of Pedigrees, that these might not be mingled with those when there remained now no more a Sanhedrin there, which might take care of that matter. Therefore he brought them to Jerusalem, where care

might be taken by the Sanhedrin fixed there, that the legitimate might not marry with the illegitimate.

Let us think of these things a little, while we are upon our entrance into the Gospel History.

• I. How great a cloud of obscurity could not but arise to the people concerning the original of Christ, even from the very return out of Babylon, when they either cer∣tainly saw, or certainly believed that they saw, a purer spring of Jewish blood there, than in the Land of Israel it self?
• ...

  II. How great a care ought there to be in the Families of pure blood, to preserve themselves untouched and clean from this impure sink; and to lay up among themselves Genealogical Scrols from generation to generation, as faithful witnesses and lasting mo∣numents of their legitimate stock and free blood?

  Hear a complaint and a Story in this case, b 1.2 R. Jochanan said, By the Temple, it is in our hand to discover who are not of pure blood in the Land of Israel: But what shall I do when the •••••••••• m•••• of this generation lie hid? (that is, when they are not of pure blood, and yet we must not declare so much openly concerning them.) He was of the same Opinion with R. Isaac, who said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Family (of the poluted blood) that lies hid, let it lie hid. Abai also saith, We have learned this also by tradition, that there was a certain Family called the Family of Beth-Zeripha, beyond Jordan, and a son of Zion removed it away. (The gloss is, some eminent Man by a publick Proclama∣tion declared it impure.) But he caused another, which was such (that is, impure) to come near. And there was another which the Wise-men would not manifest.

• ...

  III. When it especially lay upon the Sanhedrin, sealed at Hierusalem, to preserve pure Families, as much as in them lay, pure still; and when they prescribed Canons of pre∣serving the legitimation of the people (which you may see in those things that follow at the place alledged) there was some necessity to lay up publick Records of Pedigrees with them: whence it might be known what Family was pure, and what defiled. Hence that of Simon Ben Azzai deserves our notice; c 1.3 I saw, saith he, a Genealogical s••rol in Jerusalem, in which it was thus written, N. a Bastard of a strang Wife. Observe, that even a Bastard was written in their publick Books of Genealogy, that he might be known to be a Bastard, and that the purer Families might take heed of the defilement of his seed. Let that also be noted, d 1.4 They found a Book of Genealogy at Jerusalem, in which it was thus written, Hillel was sprung from David. Ben Jatsaph from Asaph. Ben Tsitsith ha••ceseth from Abner. Ben Cobesin from Achab, &c. And the Records of the Genealo∣gies smell of those things which are mentioned in the Text of the Mishnah concerning Wood-carrying. e 1.5 The Priests and Peoples times of Wood-carrying were nine. On the first day of the month Nisan, for the Sons of Erach the Son of Judah: the twentieth day of ••am∣muz, for the Sons of David, the Son of Judah: the fifth day of Ab, for the Sons of Parosh, the Son of Judah: the seventh of the same month, for the Sons of Jonadab; the Son of Re∣chab: the tenth of the same for the Sons of Senaah the Son of Benjamin, &c.

  It is therefore easie to guess whence Matthew took the last fourteen generations of this Genealogy, and Luke the first forty Names of his: namely, from the Genealogi∣cal Scrols, at that time well enough known, and laid up in the publick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Reposi∣tories, and in the private also. And it was necessary indeed, in so noble and sublime a subject, and a thing that would be so much inquired into by the Jewish people, as the Lineage of the Messiah would be, that the Evangelists should deliver a truth not only that could not be gain-said; but also, that might be proved and established from certain and undoubted Rolls of Ancestors.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Of Iesus Christ.

That the Name of Jesus is so often added to the Name of Christ in the New Testa∣ment, is not only, that thereby Christ might be pointed out for the Saviour; (which the Name Jesus signifies) but also that Jesus might be pointed out for true Christ: against the unbelief of the Jews; who though they acknowledged a certain Messiah, or Christ, yet they stifly denyed that Jesus of Nazareth was he. This observation takes place in numberless places of the New Testament, Act. ii. 36. & viij. 35. 1 Cor. vi. 22. 1 John ii. 22. & iv. 15, &c.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The Son of David.

That is, the true Messias. For by no more ordinary, and more proper Name did the Jewish Nation point out the Messiah, then by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Son of David. See Mat. XII. 23. & XXI. 9. & XXII. 42. Luke XVIII. 38. and every where in the Talmudic Writings,

but especially in f 1.6 Bab. Sanhedrin: where it is also discussed, what kind of times those should be when the Son of David should come.

The things which are devised by the Jews concerning Messiah Ben Joseph (which the Targum upon Cant. IV. 5. calls Messiah Ben Ephraim) are therefore devised, to comply with their giddiness, and loss of judgment in their opinion of the Messiah. For since they despised the true Messiah, who came in the time foreallotted by the Prophets, and Crucified him; they still expect I know not what Chimerical one, concerning whom they have no certain opinion: whether he shall be one, or two; whether he shall arise from among the living, or from the dead; whether he shall come in the clouds of Hea∣ven, or sitting upon an Ass, &c. They expect a Son of David, but they know not whom, they know not when.

VER. 2.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

IUDA.

IN Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehudah. Which word not only the Greeks for want of the Let∣ter h 1.7 in the middle of a word, but the Jews themselves do contract into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judah: which occurs infinite times in the Jerusalem Talmud. g 1.8 The same person who is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Jose Bi R. Jehudoh; in the next line is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Jose Bi R. Judah. So also h Shabb. And this is done i 1.9 elsewhere in the very same line.

VERS. 5.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Booz of Rachab.

SO far the Jewish Writers agree with Matthew, that they confess Rachab was Mar∣ried to some Prince of Israel, but mistaking concerning the person; whether they do this out of ignorance, or wilfully, let themselves look to that. Concerning this matter, the Babylonian Gemara hath these words: k 1.10 Eight Prophets, and those Priests sprang from Rachab, and they are these; Neriah, Baruch, Seraiah, Maaseiah, Jeremiah, Hilkiah, Hanameel, and Shallum. R. Judah saith, Huldah also was of the Posterity of Rachab. And a little after, There is a tradition that she being made a proselytess, was Married to Josua. (Which Kimchi also produceth in Jos. Chap. VI.) Here the gloss casts in a scruple: It sounds some what harshly, saith it, that Josua Married one that was made a Proselyte; when it was not lawful to contract Marriage with the Canaanites, though they be∣came Proselytes. Therefore we must say, that she was not of the Seven Nations of the Cana∣anites, but of some other Nation, and sojourned there. But others say, That that prohibi∣tion took not place before the entrance into the Promised Land, &c.

VERS. 8.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

And Ioram begat Ozias.

THE Names of Ahazias, Joash, and Amazias are struck out. See the History in the Books of the Kings, and 1 Chron. III. 11, 12.

• I. The Promise, That the Throne of David should not be empty, passed over after a manner for some time into the Family of Jehu, the overthrower of Jorams Family. For when he had razed the House of Ahab, and had slain Ahaziah, sprung on the Mothers side of the Family of Ahab; the Lord promiseth him, that his Sons should Reign unto the fourth generation, 2 King. X. 30. Therefore however, the mean time the Throne of David was not empty; and that Joash and Amazias sate during the space between: yet their Names are not unfitly omitted by our Evangelist, both be∣cause they were sometimes not very unlike Joram in their manners; and because their Kingdom was very much eclipsed by the Kingdom of Israel, when Ahazias was slain by Jehu; and his Cousin Amazias taken and basely subdued by his Cousin Joas, 2 Chron. XXV.
• II. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The seed of the wicked shall be cut off, Psal. XXXVII. vers. 28. Let the studious Reader observe, That in the Original, in this very place, the Letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ain, which is the last Letter of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Wicked; and of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seed, is cut off, and is not expres∣sed; when by the rule of Acrostic Verse, (according to which this Psalm is composed) that Letter ought to begin the next following Verse.
• ...

  III. Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image, &c. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God; visiting the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children, unto the third and fourth generation, Exod. XX. 5.

• ...

  Joram walked in the idolatrous ways of the Kings of Israel, according to the man∣ner of the Family of Ahab, 2 King. VIII. 18. Which horrid violation of the Second Command God visits upon his Posterity, according to the threatning of that Com∣mand; and therefore the Names of his Sons are dashed out unto the fourth Gene∣ration.

• IV. The Old Testament also stigmatizeth that Idolatry of Joram in a way not unlike this of the New; and shews that Family unworthy to be numbred among Davids pro∣geny, 2 Chron. XXII. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ahazias the Son of two and forty years: that is, not of his age, (for he was not above two and twenty, 2 King. VIII. 26.) but of the duration of the Family of Omri, (of which Stock Ahazias was, on the Mothers side) as will sufficiently appear to him that computes the years. A fatal thing surely! that the years of a King of Judah should be reckoned by the account of the House of Omri.
• ...

  V. Let a Genealogical stile, not much different be observed, 1 Chron. IV. 1. where Shobal, born in the fifth or sixth Generation from Judah, is reckoned as if he were an immediate Son of Judah. Compare Chap. II. 50.

  In the like manner Ezr. VII. in the Genealogy of Ezra five or six Generations are erazed.

VERS. 11.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

And Iosias begat Iechonias.

THE Sons of Josias were these: The first born Jochanan, the second Joachim, the third Zedechiah, the fourth Shallum, 1 Chron. III. 15. Who this Shallum was the Jeru∣salem Talmudists do dispute. a 1.11 R. Jochanan saith, Jochanan, and Jehoachaz were the same. And when it is written, Jochanan the first born, it means this, That he was the first born to the Kingdom: that is, He first Reigned. And R. Jochanan saith, Shallum and Zedekias are the same. And when it is written, Zedekias the third, Shallum the fourth; he was the third in birth, but he reigned fourth. The same things are produced in the Tract b 1.12 Sotah. But R. Chimchi much righter: c 1.13 Shallum, saith he, is Jechonias, who had two names, and was reckoned for the Son of Josias, when he was his Grandchild, (or the Son of his Son.) For the Sons of Sons are reputed for Sons. Compare Jer. XXII. vers. 11. with 24. and the thing it self speaks it. And that which the Gemarists now quoted, say, Zedekiah was also called Shallum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Because in his days Shalmah, an end, was put to the Kingdom of the Family of David: This also agrees very fitly to Jechonias, Jer. XXII. 28, 29, 30.

VERS. 12.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Iechonias begat Salathiel.

THAT is, a son of the Kingdom, or Successor in that dignity of the House of Da∣vid whatsoever it was which was altogether withered in the rest of the Sons of Josiah, but did somewhat flourish again in him, 2 King. XXV. 27. And hence it is, that of all the posterity of Josiah, Jechonias only is named by St. Matthew.

Jeohonias in truth was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without Children, Jer. XXII. 30. and Salathiel, pro∣perly speaking, was the Son of Neri, Luk. III. 27. but yet Jechonias is said to beget him; not that he was truly his Father, but that the other was his Successor; not indeed in his Kingly dignity, for that was now perished, but into that which now was the chief Dignity among the Jews. So 1 Chron. III. 16. Zedekias is called the Son, either of Joakim, whose Brother indeed he was; or of Jechonias, whose Uncle he was; be∣cause he succeeded him in the Kingly Dignity.

The Lord had declared, and that not without an Oath, that Jechonias should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Without Children. The Talmudists do so interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 d 1.14 R. Judan saith, All they, of whom it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 these shall be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without Children, they shall have no Children. And those of whom it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They shall die without Children; they bury their Children.

So Kimchi also upon the place. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith he, means this, That his Sons shall die in his life, if he shall now have Sons: but if he shall not now have Sons he never shall. But our Rabbins of blessed memory, say, That he repented in prison. And they say more∣over, Oh! how much doth Repentance avail, which evacuates a penal Edict? For it is said, Write ye this Man Childless: but he repenting; this Edict turned to his good, &c. R. Jo∣chanan saith, His carrying away expiated. For when it is said, Write this Man Childless; after the carrying away, it is said, The Sons of Coniah, Assir his Son, Shealtiel his Son. These things are in * 1.15 Bab. Sanhedr. where these words are added, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Assir his son, because his mother conceived him in the house Haasurin, of bonds, or in Prison.

But the words in the Original are these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which are thus to be rendred, Now the sons of Jechonias bound (or, imprisoned) were Shealtiel his son. Which Version both the accents, and the order of the words confirm. For Zakeph hung over 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to which Munach beneath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 serves, perswades that it is a conjunct con∣struction, to wit, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jechoniah, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bound should be joyned together that is, a Substantive and an Adjective. And the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his son, placed after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shealtiel, not after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bound, fixeth the genealogy in Salathiel, not in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Asir at all.

VERS. XVI.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

And Iacob begat Ioseph the husband of Mary.

:〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 f 1.16 The mothers family is not to be called a family. Hence the reason may very easily be given, why Matthew brings down the generation to Joseph, Maries husband; but Luke to Eli, Maries Father. These two frame the Genea∣logy two ways, according to the double notion of the promise of Christ. For he is promised, as the Seed of the Woman, and as the Son of David: that as a man, this as a King. It was therefore needful in setting down his Genealogy, that satisfaction should be given concerning both. Therefore Luke declareth him the promised seed of the Wo∣man, deducing his Mothers stock, from whence man was born, from Adam. Matthew exhibits his Royal Original, deriving his pedegree along through the Royal family of David to Joseph his (reputed) Father.

VERS. XVII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Fourteen Generations.

ALthough all things do not square exactly in this three fold number of fourteen gene∣rations, yet there is no reason why this should be charged as a fault upon Matthew, when in the Jewish Schools themselves it obtained for a custom, yea almost for an Axiome, to reduce things and numbers to the very same, when they were near alike. The thing will be plain by an Example or two, when an hundred almost might be produced.

Five Calamitous things are ascribed to the same day, that is, to the ninth day of the month Ab. g 1.17 For that day, say they, it was decreed, that the people should not go into the promised land: the same day the first Temple was laid waste, and the second also: the City Bitter was destroyed, and the City Jerusalem plowed up. Not that they believed all these things fell out precisely the same day of the month, but as the Babylonian Gemara notes upon it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That they might reduce a for∣tunate thing to a holy day, and an unfortunate to an unlucky day.

The Jerusalem Gemara, in the same tract, examines the reason, why the daily prayers consist of the number of eighteen, and among other things hath these words; h 1.18 The day∣ly prayers are eighteen, according to the number of the eighteen Psalms, from the beginning of the book of Psalms to that Psalm, whose beginning is, The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble, (which Psalm indeed is the Twentieth Psalm.) But if any object that nineteen Psalms reach thither, you may answer, The Psalm, which begins, Why did the Heathen rage, is not of them. A distinct Psalm. Behold with what liberty they fit numbers to their own case.

Inquiry is made, whence the number of the thirty nine more principal servile works to be avoided on the Sabbath day, may be proved. Among other we meet with these words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i 1.19 R. Chaninah of Zipp••r saith in the name of R. Abhu, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aleph denotes one, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lamed thirty, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He five, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dabar one, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Debarim two. Hence are the forty works, save one, concerning which it is written in the Law. The Rabbins of Cesarea say, Not any thing is wanting out of his place: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aleph one, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lamed thirty, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheth eight: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Our profound Doctors do not distinguish between He and Cheth: that they may fit numbers to their case, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 These, they write, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and change 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheth at their pleasure.

l 1.20 R. Josua ben Levi saith, In all my whole life I have not looked into the (mystical) book of Agada, but once: and then I looked into it, and found it thus written, An hundred seventy five Sections of the Law; where it is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He spake, he said, he commanded, they are for the number of the years of our Father Abraham. And a little af∣ter, An hundred and forty and seven Psalms which are written in the book of the Psalms, (note this number) are for the number of the years of our father Jacob. Whence this is

hinted, that all the praises, wherewith the Israelites praise God, are according to the years of Jacob. Those hundred and twenty and three times, wherein the Israelites answer Hallelujah, are according to the number of the years of Aaron, &c.

They do so very much delight in such kind of concents, that they oftentimes screw up the strings beyond the due measure, and stretch them till they crack. So that, if a Jew carps at thee, O Divine Matthew, for the unevenness of thy fourteens, out of their own Schools and Writings thou hast that, not only whereby thou mayest defend thy self, but retort upon them.

VERS. XVIII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

When as his Mother was espoused.

NO woman of Israel was married, unless she had been first espoused. m 1.21 Before the giving of the Law (saith Maimonides) if the man and the woman had agreed about marriage, he brought her into his house, and privately married her, But after the giving of the Law, the Israelites were commanded, that if any were minded to take a woman for his wife, he should receive her first before witnesses; and thenceforth let her be to him a wife, as it is written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If any one take a wife. This taking is one of the Affir∣mative precepts of the Law, and is called Espousing. Of the manner and form of Espou∣sing you may read till you are weary in that Tractate, and in the Talmudic Tract, Kiddushin.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Before they came together.

In many places the man espouseth the woman, but doth not bring her home to him, but after some space of time. So the n 1.22 Gloss upon Maimonides.

Distinction is made by the Jewish Canons, and that justly and openly between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Private society or Discourse between the Espouser and the Espoused, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The bringing of the Espoused into the husbands house. Of either of the two many those words be understood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, before they came together, or rather of them both. He had not only not brought her home to him, but he had no manner of society with her alone, beyond the Canonical limits of discourse that were allowed to unmarri∣ed persons; and yet she was found with child.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

She was found with child.

Namely after the space of three months from her conception, when she was now re∣turned home from her Cozin Elizabeth. See Luke 1. 56. and compare Gen. XXXVIII. 24.

The Masters of the Traditions assign this space to discover a thing of that nature. A Woman, o 1.23 say they, who is either put away from her husband, or become a Widdow, neither marrieth, nor is espoused, but after ninety days. Namely, that it may be known, whether she be big with child or no; and that distinction may be made between the offspring of the first hus∣band, and of the second. In like manner a husband and wife, being made proselytes, are par∣ted from one another for ninety days, that judgment may be made between children begotten in holiness, (that is, within the true Religion. See 1 Cor. VII. 14.) and children begotten out of holiness.

VERS. XIX.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.

But Ioseph being a just man, &c.

THERE is no need to wrack the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 just, to fetch out thence the sense of gentleness or mercy, which many do: for construing the clauses of the verse separately, the sense will appear clear and soft enough. Joseph, being a just man, could not, would not indure an adulteress: but yet not willing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to make her a publick example, being a merciful man, and loving his wife, was minded to put her away privily.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

To make her a publick Example.

This doth not imply death, but rather publick disgrace 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 To make her publick. For it may not without reason be enquired, whether she would have been brought to capital punishment, if it had been true, that she had conceived by adultery. For al∣though there was a Law promulged of punishing adultery with death, Levit. XX. 10.

Deut. XXII. 22. and in this case she that was espoused would be dealt withal after the same manner, as it was with her who was become a wife; yet so far was that Law molli∣fied, that I say not weakned, by the Law of giving a bill of Divorse, Deut. XXIV. 1. &c. that the husband might not only pardon his adulterous wife, and not compel her to appear before the Sanhedrin, but scarcely could, if he would, put her to death. For why otherwise was the bill of Divorse indulged?

Joseph therefore endeavours to do nothing here, but what he might with the full con∣sent both of the Law and Nation. The Adulteress might be put away; she that was espoused could not be put away, without a bill of Divorse, concerning which thus the Jewish Laws: p 1.24 A woman is espoused three ways, by mony, or by a writing, or by being lain with. And being thus espoused, though she were not yet married, nor conducted into the mans house, yet she is his wife. And if any shall lye with her beside him; he is to be punished with death by the Sanhedrin. And if he himself will put her away he must have a bill of divorse.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Put her away privily.

Let the Talmudic Tract Gittin be looked upon, where they are treating of the manner of delivering a bill of Divorse to a wife to be put away; among other things, it might be given privately, if the husband so pleased, either into the womans hand, or bosom, two witnesses only present.

VERS. XXIII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Behold a Virgin shall be with child.

THat the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Prophet denotes an untouched Virgin, sufficiently appears from the sense of the place, Esa. VII. King Achaz there was affraid, lest the enemies, that were now upon him, might destroy Jerusalem, and utterly consume the House of David. The Lord meets with this fear by a signal and most remarkable promise, namely, that sooner should a pure Virgin bring forth a child, tha•• the family of David perish. And the promise yields a double comfort: namely, of Christ hereafter to be born of a Virgin: and of their security from the imminent danger of the City and house of David. So that, although that Prophesie of a Virgins bringing forth a son should not be fulfilled till many hundreds of years after; yet at that present time, when the Prophesie was made, Ahaz had a certain and notable sign, that the house of David should be safe and secure from the danger that hung over it. As much as if the Prophet had said, Be not so troubled, O Ahaz, does it not seem an impossible thing to thee, and that never will happen, that a pure Virgin should become a Mother? But I tell thee, a pure Virgin shall bring forth a son, before the House of David perish.

Hear this, O unbelieving Jew, and shew us now some remainders of the House of David; or confess this Prophesie fulfilled in the Virgins bringing forth: or deny that a sign was given, when a sign is given.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Which is being interpreted.

§ In what language Matthew wrote his Gospel.

I. All confess, that the Syriac Language was the Mother Tongue to the Jewish Nation dwelling in Judea; and that the Hebrew was not all understood by the common people may especially appear from two things.

• 1. That in the Synagogues, when the Law and the Prophets were read in the original Hebrew, an Interpreter was always present to the Reader, who rendred into the Mother Tongue that which was read, that it might be understood by the common people. q 1.25 Hence those rules of the office of an Interpreter, and of some places, which were not to be rendred into the Mother Tongue.
• 2. That Jonathan the son of Uzziel, a Scholar of Hillel, about the time of Christs birth, rendred all the Prophets (that is, as the Jews number them, Joshua, Judges, Sa∣muel, the Books of the Kings, Esaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve lesser Pro∣phets) into the Chaldee Language, that is, into a Language much more known to the people than the Hebrew, and more acceptable than the Mother Tongue. For if it be asked, why he translated them at all, and why he translated not rather into the Mo∣ther Tongue, which was known to all: and if it be objected concerning S. Matthew, and S. Paul, that writing to the Jews, one his Gospel, the other his Epistle (to the

• ... Hebrews,) must have written in the Syriac Tongue, (if so be they wrote not in He∣brew,) that they might be understood by all. We answer,

First, It was not without reason, that the Paraphrast Jonathan translated out of the Hebrew original into the Chaldee Tongue, because this Tongue was much more known and familiar to all the people, than the Hebrew. The holy Text had need of an Interpre∣ter into a more known Tongue, because it was now in a Tongue not known at all to the Vulgar. For none knew the Hebrew, but such as learned it by Study. However there∣fore all the Jews, inhabiting the land of Canaan, did not so readily understand the Chal∣dee Language, as the Syriac, which was their Mother Language; yet they much readilier understood that, than the Hebrew, which to the unlearned was not known at all. Hence it was not without necessity, that the Prophets were turned into the Chaldee Language by Johnathan, and the Law not much after by Onkelos, that they might a little be under∣stood by the common people, by whom the Hebrew original was not understood at all r 1.26 We read also, that the Book of Job had its Targum in the time of Gamaliel the Elder, that is Pauls Master.

the sense of the words, yet they reputed it not for a prophesie, because it was not uttered in the Language that was proper for prophetical predictions. But we tarry not here. That which we would have, is this, that Matthew wrote not in Hebrew, (which is proved sufficiently by what is spoken before) if so be we suppose him to have written in a Language vulgarly known and understood, which certainly we ought to sup∣pose: Nor that he, nor the other Writers of the New Testament writ in the Syriac Lan∣guage unless we suppose them to have written in the ungrateful Language of an ungrate∣ful Nation, which certainly we ought not to suppose. For when the Jewish people were now to be cast off and to be doomed to eternal cursing, it was very improper certainly, to extol their Language, whether it were the Syriac Mother Tongue, or the Chaldee its cozin Language, unto that degree of honour, that it should be the original Language of the New Testament. Improper certainly it was, to write the Gospel in their Tongue, who above all the Inhabitants of the World most despised and opposed it.

II. Since therefore the Gentiles were to be called to the Faith, and to embrace the Gospel by the preaching of it, the New Testament was writ very congruously in the Gentile Language, and in that, which among the Gentile Languages was the most noble, viz. The Greek. Let us see what the Jews say of this Language, envious enough against all Languages besides their own.

z 1.27 Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, Even concerning the holy Books, the wise Men per∣mitted not that they should be writ in any other Language, than Greek. R. Abhu saith, that R. Jochanan said, the Tradition is according to Rabban Simeon; that R. Jochanan said more∣over, Whence is that of Rabban Simeon proved? From thence, that the Scripture saith, The Lord shall perswade Japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Sem? The words of Ja∣phet shall be in the Tents of Sem: and a little after, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God shall perswade Japhet, i. e. The grace of Japhet shall be in the Tents of Sem. Where the Gloss speaks thus; The Grace of Japhet is the Greek Language; the fairest of those Tongues, which be∣long to the sons of Japhet.

a 1.28 Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, Even concerning the sacred books, they permitted not, that they should be written in any other Language than Greek. They searched seriously, and found, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That the Law could not be translated according to what was needful for it, but in Greek. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 You have this latter clause cut off in Masse∣cheth Sopherim, where this story also is added: b 1.29 The five Elders wrote the Law in Greek for Ptolomy the King: and that day was bitter to Israel, as the day wherein the golden Calf was made, because the Law could not be translated according to what was needful for it. This story of the five Interpreters of the Law, is worthy of consideration, which you find seldom mentioned, or scarce any where else. The Tradition next following after this, in the place cited, recites the story of the LXX. Look it.

When therefore the common use of the Hebrew Language had perished, and when the Mother Syriac or Chaldee Tongue of a cursed Nation, could not be blessed, our very enemies being judges, no other Language could be found, which might be fit to write the (New) divine Law, besides the Greek Tongue. That this Language was scattered, and in use among all the Eastern Nations almost, and was in a manner the Mother Tongue; and that it was planted every where by the Conquests of Alexander, and the Empire of the Greeks, we need not many words to prove, since it is every where to be seen in the Historians. The Jews do well near acknowledge it for their Mother Tongue even in Judea.

c 1.30 R. Jochanan of Beth Gubrin said, There are four noble Languages, which the world useth: The Mother Tongue for Singing, the Roman for War, the Syriac for Mourning, and the He∣brew for Elocution; and there are some who say, the Assyrian for Writing. What is that which he calls the Mother Tongue? It is very easily answered, The Greek, from those enco∣miums added to it, mentioned before: and that may more confidently be affirmed from the words of Midras Tillin, respecting this saying of R. Jochanan, and mentioning the Greek Language by name. d 1.31 R. Jochanan said, There are three Languages, The Roman for War, the Greek for Speech, the Assyrian for Prayer. To this also belongs that, that oc∣curs once and again in Bab. Megillah, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 e 1.32 In the Greek mother Tongue, you have an Instance of the thing: f 1.33 R. Levi coming to Cesarea heard some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reci∣ting the Phylacteries in the Hellenistical Language. This is worthy to be marked. At Cesarea flourished the famous Schools of the Rabbins. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Rabbins of Cesarea are mentioned in both Talmuds most frequently, and with great praise, but especially in that of Jerusalem. But yet among these, the Greek is used as the Mother Tongue, and that in reciting the Phylacteries, which you may well think, above all other things, in Judea were to be said in Hebrew.

In that very Cesarea, Hierom mentions the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew to be laid up in the Library of Pamphilus, in these words: Matthew, who was also called Levi, from a Publican made an Apostle, first of all in Judea composed the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters

and words, for their sakes, who were of the circumcision and believed. Which Gospel, who he was that afterwards translated it into Greek, it is not sufficiently known. Moreover that very Hebrew Gospel is reserved to this day in the Library at Cesarea, which Pamphilus the Marlyr with much care collected. I also had leave given me by the Nazareans, who use this Book in Berea, a City of Syria, to write it out.

It is not at all to be doubted, that this Gospel was found in Hebrew, but that which deceived the good man, was not the very hand writing of Matthew, nor indeed did Matthew write the Gospel in that Language; but it was turned by some body out of the original Greek into Hebrew, that so, if possible, the Learned Jews might read it. For since they had little kindness for forreign books, that is, Heathen Books, or such as were written in a Language different from their own, which might be illustrated from various Canons concerning this matter; some person converted to the Gospel, excited with a good zeal, seems to have translated this Gospel of S. Matthew out of the Greek Original into the Hebrew Language, that learned Men among the Jews, who as yet believed not, might perhaps read it, being now published in their Language: which was rejected by them, while it remained in a foreign speech. Thus I suppose this Gospel was written in Greek by S. Matthew for the sake of those that believed in Judea, and turned into He∣brew by some body else for the sake of those that did not believe.

The same is to be resolved concerning the original Language of the Epistle to the He∣brews. That Epistle was written to the Jews inhabiting Judea, to whom the Syriac was the Mother Tongue, but yet it was writ in Greek for the reasons above named. For the same reasons also the same Apostle writ in Greek to the Romans, although in that Church there were Romans, to whom it might seem more agreeable to have written in Latine; and there were Jews, to whom it might seem more proper to have written in Syriac.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Talm. in Kid∣dush. cap. 4. Art. 1.
• b 1.2

  Hi••••••••. Kid∣d•• ••. fol. 6••. ••. Bab. ibid, fol. 71.
• c 1.3

  Bab. I••va∣mo••••, fol. 49. 2.
• d 1.4

  Hieros. Taa∣ni••••, fol. ••••. 1.
• e 1.5

  Taanith, cap. 4 hal. 5.
• f 1.6

  fol. 97. 1.
• h 1.7

  fol. 4. 4.
• g 1.8

  Demai, fol. 22. 3.
• i 1.9

  Iom. tobh, fol. 62. 3.
• k 1.10

  M••gill, fol. 14. 2.
• a 1.11

  Sh••••al, fol. 49. 4.
• b 1.12

  fol. 22. 3.
• c 1.13

  In Ier. xxiv. & 1 Chron. iii.
• d 1.14

  Hieros. in Schabb. fol. 9. 3.
• * 1.15

  fol. 27. 2.
• f 1.16

  Iuchas, fol. 55. 2.
• g 1.17

  Taanith, cap. 4. artic 6.
• h 1.18

  Taanith, fol. 65. 3.
• i 1.19

  Hieros. Schabb. fol. 9. 2.
• l 1.20

  Id. Ibid. fol. 15. 3.
• m 1.21

  In 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cap. 1.
• n 1.22

  Ad 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cap. 3.
• o 1.23

  Maim. in Ge∣••••••hin, cap. 1. & ••a••••••. in Ie∣••a••••••n, cap. 4. & ••••etabboth, cap. 5. largely.
• p 1.24

  Maimon. in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cap 1
• q 1.25

  Bab. Megill. fol. 25 &c. Massech. Sophe∣rim, cap. 11. 12 &c.
• r 1.26

  Hierof. Schabb. fol. 15. col. 3.
• z 1.27

  M••gillab, fol. 9. 2.
• a 1.28

  Hierof. Me••ill, fol 71. ••.
• b 1.29

  Cap. 1. artic. ••
• c 1.30

  Hieros. Megill. in the place above, col. 2.
• d 1.31

  Midr. Till. fol. 25. 4.
• e 1.32

  Fol. 18. 1.
• f 1.33

  Hieros. Sotah, fol. 21. 2.