was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zebul, dung, or, a dunghil. Even to them who have stretched out their hands, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a dunghill, (that is, in an Idol-Temple, or in Idolatry) there is hope. Thou ••anst not bring them (into the Church) because they have stretched forth their hands 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In a dunghill. But yet you cannot reject them, because they have repented. And a little after. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that sees them dunging, (that is, sacrificing) to an Idol, let him say, Cursed be he that sacrifices to a strange God.
Let them therefore, who dare form this word in Matthew, into Beelzebu••. I ••m so far from doubting, that the Pharisees pronounced the word Beelzebul, and that Matthew so wrote it, that I doubt not but the sense fails, if it be writ otherwise.
III. Very many names of evil spirits or devils occur in the Talmudists, which it is need∣less here to mention. Among all the devils, they esteemed that devil the worst, the foulest▪ and as it were the Prince of the rest, who ruled over the Idols, and by whom Oracles and Miracles were given forth, among the Heathens and Idolaters. And they were of this opi∣nion for this reason, because they held Idolatry above all other things chiefly wicked and abominable, and to be the Prince and head of evil. This Demon they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Baal-zebul, not so much by a proper name, as by one more general and common; as much as to say, the Lord of Idolatry: the worst devil, and the worst thing: and they called him the Prince of devils, because Idolatry is the Prince (or chief) of wick∣edness.
We meet with a story, where mention is made of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Prince of spirits. Whether it be in this sense, let the Reader consult and judg. Also in the Aruch we meet with these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Demon Asmodeus, the Prince of spirits.
IV. The Talmudists being taught by these their Fathers, do give out (horribly blas∣pheming) That Jesus of Nazareth our Lord was a Magician, a broacher of strange and wicked worship, and one that did Miracles by the power of the Devil, to beget his wor∣ship the greater belief and honour.
Ben 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Satda brought Magick out of Egypt, by cuttings, which he had made in his flesh. By 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ben Satda they understand Jesus of Nazareth, as we have said before; whom they dishonour by that name, that they might by one word, and in one breath, reproach him and his Mother together. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Satda, or, S••ada sounds as much as an Adulter∣ous wife, which the Gemara shews after a few lines, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 She went aside from her husband. They seign that Jesus travelled with Joshua ben Perachiah into Egypt, when the said Joshua fled from the anger and sword of Janneus the King; (which we have men∣tioned at the second Chapter) and that he brought thence Magical witch••rafts with him; but under the cutting of his flesh, that he might not be taken by the Egyptian Magicians, who strictly examined all that went out of that land, that none should transport their Ma∣gi••k Art into another land. And in that place they add these horrid words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jesus practised Magick, and deceived, and drove Israel to Idolatry. Those whelps bark, as they were taught by these dogs.
To this therefore does this blasphemy of the Pharisees come; as if they should say, He casts out Devils indeed, but he doth this by the help of the Devil, the Lord of Idols, that dwells in him; by him that is the worst of all Devils, who favours him and helps him, because it is his ambition to drive the people from the worship of the true God to strange worship.