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.

HEBREW AND TALMUDICAL EXERCITATIONS upon the ACTS of the Apostles.

CHAP. I.

VERS. I.

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

The former treatise have I made, &c.

WE may reduce to this place (for even thus far it may be extend∣ed) what our Historian had said in the very entrance of his Go∣spel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It seemed good to me also to write to thee in order; where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In order, seems to promise not only an orderly series of the History of the actions of our Saviour, but successively even of the Apostles too. For what passages we have related to us in this Book may very well be reckoned amongst the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the things which were most surely believed amongst them. Indeed, by the very stile in this place he shews that he had a design of writing these stories joyntly, that is to say, first to give us a narration of the Actions and Doctrine of Christ, and then in their due place and order to commit to writing the Acts and sayings of the Apostles.

As to most of the things contained in this Book, St. Luke was both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Eye-witness, yea and a part also; but how far he was spectator of those acts of our Saviour which he relates in his other book, none can say. What he speaks in the Preface of that work is ambiguous, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and leaves the Reader to en∣quire, whether he means, he had a perfect understanding of things from the first, by the same way only which those had, that undertook to compile the Evangelical Histories from the Mouth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of those that were Eye-witnesses, and Mini∣sters of the Word. Or whether he came to this understanding of things from the first, he himself having been from the beginning, an Eye-witness, and a Minister. Or lastly, Whether he does not by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 declare that he understood all these things from Heaven, and from above. We have taken it in this last sense in our notes upon that place, as being beyond all controversie, that he was divinely inspir'd, and the Spirit from above govern'd his pen while he was writing those things. But whether it might not mean, according to the second sense, (for the first we wholly disallow) viz. that St. Luke was amongst those who adhered to our Saviour Christ from his very first preaching of the Gospel; I leave it to the enquiry of the Reader to determine.

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

Of all that Iesus began to do, &c.

I am sensible that in the common dialect, to begin to do, and to do, is one and the same thing: But I suppose the phrase in this place is to be taken relatively, q. d.

In the former treatise, I discours'd of all those things which Jesus himself began to do and to teach;

In this, I am to give a relation of those things which were continu'd by his Apostles after him.

VERS. II.

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

Through the Holy Ghost.

EXpositors place these words differently. The Syriack, one of the Arabick Copies, Beza, and the Italian place them next after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whom he had chosen: that the sense according to them is, after that he had given Commandment to the Apostles, whom he had chosen through the Holy Ghost. But the other Arabick, as also the Vulgar, the French and English translations retain the same order of the words as we find them in the Greek Text: most rightly rendring it, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given com∣mandment. Which also of old had been done by God to the Prophets, dictating to them by the inspiration of his Holy Spirit what they should Teach and Preach.

The Apostles had indeed cast out Devils, and heal'd diseases through the Spirit, but it is a question whether they had as yet taught any thing, but what they had heard verba∣tim from the mouth of their great Master. He had given them a promise that they should bind and loose the Law of Moses; he had told them, that there were several things yet behind, that must be revealed to them which as yet they could not bear, con∣cerning which, they should be further instructed by the inspiration of the Spirit. When therefore he had risen, and breath'd in their face, saying, receive ye the Holy Ghost; from that time, they were endu'd with the Spirit, as the Prophets of old, who dictated to them what they should preach, what they should require, and what they should ordain. And now nothing was wanting but the gift of Tongues, that what was dictated to them they might declare and make known to all men in their own Languages.

VERS. III.

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

Being seen of them forty days.

a 1.1 IT is a tradition. On the evening of the Passover they hang'd Jesus. And a cryer went before him for forty days, saying, Behold the man condemn'd to be stoned, because by the help of Magick, he hath deceiv'd and drawn away Israel into an Apostasie. Who ever hath any thing to alledge in testimony of his innocency, let him come forth and bear witness. But they found none that would be a witness in his behalf. But he himself (O thou Tongue fit to be cut out) gives a sufficient testimony of his own innocence, having for the space of forty days conversed amongst men, after his Resurrection from death, under the power of which he could not be kept by reason of his innocence.

b 1.2 It is a tradition. R. Eliezer saith, The days of the Messiah are forty years, according as it is said, Forty years 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall I be grieved with this generation. The Gloss is, Because it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (in the future tense) it is a sign the Prophesie is concerning the time to come. It is ingenuously done however, of these Jews, that they parallel that faithless generation that were in the days of the Messiah, with that perverse and rebellious gene∣ration that had been in the wilderness. For they will both of them prove a lothing and offence to God for the space of forty years. And as those forty years in the wilder∣ness, were numbered according to the forty days in which the Land had been searching, Numb. XIV. 34. So also may those forty years of the Messiah be numbered according to the forty days wherein he was conversant amongst mankind, after his Resurrection from ••he dead. But you must compute warily, lest you stumble at the threshold about the year of Tiberius, wherein Christ rose again; or at the close about the year of Ve∣spasian, wherein Jerusalem was taken. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith Josephus c 1.3) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Jerusalem was taken in the second year of Vespasian's reign; When indeed, according to the Fasti Consulares, it was taken in his first year; but his second year from the time wherein he had been declared Emperor by the Army. He is saluted Emperor by the Army in Egypt, at the very Calends of July, and the fifth of the Ides of July in Judaea. So that his first year from the time of his being declared Emperor, was compleat on the Calends of July the year following, but indeed it was but half his first year according to the computation of the Fasti▪ Now Jerusalem was sackt on the eighth of September following.

VERS. IV.

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

And being assembled together with them, commanded them, &c.

WE will make some enquiry both as to the place and time wherein these things were spoken and do••e.

I. We derive the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Salt, but from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Assembly, or Congregation. So the Lexicons 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Congregation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Assembly. d 1.4 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, When thou shalt give notice to the Persians to gather their forces together. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cyrus having gathered together his fathers flocks and herds of Goats, and Sheep and Oxen, sacrificed them, &c. e 1.5

II. Our Saviour after his Resurrection never appeared amongst his Disciples but by surprize and unexpectedly, excepting that one time in the Mountain of Galilee, where he had appointed to meet with them, Matth. XXVIII. 16. So that I would refer these words therefore to that passage in Saint Matthew, so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may signify his meeting with them in the Mountain of Galilee, according to the appointment he had made. Nor do those words hinder, that it is said, he commanded them, that they should not depart from Jerusalem, &c. as if it should necessarily be supposed that they were now at Jerusalem; that passage ver. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when they were come together, may signify their assembling in that place, and the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he commanded them, &c. may very well be construed, that he commanded them to repair straightway to Jerusalem, and not to depart thence.

III. I conceive therefore that these things were spoken and done in the mountain of Galilee (where probably the five hundred at once were together to see him, 1 Cor. XV. 6.) and that when the time of his ascension drew near. For reason would perswade us, that they would not delay their return into the City when he had commanded them thither; nor that he commanded them thither, but when the time drew near wherein he was to meet them there.

And whereas he adds in the very same place and discourse, ver. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not many days hence; it is necessary that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should have its due force, having not been added here in vain; but seems to respect the daies that were yet to come between that and Pentecost.

We have frequent mention amongst the Rabbins concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Paras of the Passover, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Paras of Pentecost; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Paras of the Feast of Tabernacles. Now the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Paras, (themselves being the interpreters) was that space of fifteen days immediately before any of these Feasts. So that five and thirty days after the second of the Passover, began the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Paras of the Feast of Tabernacles, and the second day of those fifteen was (this year) the Lords-day, on which I almost think they had that assembly on the mountain of Galilee, and that the Disciples being remanded from thence to Jerusalem, got thither within three days. But lest we should streighten the matter within too narrow a compass of time, and seem too nice and curious about the very day, I should judge we can hardly more properly apply these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being assembled together with them, than to that meeting on the mountain of Galilee, which Christ himself had made the appointment of. From thence it was that Christ commanded them to Jerusalem, a place which having tainted it self with the blood of their Lord, they might probably have very little mind to return to again, had it not been by some special command: and do we think they would have gone thither to have celebrated the Feast of Pente∣cost, or indeed have been present all at it, in that place, had not their Master directed them so to do?

VERS. VI.

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

Wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel?

IT is very apparent that the Apostles had the same phansiful conceptions about the earthly reign of Christ with the rest of that Nation. But yet they seem here a little to doubt and hesitate, either as to the thing it self, or at least as to the time; and that, not without cause, considering some things which had so lately fallen our. Lord, wilt thou restore the Kingdom to those that have dealt so basely and perfidiously with thee? what, to this generation, that lies under the actual guilt of thy bloodshed? Or indeed,

to this Nation at all, which by the perpetration of the late wickedness had made it self unworthy of so great a kindness? Now, what our Saviour returns for answer, viz. that it is not for them to know the times or the seasons, does not in the least hint any such Kingdom ever to be, but he openly rebukes their curiosity in enquiring into the times, and in some measure the opinion it self, when he tells them, that they should receive power from Heaven, and should be his witnesses, &c.

What that Nation apprehended concerning the temporal reign of the Messias, as to ma∣ny things they speak plainly and openly enough, but in other things, a man may en∣quire, but can hardly satisfie himself what they mean or intend. To omit others, they are in three things somewhat obscure.

I. Whether the ten Tribes be to be admitted to the felicities of this reign. For as to this matter it is disputed by the Rabbins. The ten Tribes are not to return. f 1.6 But in the Jerusalem Talmudists it is expressed thus, The ten Tribes have not a part in the world to come. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 neither shall they see the future age. Which is discoursed in the Babylonian writers, viz. whether this be not to be understood of those individual persons only, that were carried away by the King of Assyria; that they indeed shall not partake of the blessings of the Messias, though their posterity should. So that there may lie hid something of ambiguity in the word Israel, in this passage we are now ex∣amining; that is, whether in the conception of those that speak it, the ten Tribes are included yea or no. For commonly the name Israel amongst the Jews, was wont to be taken for the Jews only, so that they called themselves Israel, and the ten Tribes, by way of distinction, the Ten Tribes. In which sense, and according to which distincti∣on, that of the Apostle seems to be said. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Isra∣elites? So am I. 2 Cor. XI. 22.

II. What opinion was to be had of the two Messiah's, Messiah ben David, and Messiah ben Joseph, or ben Ephraim, as he is called by the Paraphrast, Cant. IV. 5. Whether they were to reign at the same time, the one over the ten Tribes, the other over the two: or whether in succession to one another, both of them over the whole Nation? Messiah ben Joseph was to be cut off. g 1.7 And then, what must become of his Subjects, whether they were of the ten Tribes or of the two, or of all?

III. It is further obscure in their writings, whether they had an apprehension that the Messiah should reign alone, or whether he should substitute any King or Kings under him, or after him. It seems probable to them that the Messiah should reign his thou∣sand years alone; but then, as to that age which they called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (if Eternity be not meant by it) what did they conceive must be done in it? whether Kings should be substituted in it of the race of David? They can dream of nothing but mere Earthly things: and if from such kind of dreams we might conjecture what kind of future state that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be, we may guess what should then be done. But to what purpose is it to trace error, where, as we cannot so much as fix a foot, so the further we proceed the more we slip?

What kind of Kingdom the Apostles had framed in their imaginations is not easy to conceive: There was something that might seem to cherish that opinion about a tempo∣ral reign, wherewith they had been leavened from their very childhood; and that was, That not only Christ, but several of the Saints had rose from the dead; and that the Kingdom of the Messiah should commence from some resurrection, they had already learnt from some of their own traditions. But in what manner should Christ now reign? His body was made a spiritual body. Now he appears, anon he vanish∣eth and disappears again, and how will this agree with Mortals? The traditions indeed suppose the Messiah would be perhaps 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one of the dead: but when he should revive he was to have the same kind of body with other men. This was apprehen∣ded by some in Sanhedr. h 1.8 that those dead mentioned Ezek. XXXVII. did revive, re∣turned into the Land of Israel, married wives and begat Children: I my self, saith R. Judah ben Betirah, am one of their offspring, and these very Phylacteries which my Grand∣father bequeathed to me, belonged to them. Now, who is it can so much as imagine, what opinion the Apostles conceived concerning the bodily presence of Christ in this Kingdom of his which they had been dreaming?

VERS. XII.

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

A Sabbath-days journey.

I Have already said something in Luke, XXIV. concerning a Sabbath-days journey. I will add a few things in this place. i 1.9 Whosoever goeth beyond the bounds of the City on the Sabbath day, let him be scourged, because it is said, let no one go out from his place on the seventh day, this place, is the bounds of the City. The Law doth not determine the

compass of these bounds. But the wise men define these bounds from without, to be about twelve miles, according to the Israelites camp: for Moses our Master said unto them, ye shall not go out of your camp. However, it is ordained by the words of the Scribes, let no one go out of the City beyond two thousand cubits. For two thousand cubits are the sub∣urbs of the City. From whence we may learn, that it is lawful to walk clear through the City on the Sabbath day, be it as spacious as Nineveh, and whether it be walled or no. He may also expatiate beyond the City to the length of two thousand cubits from every side of it—But if a man go beyond these two thousand cubits, they scourge him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the scourge of Rebellion, that is, if he go so far as twelve miles, but if he go out of the City beyond twelve miles, though it be but the space of one cubit, he is scourged according to the Law. Let us comment a little.

I. It was commonly believed that the Israelites encamping in the wilderness, was about twelve miles square. k 1.10 The length of the Israelites camp was twelve miles, and the bredth twelve miles.

The bredth of the waters (that is, those that were divided in Jordan) was twelve miles answerable to the camp of Israel, according as our Rabbins expound it. l 1.11 The waters which came down from above, stood and rose up upon an heap, Jos. III. 16. And what was the height of these waters? it was twelve miles height upon twelve miles bredth, according to the camp of Israel. Where the Gloss is, The camp of the Israelites was twelve miles up∣on twelve miles, (that is, twelve miles square) and they past over Jordan according to their encampings, viz. the whole bredth of their camp past over together for the space of twelve miles. m 1.12 Hence that in Hieros. Sotah, n 1.13 Adam and Zarethan (i. e. the place, from whence, and the place to which the waters were divided) were distant from one another twelve miles.

Whether they took the number of twelve miles precisely, from allusion to the twelve Tribes, or from any other reason retained that exact number and space, is not easy to determine; yet this is certain, that the Israelites camp was very spacious, and had a very large compass, especially granting a miles distance between the first Tents and the Tabernacle. And indeed, as to this commonly received opinion of the camps be∣ing twelves miles square on every side, we shall hardly believe it exceeds the just pro∣portion, if we consider the vast numbers of that people: nay it might rather seem a wonder, that the encamping of so many Myriads, or rather so many hundred thousands, should not exceed that proportion. Place the Tabernacle in the midst: allow the space of one mile from each side of it (in which space were the tents of the Levites) before you come to the first tents of the Israelites, and then guess what length and bredth and thickness all the other tents would take up.

II. It is supposed lawful for any one to have walked upon the Sabbath day, not on∣ly from the outmost border of the camp to the Tabernacle, but also through the whole camp from one end of it to the other; Because the whole encamping was of one and the same, and not a diverse jurisdiction. According to that known Canon concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Commixion or Communion of Courts. And hence it is that Maimonides makes such mention of twelve miles, and the lawfulness of walking on the Sabbath day through any City, be it as spacious as Nineveh it self.

III. But when the people were disposed of and placed in their several Cities and Towns in the Land of Canaan, and the face of things quite changed from what it had been in the wilderness, it seemed good to the wise men to circumscribe the space of a Sabbath-days journy within the bounds of two thousand Cubits. And that partly, because the inmost borders of the Israelites tents, was so much distant from the Taber∣nacle, as may be gathered from Jos. III. 4. and partly because it is said, Numb. XXXV. 4, 5. From the wall of the City ye shall measure a thousand Cubits, and from without the City ye shall measure two thousand Cubits. Now, o 1.14 a thousand Cubits are the suburbs of the City, and two thousand Cubits are the bounds of the Sabbath.

IV. As to these words therefore of the Evangelist now before us, we must suppose they do not define the exact distance of the mount of Olives from Jerusalem, which indeed was but five furlongs, p 1.15 nor do they take in the town of Bethany within the bounds of the Sabbath, which was distant fifteen furlongs, Joh. XI. 18. but they point out that place of the Mount, where our Saviour ascended into Heaven, viz. that place where that tract of the Mount of Olives ceased to be called Bethphage, and began to be called Bethany. Concerning which we have discoursed more largely in another place.

VERS. XIII.

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

They went up into an upper room.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 To an upper room, in Talmudic Language.

I. It was very familiar with that Nation, that when they were to concern themselves with the Law, or any parts of Religion out of the Synagogue, they went up 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in∣to an upper Room, some uppermost part of the house. q 1.16 Abniah a very rich man, invited Rabban Johanan ben Zacchai, and his Disciples, and Nicodemus, &c. to a Feast which he made at the Circumcision of his Son: when the feast was done, Rabban Johanan and his Disciples went up 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into an upper Room, and read, and expounded till the fire shone round about them, as when the Law was given at Mount Sinai. Abniah was amazed at the honour that was given to the Law, and so devoted his Son to the Law. Take notice that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an upper-room is distinct from a dining-room, where they dined and supped, and there it was they handled the Law and divine things: to which if that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 large upper room mentioned Mark XIV. 15. and Luke XXII. 12. where our Saviour celebra∣ted the Passover, had any affinity, it seems to have been something different from a common dining-room.

II. Such a kind of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or upper-room, I presume was the Beth Midras of this or that Rabbin. r 1.17 R. Simeon, saith, I saw 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Sons of the upper room that they were few in number, that is, (if I take the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aright) the Sons or Disciples of Beth Midras; but I will not contend in this matter.

s 1.18 Those are the traditions which they delivered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the upper room of Hananiah, ben Hezekiah ben Garon: and many instances of that kind. Of this kind seems that upper chamber at Troas, mentioned, Acts XX. 8. And so, where we meet with the Church in such or such an ones house, it seems to look this way: viz. some upper part of the house, sequestred on purpose for the assembling of the Church, in the same manner that the Beth Midras was set apart for the meeting of the Disciples of this or that Rabbin. And as the Beth Midras was always in the house of some Rabbin, so pro∣bably for the most part were these Churches in the house of some Minister or Doctor of the Church. Was not Aquila such an one, in whose house we find a Church menti∣oned? Rom. XVI. 5. compared with Acts XVIII. 26. Was not Philemon such an one? Philem. ver. 2.

VERS. XV.

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

About an hundred and twenty.

THE same number was Ezra's great Synagogue. t 1.19 Ezra was the head of all, he was the twenty second receiver of Traditions, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and his whole Sanhedrin consisted of an hundred and twenty Elders. There was no stated Coun∣cil in any City under this number. u 1.20 How many men are requisite in a City, that it might be capable of having a Council setled in it? An hundred and twenty. What is their office? Three and twenty are to make up the number of the lesser Sanhedrin. And there are three classes of twenty three; behold there are ninety two. There are ten 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be at leisure for the Synagogue; behold there are an hundred and two. Two 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the Plantiff and the Defendant) who have business before the Sanhedrin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Two crafty wit∣nesses (those who by their counter-evidence might implead the witnesses if possible of a lie.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 two counter witnesses, against those counter witnesses. Two Scribes. Two Chazanim, two collectors of the Alms, and a third to distribute. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Physitian. (The Gloss hath it, one to circumcise Infants) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An Artificer, Chirurgion, (the Gloss is, one to let blood) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Libellary, i. e. one that was to write bills of E∣spousals, Divorces, Contracts, &c. and a Schoolmaster, behold an hundred and twenty. If you will pick any thing out of this parity of number, you may. However certainly the number of those we have now before us, ought always to occur to mind, when we read such passages as these, They were all with one accord in one place, Act. II. 1. They were all scattered abroad excepting the Apostles, Chap. VIII. 1. So Chap. XI. 19. &c.

Beside the Twelve Apostles, and Seventy two Disciples, who can tell us who those other thirty six were that were to fill up the number? what kind of men, of what degree and quality, who though they were neither of the number of the Twelve Apostles, nor the Seventy Disciples, yet were admitted members of that great and holy Consistory. Reason it self seems against it, that any women should be accounted of that number. As also it is plain, that though there were more in the City that believed, yet these were for some special cause and reason ascribed into this peculiar fellowship and number. As to the Twelve, and the Seventy, we need not enquire; as to the rest,

let us see whether it may not be intimated to us, ver. 21. that they had been the follow∣ers of Christ in company with the others from the very first of his publishing the Go∣spel.

That Peter should be always in the head of them, and have the chief parts in the whole History, as their Prolocutor and chief actor, must be attributed.

• 1. To his Seniority, he being older than any of the other twelve. And whereas under this notion of his age he had been their chief speaker all the while that our Saviour con∣versed amongst them, it was but just and reasonable he should hold the same place and quality, now that their Lord was gone.
• 2. To his repentance. As what was but necessary that he who had so scandalously fal∣len might by his future zeal and religion, as much as possible give some considerable testi∣monies both of his repentance and recovery.
• 3. He was design'd to the Apostleship of Circumcision, as the chief Minister; it was fit therefore that he should be chief amongst those of the Circumcision. But when we stile him the chief Minister of the Circumcision, we do not dream of any Primacy he had over the other Ministers of the Circumcision; only that the greatest work, and the widest space of that Ministry fell to his lot, viz. Mesopotamia, or the Babylonish and Assyrian Captivity, namely, the Jews in Babylon, and the Ten Tribes mixt with them. And when we speak of him as acting the chief and principal parts, we do not believe the rest of the Apostles idle, we know they were endowed with equal authority, an equal gift of Miracles, equal number of Tongues, equal wisdom, and an equal power of Preaching the Gospel; but that he for the reasons above mention'd had shewn his zeal, industry, and activity in some ways and measures very extraordinary.

VERS. XVIII.

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

Falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst.

THE Vulgar and Erasmus have it, Suspensus crepuit medius: Being hang'd he crackt asunder in the midst. So the Italian Translation, Appicato crepo pelmezzo; rendring St. Matthew rather than St. Luke; and I question indeed whether they do rightly take the mind of St. Matthew while they so strictly confine the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to being hang'd. I have produced my conjecture concerning this business at Mat. XXVII. viz. that the De∣vil immediately after Judas had cast back his money into the Temple, caught him up into the air, strangled him, threw him headlong, and dasht him in pieces upon the ground. For,

• I. It is questionable enough whether the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do necessarily and singly de∣note he hanged himself, and not as well, he was hanged or choaked. And indeed whether the word always suppose the Halter: how the learned Hiensius hath defended the negative, we may consult him upon this place, and upon Mat. XXVII.
• II. If Judas hanged himself as is commonly believ'd, and commonly so painted, how could it be said of him that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he fell headlong. Grant that upon the breaking of the Halter he might fall upon the ground, yet what matter is it whether he fell on his face, or that he fell backward. But if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be derived 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Gramma∣rians would have it, it may be headlong as well as upon the face, that is as upon the face, is opposed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to supine or backward.
• III. Histories tell us of persons strangled by the Devil. That is a known passage in Tob. III. 8. Asmodeus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (so it is in the Heb. of P. Fagius) strangled Sarahs seven husbands, &c. and it may be the less wonder if the Devil being corporally seated in this wretch, should at last strangle him.
• IV. There are also Histories of the Devil snatching up some into the air, and carrying them away with him. Now of all mortals no wretch did ever more deserve so direful a fate than this Traytor; not did any other death become the most impious of all mankind than the dreadfullest the Devil (to whom he was intirely given up) could inflict, as what might be of most horrour to himself, and terrour to others.
• V. The words immediately following, That this was known to all the dwellers at Jerusa∣lem, ver. 19. argue it was a thing of no common and ordinary event, and must be some∣thing more than hanging himself, which was an accident not so very unusual in that Nation.

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

And all his bowels gushed out.

w 1.21 A certain Syrian saw a man who fell from the roof of his house upon the ground, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his belly burst and his bowels gusht out. The Syrian brought the Son of him that had thus fallen, and slew him before him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but at length it seem'd so. The

Gloss telleth us he did not strike or hurt the boy, but made as if he would have killed him; because he being loth to meddle with the mans bowels himself, for fear lest he should any way displace them; he seem'd as if he had kill'd the boy, that so the father upon the sight of it groaning and fetching strong and deep sighs, might draw in his bowels into their proper place again.

The Devil had dwelt in this wretch for three days or thereabout, from the time that he had enter'd him upon his receiving the Sop, Joh. XIII. and now by an horrid eruption tearing out his bowels he goes out again.

VERS. XIX.

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

Aceldama.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A field of blood, so call'd both as it had been purchas'd with the price of blood, and as it had been water'd with the blood of this Traytor; for hither I presume the Devil had thrown him headlong; and upon this event it was that the Priests were mov'd to purchase this very field; and so in a twofold sense it might be said of this Tray∣tor, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he purchased a field, both as it was bought with his money, and seal'd with his blood. If Aceldama was in that quarter of the City that it is now shewn in, to strangers, that is, between the East and the South, as Borchard tells us; then it was in the valley of Hinnom or thereabout.

VERS. XXV.

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

That he might go to his own place.

BAlaam x 1.22 went to his own place, that is, into Hell. It is not said of the friends of Job, that they each of them came from his own house, or his own City, or his own Country, but from his own place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, from a place cut out for them in Hell y 1.23. The Gloss is, from his own place, that is, from Hell, appointed for Idolaters. z 1.24 Who∣soever betrays an Israelite into the hands of the Gentiles hath no part in the world to come. If so, then where must he have his place that betray'd the very Messiah of Israel?

VERS. XXIII.

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

Ioseph called Barsabas.

I. AMongst the Jews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jose, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Joseph are one and the same name. a 1.25 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Jose saith, in Babylon the Syrian tongue, &c. which being recited in So∣tah b 1.26, is thus exprest, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Joseph said, In Babylon, &c. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Jose in Hieros. Jom tobh c 1.27, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Joseph in Bab. Berac. d 1.28 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jose ben Johanan in Avoth e 1.29, is Joseph ben Johanan in Maimonides Preface to Misnah. And so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Mat. XXVII. 56. and Mark VI. 3. is render'd in the Vulgar, Joseph. See Beza up∣on the place now before us.

II. I would therefore suspect that this Joseph who is call'd Barsabas, might be Joses the Son of Alpheus, the brother of James the less, who as James also was called the Just; nor could we suppose any a more likely Candidate for the Apostleship, than he who was bro∣ther to so many of the Apostles, and had been so oftentimes nam'd with James. What the word Barsabas might signifie, it is not so easie to determine, because Sabas may agree with so many Hebrew words; the Nomenclators render it, The Son of Conversion, Son of quiet, Son of an Oath. (But by the way who can tell what Etymology the Arabick Interpreter in Bib. Polygl. referr'd to when he render'd it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Barzaphan?) I would write it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bar Saba, which also the Erpenian Arab. does) i. e. a wise Son, unless you had rather Son of an old man. There is also another Barsabas, Chap. XV. 22. Judas sirnamed Barsabas, by whom if Judas the Apostle be to be understood, let Joses and he (both Barsabas) be brothers, both of them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Sons of old Alpheus.

CHAP. II.

VERS. I.

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

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come.

I. THIS word Pentecost, seems to be taken into use by the Hellenist Jews, to signi∣fie this Feast, which also almost all the Versions retain, the Western especially, and amongst the Eastern, the Syriack and Aethiopick. The Hebraizing Jews commonly call this Feast by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from which one of the Arabicks differs very little when it renders it in this place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is only in∣terserted; the other omits the word wholly, and only hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the day of the fifty.

II. It is well enough known that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Holy Scriptures was an Holy-day, Levit. XXIII. 36. Deut. XVI. 8. and the reason why the Jews so peculiarly appropriate it to the Feast of Pentecost, seems to be this, because this Feast consisted in one solemn day, where∣as the Feast of Passover, and of Tabernacles had more days. f 1.30 As the days of the Feast are seven. R. Chaija saith, because the Pentecost is but for one day, is the mourning so too? They say unto him, thou arguest from a far fetcht tradition. Where the Gloss hath it, That this Feast is but for one day, we learn from the very word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. g 1.31 The men of the Town Mahaesia are strong of heart, for they see the glory of the Law twice in the year. The Gloss is, Thither all Israel is gather'd together in the Month Adar, that they may hear the Traditions concerning that Passover in the School of Rabh Asai: and in the Month Elul, that they may hear the Tra∣ditions concerning the Feast of Tabernacles. But they were not so gather'd together 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at the Feast of Pentecost, because that is not above one day.

Hence that Baithusean may be the better believ'd in his dispute with Rabban Johanan h 1.32, Moses our Master (saith he) will love Israel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and he knows that the Feast of Pentecost is but for one day.

III. And yet there is mention of a second Holy-day in Pentecost, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rabh Papa hath shammatiz'd those bearers that bury the dead on the first Feast-day of Pentecost, &c. where the mention of the first Feast-day hints to us that there is a second, which we find elsewhere asserted in express terms. i 1.33 R. Simeon ben Joze∣dek saith, in eighteen days any single person repeats the Hallel over, that is to say in the seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles, in the eight days of the Feast of Dedication, the first day of the Passover, and the first day of Pentecost. But in the captivity they did it in one and twenty days. In the nine days of the Feast of Tabernacles, in the eight days of the Feast of Dedicati∣on, in the two Feast-days of the Passover, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the two Feast-days of Pentecost.

Whereas it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the captivity, the difficulty is answer'd; for although in the land of Israel there was but one solemn day in the Feast of Pentecost, yet amongst the Jews in foreign Countries there were two; which also happen'd in other Solemnities. For in∣stance, within Palestine they kept but one day holy in the beginning of the year, viz. the first day of the Month Tisri; but in Babylon and other foreign Countries they observ'd both the first and the second day. And the reason was, because at so great a distance from the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, they could not be exactly certain of the precise day as it had been stated by the Sanhedrin, they observ'd therefore two days, that by the one or the other they might be sure to hit upon the right.

IV. God himself did indeed institute but one Holy-day in the Feast of Pentecost, Levit. XXIII. and therefore is it more peculiarly call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a solemn day, because it had but one Feast-day. And yet that Feast hath the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the same titles that the Feast of Tabernacles, and the Passover had, Exod. XXIII. 14, &c. and all the males appear'd in this Feast as well as in the others; nor was this Feast without its Chagigah any more than the rest. So that however the first day of Pentecost only was the Holy and solemn day, yet the Feast it self was continu'd for seven days. So the Doctors in Rosh hashanah, k 1.34 R. Oshaiah saith, whence comes it that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Pentecost hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 compensations for all the seven days? because the Scripture saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the Feast of unleaven'd bread, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and in the Feast of Weeks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and in the Feast of Tabernacles. He com∣pares the Feast of Weeks (i. e. Pentecost) with the Feast of unleaven'd bread. That hath com∣pensations for all the seven days, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so the Feast of Weeks (i. e. Pentecost) hath compensations for all the seven days. They call'd that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 com∣pensations, when any one had not made his just offerings in the beginning of the Feast, he repair'd and compensated this negligence or defect of his by offering in any other of the

seven days. And thus much may suffice as to this whole Feast in general. Now as to the very day of Pentecost it self it may not be amiss to add something.

I. It is well known that the account of weeks and days from the Passover to Pentecost took its beginning from, and depended upon the day of offering the sheaf of the first∣fruits, Levit. XXIII. 15. But through the ambiguity of the phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the morrow of the Sabbath, there hath arose a controversie betwixt the Scribes and Baithusians, whether by the Sabbath, ought to be understood the weekly Sabbath (or as the Scribes commonly call'd it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Sabbath of the Creation) or whether it should be un∣derstood of the Sabbatical day, i. e. the first day of the seven days of Passover, which was a solemn day, Exod. XII. 16. the Baithusians contend vehemently for the former, and will not have the sheaf offer'd but after the weekly Sabbath. As suppose the first day of the Passover should fall out upon the first day of the week, they would stay till the whole week with the Sabbath-day was run out, and then on the morrow of that Sabbath, i. e. the first day of the following week they offer'd the sheaf. But the Scribes very different∣ly keep strictly to the sixteenth day of the Month Nisan, for offering the first-fruits with∣out any dispensation, after the Sabbatical-day, or the first day of the Feast is over. And amongst other arguments by which they strengthen their opinion, those two different pla∣ces of Scripture, Exod. XII. 15. Seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread, and Deut. XVI. 8. Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread; they according to the sense they have do thus reconcile, Seven days indeed you shall eat unleavened bread; that is, unleavened bread of the old wheat on the first day of the Feast, the sheaf being not yet offer'd, and un∣leaven'd bread of the new wheat the remaining six days after you have offered the first∣fruits l 1.35.

II. If the day of the first-fruits be to be taken into the number of the fifty days, which the Authors now quoted do clearly enough affirm out of those words, Deut. XVI. 9. Num∣ber the seven weeks to thy self 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when thou beginnest to put the sickle into the corn; then it will appear plain enough to any one that upon whatsoever day of the week the sheaf-offering should fall, on that day of the week the day of Pentecost would fall too. And hence the Baithusians contended so earnestly that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the morrow after the Sabbath (on which it is commanded that the sheaf of the first-fruits should be offer'd) should be understood of the first day of the week, that so the day of Pentecost might fall out to be the first day of the week too; not so much in honour of that day (which is indeed our Lords-day) but that the Pentecost might have the more Feast-days, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that the Israelites might delight themselves for two days toge∣ther, as one of them speaks out their meaning * 1.36.

III. As to the year therefore we are now upon wherein Christ ascended, and the Holy Ghost came down, the sheaf-offering was on the Sabbath-day. For the Paschal lamb was eaten on Thursday, so that Friday (on which day our Saviour was Crucified) was the first day of the Feast, the Sabbatical or Holy-day. And the following-day which was their Sab∣bath, was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the second, on which the sheaf was offered, whiles Christ lay in the grave; and for this very reason was it said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an high day of the Sabbath, Joh. XIX. 31.

IV. Let us enquire therefore whether the day of Pentecost fell out on their Sabbath∣day; I know indeed that the fifty days are reckoned by some from the Resurrection of our Lord, and then Pentecost, or the fiftieth day, must fall on the first day of the week, that is, our Lords-day; but if we number the days from the common Epocha, that is, from the time of offering the sheaf of first-fruits (which account doubtless St. Luke doth follow) then the day of Pentecost fell out upon the Jewish Sabbath. And here, by the good leave of some learned men it may be question'd, Whether the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Disciples on the very day of Pentecost or no. The reasons of this question may be these.

I. The ambiguity of the words themselves, '〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which may be either render'd as we have done in English, When the day of Pentecost was fully come; or as they in the Italian, Et nel finire del giorno de la Pentecoste, q. d. when it was fully gone. So that the phrase leaves it undetermin'd whether the day of Pentecost was fully come, or fully gone; and what is there could be alledg'd against it, should we render it in the lat∣ter sense?

II. It is worthy our observation that Christ the Antitype in answering some Types that represented him, did not tye himself up to the very day of the Type its self for the ful∣filling of it, but put it off to the day following. So it was not upon the very day of the Passover, but the day following that, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Christ our Passover was sacrific'd for us, 1 Cor. V. 7. It was not on the very day that the sheaf of the first-fruits was offer'd, but the day following that Christ became 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first∣fruits of them that slept, 1 Cor. XV. 20. So also did he institute the Christian Sabbath not the same day with the Jewish Sabbath, wherein God had finisht the work of his Creation,

but the day following wherein Christ had finisht the work of his Redemption. And so it was agreeable to reason, and to the order wherein he dispos'd of things already menti∣oned, that he should indulg that mysterious gift of the Holy Ghost, not upon the day of the Jewish Sabbath, but the day following, the day of his own Resurrection from the grave; that the Spirit should not be pour'd out upon the same day wherein the giving of the Law was commemorated, but upon a day that might keep up the commemoration of himself for ever.

III. We can hardly invent a more fit and proper reason why upon this day they should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, All with one accord in one place; than that they were so gather'd together for the celebration of the Lords-day. So that although we have ad∣veutur'd to call it into question whether the Holy Ghost was pour'd out upon the very day of the Jewish Pentecost, yet have we not done it with any love to contradiction, but as having considerable reason so to do, and with design of asserting to the Lords-day its just honour and esteem; for on that day beyond all controversie, the Holy Ghost did come down amongst them.

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

They were all with one accord, &c.

Who were these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, these ALL here mention'd? probably the CXX spoken of Chap. I. 15. and the connexion falls in well enough with the foregoing story. Those All were together when the Election of the twelfth Apostle was propounded, and when the choice was made too. And therefore why the ALL in this place ought not to have refer∣ence to this very number also, who can alledg any reason? Perhaps you will say, this rea∣son may be given why it should not; namely, that all those that were here assembled, were endu'd with the gift of Tongues, and who will say that all the hundred and twenty were so gifted? I do my self believe it, and that for these reasons.

• I. All the rest were likely to publish the Gospel in foreign Countries, as well as the Apostles, and therefore was it necessary that they also should be endow'd with foreign Tongues.
• II. The Apostles themselves imparted the same gift by the imposition of hands to those whom they Ordained the Ministers of particular Churches. It would seem unreasonable therefore that those extraordinary persons that had been all along in company with Christ and his Apostles, and were to be the great Preachers of the Gospel in several parts of the world, should not be enricht with the same gift.
• III. It is said of the seven Deacons that they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, full of the Holy Ghost, even before they were chosen to that office; which doth so very well agree with what is said in this part of the story, ver. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, that we can hardly find out a more likely time or place wherein these Deacons had been thus replenisht, than when the Apostles themselves were so, that is, upon the coming down of the Holy Ghost.
• IV. The dignity and prerogative of the Apostles above the rest of the Disciples, did not so much consist in this gift of Tongues being appropriated to themselves; but in this amongst other things, that they were capable of conferring this gift upon others, which the rest could not do. Philip the Deacon doubtless did himself speak with Tongues, but he could not confer this gift to the Samaritans, that they also should speak with Tongues as he did; this was reserv'd to Peter and to John the Apostles.
• V. The Holy Ghost as to the gift of Tongues fell upon all that heard Peter's discourse in the house of Cornelius, Chap. X. 44. it may seem the less strange therefore if it should fall on these also at this time and in this place.

VERS. II.

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

A sound as of a rushing mighty wind.

THE sound of a mighty wind, but without wind; so also Tongues like as of fire, but without fire. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is fitly and emphatically enough added here; but I question whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was so properly put by the Greek Interpreters in Gen. I. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Spirit of God was carry'd upon the face of the waters; and yet the Paraphrast and Samaritan Copy is much wider still from the mean∣ing and intention of Moses, when they render it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he breath'd upon the waters. I conceive they might in those words, the Spirit of God mov'd upon the face of the waters, have an eye to those waters that cover'd the earth; whereas Moses plainly distinguisheth between the Abyss, that is, the waters that cover'd the earth, upon the face of which deep the darkness was; and those waters which the Spirit of God mov'd upon, that is, the waters which were above the firmament, ver. 6, 7. And by the moving or incubation

of the Spirit upon these waters, I would rather understand the motion of the Heavens, the Spirit of God turning them about, and by that motion cherishing the things below, as the bird doth by sitting upon its young, than of any blowing or breathing of the Spirit or the wind upon them; or that the Spirit was carry'd upon the waters as a wind is upon the Sea, or upon the Land.

VERS. III.

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

Cloven Tongues like as of fire.

THE confusion of Languages was the casting off of the Gentiles, and the confusion of Religion; for after once all other Nations, excepting that of the Jewish, came to be deprived of the use and knowledg of the Hebrew Tongue; in which Language alone the things of true Religion, and all Divine truth were known, taught, and deliver'd, it was unavoidable but that they must needs be depriv'd of the knowledg of God and Reli∣gion. Hence that very darkness that fell upon the Gentile world by that confusion of Tongues, continued upon them to this very time. But now behold the remedy, and that wound that had been inflicted by the confusion, is now heal'd by the gift of Tongues; that Veil that was spread over all Nations at Babel was taken away at mount Zion, Isai. XXVII. 7. We meet with a form of prayer in the Jewish writings, which was used on the solemn fast of the ninth month Ab, of which this is one clause m 1.37, Have mercy, O God, up∣on the City that mourneth, that is troden down and desolate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because thou didst lay it wast by fire, and by fire wilt build it up again. If the Jews expect and desire their Jerusalem should be rebuilt by fire, let them direct their eyes to∣ward these fiery Tongues, and acknowledg both that the building commenc'd from that time, and the manner also how only it is to be restor'd.

VERS. XIII.

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

These men are full of new wine.

RAbba saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A man is bound to make himself so mellow on the Feast of Purim, that he shall not be able to distinguish between cursed be Haman, and blessed be Mordecai. Rabbah and R. Zeira feasted together on the Feast of Purim 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and they were sweeten'd, or made very mellow. The Gloss is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and they were sweeten'd, i. e. they were got drunk. So that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is nothing but what they were wont to express in their common Dialect 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they are sweeten'd, that is, are drunk.

But may we not rather judg those drunk, who by saying the Apostles were full of new wine, imputed that sudden skill of theirs in so many Languages to wine and intemperance? The Rabbins indeed mention a Demon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cordicus, who possesseth those that are drunk with new wine n 1.38. But is he so great a Master of Art and wit, that he can furnish them with Tongues too? These scoffers seem to be of the very dregs and scum of the peo∣ple, who knowing no other Language but their own Mother-tongue, and not under∣standing what the Apostles said, while they were speaking in foreign languages, thought they said nothing but meer babble and gibberish.

VERS. XV.

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

It is but the third hour of the day.

THAT is with us, nine a Clock in the morning; before which time especially on the Sabbath and other Feast-days the Jews were not wont so much as to tast any thing of meat or drink, nor indeed hardly of other days. o 1.39 This was the custom of the Re∣ligions of old, first to say over his morning prayers on the Sabbath-day, with those additional ones in the Synagogue, and then go home and take his second repast. For he had taken his first repast on the evening before at the entrance of the Sabbath. Nothing might be tasted be∣fore the prayers in the Synagogue were finisht, which sometimes lasted even till noon∣day; for so the Gloss upon the place, When they continue in the Synagogue beyond the sixth hour and an half, which is the time of the great Minchah (for on a Feast-day they delay'd their coming out of the Synagogue) then let a man pray his prayer of the Minchah before he eat, and so let him eat. And in those days it was, that that commonly obtain'd, which Targ. in Cohe∣leth noteth: p 1.40 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 After they had offer'd the dai∣ly Sacrifice they eat bread in the time of the four hours; i. e. in the fourth hour. In Bava Meziah q 1.41, a certain officer of the Kings teacheth R. Eleazar the Son of R. Simeon how he

should distinguish betwixt Thieves and honest men; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 go (saith he) into the Taberne on the fourth hour, and if thou seest any person drinking Wine, and nod∣ding while he holds his Cup in his hand, &c. Where the Gloss hath it, The fourth hour, was the hour of eating, when every one went into the Taberne, and there eat. So that these whom ye deride, O ye false mockers, are not drunk, for it is but the third hour of the day; that is, it is not yet the time to eat and drink in.

VERS. XVII.

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

In the last days.

THE Prohet Joel hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 After these things. Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. After these things. Where Kimchi upon the place hath this note, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And it shall come to pass after these things, is the same with, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it shall come to pass in the last days. We have elsewhere observed that by the last days is to be understood the last days of Jerusalem, and the Jewish Oeco∣nomy, viz. when the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the end of the Jewish world r 1.42 drew near. And there would be the less doubt as to this matter, if we would frame a right notion of that great and terrible day of the Lord: that is, The day of his vengeance upon that place and Nation. Which terror the Jews, according to their custom and fashion, put far off from themselves, and devolve it upon Gog and Magog, who were to be cut off and destroyed.

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

I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh.

The Jews cautiously enough here, though not so honestly, apply this Prophesie and promise to Israel solely, as having this for a Maxim amongst them, That the Holy Ghost is never imparted to any Gentile. Hence those of the Circumcision that believed were so astonished, when they saw, That on the Gentiles also was poured out the Gift of the Holy Ghost, Chap. X. 45. But with the Jews good leave, whether they will or no, the Gentiles are beyond all question included within such like promises as these. All flesh shall see the Salvation of God, Isai. XL. 5. And All flesh come and worship before the Lord, Isai. LXVI. 23, &c.

VERS. XIX.

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

And vapor of smoke.

THE Prophet hath it in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and pillars of smoke. St. Luke follows the Greek, who as it should seem, are not very solicitous about that nice distinction between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pillaring smoke, or smoke ascending like a staff, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Smoke dispersing it self here and there. A distinction we meet with in Joma s 1.43, where we have a ridiculous story concerning the curiosity of the Wise∣men about the ascending up of the smoke of Incense.

As to these prodigies in blood, fire, and smoke, I would understand it of the slaughter and conflagrations that should be committed in that Nation to a wonder by seditious and intestine broils there. They were monsters rather than instances, than which there could never have been a more prodigious presage of the ruine of that Nation, than that they grew so cruel within themselves, breathing nothing but mutual slaughters, and deso∣lations.

VERS. XXIII.

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

Him being deli∣vered by the determinate Council and fore-knowledge of God, ye have taken, &c.

WE may best fetch the reason why St. Peter adds this clause, from the conceptions of the Jews. Can he be the Messiah, think they, that hath suffered such things? What! The Messiah Crucified and slain? Alas! how different are these things from the character of the Messiah? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 t 1.44 To him belongs honour, and glory, and preeminence above all Kings that have ever been in the world, according as all the Prophets from Moses our Master (to whom be peace!) to Malachy (to whom be peace!) have Prophesied concerning him. Is he then the Messiah that was spit upon, scouged, thrust through with a Spear, and Crucified? Yes saith St. Peter, these things he suffered

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the determinate counsel, and fore-knowledge of God. And these things had been foretold concerning him from Moses to Malachy, so that he was never the less their Messiah though he suffered these things; nor did he indeed suffer these things by chance, but by the determinate counsel of God. What the learned have argued from this place, concerning God's decrees, I leave to the Schools.

VERS. XXIV.

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

Having loosed the pains of death.

LET these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be either the pains of death, or the hands of death, yet is it doubtful whether St. Peter might speak only of the death of Christ, or of death in general; so that the sense may be, that God raised him up, and by his Resurrection hath loosed the bands of death, with respect to others also. But supposing the expression ought to be appropriated to Christ only (whom indeed they do chiefly respect) then by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we are not to understand so much the torments and pangs in the last mo∣ments of death, as those bands which followed, viz. the continued separation of Soul and Body, the putrefaction and corruption of the body in the Grave, which two things are those which St. Peter acquits our Saviour from in the following words. For, how∣ever it be a great truth that death is the wages of sin, yet is it not to be understood so much of those very pangs whereby the Soul and Body are disjoyned, as the continuation of the divorce betwixt Soul and Body in the Grave.

VERS. XXVII.

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

Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell.

IT is well know what the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies in Greek Authors: viz. the state of the dead, be they just or unjust. And their Eternal state is distinguished not so much by the word it self as by the qualities of the persons. All the just, the Heroes, the followers of Religion and Vertue, according to those Authors are in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Hades, but it is in Elysium, in joy and felicity. All the evil, the wicked, the unjust, they are in Hades too, but then that is in Hell, in torture and punishment. So that the word Hades is not used in opposition to Heaven, or the state of the blessed, but to this world only, or this present state of life; which might be made out by numberless instances in those Au∣thors. The Soul of our Saviour therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, descended into Hell, i. e. he passed into the state of the dead, viz. into that place in Hades, where the Souls of good Men went. But even there did not God suffer his Soul to abide, separate from his body, nor his body to putrifie in the Grave, because it was impossible for Christ to be holden of those bands of death, seeing his death was not some punishment of sin, but the utmost pitch of obedience, he himself being not only without sin, but uncapable of commit∣ting any.

VERS. XXIX.

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

Let me speak freely, &c.

IT is doubted whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be rendred I may, or let me: If that which R. Isaac saith, obtained at that time, viz. Those words, my flesh shall rest in hope, teach us 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That neither worm nor Insect had any power over David u 1.45, then was it agreeable enough that St. Peter should, by way of Preface, crave the leave of his Auditory in speaking of David's being putrified in the Grace; and so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is well rendred, let me. But I may, pleaseth me best, and by this Paraphrase the words may be illustrated.

That this passage, Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hell, &c. is not to be applied to David himself appears, in that I may confidently averr concern∣ing him, that he was dead and buried, and never rose again, but his Soul was left 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the state of the dead, and he saw corruption; for his Sepulchre is with us unto this day, under that very notion that it is the Sepulchre of David who dyed and was there buried; nor is their one syllable any where mentioned of the Resurrection of his body, or the return of his soul 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the state of the dead.

I cannot slip over that passage w 1.46 R Jose ben R. ben saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 David dyed at Pentecost, and all Israel bewailed him, and offered their Sacrifices the day following.

VERS. XXXIV.

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

The Lord said unto my Lord. &c.

SEEING St. Peter doth with so much assurance and without scruple apply these words to the Messiah, it is some sign that that Comment wherewith the later Jews have gloz'd over this place, was not thought of or invented at that time; Glossing on the words thus, The Lord said unto Abraham, sit thou on my right hand. x 1.47 Sem the great, said unto Eleazar when the Kings of the East and of the West came against you, how did you do? He said unto him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God took up Abraham and made him sit at his right hand. He threw dust upon them, and that dust was turned into Swords; Stubble, and that Stubble was turned into Darts; so it is said in David's Psalm, the Lord said unto my Lord sit thou at my right hand. Where the Gloss very cautiously notes, that these words, The Lord said unto my Lord, are the words of Eleazar, whose Lord of right Abraham might be called.

y 1.48 R. Zechary in the name of R. Ismael saith. God had a purpose to have drawn the Priesthood from Sem, according as it is said, he was the Priest of the Most high God. But when he pronounced his blessing of Abraham, before his blessing of God, God derived the Priest∣hood from Abraham. For it is said, and he blessed him saying, Blessed be Abraham of the Most High God, possessor of Heaven and Earth: and blessed be the Most High God. Abra∣ham saith unto him, doth any one put the blessing of the Servant before the blessing of his Lord? Immediately the Priesthood was given to Abraham. As it is said, The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand: It is written afterward, thou art a Priest for ever, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the words of Melchizedek [who had not placed his blessings in due or∣der.] And forasmuch as it is written, And he was a Priest of the Most High God, it inti∣mates to us, that he was a Priest but his seed was not. Can we think that this Gloss was framed at that time, when St. Peter so confidently, as though none would oppose him in it, applied this passage to the Messiah? which also our Saviour himself did before him to the great Doctors of that Nation, and there was not one that opened his mouth against it, Matth. XXII. 44.

VERS. XXXVIII.

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

Be Baptised every one of you in the name of Iesus Christ.

BEZA tells us, That this doth not declare the Form of Baptism, but the scope and end of it. Yet this clause is wanting in the Syriack Interpreter. Wherever he might have got a Copy wherein this was wanting, yet is it not so in other Copies. But to let that pass: What he sayeth that this doth not declare the Form of Baptism, is, I fear, a mistake: for at that time they Baptised amongst the Jews, in the name of Jesus (although among the Gentiles they Baptised in the Name of the Father, and the Son and holy Ghost) that Jesus might be acknowledged for the Messiah by them that were Baptised, than which nothing was more tenacionsly and obstinately denyed and contradicted by the Jews. Let the Jew therefore in his Baptism own Jesus for the true Messiah, and let the Gentile in his, confess the true God, three in one.

VERS. XLI.

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

There were added about three thousand souls.

AND Chap. IV. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. About five thousand. To which I would re∣ferr that passage in Psal. CX. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thy people shall be a willing people in the day of thy power. The day of Christ's power was the day of his Resurrection, when he had subdued Death and Hell; and the day of his Ascension when he was set at the right hand of God above all principality and power; concerning which the first Verse of that Psalm speaks. The story in this place therefore is the fulfilling of the Prophesie, Vers. 3. and is shewn how willing his people were in that day of his power.

VERS. XLII.

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

And in breaking of bread.

BReaking of bread was a phrase much in use amongst the Jews, arising from a custom as much in use among them. For their Dinner began with blessing and breaking of Bread. z 1.49 R. Zeira was sick. R. Abhu came to him, and bound himself, saying, if R. Zeira recover, I will make a Festival day for the Rabbins; He did recover, and he made a Feast for all the Rabbins 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 When they were going to dinner, R. Abhu said to R. Zeira, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Master begin for us. To whom he answered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Doth not the Master remember, or call to mind that of R. Johanan, who saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Master of the House breaketh Bread? Where the Gloss upon these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is this: It signifies a Feast, as if he should have said, break Bread to us with the blessing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that bringeth forth food out of the Earth, &c. The Gemaro goes on: When they came to give the blessing, R. Abhu said to R. Zeira, let the Master give the blessing for us, to whom he answered, Doth not the Master call to mind that of R. Hounah of Babylon, who saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that breaketh Bread, giveth the blessing. And a little after: He that breaketh Bread, doth not break it before the Amen of all that sit down at meat be pronounced, and that they all answer Amen, to him when he giveth the blessing. Again in the same place: No one of the guests must taste any thing, till he who breaketh Bread, hath first tasted.

a 1.50 R. Abba saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Man is bound on the Sab∣bath day, to break upon two loaves, because it is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 double Bread, Exod. XVI. 22. Rabh. Issai saith. I saw Rabh Calina, that he took two loaves 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and brake but one. Instances of this kind as to the use of this phrase, are endless.

But now the question is, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 breaking of Bread in this place, be to be taken in this sense: that is, for common Bread, or not rather for Bread of the Holy E••∣charist; which question also returns, vers. 46. breaking Bread from House to House. Now I ask whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 breaking of Bread amongst the Jews was ever used to denote the whole Dinner or the whole Supper? It signifies indeed that particular action by which they began the meal, but I do not remember that I have any where in the Tal∣mudists observed the phrase applied to the whole meal of Dinner or Supper. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was the word by which they commonly expressed the whole repast: But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 breaking Bread, never, if I am not much deceived. And I doubt that of Beza is but gratis dictum, rather then proved, when he tells us, Factum est ut mutuus convictus, &c. It came to pass that eating together, and so all the Feasts they were wont to make amongst one another, went under the name of breaking of Bread. Which if true, I ingenuously confess my ignorance: but if false, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or breaking Bread in these places we are now upon, must not be understood of their ordinary eating together, but of the Eucharist; which the Sy∣riack Interpreter does render so in express terms: a parallel to which we have in 1 Cor. X. 16. Acts XX. 7.

VERS. XLIV.

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

They had all things common.

TO repeat here what is disputed concerning the Essenes and Theraputae, is to say the same thing over and over again: but what is said of the Jerusalem Writers, and is not so obvious, I cannot omit: viz. that they did not hire either Houses or Beds in Jerusa∣lem; those things were not mercenary, but lent gratis by the owners to all who came up to the Feasts. b 1.51 The same may be well supposed of their Ovens, Cauldrons, Tables, Spits, and other Utensils: Also provisions of water were made for them at the publick care and charge c 1.52.

CHAP. III.

VERS. I.

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

At the hour of Prayer, being the ninth hour.

WHether it was the ninth hour of the same day, wherein about the third, the Holy Ghost had been poured out, must be left to conjecture. This is cer∣tain that the ninth hour of the day (which with us is Three a Clock in the Afternoon) was the ordinary hour as for Sacrifice, so also for Prayer too. As to the hours of Sacrifice Josephus gives us this account: d 1.53 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Twice a day, viz. in the morning, and at the ninth hour, they offer Sacrifices on the Altar. And concerning the hours of Prayer, the Talmu∣dists thus: e 1.54 R. Jose ben R. Chaninah saith, The Patriarchs appointed the Prayers. R. Joshuah ben Levi saith, they appointed them according to the daily Sacrifices. Morning Prayer is till the fourth hour. The Prayer of the Minchah, or Evening is till the Evening. Which is the great Minchah? That from the sixth hour and an half. Which is the less Minchah? from the ninth hour and an half, &c.

They distinguish betwixt the Afternoon Prayers, and the Evening Prayers, although part of them, if not all, were one and the same. For whereas the precise time for recital of the Phylacteries and the Prayers annext for the Evening, was not but at the entring in of night, yet they recited them in their Prayers at the Minchah. Hence that dispensation in the Gloss in Beracoth, f 1.55 The recital of the Shemaa in Bed, is the foundation. That is, after that the Stars have begun to appear: And so it is in the Jerusalem Talmud. If any one re∣cite them before that time he doth not do his duty. If it be thus, then why do we say our Phylactery-prayers in the Synagogue? It is that we way continue in prayer because of the words of the Law.

VERS. II.

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

At the Gate of the Temple, which is called beautiful.

HERE I am at a stand as to the determination of this Gate, according to the un∣certain signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If in the Etymology of it, it hath any relation with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, time (which any one would imagine) then we might suppose it the Gate called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Huldah, perhaps so called from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Heledh, time, or age. There were two Gates of this name on the South-side of the Court of the Gentiles, under that noble Porch called the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Royal Porch. g 1.56 Through which the way led from Jerusalem it self, or Acra, into the Temple. But if by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be meant strictly beautiful, as it is commonly rendred, then we might suppose it the East Gate of the Women's Court: which although it was but a Brazen Gate, yet for splendor and glittering it ex∣ceeded the other Gates of Silver or Gold. h 1.57 There were nine of the Gates indeed that were overlaid with Silver and Gold—There were nine Gates overlaid with Gold and Sil∣ver—And one without the Temple, made of Corinthian Brass, which far exceeded those of Gold or Silver.

Let the Reader judge whether that which is added v. 11. encrease or explain the diffi∣culty. As the lame man which was healed, held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch which is called Solomon's. From whence this difficulty ariseth: Whether Peter, and John, and the lame man had hitherto gone no further than the Court of the Gentiles, or whether they had come back thither, from the Women's Court. If the former, then the lame Man lay at some Gate of the Court of the Gentiles that was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we may suppose was the Gate called Huldah: If the later, then he lay at that Corinthian Gate.

VERS. IV.

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

Look on us.

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

He gave heed unto them.

IN the Jerusalem Language perhaps it might be said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Look on us, and he looked on them. i 1.58 On a certain day, Elias came to R. Judah while a fit of Toothach was upon him, and he said unto him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Look on me. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And he looked on him, and he touched his Teeth, and cured him.

VERS. VI.

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

Silver and Gold have I none

IT is a Tradition k 1.59 Let no one enter into the Mountain of the Temple 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with money bound up in his Linnen. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nor with his Purse hanging behind him. Where by the way we may observe the Gloss of Rambam upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is a Garment, saith he, which a Man puts on next his skin, in which he sweats, that he may not spoil better cloths: nor is it the custom for any one to go abroad with that Garment alone, having no other Cloths on. We leave the Reader to spell out his meaning; but with this remarque, That he is not followed in the explication of this word by his Countrey-men.

But though it was not lawful for any to carry a Purse into the Temple with them, yet was it very seldom that any did go into the Temple without money, either in his hand, or carried about them some other way, and that, with an intent either to bestow in Alms, or to make a voluntary Offering in the Treasury: this is evident from those two mites of the poor Widow. Might not Peter have something of this nature to bestow to a beggar though he had neither Silver nor Gold? Doubtless he had no such equivocation, but meant it sincerely, that he had no money at all.

VERS. XI.

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

In the Porch that is called Solomon's.

IF we will distinguish betwixt Porch and Porch, then Solomon's Porch, was on the East, and the Royal Porch on the South, &c. But if we would have the whole Court of the Gentiles to be comprehended under the name of Solomon's Porch (though it may seem something obscure why it should be called a Porch, and why Solomon's Porch, yet) it may not be unfitly admitted here. But whether it took its name from Solomon's Porch, strictly so called, as being the most noble Porch, and antiently that of Solomon's: or because Solomon consecrated that Court in his Temple by Sacrifices l 1.60: Or whether be∣cause Solomon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as Josephus tells us) filled the deep trenches with earth, that by levelling the place he might have room enough to make this Court. What∣ever it was I deny not but the whole Court might go under that name, although as I have elsewhere shewn, the very Solomon's Porch, strictly taken as a Porch, was only the Eastern part and Porch of that Court, And let me only repeat what I have quoted in that place. m 1.61 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Priest's Gate, and the Gate Huldah, were not to be destroyed at all, till God should renew them. Which encreaseth our suspition, that the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hhuldah is derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hheled, which signi∣fies time, and Age, from the lastingness they had phansied of this Gate; and that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in this place might have some such signification, as one would say, the gate of time. And perhaps the little Priest's Gate was the other Gate of Hhuldah, from the same du∣ration they conceited in that Gate also. For there were two Gates of that name, on the South side of the Court, as we have noted before.

VERS. XIX.

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

When the times of refreshing shall come.

I May perhaps betray my ignorance in the Greek Tongue, if I should confess that I cannot see by what Authority of that language the most Learned Interpreters have ren∣dred, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. That when the times of refreshing shall come: as the Vulgar, ••rasmus, and the Interlinear; or When they shall come: also the English, French, and Ita∣lian:

or, After they shall come, as Beza. I am not ashamed to confess, I do not under∣stand by what reason they thus render it; when it so well agrees with the Idiom of that Language to translate it, That the times of refreshing may come. Psal. IX. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That I may shew forth, &c. Psal. XCII. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That they may be destroyed for ever. Psal. CXIX. 101. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That I might keep. Acts XV. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That they might seek, &c. And so in this place, repent therefore, and be con∣verted, that your sins may be blotted out, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the times of refreshing may come, and God may send Jesus Christ to you. These last words, may send Jesus Christ, I suppose have begot the difficulty in this place, and occasioned the variety of Versions we meet with: And how the Chiliasts apply these things is well known. But if our Interpretation be admitted, what could be more fully and plainly said to answer the conceptions of the Auditors, who might be ready to object against what St. Peter had said. Is it so indeed? Was that Jesus whom we have Cruci••ied, the true Christ? then is all our hope of refreshment by the Messiah vanished, because he himself is vanished and gone. Then our expectation as to the consolation of Israel is at an end, because he who should be our consolation is perished.

Not so, saith St. Peter, but the Messiah and the refreshing by him shall be restored to you if you will repent; yet so, that he himself shall continue still in Heaven. He shall be sent to you in his refreshing and consolatory word, and in his benefits, if you repent, &c.

We have something parallel to this in Acts XIII. 47. We turn unto the Gentiles, for so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles. Set thee? Whom? What Paul and Barnabas? No, but thee Christ sent, and shinning forth by the ministry of those two Apostles.

And hence it is that I the less doubt of the reading of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, preached before unto you, (whereas some would rather have it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made ready) for St. Peter's design and discourse is about preaching. He shall send Christ to to you by way of Preaching, as he was before preached of. We may observe, That the Apostle in this discourse of his instances in a threefold time: 1. The time before his coming, wherein he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, preached before by Moses and all the Prophets from Samuel and so on. 2. This time when he came and God exhibited him to the world, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, having raised him up, vers. 26.) raising him up for a Saviour, he sent him to the first, that by his Doctrine he might turn every one of you from his iniquities. And, 3. Now that he is gone up into Heaven, and is there to abide, yet God will send him to you that repent, in the preaching of his word, as he was before preached.

VERS. XXIV.

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

And all the Prophets from Samuel, &c.

WE have Moses and Samuel mentioned together in this place, as also Psal. XCIX. 6. because there were few or no Prophets between these two, 1 Sam. III. 1. and the Apparitions of Angels having been more frequent. And after the decease of Phineas it is a question whether there was any Oracle by Urim and Thummim, through the defect of Prophesie in the High Priests, till the times of Samuel: but then it revived in Abimelech, Abiathar, &c. n 1.62 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Samuel was the Master of the Prophets.

CHAP. IV.

VERS. I.

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

And the Captain of the Temple.

WE have spoken already of this Captain of the Temple in Notes upon Luke XXII. 4. and told you that he was the Captain of all those Priestly and Levitical Guards and Watches that were kept in the Temple. He is term∣ed in the Talmudists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Man of the mountain of the House; or the Ruler of the mountain of the Temple.

VERS. V.

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

Their Rulers, and Elders, and Scribes were gathered together in Ierusalem.

IN Jerusalem, admits of a double construction. Either as the City may be set in oppo∣sition to the Country: or the Town it self to the Temple.

I. If we admit the former and that these had gathered themselves from the adjacent Towns to meet in Jerusalem; then we may suppose them assembled rather upon the ac∣count of some Solemnity of the day, than meerly to take cagnizance of the cause of Peter and John. It is a question whether they all knew of their Imprisonment which was done the Evening before, and probably while they were absent, their commitment was made and that act done by some chief of the Priests, the Captain of the Watches, and by the Sadducees, not by a just Sanhedrin.

If we will grant therefore that the lame Man was healed that day in the Afternoon, on which the Holy Ghost had been poured out upon the Disciples in the Fore-noon, then on this very day it behoved every male to appear before the Lord in the Temple with some oblation or other. For, whereas the day of Pentecost fell then on the Jewish Sabbath, and this day (that being supposed) was the second day after that, it was the day 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of appearing in the Temple, which probably might occasion these Rulers and Elders meet∣ing together in the City at this time.

II. But if we take Jerusalem in this place, in opposition to the Temple, it remembers us of the Tradition concerning the Sanhedrin's removal from the Temple to the City, which Jewish Authors tell us of. o 1.63 The Sanhedrin removed from the Room Gazith to the Taberne, and from the Taberne into Jerusalem, &c. Where we may observe the same con∣tradistinction between the City and the Temple: For in the Temple was both Gazith, and the Taberne, or Shops. This removal happened forty years before the destruction of Jeru∣salem. p 1.64 Forty years before the destruction of the City, the Sanhedrin removed—For when they observed the strange encrease of Murderers amongst them, that they grew too many to be called in question, they suid 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is best for us to remove from place to place. Upon which very words it is best for us to remove, I cannot but remember that passage in Josephus, q 1.65 On the Feast which is called Pentecost, the Priests, according to custom, entring into the inner Temple by night, to perform the Service, perceived first, as they said, a certain motion and crack, and then a sudden voice, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, let us remove from hence. Which words whether they agree amongst themselves, and fall in with the time now before us, let the Reader himself consider and judge. That passage in Chap. V. 25. gives some hint that the Sanhedrin at this time sate in the City and not in the Temple; which the Reader may al•••• consider.

III. I hardly believe any one will doubt but that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Rulers, Elders, and Scribes, must be understood the Great Council: but to di∣stinguish these particularly, I can hardly say whether it be more nice, or more difficult. We might say that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rulers, might be meant Gamaliel the President, and Simeon his Son, the Vice-President: By the Elders, the rest of the body of the Sanhe∣drin; by the Scribes, either the two Registers, or those wise men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who judged before the Sanhedrin, or both. But I wave being too curious.

VERS. VI.

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

Iohn.

IF we may render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the Vulgar, ex genere sacerdotali, and especially with the Syriack and Arabick, of the stock of the Priests; I would without any stickling conceive this John here mentioned to be no other than Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai, because at that time there was not any one more famous throughout the whole Nation, and he was of the stock of the Priests.

r 1.66 Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai the Priest, lived an hundred and twenty years, &c. He sound favour in the eyes of Cesar: From whom he obtained Jasneh, and his wise men, and Physicians that cured R. Zadok.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 From the time that he dyed, the glory of wisdom ceased. About that very time which we now have under consider∣ation, we have this passage related concerning him. Forty years before the destruction* 1.67 of the City, when the Gates of the Temple flew open of their own accord, Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai said. O Temple, Temple, why dost thou disturb thy self? I know thy end, that thou shalt be destroyed, for so the Prophet Zechary hath spoken concerning thee, open thy doors, O I ebanon, that the fire may devour thy Cedars.

He saw the flames of the City and of the Temple: and having obtained from the Emperour Titus, that the Sanhedrin might be settled at Jabneh, he presided there two or five years; for the certain number is not agreed upon.

All that can be objected against this Johanan ben Zaccai being the John mentioned in this place, seems to be this, that if this was an Assembly of Priests levened with the leven of the Sadducees (as may be conjectured out of Chap. V. 17.) then this Johanan ben Zaccai ought not to be reckoned amongst them, for he both lived and dyed a Pha∣risee, at least not a Sadducee. But if the whole Sanhedrin is to be understood here, wherein the Priests as much as they were capable would strengthen their own party, then would I look for no other John than this Son of Zaccai.

VERS. XI.

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

This is the stone which was set at naught, &c.

THE words are taken out of Psal. CXVIII. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The stone which they rejected, &c. And are these things said of the Messiah? Surely the Jew will hardly believe his pompous Messiah should be rejected, and set at naught by his own Country-men. And therefore doth St. Peter the more vehemently inculcate it. This is the Stone. Our Saviour had said before, Matth. XXI. Did you never read in the Scri∣ptures, the Stone which the builders rejected, &c. yes, they had read and read it again, and oftentimes recited in their great Hallel, but you shall never perswade them that these things were spoken of their Messiah, but rather of Jacob, as some t 1.68; or of David, as others u 1.69; or of the Congregation of Israel as Aben Ezra, &c. but by no means of their Messiah. For they dreamt of such a Messiah that should come so according to their heart's desire, that it was incredible any Jew should ever reject or despise him.

VERS. XIII.

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

Unlearned and ignorant men.

ILliterate and Uulgar persons also. For it is supposed in Joma w 1.70, that even the High-Priest himself, may be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unlearned, when yet he was by no means a vulgar person, no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Plebeian. They say unto him, Lord High Priest do thou read thy self, out of thine own mouth; perhaps thou hast forgotten, or perhaps thou didst never learn. And so vice versa. x 1.71 There are some called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who were not so unlearned. There are three Kings that have no part in the world to come, viz. Jeroboam, Ahab, and Manasseh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and four common persons, Balaam, Doeg, Ahitophel, and Gehazi.

But these Apostles were unlearned, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, men of no degree or quality, but vulgar persons, and of the common people. So 1 Sam. XVIII. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a poor and vile man. The Targumist reads, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A poor man and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or vulgar person. And Chap. XXIV. 14. After a dead Dog, after a Flea? Targumist, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 After one feeble wretch, after one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 common person.

VERS. XVII.

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

Let us streightly threaten them, &c.

I. THIS incessant and implacable enmity, and stubbornness, the Sanhedrin had a∣gainst the Doctrine and Miracles of the Apostles in the name of Jesus, (of which this was the first specimen) did betray a most particular spight and ill-will they had to∣ward Jesus above all other men. Let us only compare the case of Jesus with that of John Baptist. All men esteemed John a Prophet, Matth. XXI. 26. Nor did they so much oppugne his preaching. And why should they so unanimously set themselves against the preaching of Jesus which was signalized with so many, and so great miracles beyond that of John the Baptist?

II. We conceive in our Notes upon John XI. 48. that the Fathers of the Sanhedrin had either a down right knowledge, or at least a suspition that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, and hence arose their hatred against his person and doctrine. It is much dispu∣ted and questioned concerning the testimony which Josephus gives concerning Jesus, whe∣ther it was Josephus his own, or whether it had not been foisted and thrust in by some Christian. And yet in it (excepting the last clause) you will hardly find any thing, but what the very Rulers of the Jews either owned or at least suspected if they would speak out. y 1.72 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. About this time there was one Jesus a wise man (if it be lawful to call

him a man) for he wrought strange works. I suspect, that Josephus in those words [if it be law∣ful to call him a man] did not set the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Man, in opposition to God, but in op∣position to Prophet, in some such sense as this; if it be lawful to call him meerly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a wise man [Heb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and not to call him him a Prophet; for he did great miracles. He goes on: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This was the Christ, Matth. XXI. 38. The Husbandmen seeing the Son, said among themselves, this is the heir come let us kill him. Now if the rest of that Pa∣rable agree with the actions of the Rulers of that Nation, in persecuting the Prophets and even Christ himself, which any one may discern; then why may not this clause be ac∣counted to agree so far with them too, as that when it shews that they said amongst them∣selves this is the heir, &c. it may intimate, that the chief of the Jews who Condemned and Crucified the Lord Jesus knew him to have been the Messiah.

To proceed in the Historian, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He appeared to them (his Disciples) having revived the third day. Let us but consult Matth. XXVIII. 13, 14, 15. and see if there can be any doubt whether the Priests and Fathers of the San∣hedrin were not convinced and perswaded, that Jesus had indeed arose from the Dead, when they did so knowingly and industriously devise a tale to elude his Resurrection. Thus far therefore Josephus (if it was he indeed that was the Author of that passage) hath uttered nothing but what the Rulers themselves were conscious of, if they would have spoken out: but what is added in him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The divine Prophets having said these and a thousand other won∣derful things of him. This I confess is so noble and ingenuous an acknowledgment of Jesus, that I would hardly expect it from Josephus, and much less from any of his Country∣men. But however, be this passage Josephus his own or no, yet,

III. That which we assert seems confirmed by that of Joh. XI. 47, 48. The Chief Priests and Pharisees said, what do we? this man doth many miracles, if we let him thus alone, the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation. Who does not here see, that they that speak this, had their eye upon that of Daniel, IX. 26, 27. where the Prophet discourseth about the Messiah, that he shall be cut off; that he shall cause the Sacrifice and the oblation to cease, that the people of the Prince that shall come [i. e. the Romans] shall destroy the City any Sanctuary? Whence it may very probable be argued, that they both from the agreement of times, and from the miracles and Doctrine of Jesus, did more than suspect, that this was the Messiah of whom the Prophet had there discoursed, and that they were in great doubt what to do with him.

This man doth many mira∣cles, and demonstrates himself to be the Messiah; and what shall we do? To cut off the Messiah would be an horrid thing: And yet, on the other hand if we should suffer him, he would make the Sacrifice and Oblation to cease, he would put an end to the service in the Temple, our Religion would fall, and then what remains, but that the people of the Prince that shall come, the Romans, will come and take away both our place and Nation?

Object. But do we not meet with such passages as these? And now Brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as also did your Rulers, Acts III. 17. For they that dwell at Je∣rusalem, and their Rulers, because they know him not, nor yet the voices of the Prophets, &c. Chap. XIII. 27.

Answ. They knew not indeed, the person and office of the Messiah; they were igno∣rant of his Godhead, and as to his office dreamt of nothing but Earthly and Temporal things; but then, this doth not hinder but that they might know Jesus to be the true Messiah: whom when they found falling short of the expectations and conceipts they had framed of the Messiah, and that his Doctrine tended to the subversion of Judaism, they had rather have no Messiah than such an one: And let himself and his Gospel perish with him, rather than their Judaism.

VERS. XXVII.

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

Of a truth they were gathered together.

AND then follows in some Bibles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In this City. So Beza, the Vulgar, the Syriac, and the Alexandriam MS. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In this City of thine. Which might be therefore the rather allowed of, because the Jews do remove the insurrection that should be made against the Lord and his Christ, so far from their own City. It is a thing they will not believe, that in Jerusalem or amongst the Jews, any rebellion against the Messiah should ever be moved or fomented: these things, they say, were spoken concerning Gog and Magog that rose up against Israel: a 1.73 Or concerning some other (heathen) Country rebelling against the Messiah. b 1.74

VERS. XXXVI.

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

Ioseph surnamed Barnabas, &c.

WHereas there were two very noted Joseph's; for distinctions sake (as it should seem) the one was Joseph Barnabas, the other Joseph Barsabas. The Apostles gave the name of Barnabas; it may be questioned whether they did the name of Barsabas or no: Because there is a Judas Barsabas also in Acts XV. 22.

It is uncertain whence the name Barnabas derives its self, and so much the more, because it is uncertain what the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should signifie in this place. It is generally in∣terpreted, The Son of Consolation. In the Syriac, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whence by a long de∣duction they would make 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Naba. I contend not, but when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 equally signifies Exhortation, as well as Consolation and the Apostle expressly distinguisheth it from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Consolation, 1 Cor. XIV. 3. it seems more probably to take its original from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Prophesie, under which word every one knows Exhortation is comprehended in the first place, and according to this signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we find him be∣having himself, Cap. XI. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. He exhorted them all that with pur∣pose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.

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

Of the Country of Cyprus.

So the two Apostles of the Gentiles have Gentile Countries for their native soil. Paul in Cilicia, Barnabas in Cyprus. Where he also sold his Land, for it is a question whether he could have sold it in the Land of Israel; as also whether he being a Levite, was capable of possessing any Land that had not belonged to the Cities of Levi, which could not be sold in the same manner that other Lands were. Nay, It was not lawful for an Israelite to part with the Land of his inheritance, unless constrained to it by his poverty, ac∣cording as it is said, if thy Brother should become poor and sell his possession, &c. c 1.75 Here Lands are sold, not so much upon the account of their own poverty, as the poverty of others.

CHAP. V.

VERS. II.

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

Kept back part of the price, &c.

DIDST thou not remember O Ananias what things had been prophesied concerning the Spirit of the Messiah? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Spirit of the King Messiah, viz. a spirit of Wisdom and understanding, &c. Isai. XI. 2. He shall make him quick of scent in the fear of the Lord. d 1.76 Rabba saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He smelleth and judgeth. Not after the sight of his eyes doth he judge.—Bar-Cozbi reigned two years and an half; and said to the Rabbins, I am the Messiah; they reply upon him, it is written of the Messiah, that he smelleth and judgeth: let us see if thou canst do so also, &c. The Gloss is, He smells out a man whether he be guilty or innocent.

By what apprehension of things Ananias was so deceived, as to think to have deceived the Holy Ghost, is not easie to conceive or guess. He might understand by the instance of Gehazi, how quick and ••agacious the Spirit of a Prophet is, in detecting all cheats and tricks; and did he not suppose the Apostles endowed with a spirit as capable as the Prophet's was? whatever it was that had blinded him to that madness, or hardened him to that daringness in sin, he abides as a dreadful monument throughout all ages of the indignati∣on of God upon all those that shall contemn and vilifie his Holy Spirit: whom if he did not blaspheme within his heart, how near was he to that sin! such mischiefs can Hypo∣crisie and Covetousness bring about!

It is not to be searched out of what degree or quality this Ananias was. There is some probability he was not of the meer vulgar sort, but of some higher rank, because the mention of him falls in with that of Barnabas; and there are more things that do in some measure perswade us. For what hinders why he should not be supposed to have been one of that number upon whom the Holy Ghost had been shed? What Judas was

amongst the twelve, that might he be amongst the hundred and twenty: endowed with the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and yet a Devil. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may have something more in it, than lying to the Holy Ghost. Perhaps it may be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 falsifying the Holy Ghost, and making him a lyar.

VERS. III.

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

And Peter said, &c.

WHether St. Peter derived the Authority of sentencing this man to an immediate death from those words of our Lord, whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained, Joh. XXI. or whether from some immediate revelation, or both; he gives a notable in∣stance of his own repentance, and recovery after his fall, whiles he who by a lie, yea even perjury it self, had denyed his Master, doth such severe execution upon another for a lie he was guilty of.

VERS. VI.

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

Wound him up, &c.

THEY having no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 burying Cloths at hand, do bind up the dead man in what fashion they can, and carrying him out of that place commit him to the earth.

VERS. VII.

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

About the space of three hours.

SO long a space of time being spent for interring the deceased, doth seem to hint something as to the distance of the burying place; which in the Cities of the Levites we have thus described: The Suburbical Lands for the Levitical Cities are defined in the Law, to be three thousand cubits from the wall of each side outward. According as it is said, From the wall of the City and outward, a thousand cubits. And it is elsewhere said, ye shall measure from without the City, on the East side two thousand cubits. The thousand cubits are the Suburbs of the City, and those two thousand which they measure beyond those, are for Fields and Vineyards. Now they assign the burying place for each City, beyond all these bounds, because they do not bury their dead within the limits of the City. e 1.77 The burying place from a Levitical City was above a mile and an half distant. Was it so in other Cities that belonged not to the Levites? doubtless burying places were at some distance from all Cities, but whether so far, may be enquired, but must not be the matter of our present search.

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

Not knowing what was done.

Hence probably we may gather the reason why the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, They wound him up, is added. Had the deceased been carried to his own House or Lodgings, by them who brought him out of the Chamber where he fell down dead, to fetch burying cloths, his Wife could not have been ignorant of what had fallen out: but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, They wound him up, as well as they could in his own Cloths, and so carried him out and buried him.

VERS. XIII.

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

And of the rest durst no man joyn themselves unto them.

WHO should these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, rest be? those certainly that were of the number of the hundred and twenty, excepting the XII Apostles. Of this number I pre∣sume Ananias might be one; and the rest being terrified by the fate of one of their own order, conceived so great a dread and reverence for the Apostles, that they durst not joyn with them as their equals.

VERS. XV.

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

That at least the shadow of Peter passing by, might overshadow some of them.

AND why the shadow of Peter more than the rest of the Apostles, who shared an equal authority and power of miracles with himself, ver. 12? 1. It must be supposed that the sick were not brought out in their beds into the streets, unless they had first seen Peter, or were assured that he must pass by. 2. It is a question whether they that brought out their sick, knew any other of the Apostles besides Peter. They had heard him speaking, they had seen him doing, while the rest were silent and sat still. And that which these believers here do, doth not so much argue his preeminence beyond the rest of the Apostles, as that he was more known and noted than the others were.

VERS. XX.

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

The words of this life.

THERE is no necessity that these words should beget any difficulty: if we will observe that ver. 17. there is mention of the Sect of the Sadducees. So that the words of this life are words that assert and prove this life (that is, the resurrection) which the Sadducees deny. For the controversie was about Jesus his resurrection.

VERS. XXXIV.

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

Gamaliel a Doctor of the Law.

THIS was Rabban Gamaliel the first, commonly and by way of distinction called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rabban Gamaliel the old. He was President of the Council after his own Father Rabban Simeon, who was the Son of Hillel. He was Saint Pauls Master, and five and thirtieth Receiver of the Traditions; and upon this account might not improperly be termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Doctor of the Laws, because he was one that kept and handed down the Cabbala received from mount Sinai; only that the Rab∣bins of an inferior degree, enjoyed also the same title. He died eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem, his Son Simeon succeeding him in the chair, who perisht in the ruines of the City. Whereas he doth in some measure apologize for the Apostles, one might believe, he did favour Christianity. But he died a Pharisee, and if he was not the author, yet did he approve and recommend that prayer entitled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a prayer against the Hereticks, Samuel the little being the Author: and who they meant by Hereticks is easie enough to apprehend. The Counsel therefore that he giveth here seems to be of that nature that had all along been practised between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, one Sect always wishing and looking for the destruction of the other.

VERS. XXXVI.

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

Before these days rose up Thudas.

JOsephus makes mention of one Theudas an impostor, f 1.78 whose Character indeed agrees well enough with this of ours, but they seem to disagree in time. For Josephus brings in his Theudas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when Fadus was Governour of Ju∣dea, about the fifth or sixth year of Claudius: and Gamaliel brings in his, before the times of Judas the Galilean.

Those that are advocates for Josephus, do imagine there might be another Theudas besides him that he mentions; and they do but imagine it, for they name none. I could instance indeed in two more of that name, neither of which agree with this of Gamaliel, or will afford any light to the Chronology of Josephus.

I. We meet with one Theudas a Physician, in Bab. Sanhedr. g 1.79 where there is a dispute upon no mean question, viz. where Daniel was at that time that Nebuchadnezar's image was set up and worshipped, that he should all that while come under no examination nor have any the least harm f••ll to him; And it •…•…g answered amongst other things that he was then sent into Egypt to fetch some sw••••e thence: it is objected 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Is it so indeed? but this is the tradition: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Theudas the Physitian saith that neither Cow nor Sow come from Alexandria of Egypt.

II. There is mention of one Theudas a Jew living at Rome. h 1.80 The Tradition of R. Jose saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Theudas a man at Rome, taught men (i. e. Jews) at Rome 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that on the Passover nights they should eat whole kids roasted; the Gloss is, the trotters, legs, &c. The Wise men sent to him, threatning excommunication, because he taught Israel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to eat holy things without, i. e. the Passover at Rome, which it was not lawful to eat but at Jeru∣salem; for, as the Gloss hath it, whosoever should see kids so roasted, would conceive they were consecrated for Paschal Lambs. I am very apt to believe that the procoenium or meal before the Lord's Supper, Cor. XI. 21. might be some such thing as this.

Can we suppose now, that Gamaliel could have either of these Theudas in his eye? In∣deed neither the one nor the other have any agreeableness with that Character that is given of this Theudas about whom we are enquiring. That in Josephus is much more adapted; and grant only that the Historian might slip in his Chronology, and there is no other difficulty in it. Nor do I indeed see why we should give so much deference to Josephus in this matter, as to take such pains in vindicating his care or skill in it. We must (forsooth) find out some other Theudas, or change the stops in the verses, or invent some other plaister for the sore, rather than Josephus should be charged with the least mistake; to whom yet both in History and Chronology it is no unusual thing to trip or go out of the road of truth. I would therefore think that the Theudas in Josephus is this same in Gameliel, only that the Historian mistook in his accounts of time, and so defaced a true story by false Chronology.

VERS. XXXVII.

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

••••das of Galilee.

IN Josephus it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••udas the Gaulonite, i 1.81 and yet in the title and in∣scription of that Chapter it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 concerning Judas of Galilee, which hath elsewhere occasioned a question, whether some part of the Country be∣yond Jordan went not also under the name of Galilee: but I shall not repeat it here.

CHAP. VI.

VERS. I.

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

A murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews.

FIRST let us consider who these Hebrews were.

I. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Hebrew admitted another kind of signification under the second Temple than it had before and under the first: because in the Old Testament it had reference to the original and Language of that Nation; in the New Testament, to their T••avels, and their Language. Abraham is first called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. XIV. 13. an Hebrew. So Symmachus, the Vulgar, and others: But the Greek Inter∣preters render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Passover. k 1.82 But this Version need not concern us much when it is plain the Interpreters have rendered the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the com∣mon use under the second Temple, and not according to the primitive and original use of it. For the same reason the Rabbins incline the same way.

l 1.83 R. Nehemiah saith, Abraham is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Hebrew, because he was of the posterity of Heber; ••ut the Rabbins say, he is so called, because he came from beyond the river. And they add withall (which deserves some enquiry) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And for that he used the Language beyond the River. I would rather have said, he might fitly be cal∣led 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An Hebrew, because even in Mesopotamia and Chaldea, he retained the Hebrew Language in the proper sense. For if he brought over the transfluvian or Chaldean Language into Canaan, as his ow•…•… families mother-tongue, it is hardly imaginable by what means the Hebrew Tongue strictly so called, should become the native and proper Language of his posterity. I have elsewhere offered another reason, why he should be termed an Hebrew in that place in Genesis, which I still adhere to.

II. After the Babylonish Captivity there was such an alteration of things, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Hebrew Tongue became the Language beyond the River, or the Chaldee Tongue. This is plain from those several words, Bethesda, Golgotha, Akeldama, &c. which are said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be so called in the Hebrew Tongue, and yet every one knows the words to be meer Chaldee. The old and pure Hebrew Language at that time was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Assyrian Tongue: and the Syriac and Chaldee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Hebrew Tongue or (as themselves interpret it) the Language beyond the River. m 1.84 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the Hebrew Language, i. e. in the Language beyond the River. n 1.85 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Assyrian Tongue, i. e. in the holy Language.

We cannot but observe by the way that the Doctors distinguish betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the He∣brew Tongue and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Syriac, in the mean time distinguishing both from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Assyrian, or Holy Language. o 1.86 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Syrian Tongue is sit for lamentation. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Hebrew tongue for speech. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and there are that say, the Assyrian Tongue is good for writing. This distinction between the Hebrew Tongue, or that beyond the River, and the Syrian which really are the same Language; is much such another distinction as between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Syriac, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Aramean. p 1.87 Babbi saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 why the Syrian Tongue in the Land of Israel? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when either the Holy Language, or the Greek should rather be used. R. Jose saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 why the Aramean Tongue in Babylon? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when rather, either the Holy Language, or the Persian should be used. The Gloss is, because the Greek is more elegant than the Syriac, and the Persian than the Aramean.

We see first, how they distinguish here betwixt the Syriac Tongue and the Ara∣mean, and the Gloss upon the place tells us upon what account they do it, in these words. Behold, whereas he takes notice that the Syriac is used in the Land of Israel, and the Aramean in Babylon, therefore he doth it as saith R. Tam, because there is some varia∣tion and difference between them: as it happens in any common Language, which they spake much finer in one Country than in another. For as to those words, Gen. XXX. 52. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This heap be witness. Onkelos renders them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when Laban saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But now we must say that Laban spoke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Syrias Tongue, which is so called from Syria. Now Syria was Aram Naharim, and Aram Zobab which David subdued. And because that is nearer to the Land of Israel, the Aramean Language of it, is not so pure. Gloss in Sotah, q 1.88 The Syriac Tongue is near a kin to the Aramean. And I say that that is the Language of the Jerusalem Talmud.

We see secondly, that the Syriac was the Mother-Tongue of the Land of Israel, and the Aramean (which is almost the same) was that of Babylon, rather than the Greek or Persic which were more elegant, nay rather than the Holy Language which was the noblest of all. And that (as to the Holy Language) for a reason very obvious, viz. that it was every where lost as to common use, and was generally unknown. As to the two other Languages, why they were not in use, the Gloss gives the reason, which we have also given us elsewhere. r 1.89 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lest the Syriac Tongue should be vile in thine eyes [Bereshith Rabba by a mistake of the Printer hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Persic, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Syriac.] For behold, God doth give it honour in the Law, in the Prophets, and in the Hagiographa. In the Law, for it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The heap of witness, Gen. XXXI. 47. In the Prophets, for it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thus shall ye say unto them, Jerem. X. 11. and in the Hagiogropha, for it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And the Chaldeans spake to the King in Syriac. Dan. II. 4.

The Syriac therefore or the Aramean Tongue under the second Temple was that which went under the name of the Hebrew Tongue, that is, the Language beyond the Ri∣ver. Whence they were at that time called Hebrews upon the account of the common use of that Tongue. But whether all to whom that was their Mother-Tongue were called Hebrews, may be a little questioned; and for what reasons it may be so, I shall shew, after I have said something concerning the Hellenists.

I. It is not denied by any but that the Hebrews were Jews in their original: whether the Hellenists were Jews too, is called in question by some. Beza upon the place de∣nies it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lucas hoc loco vocat genere quidem profanos, &c. The Hellenist. St. Luke means in this place, are those who were of a prophane stock, but adopted into the Na∣tion of the Jews by Circumcision, called therefore Proselytes. For they are mi••••aken who think those Jews that were dispersed amongst other Nations were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Hellenists. He thinks this opinion of his is countenanced by that of Act. XI. 19, 20. Preaching the word to none, but to the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus, and Cy∣rene, who when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Hellenists. From whence Beza infers, Cum hoc loco opponi videantur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judeis, &c. Whereas the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Hellenists seem to be opposed to the Jews in this place—it is plain, that by the name of Hellenists not only the provincial or proselite Jews are to be understood 〈…〉〈…〉

were here and there dispersed, but even those also of the Gentiles who are elsewhere by St. Luke termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or devout men, &c.

Let it be granted, that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or devout men should be promiscuously under∣stood with the Proselites, though there is some difference betwixt them, and that very conspicuous: yet I see not by what Law or Authority he should confound the Helle∣nists with the Proselites. And if those are mistaken who suppose the Jews that were dispersed amongst other Nations, to be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hellenists, I confess my self willingly to be in that error too. Nor yet would I put all these Jews that were di∣spersed among the Gentiles, under the name of Hellenists; not those that were scat∣tered amongst the Medes, Parthians, Persians, Arabians, and those Eastern Countries. Nor do I suppose that he would call the Proselites of those Nations Hellenists, because the very Etymology of the word implies Grecisme.

• 1. Chap. II. 10. we meet with Jews and Proselites; and in this Chapter we meet with Hebrews and Hellenists. We may most truly say that the Proselites there are di∣stinguisht from the Jews; we cannot at the same time say that the word Hellenists in this place distinguisheth them from the Jews, when we see it only distinguisheth from the Hebrews.
• 2. St. Luke calls Nicolas a Proselyte of Antioch, ver. 5. would we therefore call him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Hellenist of Antioch? we would rather term him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Greek, because his very name shews him to have been originally a Greek.
• 3. As to that distinction in Chap. XI. 19, 20. (for I would rather term it a di∣stinction than an Antithesis) it doth not conclude the Hellenists not to have been Jews, but intimates the difference only between Jews of a more pure and worthy rank, and Jews not so pure and worthy.

II. There are those that think, and that truly, that the Hellenists were Jews dispersed amongst the Gentiles: but that they were called Hellenists for this reason especially, viz. because they used in their Synagogues the Greek Bible; which whether it be true or no, I question, but will not dispute it at this present; only thus far I will ob∣serve.

1. That the Greek Tongue was in mean esteem amongst the Jews, indeed they hated it rather than took any pleasure in it, or had any value for it. s 1.90 When Aristobulus the Asmonean beseiged his brother Hyrcanus, and some things had fallen out amiss with them, through the Counsel of a certain old man skilled in the Greek learning, they said at that time, cursed be the man that cherisheth swine, and cursed the man that teacheth his son the wisdom of the Greeks. t 1.91 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the war of Titus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they decreed that no man should teach his Son Greek. The Gloss up∣on this place, confounds the stories and would have the war of Titus the same with that of Aristobulus and Hyrcanus; but the Gloss upon the former place rightly distin∣guisheth, and grants there was such a decree made in the days of the Asmoneans▪ but having been neglected in process of time, was revived and renewed in the war with Titus. Let it be one or the other, we may abundantly see what kind of respect the Greek Learning or Language had amongst them. For this passage follows in both. Samuel saith in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel. There were a thousand boys 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in my Fathers School, of whom five hundred learnt the Law, and five hundred the wisdom of the Greeks, and there is not one (of all that last number) now alive, excepting my self here, and my Unkles Son in Hasia.

I rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in my Fathers School, or Family, because of what follows in both places; They allowed the family of Rabban Gamaliel the Greek Learning, because they ware allied to the Royal blood. i. e. they sprung of the stock and lineage of Da∣vid. They permitted that that family should be brought up in that learning, because it became them for their honour and nobility to want no kind of Learning. But this they did not freely allow others; and if they did not permit the wisdom of the Greeks, we can hardly suppose they excepted the Greek Tongue, especially when we find it in the very terms of the decree, let no one teach his Son 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Greek. Upon what I have already said, I cannot but make these following remarques.

• I. What an effectual bar they laid in their own way against the reading of the New Testament when they so renounced the Greek Tongue; which God had now honoured beyond their Syriac, though they will have that so much graced both in the Law, Prophets, and holy writings.
• II. That even those who understood little else but Greek, would very hardly ad∣mit the reading of the Law and the Prophets in their Synagogues in the Greek Tongue; in that it was so very grateful to their Countrymen, and the Decrees and Ca∣nons of the Elders did either require, or at least permit an Interpreter in the reading of the Bible in their Synagogues.
• ...

• III. How probable a thing is it that those Jews, who having lived amongst the Gen∣tiles, understood no other Language but the Greek? for that very thing grew the less valuable with their own Nation that had retained the common use of the Hebrew Tongue; and were had in some lower esteem than others.

2. If therefore they stood so affected toward the Greek Learning, what value must they have for the Greek Tongue? Grant that it were in some esteem amongst them, because indeed most of the Learned Rabbins did understand it: yet what account must they make of those Jews that knew no other Language but the Greek? Surely they must be lookt upon as in the lower, yea the lowest degree of Jews, who were such strangers to the Language so peculiar to that nation, that is, the Hebrew. Such are those whom we find mentioned in Hieros. Sotah. u 1.92

R. Levi ben Chaiathah going down to Cesarea heard them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reciting their Phylacteries in Greek, and would have forbidden them, which when R. Jose heard, he was very angry, and said, if a man doth not know how to recite 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Holy Tongue, must he not recite them at all? let him perform his duty in what Language he can.

Cesarea Philippi is the seene of this story, a City that the Rabbins make very frequent and honourable mention of in both the Talmuds. This being one of the Cities in De∣capolis, which were all under the Gentile or Greek jurisdiction, it seems there might be some Jews there that understood Greek but not Hebrew. Otherwise they would doubtless have said over their Phylacteries in the Hebrew, though they could not do it in the Holy Tongue.

3. There were many Jews in several Countries, and those very probably to whom both the Languages of Hebrew, and Greek, were their Mother-Tongues. The Hebrew in their own Country and the Greek among the Grecians. The Hebrew in the Families and Synagogues of the Jews; the Greek amongst their fellow-Citizens the Gentiles. Such was Paul of Tarsus a Greek City, and yet was he an Hebrew of the Hebrews, Phil. III. 5. And such those of Cyprus and Cyrene seem to be who are mentioned Chap. XI. 19, 20. who in Cyprus, Phenice, and Antioch it self preached the word of God amongst the Hebraizing Jews (though perhaps they might also speak the Greek Tongue) and at length to the Hellenists in Antioch, i. e. the Jews who understood nothing but Greek, to whom the Hebrew Tongue was perfectly unknown. For so I would distinguish the Hel∣lenists from the Jews in that place, and not oppose them to the Jews, as if they were not Jews themselves. And let me crave the Readers leave to give my judgment of these Hebrews and Hellenists in these following particulars.

I. That the Hellenists were Jews dwelling among the Gentiles, and not at all skilled in the Hebrew Tongue. The Apostle in that division of his which he so oftentimes useth, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jews and Greeks, meaning by Greeks all other Nations excepting the Jewish only, speaks chiefly to the capacity of the Vulgar, to whom by reason of the late circumjacent Empires of the Greeks, that way of expressing the Gentiles was most known and familiar: nor perhaps was it so very safe at that time to have brought in the Romans in that Antithesis.

But may the word Hellenist be taken with that latitude on the other side, that the phrase may be applyed not to the Jews only who understood nothing but Greek, but to all the Jews also that did not understand Hebrew? Perhaps the strict Etymology of the word may make something against it; but should it be granted, it would not be of so absurd a consequence, if we do but except the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and the rest of those Eastern Countries, who were not of the Greek or Macedonian, but the Persian and Babylonish Captivity or transmigration. For the very word Hellenist, especially as it is opposed to Hebrew seems to intend some such thing; viz. that those who are called Hebrews should be those who were of the Captivity and dispersion beyond the River; and those that go under the denomination of Hellenists, are those who after their re∣turn from this Captivity, have suffered some other removal or scattering among the Greek or Western Countries, and understood no other Language but of those Countries only, having lost the use of what was originally their native Tongue, viz. the Hebrew or Chaldee.

II. As to the Hebrews, I suppose there are hardly any will deny but that all in gene∣ral might be so called, that used the Hebrew as their own Mother-Tongue, nor can I imagine for what other reason Paul of Tarsus should go under the denomination of an Hebrew, but because the Hebrew Tongue in his Fathers family was his Mother-Tongue, and the Greek was the Mother-Tongue of the place where he was born. But that we may enquire a little more strictly into the peculiar propriety of this title and denomi∣nation, let us propound this question, viz. to whom that Epistle of Saint Paul to the Hebrews was particularly written?

I would say to those of Palestine, for to them it is that the name of Hebrew doth of greatest right belong, which these two particulars (if I mistake not) will make very

plain. 1. That it seems most proper that they should be termed Hebrews who use the Hebrew Tongue and none else as their natural Language, rather than they who use the Greek and Hebrew Tongue indifferently. 2. Indeed the Mesopotamians used the He∣brew only as their Mother-Tongue, and ought in reason to be accounted amongst the Hebrews in general, but they went commonly under the denomination of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Captivity, because they dwelt still in the place whether they had been led captive, and had not returned into their own Land. But those of Palestine who had returned the∣ther were the most properly called Hebrews, because they had past over from beyond the River, and had brought the transfluvian Tongue along with them.

And as to what concerns this present matter, viz. the murmuring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews about an equal distribution of the common Charity: it may be made a question whether any other besides those of Palestine had as yet sold their Lands and Patrimonies. For, omitting that by reason of the distance of place, they could hardly yet be capable of doing it; that concerning Barnabas selling his Land in Cyprus, seems to hint some such thing, and that it was a thing very extraordinary, and that had not deen done elsewhere. But our enquiry is chiefly about the Hellenists not the Hebrews; and what we have said concerning both, is ingenuously submitted to the candor of the judicious Reader.

VERS. III.

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

Seven men of honest report, &c.

I. THIS office of the Deacon (to whom the charge and care of the poor was en∣trusted) was translated from the Jewish to the Christian Church. For there belonged to every Synagogue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 three Deacons with whom that care was de∣posited. w 1.93

II. As to the number Seven, I would not be curious, the multitude of the poor, and the encrease of the Church made it necessary that the number of the Deacons should exceed the number that were allotted for every single Synagogue: why they should be just seven, let him that hath confidence enough, pretend to assign a particular reason. Only from the number and character of the men. I cannot but call to mind the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seven good men of the City frequently mentioned by the Rabbins: and I would suppose them chosen both out of the number of the CXX mentioned Chap. I. 15. and also by them only, and not the whole Church in general.

VERS. V.

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

And Nicholas a Proselyte of Antioch.

I. WHereas this Nicholas only is termed a Proselyte, it makes it evident that all the rest excepting himself, were Jews, however they might be known by Greek names. Nor yet would I call them Hellenists, but Hebrews rather, who understood Greek indeed (and for that reason the care of the Hellenists was comitted to them) but yet the Hebrew was their own Mother-Tongue. For it is hardly supposable that Ste∣phen when he pleaded his cause before the Sanhedrin and the whole multitude, would plead it in Greek though he understood it well.

II. It is so constant an opinion of the Antients that the most impure sect of the Ni∣colaitans derived their name and filthy doctrins from this Nicolas, x 1.94 that so much as to distrust the thing would look like contradicting antiquity. But if it were lawful in this matter freely to speak ones thoughts▪ I should conjecture (for the honour of our Ni∣colas) that the name might take its derivation from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nocola, Let us eat together, those bruits animating one another to eat things offered to Idols. Like those in Isai. XXII. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let us eat flesh and drink wine.

VERS. VI.

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

They laid their hands upon them.

WE read of this or that Rabbin constituting * 1.95 Deacons in this or that Synagouge, a 1.96 but not a word about laying on of hands in that action: and no wonder, when even in the promotion of their Elders, they commonly used only some form of words, and not this rite or ceremony; which we observe in notes upon Chap. XIII. The Apostles in this place and elsewhere retain the ancient usage 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of impo∣sition of hands. At other times frequently, that they might in ordaining any to the

ministry impart to them the gift of the Holy Ghost; here, that they might ordain per∣sons to the office of Deacons without the gift of the Holy Ghost; For these seven had been so endowed already, vers. 3.

VERS. VIII.

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

Certain of the Synagogue which is called the Synagogue of the Libertines.

LIbertines i. e. servants that had received their Freedom, called in the Jewish wri∣tings 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which

I. Must be understood of Servants that were of the Jewish Nation, for this was a rule amongst them b 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is not lawful to make a Canaanite (or* 1.97 Gentile) Servant free, and if any one doth make such an one free, he transgresseth the Law 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they shall be your bondmen for ever, Levit. XXV. 46. but if any one do make him free, he is made free. There is a dispute about this matter in Sotah, c 1.98 R. Ismael saith, there is only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Licence granted (if you have a mind) of keeping a Canaanite as bondman for ever. But R. Akibah saith, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a binding command, that every one who hath a Canaanite Servant is bound to keep him in his service, and never to make him free. If it should be granted what R. Ishmael would have, that a man might, if he please, make a Gentile Servant, free, yet is it not likely there could be an whole Synagogue of such, so made free.

II. Those therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Servants that had their freedom, whom the Talmudick writers so frequently speak of, they were certain Jews who had either been sold into bondage by the Sanhedrin, for theft, or who had sold themselves for meer poverty, and had now regained their freedom anew. Exod. XXI. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If thou buy an Hebrew Servant. * 1.99 If thou buy him from the hand of the Sanhedrin, who sell him for his thieving: or if he have sold himself through meer necessity.

In the servitude of these there were these differences. d 1.100 It is a Tradition. He that selleth himself is sold for six years, or for more than six; He that is sold by the Sanhedrin, is sold but for six years only. He that selleth himself, is not boared through the ear with an awl. e 1.101 He that is sold by the Sanhedrin is boared through. He that selleth himself, they provide no viaticum for him: he that is sold by the Sanhedrin, they do provide for him. A man that selleth himself, his Master cannot give him a Canaanitish handmaid to wife. To him that is sold by the Sanhedrin, he may.

III. In what manner these are made free, either by paying a price, or by the year of Jubilee, or by the seventh year, or upon any other occasions, having a writing of their freedom given them, Maimonides treats largely in Avadim; and the Talmudie wri∣ters in the place already quoted, and elsewhere.

I question not but the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Libertines in this place were such, and that our Historian doth by this phrase render the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 than which nothing was more commonly known in that nation, or more commonly mentioned in Jewish writers. And if so, then may we see what dregs of people, what a lowsy tribe (if I may so speak) rose up against our most blessed Martyr. Such as had been formerly either beggars, or thieves, afterwards slaves, and were now little else but a pack of knaves.

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

Cyrenians.

What Cyrene that was from whence these Cyrenians are so called, St. Luke points to us Act. II. by its neighbourhood to Lybia, which whether the Interpreters rightly un∣derstand when they render Kir by Cyrene, let us consult themselves and see. So the Vulgar, and the Alexandrian M. S. in 2 Kings XVI. 9. The Vulgar and Targum in Amos, I. 5.

Whether these Cyrenians mentioned by St. Luke here and elsewhere, took their deno∣mination from the City Cyrene, or the Country of Cyrene is hardly worth our enquiring. Strabo describes the City, lib. 17. and Pliny the Country, lib. 5. cap. 5. but neither of them say any thing of the Jews dwelling there. However Dion Cass. in the life of Trajan speaks it out, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. In the mean time the Jews who dwelt about Cyrene, under the conduct of one Andrew, fell upon both Romans and Greeks, tear their flesh, devour their entrals▪ besmear themselves with their blood, and cover themselves with their skins. They sawed many of them in sunder from the Crown of the head, they threw many to the beasts, and forced several of them to fight one with another. So that they destroyed at least two hundred thousand men. It must surely be an infinite number of Jews that could commit so great a slaughter; (the like the Jews did in Egypt and Cyprus) It might be a wonder how so vast a multitude of Jews could be got together in those Countries. But this is not our present enquiry.

That which is rather to be discust is, what Language the Cyrenian Jews used. I would say Greek; for that was the Language of Cyrene, the City having been built by the Gre∣cians, and the whole Country under the Government of the Ptolomies, as Strabo tells us in the place before quoted. I would reckon them therefore among the Hellenists to whom the Hebrew Tongue was strange and forreign; unless that this Synagogue having been conversant at Jerusalem, might perhaps have learnt the Language there.

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

Alexandrians.

We met with a Synagogue of Alexandrians in Jerusalem, mentioned in the Jewish Writers, There is a story of R. Eliezar ben Zadoc that he took 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Synagouge of the Alexandrians, that was in Jerusalem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and turned it to his own use: word for word, Did in it all his business.e 1.102 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 All his pleasure.

There is a dispute in the place newly quoted, whether it be lawful to alienate a Sy∣nagogue from its sacred to a common use: and it is distinguisht betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Synagogue of one man, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a public Synagogue. And upon permitting that the former may be alienated but the later not, there is this story which I have newly quoted, objected to the contrary, and this passage further added 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Alexandrians build that Synagogue at their own charge, which doth both attest to what our sacred Historian mentions of a Synagogue of Alexandrians at Jerusalem: and argues that they were divers Synagogues here spoken of, one of the Libertines, another of the Cyrenians, and so of the rest, which may be so much the more credible, if that be true which is related in the same place, viz. that there were CCCCLXXX Synagogues in Jerusalem.

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

And them of Cilicia.

Saint Paul seems to have been of this Synagogue, but of the School of Gamaliel, for the Jewish youth sent out of far Countreys to Jerusalem, for education, be∣ing allotted to this or that Synagogue chose this or that Master for themselves ac∣cording to their own pleasure. Saint Paul had been brought up in a Greek Academy from his very childhood, viz. that of Tarsus: I call Tarsus both an Academy, and a Greek one too, upon the credit of Strabo, who speaks thus concerning it.f 1.103 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Tarsus was built by the Argives that wandred with Triptolemus in the search of 10. And a little after, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. They of Tarsus had so great a love to Philosophy, and all liberal Sciences; that they excelled Athens, Alexandria, and if there were any other place worth naming, where the Schools and disputes of Philosophy, and all human arts were maintained. Hence is it so much the less strange, that Saint Paul should be so well stockt with the Greek Learning, and should quote in his discourses the Poets of that nation, having been educated in so famous an University from his very youth.

VERS. XV.

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

As it had been the face of an Angel.

GOD himself by a miracle bears witness to the innocence of this holy man and shews he had done no wrong to Moses, when he makes his face shine as Moses's had formerly done, and gave him an Angelical countenance like that of Gabriel, for if he had said that Jesus should destroy that place, &c. he had but said what Gabriel had said before him.

CHAP. VII.

VERS. II.

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

To Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia.

g 1.104 ABRAHAM is like the friend of a King, who when he saw the King walking in darksome Galleries, gave light to him by a window: which when the King saw, he said unto him, because thou hast given me light through a window, come and give me light before my face. So did the Holy Blessed God say to Abraham, because thou hast given light to me, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of my Mesopotamia, and its Com∣panious, come and give light to me in the Land of Israel. Whether or no it be worth the while to enquire why God should term it my Mesopotamia, as also what should be the meaning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 her Consorts, or Companions: yet can I not but take notice that this adjunct doth once and again occur in the writings of the Jews.h 1.105 O seed of Abra∣ham my friend I took thee from the ends of the Eurth; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 viz. from Mesopotamia and her Companions.i 1.106 Who is he among you that feareth the Lord? This is Abraham: who walketh in darkness. Who came 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of Meso∣potamia and her Consorts, and knew not whither; like the man that dwelleth in darkness. It is written indeed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as if it should be out of Spain, but I correct it by the authority of the Aruch, and indeed the very sense it self corrects it. The Gloss hath nothing but this trifling passage in it, I have found the interpretation of Mesopotamia, viz. that it is the name of a City in Aram Naharaim.

The Geographers do indeed distinguish betwixt Mesopotamia and Babylon, or Chaldaea; So in Ptolomys fourth Table of Asia to omit other authors, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. The Country of Babylon is bounded, on the South lieth Mesopotamia, &c. And yet Babylon may in some measure be said to be in Mesopotamia: partly because it lay between the two Rivers Euphrates and Tigris, but especially ac∣cording to the propriety of Scripture Language, because it was beyond the River. Which we may take notice was observed by the Vulgar Interpreter in Josh XXIV. 3. where what in the Hebrew is, I took your Father Abraham 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the other side of the flood, he hath rendred it, I took your Father Abraham, De Mesopotamiae finibus, from the borders of Mesopotamia.

Josephus speaking of Abraham and his removing from his Country, hath this passage,k 1.107 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Wherefore the Chaldeans and other Mesopotamians moving tumults against him he thought fit to remove his seat, &c. Where we see the Chaldeans amongst others are called, those of Mesopotamia. Nor indeed without cause, when as Eratosthenes in Strabo tells usl 1.108 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. that Mesopotamia with the Country of Babylon, is contained in that great compass, from Euphrates and Tigris.

And so perhaps the Rabbin newly quoted, distinguisheth; that that is Mesopotamia, which he makes to be called by God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 my Mesopotamia, is Charran, where the wor∣ship of God had been kept up in the family of Nahor; and which had been the native Country and breeder up of eleven Patriarchs. And so let 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 her Consorts Babylon, and Chaldea; for in what other signification 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here can be taken in, I cannot well tell.

In that Stephen speaks of God appearing to Abraham while he was yet in Chaldea be∣fore he removed to Charran, when Moses rather ascribes that passage to Terah his Father Gen. XI. he speaks with the Vulgar, according to the commonly received opinion of his Countrymen. Who not only taught that Abraham acknowledged and worshipt the true God even while his Father Terah worshipped Idols; bur further, that Terah was so zea∣lous an Idolater, that he delivered his son Abraham to Nimrod to be cast into a fiery furnace. We have the tale in Bereshith Rabba,* 1.109 ridiculous enough.

VERS. III.

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

Get thee out of thy Country, and from thy kindred.

I Would not confound this passage with that in Gen. XII. 1. For Stephen and indeed the thing it self assures us that this was spoken to Abraham, in Chaldea; but that, in Charran. Here is no mention of his going from his Fathers house, as there is there. Nor

did he indeed depart from his Fathers house, when he removed from Ur of the Chal∣deans; for he took his father and whole family along with him. But he departed, when he removed from Charran, leaving his father buried behind him, and Nahor his brother, with his family.

VERS. IV.

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

When his Father was dead, &c.

HERE ariseth a difficulty, and upon that a controversie, which we may take in in the words of R. Salomon upon Gen. XI. And Terah died in Charran, that is, more than threescore years after Abraham had left Charran, and had setled in the Land of Canaan. For it is written, Abraham was seventy five years of age, when he went out of Charran, and Terah was seventy years old when Abraham was born. Behold Terah was one hundred and forty five years of age, when Abraham left Charran, and he had a great many years yet behind. There remained indeed, according to this calculation, sixty years.

I. In that whole Chapter there is no mention of the death of any person there na∣med, before or beside that of Terah. Where by the way we may take notice of the boldness of the Greek Interpreters, who to every one of those persons have annext, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and he died, directly against the purpose of Moses, and the mind of the Apostle, Heb. VII. 3. Now therefore why, when Moses had past over the death of all the rest that had been reckoned up before in that Catalogue should it be put in concerning Terah only, that he died in Charran, were it not to shew, that Abraham did not re∣move from thence till after his Fathers decease there? This R. Solomon, even while he is defending the contrary, seems something apprehensive of; For thus he expresseth himself; Why doth the Scripture tell of the death of Terah, before it mentions Abrahams removal? viz. lest the matter should be made public, and men should say, Abraham did not give that honour to his Father that he ought to have done, relinquishing him now in his old age, and going away from him; the Scripture therefore speaks of him as now dead, be∣cause the wicked, even while they are alive, are accounted for dead.

How is this Rabbin mistaken? For Terah now is no wicked man nor an Idolater, but converted, and therefore Moses makes him chief in that removal out of Chaldea, that his conversion might be known; although the command concerning the departure from that Country came first to Abraham. And if it was not lawful for Abraham to have forsaken his Father being yet an Idolater, much less was it so, when he was now become a worshipper of the true God.

II. It is indeed said that Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abraham, Nahor, and Haran, but as it is against reason to suppose they were all begot in one year, so there is no necessity to think they were begot in the order they are placed in in the story. Here that common maxim of the Rabbins takes place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there is no first and last in the Holy Scripture, i. e. the order of the story does not ne∣cessarily determine the time of it. And the Gemarists themselves, however they sup∣pose that Abraham might be older than Nahor one year, and Nahor than Haran one year; yet do they at length conclude 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 perhaps Abraham was the youngest of his Brethren;m 1.110 which they also confirm out of the order observed in numbring the sons of Noah, where Sem is first in the Catalogue, though he was younger than Japhet.

It is commonly received amongst the Jews, that Sarah Abrahams wife, was the daughter of his brother Haran, and that not without reason 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jecah (say they) is the same with Sarah, and Josephus, speaks it out, as a thing of antient tradition. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Haran leaving one Son, Lot, and Sarah and Milcha two daughters dyed in Chaldea.n 1.111 If therefore Sarah who was but ten years younger than Abraham was Ha∣rans daughter (which seems to be in some measure confirmed, Gen. XX. 12.) we can by no means suppose Abraham to have been the first born amongst the sons of Te∣rah, but Haran rather, unless we will trifle with some of the Rabbins, and say that Ha∣ran begat Milcha when he was but six or eight years old. But they conclude at length a little more rationally, if I understand what they mean, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they reckon them up according to their wisdom.

Conceive Abraham therefore born, not in the seventieth but in the hundred and thirthieth year of Terah, and that these words here recited by Stephen were spoken to him in Ur of the Chaldeans; but those mentioned Gen. XII. 1. spoken in Charran;

and thus joyn the story. Terah dyed in Charran: Then said God unto Abra∣ham, &c.

VERS. XIV.

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

Threescore and fifteen Souls.

THE Hebrew Copies have it every where but threescore and ten. So also Josephuso 1.112 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. He came to Egypt with his Sons, and all their Sons, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they were in all threescore and ten. Again elswherep 1.113 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. wherewith threescore and ten, all that were with him going down into Egypt, &c.

So Ezekiel, Tragad. in Euseb. de praepar. Evangel.* 1.114 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. From the time that Jacob having left the Land of Canaan, came down into Egypt, having seven times ten Souls with him. So the very Greek Version it self in Deut. X. 22. 'Ev 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Thy Fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons; which is strange, when they have it in another place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 threescore and fifteen.* 1.115 We may easily discern that Saint Luke here follows that Version, that adds five Grand∣children to Joseph, Gen. XLVI. 20. Machir and Gilead, because of those words, Gen. L. 22. The Sons of Machir, the Son of Manasseh, brought up upon Josephs knees. And Sute∣lah, and Tahan and Eden, because it is said, Joseph saw Ephraims Children unto the third genera••••on. Where, by the way, I cannot but think it strange, why the Greek Inter∣preters should select these their additional persons out of the Sons of Joseph rather than any other of the Patriarchs: and further take notice, how though they reckon up nine Children of Joseph, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Now the Sons of Joseph which were born to him in the Land of Egypt were nine Souls, ver. 27.) yet they name but seven. Josephus the Historian speaking of those threescore and ten persons that went down into Egypt, I will reckon them up (saith he) that I may satisfie those who would pre∣tend we took not our original from Mesopotamia, but from Egypt: It is strange therefore that the Interpreters would add those that were actually born in Egypt. But it seems that when they would confound the true number, they chose those upon the ac∣count of those words in Gen. L. which we mentioned.

As to these Children of Ephraim, and others whose story is mentioned 1 Chron. VII. 20. the Masters of Traditions tell some ridiculous tales of them; viz. that having not counted right as to the years of their bondage in Egypt, they went to invade the Land of Palestine before the appointed time, and fell by the sword of the Git∣tites.q 1.116 But that they came to life again with those whom Ezekiel raised from the dead, Chap. XXXVII.r 1.117

I have in my notes upon Luke III. offered my conjecture why the Interpreter should confound the number, and put threescore and fifteen, instead of threescore and ten: as also why the Evangelist should follow that Version, and that number: and am of the same mind still. In the mean time wondring at their retaining the true number, Deut. X. 22. Where Nobilius in his Scholia, tells us, Josephus lib. 2. Antiquitatum &c. Josephus in his second book of Antiquities writing of Jacob, hath set the number. (I have quo∣ted the passage already) And St. Jerom in his questions upon Genesis, witnesseth that the Septuagint so writ it. Alii codices, &c. Other Copies have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 threescore and fifteen Souls.

If the Septuagint wrote so in this place, when elsewhere they have threescore and fifteen, I know no other reason can be rendred of it, but that Moses is here introdu∣ced speaking to the people of Israel, who very well knew the certain and true num∣ber; but elsewhere, where it is rendred by them threescore and fifteen, he is writing an History for the whole world, to whom the precise number was not so well known. But one may suspect the same pen did not translate the Book of Deuteronomy, that had translated the Books of Genesis, and Exodus. So Gaphterim in Gen. X. 14. by the Interpreter of that Book is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gaphthoriim, or as it is in M. S. Alex. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Caphthoriin; but in the Book of Deuteronomy, Chap. II. 23. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cappadocians.

VERS. XVI.

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

Were carry'd over into Sychem.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ever let a man teach his disciple concisely s 1.118, or briefly. So that a short way of speaking, especially in a thing plain, was not strange amongst the Jews; which rule if Steven follow'd in this place, he might do it more safe∣ly and unblameably in a story so well known.

I. It was very commonly and without any kind of doubt receiv'd amongst them that the bones of the Twelve Patriarchs, as well as those of Jacob, were carry'd out of Egypt into Canaan t 1.119. It is written I will go down with thee into Egypt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and even in going up I will make thee to go up, Gen. XLVI. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What are we taught by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even in going up? He saith I will make thee to go up, and I will make all the other Tribes to go up too: teaching thereby 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that every Tribe should carry up the bones of the Patriarch of his Tribe with it. Take notice by the way that the Seventy render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unto the end.

u 1.120 The bones of all the Patriarchs were carry'd out of Egypt and buried in the land of Canaan, as it is written, And ye shall carry up my bones with you, Gen. L. 25. w 1.121

II. Thus far therefore Stephen speaks with the consent of that Nation, viz. that the bones of the Patriarchs were conveighed out of Egypt into Canaan. But what can we say as to their being bury'd in Sychem? Doubtless he spake according to the common re∣ceived opinion amongst them in this thing also; though I cannot but say that a•••• Jewish writers, as far as I have met with, are wholly silent in it. Nay Josephus himself will have them buried in Hebron, and that before the Israelites came out of Egypt x 1.122.

The Talmudists speak very much of Joseph's being bury'd in Sychem, and amongst other things say this, That they stole him from Sychem, and restor'd him to sychem again y 1.123. But as to the burying of the other Patriarchs there, they have not one word. Benjamin also in his Itinerary, speaking of Sychem mentions the Sepulcher of Joseph, and none but that. And so do the Cippi Hebrai••i, as the Learned Hottinger translates them, From Sechem at the distance of a Sabbath-days journey, lyes a village call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Belata, where Joseph the just of blessed memory lyes buried.

I conceive the reason why the Jews are so silent in this matter, may be because they fear it would be a reproach to themselves, and too great an honour for the Samaritans, that the Patriarchs bones should lye amongst them. As to Joseph's being buried there, there could be no denial of that, because the Scripture speaks it in express terms, that he was buried in Sichem; but it is very grievous for them to acknowledg that all the other heads of the Nation and Tribes should lye there where the apostacy of the Ten Tribes first began; and after their expulsion the odious Nation of the Samaritans were seated; and for this very reason one might argue that Stephen would never have mention'd such a thing if it could have been contradicted by them. The Masters of the Traditions indeed do tacitly yield that the eleven Patriarchs were not buried in Hebron, when they admit but four couples there, viz. Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah a 1.124. And if so, where were they buried? If we do but consider how the great charge and care of publick affairs was committed to Joshua, who was of the stock and lineage of Joseph, and from that very relation had a particular concern with Sichem, pro∣bability it self would argue (were there no other proof for it) that he would have as strict a care of the Patriarchs now deal as his Progenitor Joseph had had of them while they were yet alive.

Whence I cannot but wonder that the Samaritans dwelling in Sichem, having in their Letters sent lately into England made mention of the Sepulchers of Joseph, Eleazar, Phinehas, the Seventy Elders, Eldad and Medad, that are with them to this day, should say nothing of the Sepulchers of the eleven Patriarchs. But so long as all the other Tribes are in mean esteem amongst them, and the Tribe of Ephraim, i. e. (if I may so speak) the Samaritan Tribe being of greatest account, it is the less wonder if they are not so very sollicitous, at least do not boast so much of the heads of the other Tribes.

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

And laid in the Sepulcher that Abraham bought for a summ of money, of the Sons of Emmor, the father of Sichem.

This passage is not a little obscure: not very unlike that in Gen. L. 5. saith Joseph, My father made me swear, saying, lo I die. In my grave 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which I have digged for me, or, which I have purchas'd for my self, there shalt thou bury me. I will not contend about the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whether it should be render'd, I have digged, as the Greek, Jonathan's

Targum, &c. have render'd it; or whether it should be, I have bought, as Onkelos; the Syriack and the Talmudists. Be it the one or the other, seeing the discourse is plainly about the cave of Maepelah, how can we say either this or that is true? I little question the for∣mer sense; for when Abraham had bought the Cave, and digged a Sepulcher in it for him∣self and Sarah; reason will tell us that Isaac did the same for himself and Rebecca; and Jacob for himself and Leah, for they both dwelt in Hebron as well as Abraham. But if we will admit of the latter sense (which the Rabbins tenaciously adhere to) there is no less a difficulty occurs than what is now before us. They indeed remove it by this blessed comment, viz. that when Jacob purchased the birthright from Esau, he did by a peculiar writing and deed of contract include this Cave within the bargain, as his own propriety. We may read the whole figment in Sotah, and the Targum of Jonathan in the places above quoted.

But to take this matter in hand a little more seriously.

I. It had been enough for Stephen to have made mention of the burial of Jacob and the Patriarchs without any addition about the purchase of the burying place, if he had not a design to hint something peculiar, in the mention he makes of it. Nor did it make for his cause at all to tell over a bare story, which they all knew, if there were not something included in it, that made for his defence. He had said before, ver. 5. concerning Abraham, that God had not given him any inheritance in the promised land, no not so much as to set his foot on; and here he tells them, that even Jacob and the Patriarchs had no place where they should be buried, but what they themselves bought for a sum of money:

And will you, O ye persecutors upon the meer promise of the land made to your Fa∣thers, be so confident as to perswade your selves it will be your abiding place for ever, and that howsoever you behave your selves toward God, you cannot be remov'd from it?

II. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That Abraham bought for a sum of money. Thus far is no difficulty when the discourse is of the burial of Jacob in the Cave of Macpelah, but the knot is in the following words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Sons of Em∣mor, the father of Sichem. That the Text is not interpolated (as Beza and Heinsius would have it) appears from the universal consent both of the Copies and the Translations. For those that would have it interpolated, cannot shew one Copy, reading it otherwise, and all the Versions follow this reading, in the very words wherein the difficulty most lyeth. The Syriack indeed refer the words to Jacob only, rendring it in the singular number 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And he was carried and laid, &c. but yet owns the following words in the Sepulcher that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the Sons of Hemor, where all the difficulty lyes. So also as to that clause, other Versions have it.

Now as to what is objected, let us take it in the words of Bereshith rabba b 1.125. R. Judan bar Simon saith, This is one of the three places, (viz. the Cave Jacob bought, Gen. XXXIII. 19.) concerning which the Nations of the world cannot reproach Israel, saying, that they took it by force and rapine: The places are these, the Cave of Macpelah, the house of the Sanctuary, and the Sepulcher of Joseph. The Cave of Macpelah, as it is written, And Abraham hearkened to Ephron, and weighed to Ephron, &c. Gen. XXIII. 16. The house of the Sanctuary, accor∣ding as it is said, so David gave to Ornan for the place, &c. 1 Chron. XXI. 25. And the Sepulcher of Joseph, as it is said, He (Jacob) bought a parcel of a field, &c. Gen. XXXIII. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jacob bought Shechem; or that parcel of it; therefore Abraham did not. But,

I. Let us take a little view of that passage, Gen. XII. 6. Abraham passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the high Oak: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the plain of Moreh. Vulg. Usque ad convallem illustrem, to the famous valley. Targ. Hieros. & Samarit to the vale of vision, &c. But our enquiry is for the place, rather than the Etymology. Deut. XI. 29, 30. Thou shalt put the blessing upon mount Gerizzim, and the curse upon mount Ebal. Are they not on the other side Jordan, by the way where the Sun goeth down, in the land of the Canaanites, who dwell in the Champaign, over against Gilgal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 besides the plains of Moreh.

Let us take the Talmudick Comments upon this place, c 1.126 When the Israelites had passed over Jordan they came to mount Gerizzim and mount Ebal, which are in the Country of Samaria, neer Sichem, which is besides the plain of Moreh. According as it is said, Are they not on the other side Jordan, &c. And it is said elsewhere, Abraham passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, to the plain of Moreh. What is the plain of Moreh there? Gen. XII. 6. it is Si∣chem. And so the plain of Moreh is Sichem here also. Deut. XI. 30. d 1.127 R. Eliezer ben Jose saith, In this thing have I accused the Samaritan Books of falsisying; and I said unto them, ye have falsisied your Law, and gained nothing by it; for you say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the plain of Moreh which is Sichem. For we confess that the plain of Moreh is Sichem. The Samaritan Text in Deut. XI. 30. hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the plain of Moreh near Sichem; but no such thing in Gen. XII. 6. is added.

If the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Sepulchre, did not lay some obstacle in the way, I should easily conceive that Stephen had his eye as intent (if not more) upon this place, as upon the Cave of Macpelah. It is not said that Abraham bought this place, much less that he bought it for a burying place; but however, that he did buy it (though not under that notion of a burying place) seems probable, because this was the first place in which he pitcht his Tent, and built an Altar; all which he would hardly have done upon another mans ground. It is said of Jacob that he bought a parcel of ground where he had spread his Tent, Gen. XXXIII. 19. And why should we not think that Abraham did the same, only it is not expressly said so of him as it is of Jacob.

It might be no improper question here upon what conditions Abraham, Isaac and Jacob fed their Cattel, and maintained their Families in the land of Canaan. Whether the pla∣ces and fields they occupied were common, and had no proper owner? Whether Abraham not far from Sichem in the plain of Moreh, in the disposal of himself and his flocks, intru∣ded upon an others possession, or whether it was all champaign without any Lord? It is probable it was neither one nor the other; and therefore some third thing must be found out, viz. that either they might purchase those lands, or take them of the owners upon an agreed rent. It is said of Abraham that he planted a Grove in Beersheba, Gen. XXI. 33. How came he to any right in that piece of land? Had that place no Lord, no Prince, no owner till he came? If it had any Lord or owner (which is most probable) then it is easie apprehending how Abraham might come by the possession of it, viz. by some sum of mo∣ney, though there is no mention made of it.

However, whether Abraham bought the plain of Moreh or no, it is very evident from the words of the Protomartyr, that the Patriarchs were buried in that place, where he in his very first entry upon that land had made his abode, where he had received the first promise of the land by vision, and where he erected his first Altar; and I cannot believe but that either St. Stephen, or St. Luke would in this their short way of speaking, revive the memory of some such thing; viz. that the Patriarchs were buried in that very same place where Abraham had made his first abode, where he had received the first promise of the land; yet that they did not possess that land any otherwise than in their graves.

VERS. XXIII.

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

When he was full forty years old.

THE Martyr speaks agreeably with that whole Nation e 1.128 Moses was forty years in Pharaohs Court, and forty years in Midian, and forty years he served Israel. Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai exercised Merchandize forty years, was learning the Law forty years, and forty years he ministred to Israel. R. Akibah was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an illiterate person forty years; he bent himself to study forty years, and forty years he ministred to Israel f 1.129.

VERS. XXV.

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

For he supposed that his brethren would have understood, &c.

MOSES was endowed with a spirit of Prophesie even in Pharaohs Court, (to which that passage may refer, that he was mighty in words and in deeds) and knew himself designed to redeem Israel out of Egypt, and so he thought that people conceived of him too. For they could not but know the story of his miraculous preservation in his infancy; his Providential education in a Prince's Court, and especially the apparent signs of a Prophetick spirit in him. Which though Moses himself speaks nothing of, yet doth Stephen relate it, not without good authority, and the consent of his Country-men, who all suppose Moses miraculously born, and as wonderfully saved in the Ark of Bulrushes; namely, that he was conceived when his mother was an hundred and thirty years of age; brought forth without any of the pangs of childbirth, and born 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 good, that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 apt for prophesying g 1.130. Note by the way how that fiction of Josephus h 1.131 concerning Pharaoh's putting his Crown upon the head of the child Moses, and his throwing it to the ground, is told also by the Jewish Rabbins i 1.132 only with this variation, that Moses himself took the Crown from Pharaoh's head and put it upon his own.

VERS. XLII.

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

Have you offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices, &c.

KImchi upon this place of Amos speaks out what the Jewish Schools think in this matter, by a passage taken out of Bab. Chagigah k 1.133, There is a Tradition concern∣ing the daily sacrifice made in mount Sinai. R. Eliezer saith, that there were rules indeed gi∣ven concerning it on mount Sinai, but the sacrifice it self was not offered. R. Akibah saith, it was offered, and from that time hath not ceased. But what do I prove (in these words) Have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices, by the space of forty years in the wilderness, O ye house of Israel? viz. the Tribe of Levi that had not committed Idolatry, they offered, but Israel did not offer. And in those words the children of Israel kept the Passover in its time, seems to be some reproach reflected upon Israel, as hinting that they had observed no Passover in the wil∣derness but that.

It is most certain that Sacrifices were offered in the striking of the Covenant, Exod. XXIV. in the Consecration of the Altar and the Tabernacle, and in the celebration of that Passover; and this was all done in Sinai, before the fatal decree past of their not en∣tring the land. But it may not without reason be suspected that though the daily Sacri∣fice were continued after that time, (for we find live-coals upon the Altar, Numb. XVI. 46. and it is not to be thought that fire would be perpetually burning on the Altar to no purpose.) But Gods complaint seems to be about the free-will offerings, that they ceased, and that none made oblations of their own good will. Nor let any think it strange that the Prophet, and after him the Proto-martyr counts up the time in that round sum of forty years, when it was indeed but eight and thirty and an half, for so doth God himself, Numb. XIV. 34.

VERS. XLIII.

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

And ye took up, &c.

THE word in Amos is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which if we might render with R. Sol. in the future tense, And ye shall bear your Idols with you into captivity, as burdens laid upon your shoulders, it would take off a little of the difficulty that otherwise seems to lye in this pas∣sage (for it might be very reasonably questioned, whether the Israelites ever did this in the wilderness) but then this is directly contrary both to the Greek Version in that Pro∣phet, and now to the Holy Ghost in this place, and to the very scope of the Proto-martyr in quoting it. For he speaketh of God as giving up the people to worship the host of heaven, and straightways suggests that they first desisted from serving God, and then ad∣dicted themselves to the worshipping of Idols. But the question is, whether the discourse in this place is concerned in the Idolatry they committed in the wilderness, or that in after-times. That it doth not point at the Idolatry in the wilderness, these following ar∣guments seem to confirm.

I. Because there is no mention of any Idolatry committed in the wilderness after the Golden Calf, besides that with Baal-Peor. And it is hardly imaginable that Moloch and Baal-Peor were the same, and that Moloch and Remphan were not two different Idols. Nor is it probable at all that the Sacred Historian would have past over such a piece of wickedness without any taking notice either of the fault or punishment; especially when as every where else the History of their Idolatry is related so very accurately. But not to multiply arguments,

II. If Stephen refer this Idolatry of the Israelites to the times after those in the wilder∣ness, and in that sense interprets the Prophet, he speaks the same thing that was common∣ly known and received amongst the Jews, viz. that the punishment of that sin of the Gol∣den Calf descended and was derived to following generations. l 1.134 R. Oshaiah saith, that to the times of Jeroboam the children of Israel suckt of one Calf, (the Gloss is, viz. that Calf they made in the wilderness) but from that time forward they suckt of two, and of a third too. (The Gloss is, those two of Jeroboam's, and the third of the wilderness.) R. Isaac saith, there is not any instance of vengeance that comes upon the world, wherein there is not a twenty fourth part of a pound of the first Calf. According as it is said, In the day that I visit I will visit their sin upon them. Exod. XXXII. R. Chaninah saith, after twenty four generations (the Gloss hath it in the Reign of King Zedekiah) this verse was accomplisht, as it is said, He cried in mine ears with a loud voice, the visitations of the City draw near, every man having his destroying weapon in his hand, Ezek. IX. 1.

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

The Tabernacle of Moloch.

The Prophet Amos hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lat. Interlin. Et portastis Siccuth Regem vestrum, i. e. Ye carried Siccuth your King. So R. Sol. and Kimchi, Siccuth is the name of an Idol. For my part I am at a stand in this matter, as also in what words the Chaldee Paraphrast hath rendred this clause. For in the Books publisht amongst us, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when as the Aruch citing the Targumist in this place saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Siccuth Malchechem with the Targumist is Succuth Pethachrechon. Ob∣serve Pethachrechon, not Pathcumarchon. And that it was so originally written in the Targumist, I do very much suspect, however Kimchi owns only the other reading. For,

1. It is not easie, I may say not possible to give 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that propriety in this place that it bears in Ezek. XIII. 18. and Chap. XVI. 16.

2. Whereas the same Paraphrast renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Isa. VIII. 21. by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Zephan. I. 5. by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is the more probable that he may render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which word it should seem he useth for some Idol, or heathen God, because when he would express a King taken in its proper sense, he always retains the usual word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If therefore according to the Copy quoted by the Aruch, it should be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then the Chaldee Version falls in with the Greek, and shews that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be ren∣dered your Moloch; so that Moloch signifie an Idol, and Succuth not an Idol, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the tabernacle of Moloch, which seems the more likely from the agreement of the two clauses, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Tabernacle of Moloch, and Star of Remphan.

But who or what kind of God this Moloch should be, I will not spend much time to find out, this having been the business of so many Pens already, only this I cannot but ob∣serve, that both Moloch and Remphan were certain figures that represented some of the Coelestial Luminaries, because he saith, He gave them up to worship the host of Heaven, &c. And that it is generally supposed that by Moloch was represented the Sun, partly because of the Kingly name, and partly upon the account of the fiery form and shape of the Idol, and the fiery rites of its worship. It is also called Baal, Jer. XXXII. 35. They built the high places of Baal to offer their sons to Motoch. Which whether it be the same Idol that Ahab brought in upon Israel, might not be unworthy our considering. There may be some colour and hint of that bloody worship in what the Priests of Baal did to themselves, 1 King. XVIII. 28. They cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets till the blood gushed out upon them.

Moloch (as the Jews describe him) was an Image of brass, having the face of a Calf, his hands open, like one ready to receive something brought him from another. And so Diodorus Siculus describes Saturn of Carthage, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They had an Image of Saturn made of brass, stretching out his hands, extended towards the earth, so that a child being put into them was thrown and rould in a great gulph of fire q 1.135. There we have also this passage out of Philo concerning the History of the Phoenicians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Sa∣turn therefore whom the Phoenicians call Israel, having governed that Country after his death, was made the Star called Saturn. Of his wife Anobret he had one only begotten Son, whom therefore they call Jeoud, that being the term for an only begotten Son amongst the Phoenicians to this day. Upon the breaking in of a very destructive war upon the Country, he takes his Son, and having decently adorned him, and prepared an Altar for him, sacrificed him on it. This Israel by name was Abraham by the character, from whom whether they derived by direful imi∣tation this horrid usage of sacrificing to Moloch, is no place at present to dispute; the que∣stion rather might be, whether the Israelites did act any such thing themselves in the wil∣derness; whether with the Tabernacle of the Lord they also erected a Tabernacle to Moloch too; whether having slighted the way of sacrificing beasts they instituted the of∣fering up of their own children. Which how unlikely it was that Moses should either suf∣fer it to be done, or having been done, should pass it by in silence, and make no mention at all of it, any one may judg. I shall conclude with that passage in Porphyrius quoted by the same Eusebius, worth our taking notice of: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. That these sacrifices of men were abolisht almost every where: Pallas tells us, who wrote excellently well concerning the mysteries of Mithra, under Adrian the Emperour.

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

And the Star of your God Remphan.

In Amos it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chijun; in the Seventy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan. I would not in this place heap up what learned men have said in this matter; upon these two hinges the whole dif∣ficulty turns: First, to reconcile the Septuagint with the Prophet Amos, and then to re∣concile St. Stephen, or St. Luke with the Septuagint.

I. Forasmuch as the Heb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chijun is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan in the Septuagint, I would not look for any thing Gigantick in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, but something rather weak and infirm. Any one knows that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifie weak and weakness; and from thence perhaps the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, may take its original, and not from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Giant. And so the same thing might be done by the Interpreters in this name, that had been done by the Jews in the name of Beelzebul, viz. invented the name for meer contempt and re∣proach. The naked and native signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chijun, is firm, upright, stable; and therefore is rendered by some in that place Basis, or foundation; a name indeed most un∣fit for an Idol, which is a lye, vanity, nothing; this the Septuagint being apprehensive of, might translate it by a word perfectly contrary, but more agreeable to the thing it self; viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, that is in Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 weakness, infirmity. If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, does not denote Saturn in the Coptick language, as Kircher tells us.

II. But how 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, should be changed into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there have been various, and those not impertinent conjectures. The Syriack and Arabick retain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which as to the sense we have mentioned sound properly enough to Eastern ears. And what if St. Luke or our Martyr, that they also (as much as might be) might sound the same thing in the ears of the Greeks should pronounce it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Remphan, where the sound of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies wandring, or tottering, might be included.

Be it therefore that Molech is the Sun, and Remphan or Chijun should be Saturn; we read of the Introduction of Molech into the land of Israel, but of Chijun not at all, only in the Prophet Amos, and here in the mention of Remphan.

When I read that in 1 King. XII. 30. That all the people went to worship the Calf in Dan. And observe further that Dan was called Panias, I begin to think that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Phan, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rephan, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Remphan, may have some relation with that name; and that Dan is mentioned rather than Bethel, because the Idolatry, or Calf of that place con∣tinued longer than that of Bethel.

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

I will carry you beyond Babylon.

But the Hebrew words of Amos are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beyond Damascus, so the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, beyond Damascus.

I. Nothing was more usual in the Schools and Pulpits of the Jews, than for the Reader or Preacher to vary and invert the Text of the Scripture, to adapt and accommodate it to his own sense. Hundreds of times we meet with this phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Talmudick Writers, and the Jewish Expositors, don't read this or that word so, but so, or so. Where forsaking the proper and genuine reading, they put another in the stead, that may better fall in with the matter they are upon. Not that they reject or vilifie the original Text, but to bring what they alledg more ingenuously to their own purpose. I have known this done in some words wherein they keep indeed to the same letters, but make the variation by the change of vowels. Which shews in the mean time that this was neither any strange thing amongst them, nor accounted any crime, but received rather with applause, to ali••nate the words of the Hebrew Text from their native and original reading, to deduce something either true in it self, or at least smooth and ingenious. And if Stephen here af∣ter the usage of the Schools, quoting this passage of the Prophet Amos 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be∣yond Damascus, had magisterially said as they were wont to do, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 don't read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beyond Damascus, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beyond Babylon, it would have gone down well enough with his auditory, both by reason of the usual custom of the Nation, and principally be∣cause what he said was true. For,

II. Let us consult another place in the same Prophet, Amos IV. 3. And ye shall go out at the breaches one against another, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and ye shall cast them into the palace. Where the Targum and Syriack, They shall carry them beyond the mountains of Armenia. And the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Unto the mount Romman. R. Sol. upon the place tells us, that Jonathan paraphraseth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beyond the mountains of Horman, they are the mountains of darkness. m 1.136 Alexander King of Macedon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 went to the King of Cazia behind the mountains of darkness. Let me add one passage more. n 1.137 Israel went into three Captivities, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one was within the river Sanbation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the other was to D••phne of An∣tioch. The other where the clouds did descend upon them and covered them o 1.138.

VERS. LI.

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

Stiff-necked.

VVE have a like phrase, and a story not much unlike in Shemoth rabba p 1.139, when the people in the absence of Moses were urgent with Aaron to make them Gods that should go before them, Hur resisted them, and said to them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ye short necked, do you not remember what wonderful things God hath done for you? Immediately they rose up against him and slew him.

VERS. LIII.

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

By the disposition of Angels.

I. I Would not render this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Angels, as the Syriack and Arabick Interpreters have done; but by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 messengers; so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Angel, or messenger of the Church. The Jews have a trifling ficti∣on, that those Israelites that were present at mount Sinai, and heard the Law pronounced thence by God himself, should have been like the Angels, that they should never have be∣got children, nor died, but for the time to come should have been like to Angels, had it not been for that fatal and unfortunate crime of theirs in the matter of the Golden Calf q 1.140.

If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might admit of this passive construction, that men might be dis∣posed into the same predicament or state with the Angels; then I should think our Blessed Martyr might in this passage remember them of their own opinion, and the more smartly convince them of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, transgression of the Law, even from what they themselves granted. As though he had said,

Ye have received a Law which you your selves confess, would have put men into an Angelical state, and yet you have not obser∣ved it.

II. But if this clause will not bear that interpretation, it is doubtful in what sense the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be taken; and whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unto the dispositions be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the dispositions, or disposition. That expression in Gal. III. 19. agrees with this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ordain'd by Angels; and in both these places it would be something harsh to understand by Angels, those heavenly spirits strict∣ly and properly so taken; for what had they to do in the disposition of the Law? They were present indeed at Mount Sinai when the Law was given, as many places of the Holy Scriptures do witness; but then they were but present there, for we do not find that any thing further was done or performed by them. So that the thing it self makes it necessary that both in this and in that place we should understand by Angels, the messengers of God's Word; his Prophets and Ministers. And the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may retain its own pro∣per force and vertue, that the sense may come to thus much, viz.

Ye have received the Law unto the disposition of messengers, i. e. that it should be propounded and published by Ministers, Prophets, and others, and that according to your own desire and wish, Exod. XX. 19. Deut. v. 25. and XVIII. 15, 16. and yet ye have not kept the Law. Ye desired Prophets, and ye had them, and yet which of those Prophets have not you persecuted?

VERS. LVI.

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

The Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.

CHRIST frequently calls himself the Son of Man, but it is rarely that we find him so called by others. But St. Stephen in this expression recites that of Dan. VII. 13. I saw one like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of Heaven, and coming to the ancient of days, and they brought him before him. I would hardly have expected from a Jew what R. Sa••diah ••aith upon this place, like to the Son of Man: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This is the Messiah our righteousness; but is it not written of the Messiah, poor and riding upon an Ass? For he shall come in humility.—And they brought him before the Ancient of days, this is that that is written, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand.

The Doctors in Sanhedrin r 1.141, talk much more out of the way, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If they are worthy (i. e. the Israelites) then he shall come with the clouds of Heaven; but if they are not worthy, then he will come poor, and riding upon an Ass. The Proto-martyr de∣clares he saw that of Daniel fulfilled now in Jesus; to which that in Isa. VI. 1. is some∣thing parallel.

VERS. LVIII.

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

And casting him out of the City they stoned him.

s 1.142 I. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the place of stoning was without the Sanhedrin, according as it is said, bring forth him that hath cursed without the Camp, Levit. XXIV. 14. It is a Tradi∣tion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the place of stoning was without three Camps. The Gloss tells us that the Court was the Camp of the Divine Presence, the Mountain of the Temple, the Camp of the Levites, and Jerusalem the Camp of Israel. Now in every San∣hedrin in whatever City, the place of stoning was without the City, as it was at Jerusalem.

We are told the reason by the Gemarists why the place of stoning was without the San∣hedrin, and again without three Camps, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If the San∣hedrin go forth and sit without the three Camps; they make the place for stoning also di∣stant from the Sanhedrin, partly lest the Sanhedrin should seem to kill the man; partly that by the distance of the place there may be a little stop and space of time before the Criminal come to the place of execution, if peradventure any one might offer some testi∣mony, that might make for him. For in the expectation of some such thing,

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

There stood one at the door of the Sanhe∣drin having a Handkerchief in his hand, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and an horse at such a distance as it was only within sight. If any one therefore say, I have something to offer in behalf of the condemned person, he waves the Handkerchief, and the horse∣man rides and calls the people back. Nay if the man himself say, I have something to offer in my own defence, they bring him back four or five times one after another, if it be any thing of moment that he hath to say.

I doubt they hardly dealt so gently with the innocent Stephen.

III. If no testimony arise that makes any thing for him, then they go on to stoning him:

The Crier proclaiming before him, N. the Son of N. comes forth to be stoned for such or such a crime: N. and N. are the witnesses against him, if any one hath any thing to testifie on his behalf, let him come forth and give his evidence.

IV.

When they come within ten cubits of the place where he must be stoned, they exhort him to confess, for so it is the custom for the malefactor to confess, because every one that confesseth hath his part in the world to come, as we find in the instance of Achan, &c.

V.

When they come within four cubits of the place, they pluck off his clothes, and make him naked.

VI.

The place of Execution was twice a mans height. One of the witnesses throws him down upon his loyns; if he roul upon his breast they turn him upon his loyns again. If he die so, well: If not, then the other witness takes up a stone, and lays it up∣on his heart.

If he die so, well; But if not, then he is stoned by all Israel.

VII. All that are stoned are hanged also, &c. These things I thought fit to transcribe the more largely, that the Reader may compare this present action with this rule and common usage of doing it.

1. It may first be questioned for what crime this person was condemned to die. You will say for blasphemy: For we have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. But no one is condemned as a blasphemer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unless for abusing the Sa∣cred name with four letters, &c. Hence is it that although they oftentimes accused our Saviour as a blasphemer, yet he was not condemned for this, but because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he used witchcraft and deceived Israel, and seduced them into Apostacy t 1.143 And those are reckoned amongst persons that are to be stoned, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that evilly perswades, and he that draws into Apostacy, and a Conjurer. u 1.144

2. It may further be questioned whether our Blessed Martyr was condemned by any formal sentence of the Sanhedrin, or hurried in a tumultuary manner by the people, and so murdered: It seems to be the later.

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

At a young man's feet.

Phil. vers. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being such an one as Paul the aged; by which we may compute, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, here denotes mere youth, and not rather strength, and stoutness, 2 Sam. VI. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Every chosen man of Israel: where the Greek hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, every young man of Israel.

VERS. LX.

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

Fell a sleep.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He slept, than which nothing is more common in the Talmudists.

CHAP. VIII.

VERS. II.

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

Carried Stephen to his burial.

THEY * 1.145 do not bury (any one condemned by the Sanhedrin) in the Sepulchres of their fathers. But there are two places of burial, belonging to the Sanhedrin; one for those that are beheaded and strangled; the other for those that are stoned and burnt. The reason why such are not to be buried with their fathers is this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Because they do not bury the guilty with the innocent; which they deduce from the story of an ordinary person cast into Elisha's grave, who continued not there but rose again.

x 1.146 The stone wherewith any one is stoned, the wood on which he is hanged, the sword by which he is beheaded, and the halter wherewith he is strangled, is still buried in the same place with him: or at least very near him. That it was otherwise with Stephen, the words now before us do evince; but whether this was from the indulgence of the Sanhedrin toward the condemned person: or, because he was not condemned by the Sanhedrin, let others judge.

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

And made great lamentation over him.

The Rabbins go on. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They do not make a lamentation over one condemned by the Sanhedrin, only bemoan him, i. e. inwardly, and in their heart only. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for this grief is not but in the heart. And it was a Vulgar conceipt amongst the Jews, that by how much the more sordidly the criminal was hand∣led by the Sanhedrin, and how much the less bemoaned after execution, by so much the more it tended toward the remission of his sins. Whence the Gloss upon the place, They do not bewail him, that so that disgrace of his might turn to his attonement.

This generous and true Christian courage of these good men burying St. Stephen, is deservedly applauded by all: and those that did thus bury him, did thereby publickly explode that ridiculous conceipt of expiation by undergoing the greatest disgrace here: for they knew well enough that the remission of this Martyrs sins, flowed from a more noble source.

VERS. V.

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

Into the City of Samaria.

HAving done with the story of Stephen, who was the first named amongst the seven Deacons: the Evangelist passeth on to the affairs of Philip, who was the second. Whether he betook himself to Sebaste, or to Sichem, or to some other third City of Sa∣maria, might be a reasonable question; because it is said, vers. 14. that the Apostles heard that Samaria had received the Word of God; which seems more agreeably to be un∣derstood of some City in Samaria, rather than the whole Samaritan Country. Now what City should that be, which as the Metropolis of that Country, is by way of Emphasis called Samaria? It is certain that Sebaste is that very City, which antiently was Samaria.

a 1.147 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sebaste is the same, which was Samaria, where to this day the Palace of Ahab is shewn. b 1.148 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. In Samaria (Herod) fortifying a City with a noble wall of twenty furlongs, and carrying thither a Colony of six thousand men, di∣stributing good land amongst them: and in the midst of the City erecting a goodly Temple to Caesar, and a gr••ve about it of about three half furlongs, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 called the City Sebaste.

Was this therefore the City of Samaria, where Philip now was, because that was once the City Samaria? If we observe, how the City of Sichem was the very heart and seat of the Samaritan Religion, and the Mount Gerizim was as it were the Cathedral Church of that Sect; perhaps to this one might more fitly have respect, when mention is made of the City of Samaria, than any other place.

VERS. IX.

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

Simon, who before time in the same City, used Sorcery.

IF this was in Sichem, you will say, what became then of the Sichemites faith which Christ himself had already planted amongst them? Joh. IV. It may be answered (though in so very obscure a thing I would not be positive) that it was some years since the time when Christ had conversed in that City, and when as he had done nothing that was miraculous there, Simon by his Magicks might obtain the easier reception amongst them. But however, grant, it was Sebaste, or any other City of Samaria, that was the scene of this story yet who did this Simon give out himself to be, when he said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he himself was some great one? And what sort of persons did the Samari∣tans account him, when they said of him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this man is the great power of God?

I. Did they take him for the Messiah? It is commonly presumed that Simon was a Sa∣maritan by birth; but should Messiah spring out of the Samaritans? It is no impertinent question, whether the Samaritans, when they looked for the Messiah, (Joh. IV. 25.) yet could expect he should be one of the Samaritan stock, when they admitted of no Article of Faith that had not its foundation in the Books of Moses? Could they not gather this from thence, that the Messiah should come of the Tribe of Judah? A Samaritan perhaps will deny this, and elude that passage in Gen. XLIX. 10. by some such way as this: It is true, the Scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a Lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; but then this does not argue that Shiloh must derive his Original from the Tribe of Judah; only that some Dominion should continue in Judah, till Shiloh should appear. Where, by the way, it is worth our observing that the Samaritan Text and In∣terpreter in that place, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without the Jod; and instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from between his feet, that Text reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from between his banners; and the Interpreter hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from between his Ranks, or Companies.

That figment concerning Messiah ben Joseph, or Messiah ben Ephraim (for he goes by both those names) whether it was first invented by the Jews, or by the Samaritans is not easily determined. The Jewish Writers make very frequent mention of him: but the thing it self makes so much for the Samaritans, that one might believe it was first hatcht amongst themselves; only that the story tells us that Messiah was at length slain, which the Samaritans would hardly ever have invented concerning him. And the Jews perhaps might be the Authors of it, that so they might the better evade those passages that speak of the death of the true Messiah.

II. However, it was impiety enough in Simon, if he gave out himself for a Prophet, when he knew so well what himself was; and if you expound his giving out himself to be some great one no higher than this, yet does it argue arrogance enough in the knave. I would not depress the sense of those words concerning John Baptist, Luke I. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He shall be great in the sight of the Lord: but if we take it in the highest degree, he shall be a Prophet before the Lord Christ; it carries both an excellent truth along with it, and also a most plain agreeableness with the office of John. And when Stephen expresseth Moses to have been a Prophet, in these terms 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He was mighty in words and deeds, perhaps it bears the same sense with what the Samaritans said and conceited concerning this Simon, that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the great power of God.

VERS. XIII.

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

Then Simon himself believed also.

THAT is, He believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messiah, and so was made capable of Baptism; (as in vers. 37.) and was indeed baptized in the Name of Jesus, vers. 16. And now O Simon, what thinkest thou of thy self, if hitherto thou hadst exhibited thy self as the Messiah? Darest thou after this pretend to be the Son of God? That which is commonly told of him, and which Epiphanius reports without al∣ledging any others: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To the Samaritans he gave out himself to be the Father, to the Jews to be the Son; betrays not only the blasphemy but the madness of the man, that amongst the Jews he should pretend himself to be the Son of God, when they would acknowledge no Son of God at all.

VERS. XVI.

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

They sent unto them Peter and Iohn, &c.

c 1.149 EPIPHANIUS here very apositely tells us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Phi∣lip being but a Deacon, had not the power of imposition of hands, so as by that, to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost. It was the Apostles peculiar Province and Prerogative, by laying on of their Hands to communicate the Holy Ghost, that is, in his extraordina∣ry gifts of Tongues and Prophesie; for as to the Spirit of Sanctification, they never dispensed that.

Peter and John besides the eminent station they held amongst the Apostles, were also to be the Apostles of the Circumcision in forreign Countries. James the brother of John was now alive, who with those two made up that noble Triumvirate, that had a more intimate familiarity with Christ. And one would believe, he ought also to have been sent along with them, but that they were sufficient; and that this was only as a pro∣logue to their future charge and office of dealing with the Circumcision in forreign Countries.

They lay their hands upon some whom the Holy Ghost had pointed out to be ordained Ministers: And by so doing, they did communicate the gifts of Tongues and Prophesie, so very visible and conspicuously, that it is said, that Simon saw how through the laying on of the Apostles hands, the Holy Ghost was given. Amongst the Jews persons were ordained Elders, by three men: But here, this duumvirate was abundantly more valuable, when they could not only promote to the Ministry, but further, confer upon those that were so promoted, a fitness and ability for the performance of their office.

VERS. XIX.

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

Give me also this power, &c.

HOW infinitely mistaken is this wretch, if he think that the gifts of the Holy Ghost could be bought and procured by Silver or Gold; and how much more mistaken still, if he think that the power of conferring these gifts to others could be thus attained! The Apostles had a power of imparting these gifts, but even they had not a power of enabling another to impart them. Paul by laying hands on Timothy could endow him with the gifts of Tongues and Prophesie; but he could not so endow him that he should be capable of conveighing those gifts to another. This was purely Apostolical to dis∣pense these gifts, and when they died, this power and privilege died with them.

It is easie apprehending what this wily wretch had in his thoughts and design, viz. an affectation both of lucre and vain-glory. Otherwise it might have been abundantly enough for him to have requested, give me also the gift of Tongues and Prophesie as ye have given to these.

VERS. XXIV.

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

Pray ye to the Lord for me.

IF he begged this in earnest and from his heart, it is a wonder he should afterward break out into so much blasphemy and wickedness that Church-history reports con∣cerning him, if that say true. d 1.150 And when he did still more and more disbelieve God, and set himself more greedily in an opposition against the Apostles, &c. e 1.151 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Simon the great adversary of the great and Holy Apostles, &c. For him to beseech the Apostles earnestly to pray for him, and yet from thenceforth to oppose them to the utmost of his power? This certainly is the gall of bit∣terness and the bond of iniquity.

We have (if we believe the story) St. Peter and this Simon meeting with one ano∣ther again at Rome, where the Apostle by his prayers tumbles this Magician headlong to the ground, while he was flying in the Air, and so Simon Magus breaths his last. If it had been taken notice of, that (if Philostratus may be believed) it is probable St. Peter and Apollonius Tyanaeus were at one and the same time together in Babylon, doubtless there would have been some such tale as this framed about St. Peters triumphing over him also.

That in Justin Martyr concerning a statue erected at Rome to Simon Magus with this inscription Simoni Sancto Deo, To Simon the Holy God, is shewn by learned Men to have been so called by mistake, when it was rather a Statue erected Simoni Sango Deo. I fear there is some such mistake concerning St. Peters chair erected in Rome, as there was con∣cerning the Statue of Simon erected at Rome.

VERS. XXVI.

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

To Gaza, which is desert.

WHO is it speaks this clause [which is desert] the Angel or the Historian? Strabo indeed tells us, f 1.152 that Gaza antiently was a noble City, destroyed by Alexander, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and continues desert. But why is this added in this place, and by whom is it so? I would suppose it is added by the Angel, and that for this reason, because there was another Gaza not very far from that place where Philip now was, viz. in the Tribe of Ephraim, 1 Chron. VII. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sichem with the Towns thereof, to Gaza with the Towns thereof, this was the dwelling of the children of Ephraim. Here is Gaza of Ephraim, but Philip must go to Gaza of the Philistins.

VERS. XXVII.

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

Of great Authority under Candace Queen of the Aethiopians.

IN a French Treatise lately publisht, that bears the Title of Histoire de la haut Ethiopie, pag. 15. all the Ethiopian Kings are named and reckoned up, and Candace not menti∣oned. But at the end there is this animadversion upon it, Dans cette Chronologie i•• n'est point parle ny de la R••ine Candace, ny de l' Imperatrice Helene, &c. In this Chronology there is no mention of the Queen Candace, nor of the Empress Helen; The Abyssins no more than the Jews use not to name the women in their Genealogies; a thing very common with all the Eastern Nations.

However, that there was a certain Candace Queen of the Ethiopians, nay that there were several Queens of that name, is so very plain both from Pliny and Strabo, that it would be an impertinent thing to seek for this Candace of ours any where else. The head of the Kingdom (saith Strabo) was Meröe, a City of the same name with the Island it self. Now the Country Meröe was made an Island by the river Nile Westward, and the river Astabora Eastward g 1.153.

If our Eunuch here came indeed from Meröe, then may we call to mind that passage in Zeph. III. 10. From beyond the rivers of Aethiopia my suppliants, &c. But from what part soever of Candace's Empire he might come, and what way soever he went; that might be true of him, and a very long journy he must needs take, before he could arrive at Jerusalem. But the Ethiopick Version, cuts the journy much shorter, when it makes him travailing to the City Gaza; So rendring that passage, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not, who had the charge of all her treasure, but who was over all Gaza.

I am apt to imagine this devotionist might come to Jerusalem upon the same errand that had brought the Jews from all Countries, Acts II. viz. led hether by the Prophesie of Daniel, which had foretold the appearance of the Messias about this time. And one would wonder, that whiles he was at Jerusalem, he should have heard nothing concern∣ing Jesus. Or perhaps what he heard of him was the occasion of his studying at this time that passage in Isaiah's Prophesie. Where now were the Apostles and the rest of that holy College and company, that so great a person, and one of such devotion should be let go untaught and unsatisfied concerning the Lord Jesus? Is it possible that he could be ignorant of the talk of his Death and Resurrection, abiding in the City although as yet he might not believe it? But his instruction and conversion, is reserved to a more pe∣culiar miracle, that should render it the more famous, and better known.

VERS. XXXII.

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

He was led as a sheep to the slaughter.

THE Text in Isaiah is indeed exprest here according to the Greek Version, but whether the Eunuch used that Version or no, is no unjust question. As also, whether he were a Jew or a Proselyte; whether a Proselyte made, or a meer Gentile; whether an Eunuch in the strict, or in the larger sense. Which things are not to be en∣quired into, because we can no where be resolved about them. The perversness of the Jews is more obvious, who, to elude these express and plain things about the sufferings of the Messiah, do divert the whole sense of this Chapter to another thing. It goes cur∣rent amongst them, that the afflicted people of Israel, are the subject of this Prophesie: although there are those that would apply part of it to Jeremy; others, part of it to R. Judah the holy; nay some there are that will allow some part of it to the Messias himself, in the mean time providing that they admit not of his death; it would be very tedious to set down particularly their triflings and elusions in this matter. I rather enquire who it is that the Greek Interpreters apply this passage to? Whether they plainly and sincerely un∣derstood them of the sufferings and death of the Messiah? Let those answer for them, who would have them inspired by the Holy Ghost. If they were thus inspired, they could not but attain the true sense and scope of the Scripture, as well as the Grammatical signification of the words, and could not but discern here, that the Prophet treats of an afflicted, suffering, dying, buried Messias, &c.

And if so, how strange a thing is it, that the whole Nation should be carried away with so cursed, perverse and obstinate a denial of the Messiah's death? What? For Se∣venty two Doctors and Guids of the people, and those divinely inspired too, so plain∣ly to foresee the sufferings and death of the Messiah foretold in this Chapter, and yet not to take care to disperse this Doctrine amongst the people, nor deliver and hand it down to posterity? But if they did do it, how came so horrid an aversness to this Doctrine to seize the whole Nation? If they did not, what execrable Pastors of the people were they, to conceal so noble, and so necessary an Article of their Faith, and not impart it?

In like manner do the Jews commonly apply that famed Prophesie of Christ, Isa. IX. 6. to King Hezekiah; I doubt also the Greek Interpreters lean that way, that clause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I will restore health, or soundness to him, gives a suspition of it.

VERS. XXXIII.

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

In his humiliation his judgment was taken from him▪

THE Hebrew Text is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He was taken from prison and from judg∣ment; which the Seventy read thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If you render the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the same sense with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1 Sam. XXI. 7. Doeg (for devotion, saith Kimchi) was detained before the Lord: then is shewn so much the greater wrong done to Christ. He was snatcht from the place of his devotion, and from his work; and he was snatched from the place of judgment, that he could neither be safe in that, nor have just judgment in the other. Any one knows what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, namely, Being detained upon a Religious account, and what affinity the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to shut up, may have with it, every one may also see.

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

Who shall declare his generation?

That is, who shall declare the wickedness of that age or generation wherein he lived, and by whom he suffered such things? This and such like passages are very usual amongst

the Jews. h 1.154 In the generation in which the Son of David shall come, the Synagogue shall be a common stews, Galilee shall be destroyed, and Gablan shall be laid wast.—the wisdom of the Scribes shall putrifie, good and merciful men shall fail, yea and truth it self shall fail, and the faces of that generation shall be as the faces of dogs.—R. Levi saith, The Son of Da∣vid shall not come, but in a generation wherein mens faces shall be impudent; and which will deserve to be cut off. R. Jannai saith, When thou seest the generation, after the slandering, and blaspheming generation, then expect the feet of King Messias, that is, his coming. While I read the Chaldee Paraphrast, in Isa. LIII. methinks I see a forehead not unlike the faces before mentioned; for he wrests the Prophets words with that impudence and pervers∣ness from their own proper sense, that it is a wonder if his own Conscience, while he was writing it, did not check and admonish him.

VERS. XL.

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

But Philip was found at Azotus.

IF this was done at Gaza or near it, it was from thence to Azotus about two hundred and seventy furlongs; or thirty four miles or thereabout. * 1.155 And Azotus was, as it seems, two miles from Jamnia, according to the computation of Antoninus his Itinerarium. From Gaza to Askalon sixteen miles: from Askalon to Jamnia twenty. We have the mention of one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rabba Philippi, as it should seem, in the Jerusalem Tal∣mud. i 1.156

CHAP. IX.

VERS. II.

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

He desired letters of him [the High Priest] to Damascus.

THESE letters were written from the whole Sanhedrin, k 1.157 the head of which was Gamaliel, Paul's Master, yet they are attributed to the High-Priest, he being of a more worthy degree and order, than the President of the Council; that in Acts XXIII. 4. hath a peculiar Emphasis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God's High-Priest, and hints to us the opinion that Nation had of the High-Priest, namely, that he was God's Officer; whereas the President of the Council was only an officer of the People, and cho∣sen by men. The charge of the High-Priest was to take care about holy things: the charge of the President was to take care about the Traditions: for he was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the keeper and repository of Traditions.

But the words we are upon do occasion a more knotty and difficult question, viz. whe∣ther the decrees of the Sanhedrin were of authority amongst the Jews in Countries abroad? As to Damascus there is the less scruple, because Syria in very many things was lookt upon to be of the same rank and condition with the land of Israel. But what shall we think of more remote Countries? For instance, Egypt or Babylon, where the greatest number of Jews above all other Countries in the World did reside?

I. There was no Sanhedrin of Seventy men, either in Egypt or Babylon, or indeed any where else, but that at Jerusalem. There were very famous Academies in Babylon, viz. that of Nehardea, that of Sorah, and that of Pombeditha. But a Sanhedrin no where. There was a very famous Cathedral Church at Alexandria, wherein were seventy pompous stalls, but it was but a Church not a Sanhedrin l 1.158.

II. In what veneration the Jerusalem Sanhedrin was held every where amongst all sorts of Jews, may be collected from this, that the rule and determination concerning interca∣lating the year, concerning the beginning of the year, and the appointed time of the feasts, &c. came from it, as also that was esteemed the keeper and repository of the oral Law.

III. The judgment of life and death in the matter of Heresie and heterodoxy belonged only to the Jerusalem Sanhedrin: and it is some such thing that is now before us. The Christians were to be sent from the Synagogues bound to Jerusalem, that if they would not deny their faith, they might be condemned to dye. The Synagogues by their three

men, might scourge them, but they could not pass sentence of death: And these goodly men conceived there was no other way to extirpate Christianity but by the death of Christians.

IV. Whether therefore, these were mandatory letters, or only exhortatory which St. Paul desired; the Fathers of the Sanhedrin knew the Synagogues were heated with so great an indignation against Christianity that they would most readily undertake, what was desired. Where, by the way, we may make this observation, That the power of Life and Death was not yet taken out of the hands of the Sanhedrin. I have elsewhere given you a copy of a Letter from the Sanhedrin to those of Babylon, and also to those of Alexandria m 1.159.

VERS. V.

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

It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

IN Syriac 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is well known that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to kick, from Deut. XXII. 15. and 1 Sam. II. 29. nor is it less known what this word kicking in these places means. n 1.160 R. Bibai sat and taught—R. Isaac ben Cahna 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kickt against him.

VERS. VII.

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

Hearing a voice, &c.

BUT it is said Chap. XXII. 9. They heard not the voice of him that spake unto me. They heard 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Voice, or Sound; but they did not hear 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the words. So we find the Jewish writers distinguishing. o 1.161 There I will speak with thee. The word shall be with thee, but not with them all. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Perhaps they did not hear the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but they heard the voice.

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

But seeing no man.

But did Paul himself see him? See vers. 17. Jesus that appeared to thee in the way; and vers. 27. He saw the Lord in the way. 1 Cor. IX. 1. Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? And Chap. XV. 8. He was seen of me also, &c. but did he see his person or his glory only? I would say he saw both; and so had obtained a more illustrious Vision of him than any of the rest, having seen him since he was glorified, which they did not. But whether he saw with his bodily eyes, or as Isaiah, Cap. VI. 1. by Vision only, let those dispute it that think fit.

Concerning Damascus the scene of this history, we may call to mind that of Zechar. IX. 1. The burden of the word of the Lord in the land of Hadrach, and Damascus the rest thereof, &c. where the Targum; Damascus shall be converted, so that it shall be of the land of the house of his Majesty. Kimchi hath it, Damascus shall be his rest: that is, the habi∣tation of his glory and of his prophet, &c. which things whither they have any relation to this place, let the Reader judge. Only I must not let it pass unobserved, that Paul the Converter of the Gentiles, was called to his Apostleship, and saw Christ in a Country, and almost in a City of the Gentiles.

St. Paul himself tells us that this voice which came from Heaven spake to him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Hebrew tongue, Chap. XXVI. 14. which our Historian doth not mention, nor indeed those passages, vers. 16. 17, 18. which S. Paul there relates.

VERS. XII.

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

Putting his hand on him, that he may receive his sight.

ANANIAS himself adds, vers. 17. that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Could Ananias therefore confer the Holy Ghost? This seemed the peculiar prerogative of the Apostles; could therefore a private Disciple do this to an Apostle? By the imposition of his hands could he impart the gift of Tongues and Pro∣phesie? Will not this degrade our Apostle even below the ordinary Ministers, who re∣ceived these gifts by the imposition of the Apostles hands, and shall he that is an Apostle take his Commission from the hands of one that is not so himself? It was not ordinary for an Apostle to be baptised by one that was not an Apostle; and it would be strange, if such an one should add over and above greater things to an Apostle.

It may be no needless question, who it was that baptized the rest of the Apostles, when Jesus himself baptized not, Joh. IV. 2. who therefore baptized those that did bap∣tize? Let the Romanists say, who baptized Peter? I would say John the Baptist did. But do you think Peter was rebaptized? If so, by whom, when Jesus himself did not baptize?

CHAP. XII.

VERS. II.

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

He killed Iames with the sword.

THIS kind of death is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 killing. p 1.162 Four kinds of death are delivered into the hands of the Sanhedrin. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 stoning. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 burning. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 killing (with the sword) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 strangling. q 1.163 The precept 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 concerning those that are to be killed, is this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they beheaded him with the sword as the (Roman) King∣dom does. R. Judah saith, This is a vile disgrace to him. But they lay his head upon a block, and chop it off with an Ax. Others reply, there can be no death more disgraceful than that. You will say Herod (Agrippa) imitated the Roman customs as having no small relation to Rome. But beheading by the sword, was a death used amongst the Jews them selves; and they particularly fell under that sentence, that drew away the people to the worship of other Gods. r 1.164 If they be but a few that seduce the people to strange worship, they are stoned, and their goods are not confiscated; but if their numbers be great, they dye by the sword, and their goods are confiscated.

St. James indeed was but a single person, but Herod knew that there was Peter also and several others, who according to his judgment 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 drew away the people to an ir∣religious worship; and deals with James, as he intended to do with the rest. So he falls, and his goods are confiscated. And so that begins to be accomplished which our Saviour had formerly told the sons of Zebedee, ye shall drink of my cup, &c. s 1.165 The Rabbins say, Killing [by the sword] is an heavier punishment than strangling.

VERS. VII.

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

His chains from his hands.

I Am mistaken if the Jerusalem Talmudists do not express 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chiromanicae, hand-manacles. t 1.166 It is written, The Lord spake to Manasseh, and to his people, but they harkned not: Wherefore the Lord brought upon them the Captains of that host of the King of Assyria, which took Manasseh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What signifies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in manacles? The Targum on 2 Chron. XXXIII. thus renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where, I am apt to suspect the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is ill writ instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: but I stand corrected very willingly, if I guess amiss.

In those words of our Saviour, Bind the unprofitable servant hand and foot, &c. it is plain to see, how he alluded to manacles and fetters.

VERS. XV.

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

It is his Angel.

THAT is, An Angel in his shape; for it was familiarly received amongst them, that the Angels did sometimes put on the shape of this or of that person. u 1.167 It is writ∣ten, he hath delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh. Bar Kaphra saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Angel descended in the shape of Moses, and made him flee. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and they that came to lay hold on Moses, thought the Angel to be Moses. The Gloss is, The Angel quickned Moses in his flight, so that those that sought for Moses, were very little solicitous about him, because they thought the Angel was Moses. * 1.168 The Holy blessed God saith, I have said to mirth what doth it? What doth that crown in thine hand? Descend from my throne: in the same hour an Angel descended 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the shape of So∣lomon, and sat upon his throne.

It is well known that the Jewish writers do take Elias for the Angel of the Covenant, Mal. III. 1. and how often have we Elias appearing in the shape of this or of that man?

x 1.169 Elias came 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and seemed unto them as one of themselves. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 y 1.170 On a certain day Elias came to R. Judah the Holy, in the shape of R. Chaiah Rubbah, &c. having touched his teeth he took away their pain; the next day R. Chaiah Rubbah came to him and said, how doth Rabbi, how do his teeth? To whom he re∣plyed, from the time that thou touchedst my teeth with thy fingers, they were healed.

VERS. XX.

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

Because their Country was nourisht by the Kings Country.

HERE we may call to mind that of Ezek. XXVII. 17. Judah and the land of Israel [O Tyre] were thy Merchants, they traded in thy markets wheat of Minnith and Pannag, and Honey, and Oyl, and Balm. So the Latine, the Interlinear, our English, and the Italian Versions. But others make Minnith and Pannag not places, but Merchandise ware, namely the Syriac, Arabic, Greek and the Chaldee especially, who hath rendred the words so that R. Solomon, and R. Kimchi, confess they knew not well what he means. As for Minnith we have it mentioned in Judg. XI. 33. for which the Syriac hath Makir for a reason not known; and the Greek, Arnon, for no reason at all. As for Pannag we meet with it no where else. Whatever it be, the words of the Prophet hint to us the same thing, that the Evangelist doth here; which is strengthned also from that in 1 King. V. 11. And Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand measures o•…•…heat for food to his houshold, and twenty measures of pure Oyl, thus gave Solomon to Hiram year by year.

VERS. XXIII.

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

Being eaten of worms, he gave up the Ghost.

JOSEPHUS speaks more sparingly in this matter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The pains of his belly came thick upon him: speaking only of the torments of the belly, and suppressing the cause. And that (as it should seem) not only to conceal the Kings reproach, but to add something of honour to him. For lay that passage in the Talmud to this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Many just persons have dyed of the pain in the bowels. z On the contrary, to be devoured by worms was reckoned an* 1.171 accursed thing, and what befel none but men of greatest impiety. * 1.172 Those that went to spy out the land of promise, and raised an evil report upon it, They had their Tongues hanging out, and falling upon their Navels, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and worms issued out of their Tongues and crept into their Navels, and issued out of their Navels again, and crept into their Tongues. ‖ 1.173 A certain Priest (a Baithusean as it should seem) made incense without, and brought it within.—There are who say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that his Nose hung down, issuing out with worms; and that something like a calves hoof grew in his forehead.

CHAP. XIII.

VERS. I.

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

There were some in the Church that was at Antioch.

COMPARE that passage Chap. XI. 27. with this place, and neither the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 some; will seem redundant; nor the phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so harsh, There came some Prophets from Jerusalem to Antioch, when yet, there were in the Church of Antioch some Prophets of their own already. And it seems to hint that the separation of Paul and Barnabas to the Ministry was done by the stated Ministers of that Church, and not by others that came thither.

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

Prophets and Teachers.

These offices indeed are distinguisht, 1 Cor. XII. 28. and Ephes. IV. 11. but here, they seem as if they were not so to be; for the Church of Antioch was not yet arrived at that maturity that it should produce Teachers that were not endowed with the Holy Ghost, and the gift of Prophesie; and the phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seems to intimate some such thing, viz. that according to the state of the Church then being in that place, there were, nay it was necessary there should be prophetick Teachers, because there was not any who by the study of the Scriptures, was become fit for that office. But why then is it not rather said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Prophetick Teachers, than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Prophets and Teachers? Namely, because there were Prophets who were not ordinary Teachers, but acted in their Prophetick office occasionally only; and they were such as rather foretold things to come, than ordinarily preacht, or taught chatechistically. But these were both Prophets, and constant Preachers too.

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

And Manaen which had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch.

So Menahem is writ in the Alexandrian copy, at 2 Kings Chap. XV. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Manaen: but the Roman hath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Manaem. This our Manaens education with Herod the Tetrarch, brings to mind what is related in Juchasin. c 1.174 Hillel and Shammai received their traditions from them (that is, from Shamaiah and Abtalion) But first were Hillel and Menahem. Menahem went off into the Kings family and service, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with fourscore men clothed in gold—Menahem was grave and wise, like a Prophet, and uttered many Prophesies. He foretold Herod, when he was yet very young, that he should come to reign: And when he did reign, he sent for him, who foretold him also that he should reign above thirty years. And he did reign seven and thirty. Josephus (who is quoted also by this our Au∣thor) speaks much the same as to part of the story. d 1.175 There was amongst the Essenes one named Menaem, who, besides that he was famous for the holiness of his life, had obtained of God a fore knowledge of future things. He called Herod while he was yet a child, King of the Jews, &c.

I do not think this our Menaem, was the same person; nor do I say, that he was his son (for had the Essenes children?) But whereas this person was so accepted in the Court of Herod the Great, and our Manaen brought up with Herod his son; I cannot but su∣spect there might be something of kindred betwixt them. But that matter is not tanti: it is only worthy our considering whether this Menaen might not lay the foundations of his Christianity, while he was in Herod the Tetrachs Court, where John the Baptist preacht, and that with some kind of approbation and applause even from Herod himself, Mark VI. 20.

As to the remaining part of the story, the Talmudists add this passage; e 1.176 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Menahem went out, and Shammai entred. But whether went Menahem? Abai saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he lasht out into all abundance of wickedness. Aba saith, he went into the service of the King, and with him went four score pair of Disciples, all clad in silk. I dare not say this Menahem was the same with our Menahem unless he were an hundred years of age or thereabout; and yet when I observe the familiarity that was between that Menahem and Herod the father; and how ours was brought up with Herod the son (which certainly was not put in by our Historian for no reason) it cannot but give me some apprehension that either he might be the person himself, or rather his son (if at least the Essenes had children) or in a word, some very near relation. Be it one or other, it is worthy enquiry, whether this our Manaen might not lay the foundation of his Evangeli∣cal religion in the Court of Herod the Tetrach, when John Baptist preached there.

VERS. II.

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

As they ministred to the Lord and fasted.

I. THE more religious amongst the Jews fasted, and met in their Synagogues to the publick Prayers and Service, on the second and fifth day of the week: so that on those days it might be properly said of them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that they ministred and fasted. On their Sabbath indeed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they Ministred, but they did not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fast; but on these days in the week, the second and the fifth they did both.

II. Perhaps it might be somewhat bold to say that the Church at Antioch, did according to the Jewish custom, observe the weekly fasts. And yet more bold to say, that Church chose those days for fasting which the Jews had done, viz. the second and fifth day of the week. But it would be most audacious to conjecture that they observed the Jewish Sab∣bath

in some measure with the Lords day; and that with fasting, when as the Jews would by no means endure a fast upon that day. But whatever the day of this fasting was, or what occasion soever there was of it: from that ordinary custom of the Jews it is easie to judge of that phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ministring, viz. that a publick fast was cele∣brated with the publick assembly of the Church; and administration of holy things; which whether it was so done, vers. 3. where it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, then they fasted and prayed, may be some question: that is, whether at that time there was a publick fast of the whole Church, or a more private one amongst the Elders only.

VERS. III.

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

Laying their hands on them, &c.

f 1.177 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the ordaining of the Elders, and beheading the Heifer is by the three. In this thing therefore, this present action agreeth with the com∣mon usage of the Synagogue, that three persons, Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen lay their hands on two that were to be sent out, viz. Paul and Barnabas. But in that they lay on their hands, they do also recede from the usual custom. g 1.178 After what manner is the ordain∣ing of Elders for ever? Not that they should lay their hands upon the head of an Elder, but only should call him Rabbi, and say to him, behold thou art ordained, and thou hast power of judging, &c. Antiently, every one that had been promoted to be an Elder, promoted his Dis∣ciples also: But this honour the wise Men indulged to old Hillel, namely decreeing that no per∣son should be ordained to be an Elder, but with the license of the President. But neither is the President to ordain any person, unless the Vicepresident assist him, nor the Vicepresident, unless the President assist him. But as to what belongs to the other Societies: It is lawful for one man to ordain with the allowance of the President; but let him have two more with him: For it is not an ordination unless by three; nor do they ordain Elders out of the Land.

It might not be unworthy our enquiry (if there were place for it here) both why they have abolisht the ceremony of imposition of hands, as also, why they should re∣strain the ordaining of Elders to the land of Israel only. We see the Church at Antioch doth otherwise, and by the same rule the Christian Church. But perhaps some will ask, upon what reason; when laying on of hands in the ordination of Elders, was hardly used at all, either under the first Temple, or before or under the second Temple. It was not under the second Temple, if we may believe the Rabbin newly quoted; or at least if it was used, it was abolished at last. And before the second Temple, where is there any sign or footstep of such a thing?

VERS. IV.

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

Departed unto Seleucia.

THIS doubtless is Seleucia of Pieria, concerning which Strabo tells us, h 1.179 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Beyond Cilicia, the first City in Syria, is Seleucia which is said to be in Pieria. So Xylander Translates it, leaving out the Version of the last clause wholly, intimating that the river Orontes pours it self into the Sea not far from this place. And to this, the situ∣ation and distances in Ptolomy do agree.

• Seleucia of Pieria, 68. 36. 35. 26.
• The mouth of the River Orontes 68. 30. 35. 30.

Pliny also affirms that Seleucia in Pieria is the very first Coast of Syria from Cilicia. i 1.180 Latitudo (Syriae) a Seleucia Pieriae ad oppidum in Euphrate Zeugma, DXXV M. p. The latitude (of Syria) from Seleucia of Pieria, to Zeugma a Town upon Euphrates is DXXV Miles.

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

From thence they sailed to Cyprus.

How great a multitude of Jews there were in Cyprus, may be somewhat conjectured from the times of Trajan backward, from this story. k 1.181 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. In the mean time the Jews who dwelt about Cyrene, under the conduct of one Andrew, fall both upon the Romans and the Greeks, feed on their flesh, eat their bowels, besmear themselves with their blood, and cover themselves with their skins: Many of them they sawed asunder, from the crown of the head down the middle; many of them they threw to the wild beasts; many of them they forced to fight amongst themselves, till they had destroyed above two hundred and twenty thousand men. In Egypt and Cyprus they committed the same kind of outrages,

the leader (of the Cypriots) being Artemion; where two hundred and forty thousand men were lost: whence it came to pass that a Jew might not come into Cyprus. But if by chance and stress of weather he put in upon the Island, he was killed. But the Jews, as by others, so espe∣cially by Lucius, whom Trajanus sent upon that expedition, were all subdued.

VERS. VI.

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

Whose name was Bar-jesus.

VERS. VIII.

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

Elymas the Sorcerer, (for so is his name by interpretation.)

I. IT may be enquired, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Jesus, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Barjesus, be a proper name, or an appellative. In the Arabic in the Polyglot Bible, it is writ as a pro∣per name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jesu. But in the Arabic of the Erpenian edition, it is writ as an appellative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jesus, and under the same notion, the Syriac taking the word, for Bar-Jesus, hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bar-Shumah, the Son of a Name, as Beza would have it: but trulier, the Son of a Swelling, or a Wound: for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Tumor or Pustle, in the Targumists, of Jonathan, and of Jerusalem, upon Levit. XIII. 2. and in the Syriac it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 So also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Wound, is by that translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Isa. I. 6. and LIII. 5. And indeed Elymas, can no way be the interpretation of Bar-jesus, if Jesus here be a proper name, and especially if it must be writ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

II. I would therefore write Bar-jesus in Hebrew letters thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a word derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies to waste away, or be corroded and worn by a Disease. So Psal. VI. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mine Eye is consumed, or as the Interlinear, corroded because of grief. And that the Syriac had reference to this radix, when he renders it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Son of a Wound, or a Swelling proceeding from a Disease, is little to be doubted; and with the etymology the word Elymas agrees excellently well.

III. There are those that would have it to be the interpretation of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, that the Arabic word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so Elymas is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Sorcerer, which does not seem very distant from truth; once indeed such a conceipt pleased me well enough; but since, these two things well considered, have led me another way.

1. Because it may reasonably be doubted, whether St. Luke would explain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a well known word, by a word far more unknown. Besides, why should this Sorcerer only be called Elymas when as according to that etymology, all persons of the same art might have the same name.

2. Because the Syriac and Arabic do not begin the word Elymas with the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ain, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aleph. I little doubt therefore but this name Elymas takes its original from the Ara∣bic word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Alima or Elima, which signifies to grieve or be tormented. And how this sense agrees with the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 any one may see. For what can be nearer akin than to consume away, and to grieve; and to waste away by a distemper, and be under torment? So that, I suppose, this Sorcerer was called in his own Hebrew name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bar-Jesus, and went by that name among the Hebraizing Jews: but amongst those that speak Arabic, Ely∣mas, which in the Arabic Tongue signifies the same thing. I confess it is something an un∣usual thing for St. Luke to render an Hebrew name by Arabic and not by Greek, which the Evangelists commonly do. But it seems, that this Magician was born and bred in some place or Country, where the Arabic was the mother Tongue, inhabited by Jews also, that used their own Language, and from thence he came to be known by this twofold name. I am mistaken, if Jabneh it self, a known Academy of the Jews, and sometime the seat of the Sanhedrin, was not in such a Country. For it may be made out elsewhere, that it is very probable the whole Philistine Country, at least the greatest part of it, did use the Arabic as their mother Tongue.

VERS. IX.

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

Then Saul who is also called Paul.

HERE is both his Hebrew and Roman name too, upon the account of that relation he had to both Nations. He was by his parentage a Jew, and so called Saul, but withal, he was a free denison of Rome, and thence had the name of Paul. Under the same notion Silas is called Silvanus; for he also was a Citizen of Rome, as may be collected out of Acts XVI. 37. The Apostle having hitherto conversed chiefly amongst the Jews retains his Jewish name, but being now declared the Apostle of the Gentiles, and traveling amongst the Gentiles, St. Luke gives him his Gentile name only.

VERS. X.

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

Thou child of the Devil.

IS not this much of the same import with that in the Old Testament, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Son of Belial? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at first hearing seems to sound very harshly, and indeed at first sight might appear as if it signified the first-born of Satan; but it is given to a certain Rabbin to his praise, and as a title of honour, l 1.182 in a far different signification, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 taking its derivation from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to decline from.

VERS. XII.

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

The Deputy.

THIS is a word much in use amongst the Talmudists, with a little variation only in the reading. m 1.183 R. Chaninah, and R. Joshua ben Levi passed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be∣fore the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Deputy of Caesarea. He seeing them, rose up to them. His own people say unto him, Doest thou rise up to these Jews? He answered them and said, I saw their faces as the faces of Angels. See the Aruch upon the word.

VERS. XIII.

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

They came to Perga in Pamphylia.

FROM Paphos in Cyprus, whether old or new (both being Maritim places situated on the Western shore of the Island) they seemed to Sail into the mouth of the river Ce∣strus, concerning which Strabo hath this passage. n 1.184 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Then there is the river Cestrus which when one hath sailed sixty furlongs, he comes to the City Perga, near which is the Temple of Diana of Perga, in an high place, where every year there is a solemn con∣vention. Ptolomey also speaks of the river Cestrus, and of the Cataract, concerning which Strabo hath some mention.

But Mela o 1.185 hath this passage, Thence there are two strong rivers Oestros and Cataractes. Oes∣tros is easily navigable: but Cataractes hath its name from the violence of its running, amongst these is the City Perga, &c. One may justly suspect an error in the Writer here, writing Oes∣tros for Cestros, and it is something strange that Olivarius hath taken no notice of it.

We may conjecture there was no Synagogue of Jews in Perga, because there is no mention of it, nor any memorable thing recorded as done by the Apostles here; only that John whose Sirname was Mark, did in this place depart from them; for what reason is not known.

VERS. XIV.

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

They came to Antioch in Pisidia.

STrabo reckons up thirteen Cities in Pisidia p 1.186 from Artemidorus, amongst which he makes no mention of Antioch. But Pliny q 1.187 tell us, Insident vertici Pisidiae quondam Solymi appellati, &c. There are that inhabit the top of Pisidia, who were once called Solymites, their Colony is Casarea, the same is Antioch. And Ptolomey, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The inland Cities in Pamphilia, are Sileucia of Phrygia, and Antioch of Pisidia. Where the Interpreter most confusedly, Civitates sunt in Provincia Mediterranea, Phrygia quidem Pisidiae, Seleucia Pisidiae, Antiochia: that is, there are Cities in the midland Country, Phrygia of Pisidia, Seleucia of Pisidia, Antioch, and in the margin he sets Caesarea.

VERS. XV.

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

After the reading of the Law and the Prophets.

BUT in what Language were the Law and the Prophets read, in this Synagogue? It is generally supposed that in the Synagogues of the Hellenists, the Greek Bible was read. But was that Tongue understood amongst the Pisidians? Strabo at the end of his thirteenth Book tells us, The Cibratian prefecture was reckoned amongst the greatest of Asia. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Cibyrates used four Languages, the Pisidian, the Solyman, the Greek, and Lydian. Where we see the Pisidian Tongue is expresly distinguisht from the Greek. If Moses and the Prophets therefore were read here in the Greek Tongue, were they understood by those in Pisidia? Yes, you will say, for the very name of the City Antioch speaks it, to have been a Greek Colony. Grant this: but then suppose a Jewish Synagogue in some City of Pisidia that was purely Pisidian, such as Selge, Sagalessus, Pernelissus, &c. or in some City of the Solymites, or of the Lydians, in what Language was the Law read there? Doubtless in the same

Tongue and the same manner that it was read, in the Synagogue of the Hebrews, i. e. in the Original Hebrew, some Interpreter assisting, and rendring it to them in their mother Tongue.

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

They sat down.

So it is exprest commonly of any one that teaches; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he sat down. And if the Rulers of the Synagogue had no other knowledge of Barnabas and Saul, they might gather they were Preachers, from this, that when they entred the Synagogue they sat down, accor∣ding to the custom of those that Taught, or Preached.

VERS. XVI.

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

And ye that fear God.

THAT is, Proselytes, r 1.188 Blessed is every one that feareth the Lord, that walketh in his ways, Psal. CXXVIII. 1. He doth not say, Blessed is Israel, or blessed are the Priests, or blessed the Levites, but blessed is every one that feareth the Lord. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 these are the Proselytes, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they that fear the Lord. According as it is said of Israel, Blessed art thou O Israel, so is it said of these, blessed is every one that feareth the Lord. Now of what proselyte is it said, that he is blessed? It is said of the proselyte of justice. Not as those Cuthites, of whom it is said, that they feared the Lord, and yet worshiped their own Gods.

VERS. XVIII.

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

He suffered their manners.

THE particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seems to exclude the reading of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which word we meet with in the Seventy, Deut. I. 31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God did indeed bear with them full forty years: and so you will say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is not wide from the truth. But the Apostle adding the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 about the time of forty years, seems chiefly to re∣spect that time, which went between the fatal decree, that they should not enter the land, and the going in.

VERS. XIX.

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

Seven Nations.

THE Rabbins very frequently, when they mention the Canaanitish people, give them this very term of the Seven Nations. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

VERS. XX.

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

About the space of four hundred and fity years.

AMongst the many things that are offerd upon this difficulty, I would chuse this, that in this number are reckoned the years of the Judges, and the years of those Tyrants that opprest Israel, computing them disjunctly and singly, which at first sight any one would think ought to be so reckoned; but that 1 Kings VI. 1. gives a check to a too large computation.

1. The years of the Judges and Tyrants, thus distinguisht, answer the Sum exactly.

The Iudges.

Othniel	XL.
Eliud	LXXX.
Deborah	XL.
Gideon	XL.
Abimelech	III.
Tolah	XXIII.
Jair	XXII.
Jepthah	VI.
Ibsan	VII.
Elon	X.
Abdon	VIII.
Sampson	XX.
Eli	XL.
In all	CCCXXXIX.

The Tyrants.

Chushan	VIII.
Eglon	XVIII.
Sisera	XX.
Midian	VII.
Ammon	XVIII.
The Philistins	XL.
In all	CXI.

So that reckoning three hundred thirty nine, and one hundred and eleven together, the Sum amounts exactly to four hundred and fifty.

II. Josephus seems expressly to follow this computation. s 1.189 Solomon began to build his Temple in the fourth year of his reign, and in the second month, which the Macedonians term Artemision, the Hebrews Ijar. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. After five hundred ninety and two years, from the Israelites going out of Egypt.

In 1 Kings VI. 1. there are reckoned four hundred and fourscore years. Josephus, five hundred ninety two, exceeding that number by a hundred and twelve years: So as the three years of the Tyrants makes the number to exceed in this place.

III. In the particular summing up of these years, I cannot omit what is said concern∣ing Sampson in the Jewish Writers t 1.190. Sampson saith, O Lord Eternal, give me a recom∣pence for one of mine eyes, in this world, and for the other, in the world to come. One place saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And he judged Israel forty years. Another place saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And he judged Israel twenty years. R. Acha saith, by this it is hinted that the Philistines were afraid of him twenty years after his death, as they had stood in fear of him twenty years while he was alive.

From these words we might imagine that it was written concerning Sampson that he judged Israel Forty years, which yet is no where found: only it is said in two places (Judg. XV. 20. and Chap. XVI. 31.) that he judged twenty years. Whence the Jewish Writers draw that conclusion as was said before, viz. that the Philistines were under the terror of him, for the space of twenty years after he had been dead. Indeed it is said of Eli, That he judged Israel forty years, 1 Sam. IV. 18. which when I observe the LXX. rendring by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, twenty years, I cannot but suspect they might somewhat fa∣vour the received opinion amongst the Jews.

VERS. XXXIII.

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

In the second Psalm.

u 1.191 WHY are the daily Prayers to the number of eighteen? R. Joshua ben Levi saith, it is according to the eighteen Psalms, from the beginning of the Psalms to The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble [Psal. XX. 1.] But if any one say to thee, they are nine∣teen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 say thou to him, Why do the heathen rage, [i. e. the second Psalm] is not one of them. Hence they say, he that prays and is not heard, it is necessary for him to fast too.

I. Judge hence whether this second Psalm were joyned or confounded with the first, when it seems in some measure sequestred from the whole number. And do you ob∣serve the Rabbins way of arguing? Being to prove that the number of the daily Prayers being eighteen, was adapted to the number of the eighteen Psalms, from the beginning of the Book to that place, The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble, &c. Psal. XX. he takes refuge in a common Axiom of theirs, He that prayeth and is not heard, must fast also. As if that Maxim was founded upon the equality of numbers, and the authors of that Maxim did so design it. q. d. He that pours out eighteen Prayers, according to the num∣ber of those eighteen Psalms, and is not head, let him Fast and he shall be heard, accor∣ding to the tenor of the Psalm immediately following, The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble, i. e. in the day when thou troublest and afflictest thy self with Fasting.

II. I will not make any nice enquiry for what reason they should exclude the second Psalm out of the number. We find in it, however shut out of the number, a consider∣able testimony to the resurrection of the Messiah: and perhaps to this the Apostle may have some respect in these words. But if not, by this his noting the number and order of the Psalm, we may guess he spake to this sense, viz. ye have a testimony of the Resur∣rection of Christ in the very entrance of the Book of Psalms, so near the beginning of it, that we meet with it even in the second Psalm.

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

Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee.

R. Solomon confesseth that the Rabbins do interpret this Psalm of the Messiah, but he had rather it should be applied to David. For the Jews take special care that the Messias should not be acknowledged as the genuine Son of God. Hence Midr. Till. * 1.192 Thou art my Son: Hence we may answer the Hereticks who say he is Son to God. Do thou answer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He doth not say, thou art Son to me, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but, thou art my Son. (A very learned distinction indeed!) As the Master speaking kindly to his Servant, may say to him, I love thee like my own Son. So the Targumist ‖ 1.193, The Lord said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thou art beloved to me as a Son is to his Father.

They do indeed acknowledge that the Messiah is concerned in this Psalm w 1.194, but then, if you will be a true Jew indeed, you must have a care how you acknowledge him the

begotten Son of God. It would be a vain and impertinent thing to collect all their lit∣tle artifices by which they endeavour to evade the force of this place. It were much more proper for us to observe the way of the Apostles arguing, and by what means he makes it out, that these words of the Psalmist point at the Resurrection of the Messiah. Take this passage by the way: x 1.195 R. Honna saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 There are three portions of chastisements divided. The Fathers of the world and all generations received one part: The generation of persecution another, and the generation of the Messias another. And when his time cometh, then will the Holy blessed say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it lies upon me to make him a new creature. And so he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to day have I begotten thee.

When the Jews asked a sign of our Saviour, he constantly gives them the sign of Jonas the Prophet; that is, that his Resurrection which should come to pass, should be a most undoubted proof for him, that he is the Son of God, the true Messias. So Rom. I. 4. He was declared to be the Son of God, by his Resurrection from the dead. For so was he indeed distinguished from all mortals, and Sons of men. And God saith he had then begotten him, when he had given a token that he was not a meer man, by his di∣vine power whereby he had raised him from the dead. And according to the tenor of the whole Psalm, God is said to have begotten him then, when he was ordained King in Sion, and all Nations subdued under him. Upon which words that passage of our Savi∣our uttered immediately after he had arisen from the dead, is a good Commentary: All power is given unto me, &c. Matth. XXVIII.

What do those words mean, Matth. XXVI. 29. I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the Vine; until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom? They seem to look this way, viz. I will drink no more of it before my Resurrection. For in truth his Resurrection was the beginning of his Kingdom, when he had overcome those enemies of his, Satan, Hell, and Death; from that time was he begotten and established King in Zion. I am mistaken if that of Psal. CX. v. 3. doth not in some measure fall in here also, which, give me leave to render by way of paraphrase into such a sense as this. Thy people shall be a willing people in the day of thy power: it shall be a willing people in the beauties of holiness, it shall be a willing people from the Womb of the morning: thine is the dew of thy youth. Now the dew of Christ is that quickning power of his, by which he can bring the dead to life again, Isai. XXVI. 19. And the dew of thy youth, O Christ, is thine. That is, it is thine own power and vertue that raiseth thee again. I would therefore apply those words from the womb of the morning to his Resurrection: because the Resurrection of Jesus, was the dawn of the new world, the morning of the new Creation.

VERS. XXXIV.

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

The sure mercies of David.

IT hath been generally observed that this phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is taken from the Greek Versi∣on in Isai. LV. 3. But it is not so generally remarked, that by David was under∣stood the Messiah, which yet the Rabbins themselves, Kimchi and Ab. Ezra have well observed, the following Verse expressly confirming it. The Resurrection of our Saviour therefore, by the interpretation of the Apostle, is said to be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The sure mercies of Christ. And God by his Prophet (from whence this clause is taken) doth promise the raising again of the Messiah, and all the benefits of that Resurrection. He had fortold and promised his death Chap. LIII. But what mercies could have been hoped for by a dead Messiah, had he been always to have continued dead? They had been weak and instable kindnesses had they terminated in death: He promises mercies therefore firm and stable that were never to have end, because they should be always flowing and issuing out of his resurrection

Whereas these things are quoted out of the Prophet in the words of the LXX, vary∣ing a little from the Prophets words; and those much more, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Be∣hold ye despisers and wonder, &c. vers. 41. it might be enquired in what language the Apostle preached, as also in what language Moses and the Prophets were read in that Synagogue, vers. 15. If we say in the Greek, it is a question whether the Pisidians could understand it. If we say in the Pisidian language, it is hardly to be believed the Bible was then rendred into that language. It is remarkable what was quoted above out of Strabo, where he mentions four tongues, amongst them the Greek and the Pisidian distinct from one another. But this I have already discusst in the Notes upon Verse 15. of this Chapter.

VERS. XLI.

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

Behold ye despisers, &c.

DR. Pocock a 1.196 here, as always, very learnedly, and accurately examines what the Greek Interpreters Hab. I. read: saving in the mean time the reading which the Hebrew Bibles exhibit: for it is one thing how the Greek read it, and another thing how it should be truly read.

VERS. XLII.

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

The Gentiles besought, &c.

IT is all one as to the force of the words as far as I see, whether you render them they besought the Gentiles, or the Gentiles besought them; the later Version hath chiefly ob∣tained: but what absurdity is it if we should admit the former? And doth not the very order of the words seem to favour it? If it had been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one might have inclined to the later without controversie: but being it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there is place for doubting. And if it were so that the Jews resented the Apostles doctrine so ill, that they went out of the Synagogue disturbed and offended, as some conjecture, and that not improbably, we may the easilier imagine that the Apostles besought the Gentiles that tarried behind, that they would patiently hear these things again.

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

On the next Sabbath.

I. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Lexicons tell us, amongst other things, denotes, hence forward, or hereafter. Now this must be noted, that this discourse was held in the fore noon, for it was that time of the day only that they assembled in the Synagogue; in the afternoon they met in Beth Midras. Let us consider therefore whether this phrase will not bear this sense: They besought that afterwards upon that Sabbath, viz. in the afternoon, they would hear again such a Sermon. And then, whether the Gentiles be∣sought the Apostles, or the Apostles the Gentiles, it dot not alter the case.

II. Let us inquire whether the Apostles and the Christian Church did not now observe and celebrate the Lord's day. It can hardly be denyed; and if so, then judge whe∣ther the Apostles might not invite the Gentiles that they would assemble again the next day, that is, upon the Christian Sabbath, and hear these things again. If we yield that the Lord's day is to be called the Sabbath, then we shall easily yield that it might be right∣ly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Sabbath after. And indeed when the speech was amongst the Jews or Judaizing Proselytes, it is no wonder, if it were called the Sabbath. As if the Apostles had said, to morrow we celebrate our Sabbath, and will you on that day 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, have these words preached to you?

III. Or let 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be the week betwixt the two Sabbaths (as that ex∣pression must be rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I fast twice in the week) then, as the sense is easie, that they besought them, the same things might be repeated on the follow∣ing week, so the respect might have more particularly been had to the second and fifth day in the week, when they usually meet together in the Synagogue.

CHAP. XIV.

VERS. VI.

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

To Derbe, and Lystra, Cities of Lycaonia.

STRABO tells us expressly that Iconium also was within Lycaonia b 1.197; Thence are the Lyconian Hills, plain, cold, naked, and pastures for wild Asses, &c. There are also the lakes, the greater called Coralis; the less, called Trogitis. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ About those places stands Iconium, a Town built in a better soil than what I mentioned as the pasture of wild Asses. Ptolomy also places Iconium in Lycaonia c 1.198. How comes it to pass then that St. Luke doth not call Iconium a City of Lycaonia, as well as

Derbe and Lystra? Because Iconium was of something a distinct jurisdiction. d 1.199 Datur et Tetrarchia ex Lycaonia, &c. There is also granted a Tetrarchy out of Lycaonia, on that side that bounds upon Galatia, consisting of fourteen Cities, the most famous of which is Iconium.

VERS. XI.

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

In the Speech of Lycaonia.

IT is hard to say what the Lycaonian Tongue was; nor is it easie to say why this was added, when it might have sufficed to have said, They lift up their voices, saying, the Gods, &c.

I. I should hardly be perswaded the Lycaonian Language was any Greek Dialect, when it sufficiently appears by what I lately quoted out of Strabo that there were peculiar Mother Tongues in these Countries, distinct from the Greek. And he himself remarketh * 1.200, That the Carians, who are situated something nearer Greece than the Lycaonians, were called by Homer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, people of a barbarous language; so the Phrygians also were Bar∣bari, barbarous e 1.201.

Let us hear once again what Strabo saith f 1.202, The Coppadocians who use the same language, are those chiefly who are bounded South-ward, with that part of Cilicia, that is called Taurus East-ward by Armenia, and Colchis; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and other interja∣cent Countries, that use a different language. What amongst these other languages, should be the Lycaonian, let him find out, that hath leisure and capacity to do it. As for my part I neither can, nor dare attempt it.

CHAP. XV.

VERS. II.

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

No small dissension and disputation, &c.

WERE I to render these words into the Talmudick Language (which was the School Language) I would render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 terms very well known in the Schools; according to which Idiom, if they were expounded, there would be no difficulty in them.

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

They determined that Paul should go up, &c.

Of this journey Paul himsel makes some mention, Gal. II. 1. where he intimates that he went up by revelation, that is, given to the Ministers of Antioch: for it would not have been said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they determinded, if the Revelation had been made to Paul himself. Amongst others that ••••companied him in his journey, Titus was one: But where he adopted him to himself▪ in those his journeys described Chap. XIII. and XIV. let him guess that can.

VERS. VII.

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

A good while ago, &c.

I Do not question but St. Peter in these words had an eye to that saying of our Savi∣our, I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, viz. that thou mayst first open the door of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Then it was that the Lord chose him, that by his mouth first the Gentiles might hear the word of the Gospel, and might believe. This he saith was done 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, In former days: that is, as he speaks elsewhere, In the time when Jesus went in and out amongst them, Acts I. 21. which time is expressed by our Evangelists by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ From the beginning, Luke I. 2.

VERS. XVI.

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

I will build again the Tabernacle of David, which is fallen down.

g 1.203 RAB. Nachman said to R. Isaac, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Whence art thou taught when Bar Naphli will come? He saith unto him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Who is this Bar Naphli? The other replied; it is the Messiah. Dost thou then call the Messias Bar Naphli? Yes, saith he, for it is written, In that day I will build again the Tabernacle of David, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nopheleth, falling down.

VERS. XVII.

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

That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, &c.

I. I Think it will hardly be denied by any but that St. James spake now in Hebrew, i. e. in the Syriac Tongue. For reason will tell us that the Council at Jerusalem would be managed best in the language of Jerusalem: and indeed the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Symeon, with which he begins his discourse, argues that he spoke Hebrew amongst Hebrews; not so much in that he saith Simeon and not Simon; as in that he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with the let∣ter v, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Simeon; the Syriac Tongue affecting the letter u, in the first sylla∣ble, as in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bu••ra, Gushma, Ductha, and many such words. So also in proper names, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ben Sutda, in Jerusalem Language, for Ben Satda, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mugdala, for Magdala.

II. Neither, I presume, will it be denied that the Apostle quoting this passage of the Prophet recites the very words as they are in the Hebrew: which was always done in their Schools, and Sermons: when they recited any place or testimony of Scripture, they did it always in the very original words. But do you think that the Hebrew words of Amos, in the mouth of James, were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That the residue of men might seek; in which sense the Greek words speak? The Hebrew Text in Amos IX. 12. is thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That they may possess the remnant of Edom. But the Greek Interpreters have it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord. where they add 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Lord, of their own, and is not the Prophets; nor in∣deed is it in the Roman Copy, but in the Alexandrian M. S. it is.

It is hardly worth our enquiry whether through carelessness or set design they have gone thus wide from the words of the Prophet; for indeed nothing is more common with those Interpreters than to depart after that manner from the Hebrew Text. One may suspect that they did it on purpose here, partly as envying so comfortable a promise made to Edom; and partly, because in the Prophesie next following it is said, There shall be no remnant of the House of Esau, Obad. vers. ult. where they distinguish that also by rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, One that carrieth fire.

III. The Hebrew words of Amos quoted by James, do suit very well with his design and purpose, when to prove that God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name, he cites this, I will build again the Tabernacle of David, that they may possess the remnant of Edom. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The remnant of ••••om, in the same sense with the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the remnant of Israel, mentioned, Rom. XI. 5. And by naming Edom one of the bitterest enemies that Israel had, from whom a remnant should be taken out and reserved, the thing propounded is the more clearly made out, viz. That God had visited the Gentiles, &c. The words also in the Greek Version which St. Luke follows, do prove the thing too: mention being made of all Nations seeking after the Lord: and therefore he doth the more safely follow that Version here which indeed he doth almost every where; and for what reasons he so doth, I have observed in another place.

IV. I know that the Talmudic and other Jewish Writers understand by the Edomites, commonly the Romans; but why they do so, does not so well appear. But their impu∣dence sufficiently appears, when they introduce the Romans owning themselves for the Children of Esau, or Edom, and making their boasts of it. h 1.204 At Rome once within seventy years, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They bring forth a sound man, [one that represents Esau] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and make him ride upon a lame man [that represents Jacob, and by that they shew how Esau now ruleth over Jacob] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And they cloth him with the Garments of Adam [those were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Garments of desire that Esau had.] And they put upon his head 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the skin of the head of Rabbi Ishmael [He was the High Priest, that had been killed by the Kingdom of the

Romans; but had so comely a face, that Cesar's Daughter caused the skin of it to be taken off and preserved in Balsom.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And they hang upon him a Pearl of the weight of a Zuzee,—and proclaim before him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The computation of the Lord (of Jacob, as one Gloss, or of Isaac, as another) is false∣hood. [That is, his Prophesie by which he promised Redemption to his Children, is a lye.] The Brother of our Lord [i. e. of Esau] is a deceiver. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Whosoever sees [this sight at present] let him see it, and whosoever doth not see it shall not see it, [that is, till the seventieth year again.] What did thy deceiver get by his deceit, and what did that falsifier get by his falshood? And so at length conclude, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Woe to this man, when he shall arise. [Woe to Esau, when Jacob shall arise.]

I thought fit to transcribe these things, only to give you a specimen, with what con∣fidence the Jewish Writers esteem the Romans for Edomites: of whom they hardly ever speak without spleen and hatred, curse and abhorrency. The words shut within the Parenthesis are not mine but those of the Gloss.

V. I do not belive that the Romans were thus taken for Edomites by the Jews, when the Greek Version was wrote: but yet I do believe that at that time the Edomites were as odious to the Jews: so that it is no wonder, if those interpreters from that hatred should envy them those things Amos had foretold should happen to them that remained of Edom, and diverted his words another way. i 1.205 This is the offering thou shalt receive from them, Gold, Silver, and Brass, Exod. The Gold is Babel: The Silver is Media: The Brass is Greece, Dan. II. But there is no mention of Iron: Why so? Because wicked Edom that wasted the Sanctuary is likened to that. To teach us, that God in time to come will accept an offering from every Kingdom, except Edom.

VERS. XX.

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

That they abstain from pollutions of Idols, and from Fornication.

I. IT may with good reason be asked, whether these four things were forbidden un∣der one and the same notion; namely this, That the converted Gentiles might not give offence to the Jews, if they should not abstain from all these things. Or, whether there might not be something else interwoven, viz. that those converted Gentiles might not relapse into something of their former Heathenism: the abstaining from pollutions of Idols, and from Fornication, seems to respect this later, as that of abstaining from things strangled, and from blood, the former.

In the mean time one might wonder at the heart and forehead of the Nicolaitans, who not only practised, but taught diametrically contrary to this decree of the Apostles, Revel. II. 14, 20. Those Balaamites, and Jezebelites: with what paint could they beautifie that horrid and accursed doctrine and practice of theirs? was it the liberty of the Gospel they pretended? or rather did they not abuse that love and charity commanded in the Gospel? Namely, making a shew of some more transcendent friendship amongst them∣selves, they would eat any thing with any Man, and lye carnally with any Woman.

I have oftentimes thought of those words of the Apostle, 1 Tim. IV. 3. forbidding to marry. Who were these that forbad to Marry, but especially upon what account did they forbid it? We know indeed upon what unreasonable reason Marriage is forbidden to some, in the Romish Communion, in these later ages of the world; but to whom, and upon what occasion it was forbidden in those lasts days of the Jewish Oeconomy (to which times the Apostle referrs, in this place) is not easily determined.

As to the clause that follows immediately in the Apostle, commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received, &c. that passage comes into my mind, k 1.206 When the Temple was destroyed the second time, the Pharisees [i. e. the Separatists] were greatly multiplied in Israel, who taught that it was not lawful to eat flesh, nor to drink wine. R. Jo∣shua applied himself to them and said, My Sons who do you not eat flesh nor drink any wine? They say unto him, shall we eat flesh, that were wont to offer it upon the Altar, and that Altar is now broken down? shall we drink wine, that were wont to pour it out upon the Altar, which Altar is now gone? If it be so, saith he, then we should not eat bread, because the Offer∣ings of bread-corn are ceased: we should not eat any fruits, because the offering of first-fruits is at an end. We should not drink water, because the drink offering is ceased, &c. And a little after, Since the Kingdom of iniquity [the Roman Empire] hath decreed sharp things against us—it is but just that we should ordain amongst our selves 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not to marry Wifes, nor beget Children, &c. and so it would come to pass that the seed of Abra∣ham would decay and fail of it self. But let Israel rather be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mistaken than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 presumptuous.

How great a difference is there between these men, and the Nicolaitans? And yet these as foolishly and superstitiously erred in one extreme, as those did impiously and filthi∣ly in the other. As to the Nicolaitans, we may wonder at their ignorance if they knew nothing of this decree of the Apostles; and their impudence in so bold a contradiction, if they did.

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

From pollutions of Idols.

In the Epistle of the Council it is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. From meats offered to Idols. The Rabbins distinguish the matter (when they discourse of what is forbidden concerning Idolatry) into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 things prohibited to eat, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 things prohibited to use. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or things offered to Idols, were prohibited to eat. And all the Utensils about any Idolatrous Sacrifice, were prohibited to use. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doubtless comprehended all things offered to Idols, and perhaps all the Utensils too: and it is no impertinent question, whether that in the Epistle commanding them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to abstain from things offered to Idols, did not restrain them from the use of all such Utensils, as well as from the eating of things offered.

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

And from Fornication.

Any one may discern how obvious this twofold enquiry is. Namely, of what Forni∣cation the discourse here is; and for what reason Fornication, whatsoever it is, should be reckoned here amongst the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or indifferent things.

I. When I recollect what we frequently meet with amongst the Rabbins, that some things are permitted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for peace sake; and some things forbidden 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by reason of the customs of the Amorites, or the Gentiles: I am apt to suspect, in these decrees of the Apostles there is some relation to both: that it was permitted to the converted Gentiles, to Judaize in some things for peace sake; but to abstain in other, not that they might not Judaize, but that they might not do as the Heathen.

II. Particularly in this prohibition of Fornication, we must consider, that it is not so proper to think there needed any peculiar command or prescript of the Apostles, to those that had embraced Christianity, against Fornication in the common notion and ac∣ceptation of the word, whenas the whole tenor of the Gospel prescribed against it. And for that very reason I cannot perswade my self that by blood forbidden in this place, we are to understand murder.

III. There was a certain Fornication amongst the Jews that seemed to them lawful, and had some colour of Legitimation: this was Polygamy, Hos. IV. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They commit whoredom and shall not encrease: So the Chaldee and Syriac, and our own Translation render it well. But now Fornication, as it denotes Whoredom, doth not wish or expect any off-spring, but the contrary rather: But the words relate to Bigamy, or Polygamy. For in case of the Wife's barrenness, it was a common thing for them to take to them another Woman, or more for propagation sake; and this it is that God brands with the reproachful name of Fornication. They commit Fornication but do not multiply. Whatever else is understood by this word; I would certainly understand this, namely, That the Apostles prescribed against Polygamy, a thing esteemed indifferent amongst the Jews (as fornication was amongst the Gentiles) and therefore not unfitly mentioned here amongst things indifferent.

Tell me in what place in the New Testament Bigamy, or Polygamy, is forbidden, if not in this? perhaps you will say in that of our Saviour, Matth. XIX. 4, 5. Where indeed provision is made against putting away of a Man's Wife, but hardly against Poly∣gamy, especially comparing the Apostles words, 1 Cor. VI. 16. Provision is made that Bishops and Deacons shall not have two Wifes, 1 Tim. III. and I should not believe but that the same provision is made against the Bigamy of the Laity. But where is that done, if not in this place?

IV. There was another Fornication, ordinarily so reckoned also in the opinion of the Jews themselves (for they did not account the having many Wives to be Fornication) and that was, besides what they call simple Fornication, their marrying within the pro∣hibited degrees, that which they commonly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nakedness. These Marriages they were so averse to, that to some of them they alotted Death, to all of them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or cutting off. Concerning which Maimonides speaks largely l 1.207. In the mean time they al∣lowed the Gentile that became a proselyte to the Jewesh Religion, to marry with his Kindred though never so near in blood, with his Sister, if he pleased, or with his Mo∣ther, &c. m 1.208 Hence perhaps arose that incestuous Marriage mentioned 1 Cor. V. They did well therefore to provide by this Apostolical decree, against such kind of Marriages as these, being so odious to the Jews.

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

And from things strangled, and from blood.

These (I suppose) were forbidden the Gentile converts for the sake of the Jews, and by way of condescension, that they might not take offence. By blood therefore •••••• by no means understand murther; by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, strangled, shall be considered by and by▪

1. For wherefore should any mention of murder come into this present controves•••• •• Were the Gentile converts to be brought over to Moses? when the Moral precepts of Moses scarcely came in their minds, as being the precepts even of Nature it self. But the question is about ceremonials, and what hath murder to do in that? and as I have al∣ready said, what need could there be of such peculiar caution against Murder to those who had embraced the Gospel of love and peace?

II. By the prohibition of blood therefore, I make no question but that caution is given against eating of blood: which is more than once prohibited in the Law, Gen. IX. 4. Deut. XII. 16, &c. and there could hardly any thing (except an Idol) be named, that the Jew had a greater abhorrence for, than the eating of blood.

III. The Jews distinguish between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the member of a living beast, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the blood of a living Beast n 1.209. The former is forbidden by that, Flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat. The later also is forbidden, Thou shalt not eat blood let out by the cutting of a vein, or any other way, from any beast, saith R. Cha∣ninah in the place above quoted. See also Pesikta, and R. Solomon o 1.210, and instead o•• more, that passage: p 1.211 Wherefore is blood forbidden five times in Scripture? [Gen. IX. 4. Levit. III. 17. & VII. 26. & XVII. 10. Deut. XII. 16.] That the blood of Animals that are holy might be included, and the blood of Animals not Holy, and the blood that was to be covered in the dust, and the blood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the member of a living Beast, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the blood that is let out, by the cutting of a vein, or otherwise. God himself ad∣judgeth him that eats blood to be cut off, Levit. VII. 27, &c. But as to this matter there are wondrous nice and subtile questions and distinctions laid down in Maimonides; I will only transcribe this one: q 1.212 As to the blood that is let out, and the blood of the members, viz. of the Spleen, the Kidneys, the Testicles, and the blood gathered about the heart in the time of slaying, and the blood found about the Liver, they are not guilty of cutting off; but who∣ever eateth of any of that blood let him be scourged: because it is said, Thou shall eat no blood. But concerning being guilty to cutting off, it is said, because the life of the flesh is in the blood. A man therefore is not guilty of cutting off, unless he eats of that blood with which the life goes out.

IV. I know what the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, strangled flesh, in Atheneus * 1.213 mean: but that hath no place here, nor is there any reason why such Meats as he there sets on the Table, should be forbidden even to the Jew. Nor would I by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, strangled, understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the member of a living Beast, partly because I suppose that included in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, blood; and partly because it is thus determined by the Rabbins concern∣ing it. r 1.214 They learn by tradition that that which is said in the Law, Thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh, forbids the eating of a member torn from a living Animal: and concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the member cut off from a living Beast, God saith to Noah, But flesh with the life which is the blood thereof, shalt thou not eat. So that, to eat a member so cut off, is to eat blood: and under that clause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and from blood, is contained the pro∣hibition of eating both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the blood of a living Beast, and also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the member of a living Beast. And under that clause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and of things strangled, is the prohibition of eating flesh of a Beast not well killed, so as the blood issueth not one as it ought to do. Concerning which there is a large discourse in the Tract Cholin, obscure and tedious enough; however, I cannot but note one passage out of it. s 1.215 If any one desire to eat of a Beast before the life of it be gone, let him cut off a piece of flesh from the killing place, to the quantity of an Olive, and salt it very well, and wash it very well, and stay till the life of the Beast be gone out of him, and then he may eat it: this is equally lawful both to the stranger and to the Israelite. When we speak of not eating of flesh which the blood is not duly got out of, it is not necessary we should include within this rank 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that which dyes of it self, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that which is torn of wild Beasts.

CHAP. XXIII.

VERS. II.

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

Ananias the High Priest.

IT is a question among some Expositors whether this Ananias be the same Ananias that Josephus mentions, that was High Priest. And I ask again, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place, be to be necessarily rendred High Priest.

I. That Ananias the High Priest whom Josephus mentions t 1.216, was sent bound to Rome, by Quadratus the Governour of Syria, to render an account of his actions to Claudius Cesar, and that, before Felix entred upon the procuratorship of Judea; but whether he ever returned to Jerusalem again, is uncertain: still more uncertain whether ever re∣stored to his place of High Priest: and most uncertain of all, whether he filled the Chair at that time when Paul pleaded his cause, which was some years after Felix had been set∣tled in the Government, Acts XXIV. 10.

II. About this time there was one Ananias, a man very much celebrated indeed, but not the High Priest, only the Sagan of the Priests, concerning whom the Talmudic Writers re∣cord these passages: u 1.217 There were thirteen Corban Chests, thirteen Tables, thirteen Adorati∣ons in the Temple: But to them that were of the House of Rabban Gamaliel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and to those that were of the House of R. Ananias, Sagan of the Priests, there were fourteen, &c. w 1.218 R. Ananias Sagan of the Priests saith, &c. Ananias Sagan of the Priests was slain in the time of the destruction (of Jerusalem) with Rabban Simeon the Son of Gamaliel. x 1.219 R. Ananias the Sagan, is said to be slain on the five and twentieth day of the month Sivan, together with Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel, and R. Ismael. y 1.220

If we cannot reconcile the Ananias in Josephus, with this in St. Luke; let Ananias the Sagan be the Ananias mentioned in this place, who may very well be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or High Priest, as may be evident from those titles given to Annas and Caiaphas; Luk. III. 2. Nor doth any thing hinder but that we may easily suppose that Ananias the Sagan was in the possession of his Saganship at this very time.

VERS. V.

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

I wist not Brethren, that he was the High Priest.

I. SUppose he might not know that man to have been the High Priest, or the Sagan (which is hardly probable) yet he could not be ignorant, from the rank he held, and the seat he possessed, that he must be at least one of the Fathers of the Sanhedrin, and Rulers of the people, and so in reviling him, he transgressed that precept, Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people, as well as if he had reviled the High Priest.

II. It is very little to the credit of the Apostle to think, that when he said, God shall smite thee thou whited wall, &c. That he uttered it rashly and unadvisedly, or carried away in an heat of passion and indignation, or that he did not know whom he thus threatned, or what degree and office he held. But he spoke it soberly, and as became an Apostle, by the Authority and guidance of the Holy Ghost. Nor did he, nor had he any need, to retract those words, or make apology for his rashness, but they are of the very same tenor with the rest, that he uttered.

III. If this Ananias was that Sagan of the Priests that perished in the destruction of Je∣rusalem, as hath been already said, I would conceive his death was foretold prophetically by the Apostle, rather than that he rashly poured out words, that he afterwards retract∣ed. Let me therefore paraphrase upon the words before us,

I know it is not lawful to speak evil of the Ruler of the people, nor would I have said these things to him which I have, if I had owned such an one, but I did not own him so, for he is not worthy the name of an High Priest.

IV. The President of the Sanhedrin at this time was Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel: his Father Gamaliel, having been dead about two or three years before. Paul knew Simeon, and Simeon very well knew him, having been fellow Disciples, and both sate together at the feet of Gamaliel; nor indeed could he be ignorant of any of the Rulers of the peo∣ple, if they were of any age, because he had been so long educated and conversed in

Jerusalem. So that it is very improbable he should not know either Ananias the High Priest, if he were now present, or Ananias the Sagan, or indeed any of the Fathers of the Sanhedrin if they had any years upon their backs.

Indeed not a few years had passed since he had left Jerusalem: But seeing formerly he had spent so many years there, and had been of that Degree and Order, that he was an Officer of the Sanhedrin, and had a Patent from them; he could not have so slippery and treacherous a memory, but that upon his return, he could readily know and di∣stinguish their faces and persons. And whereas it is said in the Verse immediately follow∣ing, That Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, &c. If it should be asked whence he came to distinguish so well concerning their persons; it may be answered, That (if he had no other ways to know them) he might understand that by his former know∣ledge of them; He had known them from the time that he himself had been a Pharisee, and conversed among them. See Chap. XXII. 5.

V. Forasmuch therefore as he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I wist not, I do not see how it can argue so much an ignorance of his person (with whom he might have had some former transacti∣ons, in obtaining that accursed commission against the followers of Christ) but that it must relate to his affection rather than his understanding. So that the sense is, I knew not that there was any High Priest at all: or, I do not acknowledge this person for such an one. It was safer to inveigh against the person, than the office: But if he had said concerning the very office, I do not know that there is any High Priest at all; I question not but he had uttered his mind: being well assured, that that High Priesthood was now antiqua∣ted, by the death of our great High Priest, Jesus.

For let us lay down this Problem: Although the Apostle, as to other things, had owned the service of the Temple (for he was purified in it.) Yet, as to the High Priest∣hood, he did not own the peculiar ministry of that; doth it not carry truth with it? seeing God by an irrefragrable token, viz. the rending of the Veil of the Temple from the top to the bottom, had shewn the end and abolishing of that office.

But suppose the words of the Apostle relate to the person and not the office, and that they were spoken in reference to the man himself, I do not own him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, High Priest, that he is not worthy of that title: Perhaps St. Paul knew of old how wicked a person he had been; or from his present injustice, or rash severity, had reason enough to make such a reply. To know, instead of to own and acknowledge, is not unusual in Scripture stile; that is a sad and dreadful instance enough, I know you not, depart from me, ye work∣ers of iniquity. And in the Jewish Writings, when R. Judah being angry with Bar Kaphrah, only said to him, I know thee not, he went away as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one rebuked, and took 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the rebuke to himself. The story is this: z 1.221 When bar Kaphrah came to visit him, he said unto him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 O Bar Kaphrah, I never knew thee; He under∣stood what he meant: Therefore he took the rebuke unto himself for the space of thirty days.

VERS. VIII.

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

The Sadducees say there is no Resurrection.

WHAT therefore is the Religion of a Sadducee? He Prays, he Fasts, he offers Sa∣crifice, he observes the Law, and yet doth not expect a Resurrection, or life Eternal. To what end is this Religion? It is that he may obtain Temporal good things, observing only the promise of them, made in the Law, and he seeks for nothing beyond the meer letter. That the Sadducees took their denomination from one Sadoc, a Disciple of Antigonus Socheus, is commonly received, and that not without reason. In the mean time it may not be amiss to enquire whether Sadoc did himself deny the resur∣rection; and whether he rejected all the Books of the Holy Scripture excepting the five Books of Moses, which the Sadducees in some measure did.

I. The Jewish writers do relate his story with so much variety, that as some represent him, we might think he denies the resurrection and future rewards; but as others, that he did not. For so say some, a 1.222 Sadoc and Baithus, were the heads of the Hereticks, for they erred concerning the words of their Master, &c. b 1.223 Sadoc and Baithus hearing this passage from their Master, be ye not as Servants that serve their Master for hire and reward sake, &c. they said among themselves, our Master teaches us, that there is neither reward nor pu∣nishment, &c. Therefore they departed from the rule, and forsook the Law, &c.

Others say otherwise; c 1.224 Antigonus Socheus had two disciples, who delivered his doctrine to their Disciples, and their Disciples again to their Disciples; They stood forth, and taught after them, and said, what did our Fathers see that they should say, It is possible for a labou∣rer to perform all his work for the whole day, and yet not receive his wages in the Evening? Surely, if our Fathers had thought there was another world, and the resurrection of the dead, they would not have said thus, &c. d 1.225 Antigonus Socheus had two Disciples, their

names Sadoc and Baithus: He taught them saying, be ye not as hirelings that serve their Masters only that they may receive their pay, &c. They went and taught this to their Dis∣ciples, and to the Disciples of their Disciples 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but they did not expound his sense. [Mark that] There arose up after them that said, if our Fathers had known that there were a resurrection, and a recompence for the just in the world to come, they had not said this. So they arose up and separated from the Law, &c.—And from thence sprung those two evil Sects, the Sadducees and Baithusians. Let us but add that of Ramban, mentioned before, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sadoc and Baithus did not understand the sense of their Master, in those words, Be ye not as Servants, who serve their Master for the rewards sake, &c.

From all which compared together, as we find the Jewish writers varying from one another somewhat, in relating this story; so from the later passages compared, one would believe that Sadoc was not a Sadducee, nor Baithus a Baithusian; that is, that nei∣ther of them were leavened with that heresie that denied the resurrection, &c. There was an occasion taken from the words of Antigonus misunderstood and depraved, to raise such an heresy, but it was not by Sadoc, or Baithus, for they did not understand the sense of them, saith Ramban; and as it appears out of the Aruch, they propounded the naked words to their Disciples without any Gloss at all upon them, and their Disciples again to the Disciples that followed them. So that the name, sect and heresie of the Sadducees does not seem to have sprung up till the second or third generation after Sadoc himself: which, if I mistake not, is not unworthy our remark, as to the Story and Chronology. There was a time when I believed (and who believes it not?) being led to it by the Author of Juchasin, and Maimonides, that Sadoc himself was the first Author of the Sect and Heterodoxy of the Sadducees; but weighing a little more strictly this matter from the allegations I have newly made out of R. Nathan and Aruch, it seems to me more probable, that that sect did not spring up till many years after the death of Sadoc. Let us compare the times.

The Talmudists themselves own that story that Josephus tells us of Jaddua, whom Alexander the great met, and worshipped: but they alter the name, and say it was Si∣meon the just. Let those endeavour to reconcile Josephus with the Talmudists about the person and the name, who believe any thing of the story and thing it self, but let Simeon the just and Jaddua be one and the same person, as some would have it e 1.226 So then the times of Simeon the just, and Alexander the great are coincident. Let Anti∣gonus Socheus, who took the chair after him, be contemporary with Ptolomeus Lagu••. Let Sadoc and Baithus, both his Disciples be of the same age with Ptolomeus Philadelphus. And so the times of at least one generation (if not a second) of the Disciples of Sadoc may have run out, before the name of Sadducees took place.

If there be any truth or probability in these things, we shall do well to consider them, when we come to enquire upon what reasons the Sadducees received not the rest of the Books of the sacred Volume with the same authority they did those of the five Books of Moses. I ask therefore first, whether this was done before the Greek Ver∣sion was writ? You will hardly say Antigonus, or indeed Sadoc his Disciple was toucht with this error. He would have been a monster of a president of the Sanhedrin, that should not acknowledg that distinction of the Law, the Prophets and Holy writings. And it would be strange if Sadoc should from his Master renounce all the other books, excepting the Pentateuch.

The Sadducees might learn indeed from the Scribes and Pharisees themselves to give a greater share of honour to the Pentateuch, than the other Books, for even they did so: but that they should reject them, so at least as not to read them in their Syna∣gogues, there was some other thing that must have moved them to it.

When I take notice of this passage, f 1.227 that five of the Elders translated the Law into Greek for Ptolomy; and that in Josephus g 1.228 that the Law only was translated, and both these before so much as the name or sect of the Sadducees were known in the world, I begin to suspect the Sadducees, especially the Samaritans, might have drawn something from this example. At least if that be true that is related by Aristeas, that he was under an Anathema, that should add any thing to, or alter any thing in that Version. When the Sadducees therefore would be separating into a Sect, having imbibed that heresie, that there is no resurrection, and wrested the words of Antigonus into such a sense, it is less wonder if they would admit of none but the Books of Moses only, because there was nothing plainly occured in them, that contradicted their error; and fur∣ther because those antients of great name, having rendred those five Books only into Greek, seem to have consigned no other, for Books of a divine stamp, I do not at all think that all the Sadducees did follow that Version; but I suspect, that the Samaritans took something from thence into their own text. It is said by some in defence of the Greek Version, that in many things it agrees with the Hebrew Text of the

Samaritans, as if that Text were purer than our Hebrew, and that the Greek Interpreters followed that Text. They do indeed agree often; but if I should say that the Samaritan Text in those places, or in some of them hath followed the Greek Version, and not the Greek Version the Samaritan Text, I presume, I should not be easily con∣suted.

Shall I give you one or two agreements in the very beginning of the Pentateuch? In Gen. II. 2. the Hebrew Text is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For God ended his work on the Seventh day. But the Greek hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God finished his work on the sixth day. The Samaritan Text agrees with this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He finisht his work on the sixth day, &c. You will say the Greek Version translated ac∣cording to the Samaritan Text. I say the Samaritan Text was framed according to this Greek Version. Who shall determine this matter between us? That which goes current amongst the Jews makes for me, viz. that this alteration was made by the Se∣venty two. h 1.229 But be it all one, which followeth the other in this agreement we next produce, in the same Chapter, Gen. II. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Lord God had formed out of the ground. The Greek words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Lord God formed as yet out of the ground. The Samaritan Text agrees 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 We will not enquire here which follows which, but we rather complain of the boldness of both, the one to add the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as yet; which seems to perswade us, that God, after he had created Adam and Eve, did over and above create something anew; which as yet to me, is a thing unheard of: and to whom is it not?

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

That there is no resurrection.

In my notes upon Matth. III. 9. I take notice out of the Gloss upon Bab. Bera∣coth, (if he be of any credit) that there were Hereticks even in the days of Ezra, who said that there is no world but this; which indeed falls in with Sadducism, though the name of Sadducee was not known then, nor a long time after. But as to their Heresie, when they first sprung up, they seem principally and in the first place to have denyed the immortality of the Soul, and so by consequence the resurrection of the body.

I know that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Jewish Writers is taken infinite times for the Re∣surrection from the dead, but it is very often taken also for the life of the dead. So as, the one denotes the resurrection of the body, the other, the immortality of the Soul.

In the beginning of the Talmudick Chapter Helec, where there is a discourse on pur∣pose concerning the life of the world to come, they collect several arguments to prove 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the life of the dead, out of the Law, for so let me render it here, rather than the resurrection of the dead. And the reason of it we may judge from that one agrument which they bring, instead of many others; viz. i 1.230 Some do say that it is pro∣ved out of this Scripture. He saith unto them, But ye did cleave unto the Lord your God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are alive every one of you this day, Deut. IV. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is plain that you are now alive, when Moses speaks these things; but he means this, that in the day wherein all the world is dead ye shall live. That is, ye also though dead, shall live; which rather speaks out the immortality of the Soul after death, than the re∣surrection of the body. So our Saviours answer to the Sadducees, Matth. XXII. 31, 32. from those words, I am the God of Abraham, &c. is fitted directly to confute their opi∣nion against the immortality of the Soul; but it little, either plainly or directly so proves the resurrection of the body, but that the Sadducees might cavil at that way of proof.

And in that saying of the Sadducees themselves, concerning the labourer working all the day, and not receiving his wages at night, there is a plain intimation that they especi∣ally considered of the state of the Soul after death, and the non-resurrection of the body by consequence. Let the words therefore be taken in this sense, The Sadducees say, Souls are not immortal, and that there are neither Angels nor Spirits, and then the two∣fold branch which our sacred Historian speaks of, will the more clearly appear, when he saith, but the Pharisees confess both.

It is doubtful from the words of Josephus, whether the Essenes acknowledge the re∣surrection of the body, when in the mean time they did most heartily own the immorta∣lity of the Soul. k 1.231 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ This opinion prevails amongst them, that the body indeed is corruptible, and the matter of it doth not endure, but Souls endure for ever immortal. So that the question chiefly is concerned about the Souls Imortality.

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

Neither Angel, nor Spirit.

They deny that the soul is immortal, and they deny any spirits (in the mean time per∣haps not denying God to be a Spirit, and that there is a Spirit of God mentioned, Gen. I. 2.) And it is a question whether they took not the occasion of their opinion from that deep silence they observe in Moses concerning the Creation of Angels or Spirits, or from something else.

There is frequent mention in him of the apparitions of Angels, and what can the Sad∣ducee say to this? Think you the Samaritans were Sadducees? If so, it is very observable that the Samaritan Interpreter doth once and again render the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Angels. So Gen. III. 5. Ye shall be as Elohim. Samar. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ye shall be as Angels. Chap. V. 1. In the similitude of God. Samar. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the similitude of Angels. So also Chap. IX. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the similitude of Angels. And whereever there is men∣tion of Angels in the Hebrew Text, the Samaritan Text retains the word Angels too.

Did not the Sadducees believe there were Angels once, but their very being was for ever vanisht? that they vanisht with Moses and were no more. Did they believe that the soul of Moses was mortal, and perisht with his body? and that the Angels died with him? otherwise I know not by what art or wit they could evade what they meet with in the Books of Moses concerning Angels, that especially in Gen. XXXII. 1.

You will say perhaps that by Angels might be meant good motions and affections of the mind. The Pharisees themselves do sometimes call evil affections by the name of Devils. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an evil affection is Satan. But they do not call good affections Angels; nor can ye your selves apply that passage so. The Angels of God met him, and he called the name of that place Mahanaim, i. e. two Camps, or two hosts. One of those Camps consisted of the multitude of his own family, and will you have the other to consist of good affections?

If the Sadducees should grant that Angels were ever created (Moses not mentioning their Creation in his History) I should think they acknowledged the being of Angels in the same sense that we do in the whole story of the Pentateuch; but that they conceived that after the History of the Pentateuch was compleated, those Angels were annihilated, and that after Moses there was neither Angel nor spirit, nor Prophesie.

I have in another place taken notice that the Jews commonly distinguisht between An∣gels and spirits, and Devils. Where by spirits they understood either the Ghosts of dead persons, or Spirits in humane shape, but not so dreadful and terrible as the Angels; and what need is there any more (will the Sadducee say) either of Angel or Spirit, when God before Moses died had made known his whole will by his writings, had given his eternal Law, compleatly constituted his Church?

It is an innocent and blameless ignorance not to understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the depths of Satan, and the secrets of Hereticks; and if in learning their Doctrines we mistake, and perhaps not a little, the shame is not much. It is venial to err concerning them, to err with them, is mortal. Let the Reader therefore pardon my ignorance, if I confess I am wholly ignorant where lay the difference between the Sadducee and Baithusian, whether they agreed in one, or whether they disagreed in some things. The Holy Scriptures make no mention of the Baithusians; the Jewish writings talk much of them, and in some things they seem to be distinguished from the Sadducees, but in what it is somewhat ob∣scure.

We have the Sadducees disputing with the Pharisees l 1.232, and we have the Baithuseans dis∣puting with a Pharisee m 1.233, and a Baithusean interrogating something of R. Joshua n 1.234, and frequent mention of them up and down in the Jewish writings. But particularly I cannot let pass one thing I have met with o 1.235, Of old they received a testimony of the New Moon from any person whatsoever, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but after that the Hereticks began to deal deceitfully, &c. So the Jerusalem Misna reads it. But the Babylonian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after that the Baithuseans began to deal deceitfully, or lightly. And the Misna publisht by its self at Am∣sterdam hath it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when the Epicureans dealt lightly, &c. Where both the Gemara's tell us, The Baithuseans endeavoured to lead the wise men into an error, and hired for the sum of four hundred Zuzees, one of our own, and one of theirs, to give in a false testi∣mony as to the New Moons, &c. The Glosses give this reason of it, The thirtieth day of the Month Adar fell upon a Sabbath, and the New Moon did not appear in its time. And the Bai∣thuseans were desirous that the first day of the Passover should fall upon the Sabbath, that the sheaf-offering might fall upon the first day of the week, and so the day of Pentecost upon the first day of the week also.

Who now should these Baithusians be? Sadducees or Samaritans, or Christians, or some fourth Sect? The Christians indeed would have the day of Pentecost on the first day of the week, but whether they mean them in this particular let others judg. In other things* 1.236 otherwise. p Wherefore do they adjure the High Priest? [viz. that he rightly perform the

service of the day of Expiation] Because of the Baithuseans, who say, let him burn incense without, and bring it within; there is a story of a certain person that burnt incense without, and brought it within—concerning whom one said, I should wonder if he should live very long; they say that he died in a very little time after. You would believe this was an High Priest, and a Baithusean.

VERS. IX.

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

The Scribes that were of the Pharisees part.

FOR there were also Scribes of the Sadducees part, and on both parts the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Scribes, must not be distinguisht either from the Pharisees, or from the Saddu∣cees that were now present in the Sanhedrin; but the meaning is, the Scribes that were of the Sect or profession of the Sadducees, or of the Pharisees; and by this twofold divi∣sion the whole Sanhedrin is to be understood. But if we would take the thing more strict∣ly, there were in the Sanhedrin some Scribes who took the part of the Pharisees against the Sadducees, who yet were not of the Sect of the Pharisees; I should believe the Sham∣means and Hillelites were all against the Sadducees, and yet I should hardly believe all of them of the Sect of the Pharisees. We find them frequently disputing and quarrelling one against the other in the Talmudick writings, and yet do not think that either the one or the other favoured the Sadducee, nor that all of them bore good will to Pharisaism. There is a bloody fight between them mentioned q 1.237, The Shammeans (who at that time were the greatest number) stood below and killed some of the Hillelites. This was done in the house of Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Garon, whom they came to visit, being sick. A friendly visit this indeed!

VERS. XI.

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

So must thou bear witness also at Rome.

HENCE the warrant and intimation given to St. Paul of appealing to Cesar; it was a rare thing for a Jew to appeal to any Heathenish Tribunal, and it favoured of venomous malice the Sanhedrin had against Jesus, that they delivered him over to an Heathen Judg. St. Paul therefore when he found no place or manner of escaping other∣wise, was directed by this Vision what to do.

VERS. XII.

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

Neither to eat nor drink, &c.

VVHAT will become of these Anathematized persons if their curse should be upon them and they cannot reach to murder Paul? (as indeed it happened they could not) must not these wretches helplesly die with hunger? Alas! they need not be very solicitous about that matter, they have their Casuist-Rabbins that can easily re∣lease them of that Vow r 1.238 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that hath made a Vow not to eat any thing, wo to him if he eat, and wo to him if he do not eat. If he eat he sin∣eth against his vow; if he do not eat he sinneth against his life. What must such a man do in this sense? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let him go to the wise men and they will loose his Vow, according as it is written, the tongue of the wise is health, Prov. XII. 18. It is no won∣der if they were prodigal and monstrous in their Vows when they could be so easily ab∣solved.

CHAP. XXVIII.

VERS. I.

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

Melita.

PLINY tells us s 1.239 that in the Sicilian Sea, Insulae sunt in Africam versae, Gauros, Milita, &c. there are Islands toward Africa, Gauros, Melita, from Camerina LXXXIV miles, from Lilybaeum CXIII. Ptolomy reckons it amongst the Maritime Islands of Africa. For thus he distinguisheth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Islands adjacent to Africk, near the land. And, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the maritime Islands of Africk. Amongst these later we find the Island Melite in which was the City.

Melita	38.	45.	34.	40.
Chersonesus	38.	40.	34.	45.
Iuno's Temple	39.		34.	40.
Hercules Temple	38.	45.	36.	06.

t 1.240 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Before Pachynus lyeth Melita and Gaudus (Pliny calleth it Gauros) eighty three miles from both, (i. e. Sicily and Pachynus) both being distant eighty eight miles; where the Latin Interpr. saith furlongs, making a very vast defect in the measure. Whereas therefore according to the same Strabo u 1.241 the distance between Carthage and Lilybeum of Sicily was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, One thousand five hundred furlongs, or near two hundred miles; and Melita from Lilybeum one hundred and thir∣teen miles, it is evident that Island was situated almost in the middle between the Sicilian and the African shore, anciently under the jurisdiction of Carthage. And from them per∣haps took the name of Melita, which in their language signifies evasion or escape, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to escape, from the Mariners that sail out of Africa, escaping the danger of the Syr••es. It was certainly an escape to Paul and the rest that were shipwrackt with him in this place.

VERS. II.

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

And the barbarous people, &c.

Col. III. 11.

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

Greek, Barbarian, Scythian.

I. THE Gentiles were called by the Jews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Greeks; partly because the Grecians excelled all other Nations in language and learning; partly because the Jews had so long lain under the Empire of the Greeks, the Ptolomees on one side, and the Seleucidae on the other. From whence, 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the wisdom of the Greeks is common∣ly taken by the Rabbins for all kind of Gentile learning, wherein the Grecians peculiarly excelled. Hence that passage w 1.242 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The beauty of Japhet shall be in the Tabernacles of Sem. The Gloss is, This is the Greek tongue which is more elegant than any language of the children of Japhet. And Aruch in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Greek way of writing is most elegant. And hence is it, 2. that the Jews even while they were under the Roman yoke counted their years by the Epocha or Aera of the Greeks, that is, the Seleucidae, whence that cavil of the Sadducee x 1.243, A certain Sadducee said, I rebuke you, O ye Pharisees, because you write the Emperour with Moses. The Gloss is, In writings of contracts they write the years of the Kings, and this also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and this also is according to the Law of Moses and Israel, viz. that they might reckon according to the years of the Seleu∣cidae. See Josephus and the Book of Maccabees.

II. After the same manner that the Jews called all Gentiles Greeks, so the Greeks called all other Nations but their own, Barbarians t 1.244. Strabo largely discusseth the reason of that name, and him the Reader may consult. Perhaps the Etymology of the word may have some relation with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bar a Chaldee word, which signifies without. Whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a stranger, or one of another Country, in the Samaritan Version is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bari, a Foreigner; so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the word being doubled denotes a great Foreigner. But to let Etymologies pass, I take notice that the Syriack in that place of the Colossians before quoted, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Greek, hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arami; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Barbarian, hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Joni, or Greek, (which is chiesty to be taken notice of) and for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Scythian, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Barbari, whence

these inhabitants of Melita should be termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Barbarous people, is something ob∣scure, when doubtless the Island it self was under the Roman Jurisdiction, which the very name Publius, who was the chief of this Island, does make out. However the inhabitants seem to be Africans, brought over thither by the Carthaginians when they had possession of that Island. For I hardly think St. Luke would call the Romans, Barbarians, when they were so very cultivated a Nation; and all people were ambitious of the name of a Roman, St. Paul himself having obtained it. The people of Melita perhaps were transplanted out of Barbary it self, as that part of Africa at length was called.

y 1.245 The fool hath said in his heart there is no God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 These are the men of Barbary, and the men of Mauritania, that walk naked in the streets. Nor is there any thing more loathsome and execrable before God than he that goes naked in the streets.

VERS. IV.

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

Vengeance suffereth not to live.

THAT of the Jewish writers is not much unlike this z 1.246: Although the Sanhedrin is ceased, yet are not the four deaths ceased. For he that deserves stoning, either falls from his house, or a wild beast tears and devours him. He that deserves burning, either falls into the fire, or a Serpent bites him. He that deserves cutting off with the sword, is either be∣trayed into the power of an heathen Kingdom, or the robbers break in upon him. He that de∣serves strangling is either suffocated in the waters, or dies by a Squinancy.

VERS. V.

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

Shaking the beast off into the fire.

THE first miraculous sign recorded in the Holy Scriptures is about a Serpent, Exod. IV. and so is this last, for they may both be reckoned amongst meer signs.

VERS. X.

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

Who honoured us with many honours.

THAT is, bestowed many gifts upon us. a 1.247 Manoah said to the Angel of the Lord, what is thy name, that when thy words shall come to pass 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we may do thee honour, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we may give thee a gift, Nor is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 any other than, we may do thee honour with some gift. According as it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In honouring I will honour thee, Numb. XXII. 16. So 1 Tim. V. 3. Honour widows that are widows indeed.

VERS. XI.

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

Whose sign was Castor and Pollux.

GEmini in the Zodiack, commonly pictured sitting upon horses; and so they ap∣peared (if we will believe the Historian) in that fight at the lake Regillus, leading on the Roman horse, and so pressing upon the enemy, that under their conduct the vi∣ctory was obtained b 1.248. But another time the Pseudo-Castores, false Castors and Pollux ap∣peared not so fortunately: c 1.249 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. While the Lacedemonians were celebrating the Feast of Castor and Pollux within their Camp, and had given themselves to sports and drinking, after dinner Gonippus and Pandoremus, [two Messenian young men that were wont to wast the Lacedemonians] of a sudden appear amongst these Lacedemonians, clothed in white Tunicks and purple cloaks, mounted on beauti∣ful horses; the Lacedemonians beholding them, and supposing them no other than Castor and Pollux, and that they were come to their own Festivals, worship them, and make their prayers to them. But the young men as soon as they found themselves received in the midst of them, break through them, making slaughter every where with their launces, and so a great number being slain, they return safe to A••dania, casting a reproach upon the Feast of Castor and Pollux.

From the habit of these Pseudo-Castors, false Castor and Pollux it is easie conjecturing in what form they were wont to be pictured, who in the judgment of the deceived people were the true ones. Comely young men, in comely apparel, and riding on horseback; and yet they are sometimes drawn on foot; as in that obscure passage of the same Pausa∣nias d 1.250, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, where the Latin Interpreter renders it, The Temple of Castor and Pollux is very an∣cient,

where young men are beheld sitting on horseback. But the words of the Author are plainly to this purpose, that Castor and Pollux are drawn standing, and their boys on horse∣back. There is something parallel in another place of this Author that gives some light in this matter e 1.251, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. After this is the Temple of Castor and Pol∣lux. They are pictured themselves and their two sons Anaxis and Mnasinous, and together with them, their mothers, Hilaria and Phebe, done by the skill of Dipenus and Scyllis in Ebony∣wood; the greater part even of the horses being made of Ebony, the rest though very little of Ivory.

It was believed they were propitious Deities to Mariners, and therefore does the Cen∣turion having been so lately shipwreckt, so much the rather commit himself to a ship that carried that sign? And what doth St. Paul say to such a superstition? He knew he had the convoy and protection of a better Deity; nor is it improbable but that the Centurion had imbibed something of Christianity himself, and it would be strange if some of the Soldiers by so long society with St. Paul had not also. But it seems there was no other ship ready, at least no other that was bound for Italy.

VERS. XIII.

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

We came to Puteoli.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 f 1.252 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is a City, a very great Mart-Town, where there are havens for Ships, made by art and labour. Whence it is less wonder if now there were Christians there, either such as were Merchants themselves, or such as were instructed in Christianity by Merchants trading there.

The Jewish writers make some mention of this place with this story g 1.253, Rabban Gama∣liel and R. Eliezer ben Azariah, and R. Joshua, and R. Akiba 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, went to Rome, i. e. made a voyage to Rome, [as in this Chap. ver. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we went toward Rome] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And they heard the sound of the multitude at Rome, being distant an hundred and twenty miles. Therefore they began to weep, but R. Akiba laughed. They say unto him, O Akiba, why shouldst thou laugh while we weep? He saith unto them, and why should you weep? They make answer, have we not cause to weep, when these Gentile Idolaters worship their Idols, and yet remain prosperous and quiet, whiles in the mean time the Temple, the footstool of our God, is become a flame, and an habi∣tation for wild beasts? Have we not cause to weep? To whom he answereth, for this very cause do I laugh, for if it be so prosperous with those that provoke God to anger, how much more shall it be so to those that do his will?

This story is repeated elsewhere h 1.254, and there instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Puteolus, it is set 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and yet the Gloss upon the place quoted out of Echah rabbathi tells us, that in the third Chapter of the Treatise Maccoth it is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

St. Paul and the rest abide at Puteoli seven days at the entreaty of the Christians of that place, which redounded to the credit of the Centurion, whose leave must be obtained in that case; so that his yielding so far may somewhat argue that he favoured Christianity.

VERS. XV.

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

They came to meet us as far as Appii forum and the three Taverns.

VIA Appia, and Appii forum are much spoke of in Authors, but the mention of the Three Taverns is not so frequent. There is mention in Zosimus of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. The three Victualing houses; where Severus the Emperour was strangled by the Trea∣son* 1.255 of Maximinus Herculeus, and Maxentius his Son.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Sanhedr. fol. 43. 1.
• b 1.2

  Ibid. fol. 99. 1
• c 1.3

  De ex id. lib. 6. cap 47.
• d 1.4

  Herodot. Po∣lymn. cap. 12.
• e 1.5

  Id. Clio, cap. 126.
• f 1.6

  Sanhedr. cap. Chelek. halak. 7.
• g 1.7

  Succah, fol. 52. 1.
• h 1.8

  Fol. 92. 2.
• i 1.9

  Maimonid. Schabb. cap. 27.
• k 1.10

  Targ. Jonath. in Numb. 2.
• l 1.11

  Kimch. in Josh. 3. 16.
• m 1.12

  Sotah, fol. 34. 1.
• n 1.13

  Fol. 21. 4.
• o 1.14

  Sotah, fol. 27. 2.
• p 1.15

  Joseph. An∣tiqu. lib. 20. cap. 6.
• q 1.16

  Juchasin, fol. 23. 2.
• r 1.17

  Juchas. fol. 45. 2.
• s 1.18

  Hieros. Schab. fol. 3. 3.
• t 1.19

  Juchas. fol. 13. 2.
• u 1.20

  Sanhedr. fol. 17. 2. & Mai∣mon. Sanhedr. cap. 1.
• w 1.21

  Cholin. fol. 56. 8.
• x 1.22

  Baal turim, in Numb. XXIV. 25.
• y 1.23

  Midra•• Coht∣leth, fol. 100. 4.
• z 1.24

  Maimon. in Covel umazzi. cap. 8.
• a 1.25

  Bava kama, fol. 83. 1.
• b 1.26

  Fol. 49. 2.
• c 1.27

  Fol. 61. 3.
• d 1.28

  Fol. 19. 1.
• e 1.29

  Cap. 1. hal. 4.
• f 1.30

  Beresh. rabba. fol. 114. 3.
• g 1.31

  Beracoth, fol. 17. 2.
• h 1.32

  Menacoth, fol. fol. 65. 1.
• i 1.33

  Erachin. fol. 10. 1.
• k 1.34

  Fol. 4. 2.
• l 1.35

  Sip••ra. fol. 51. 1. Pesikta, fol. 21. 1. Me∣nach. fol. 66. 1
• * 1.36

  Menac. fol. 65. 1.
• m 1.37

  Hieros. Taa∣nith, fol. 65. 3.
• n 1.38

  Gittin. cap. 7.
• o 1.39

  Maimo. Sch ib. cap. 30.
• p 1.40

  Cap. 10. 16.
• q 1.41

  Fol. 83. 2.
• r 1.42

  Vide Matth. XXIV. 3. & 1 Cor. X. 11.
• s 1.43

  Fol. 38. 1.
• t 1.44

  Rambam in Artic. fid. Iud. Sanhedr. fol. 121. 1.
• u 1.45

  M••dr. Till. fol. 13. 4.
• w 1.46

  Hieros. Cha∣••ig. fol. 78. 1.
• x 1.47

  Sanhedr. fol. 108. 2.
• y 1.48

  Nederim, fol. 32. 2.
• z 1.49

  Beracoth, fol. 46. 1.
• a 1.50

  Sc••a••••▪ fol. 117. 2.
• b 1.51

  Joma, fol. 12. 1. Migil••. fol. 26. 1.
• c 1.52

  Shekalim, cap. 5.
• d 1.53

  Antiq••▪ lib. 14. cap. 8.
• e 1.54

  Beracoth, fol. 26. 1, 2.
• f 1.55

  Fol. 2. 1. ▪
• g 1.56

  Middoth, cap. 1. hal. 3.
• h 1.57

  Joseph. de Ex∣cid. lib. 5. c. 14.
• i 1.58

  Hieroso. Che∣tub. fol. 35. 1.
• k 1.59

  Beracoth, fol. 62. 2.
• l 1.60

  1 Kings VIII. 64.
• m 1.61

  Midr. Schir. fol. 16. 4.
• n 1.62

  Hieros. C••a∣gigah, f. 77. 1.
• o 1.63

  Ro••h basha∣na••, fol. 31. 1.
• p 1.64

  Avoda•• Za∣ra••, fol. 8. 2.
• q 1.65

  De Excid. lib. 6. cap. 31.
• r 1.66

  I••••••asin. fol. 6••. 7.
• * 1.67

  •• Joma, fol. 39. ••▪
• t 1.68

  Midr. Tillin.
• u 1.69

  P••sachin, fol. 119. 1.
• w 1.70

  Cap. 1. hal. 3.
• x 1.71

  Sanhedr. fol. 90. 1.
• y 1.72

  Antiq••▪ ••••••. 18. cap. 4.
• a 1.73

  Avoda•• Za∣ra••, fol. 3 2.
• b 1.74

  ••••••r. Till. fol. 4. 2.
• c 1.75

  Maimon. She∣mittah V••job••l. cap. 11.
• d 1.76

  Sanhedr. fol. 93. 2.
• e 1.77

  Maimon. She∣mittah Vejobel, cap. 13.
• f 1.78

  Antiqu. l. 20. cap. 2.
• g 1.79

  Fol. 53. ••▪
• h 1.80

  Hieros. Jon. Tobb. fol. 61. 3. & Mo••d Katon, fol. 81. 4. & Beb. Beracoth. fol. 19. 1.
• i 1.81

  Antiqu. lib. 18. cap. 1.
• k 1.82

  Vid. Nobil. in loc.
• l 1.83

  Beresh. Rabba, fol. 47. 1.
• m 1.84

  A••••••h. in. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• n 1.85

  Gloss in Me∣gil. fol. 8. 2.
• o 1.86

  Hieros. Sotah, fol. 21. 3.
• p 1.87

  Bava Kama, fol. 83. 1. & Sotah, fol. 49 2.
• q 1.88

  Fol. 49. 2.
• r 1.89

  Hieros. Sotah, fol. 21. 3. & Be••esh. Rabba, fol. 83. 4.
• s 1.90

  Bava Kama, fol. 82. 2.
• t 1.91

  Sotah, fol. 40. 1.
• u 1.92

  Fol. 21. 2.
• w 1.93

  See Hor. in Matth. IV. 23. and elsewhere.
• x 1.94

  ••renae. lib. 1. cap. 27. Epi∣phan. lib. 1. ••••res. 5. &c.
• * 1.95

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• a 1.96

  Hieros. P••ah. fol. 21. 1.
• * 1.97

  Maimon. Ava∣dim. cap. 2.
• c 1.98

  Fol. 3. 1.
• * 1.99

  R. Solomon upon the place
• d 1.100

  Kiddushin. fol. 14. 2.
• e 1.101

  Exod. XXI. 6
• e 1.102

  Hieros. Megil. fol. 73. 4. Juchos. f. 26. 4.
• f 1.103

  Geogr. lib. 14.
• g 1.104

  Beresh. Rabba▪ fol. 32. 3.
• h 1.105

  Ib. fol. 48. 1.
• i 1.106

  Ib. fol. 66. 1.
• k 1.107

  Antiqu. lib. 1. cap. 8.
• l 1.108

  Lib. 2.
• * 1.109

  Fol. 42. 2.
• m 1.110

  Sanh••dr. fol. 69. 2.
• n 1.111

  A•…•…▪ lib. 1. cap. ••.
• o 1.112

  Antiqu. lib. 2. cap. 4.
• p 1.113

  Ibid. cap. 5.
• * 1.114

  Lib. 9. ca. 28.
• * 1.115

  † Vid. Gen. 46. 27. & Exod. 1. 9
• q 1.116

  Targ. in Cant. 2. 7.
• r 1.117

  Sanbedr. fol. 92. 2.
• s 1.118

  Gloss in Ze∣vachin, fol. 2. 1.
• t 1.119

  Hierosol. So∣tah, fol. 17. 3.
• u 1.120

  Gloss in Bava kama, fol. 92. 1.
• w 1.121

  See also Beresh. rabba, fol. 115. 3. Gloss in Mac∣coth. 11. 2. R. Sol. in Exod. 13. 19.
• x 1.122

  Antiq. lib. 2. cap. 4.
• y 1.123

  Sotah, fol. 13. 2.
• a 1.124

  Sotah, fol. 13. 1.
• b 1.125

  Fol. 89. 1••
• c 1.126

  Sotah, fol. 32. 1.
• d 1.127

  Ibid. fol. 33. 2.
• e 1.128

  Beresh. rabba, fol. 115. 3.
• f 1.129

  Vid. Et She∣moth rabba, fol. 118. 3.
• g 1.130

  Sotah, fol. 12. 1.
• h 1.131

  Antiq. lib. 2. cap. ••.
• i 1.132

  Shemoth, rabb. fol. 118. 3.
• k 1.133

  Fol. 6. ••.
• l 1.134

  Sanhedr. fol. 102. 1.
• q 1.135

  Apud Euseb. Prepar. Evang. lib 4. cap. 16.
• m 1.136

  Beresh. rab. fol. 35. 4.
• n 1.137

  Hieros. San••e•• fol. 29. 3.
• o 1.138

  Vid. & ••emid. rabba, fol. 268. 1.
• p 1.139

  Fol. 156. 2.
• q 1.140

  Vid. Avod. Zarah, fol. 5. 1. & Hor. Heb. in Joh. X. 3••.
• r 1.141

  Fol. 98. 1.
• s 1.142

  Hieros. San∣hedr. fol. 23. 1, & Bab. Sanhed. fol. 42. 2.
• t 1.143

  Sanbedr. fol. 43. 1.
• u 1.144

  Ibid. fol. 53. 1.
• * 1.145

  Sanhedr. fol. 46. 1.
• x 1.146

  Ibid. fol. 45. 2
• a 1.147

  Benjam. in Itinerar.
• b 1.148

  Joseph. de Excid. l. 1. c. 16
• c 1.149

  H••res. 21.
• d 1.150

  Irenae. lib. 1. cap. 20.
• e 1.151

  Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 14.
• f 1.152

  Lib. 16.
• g 1.153

  Ptol. tab. 4•• Africa.
• h 1.154

  Midr. Schi••▪ fol. 17. 3.
• * 1.155

  Diod. Sicul. lib. 19.
• i 1.156

  Megill. fol. 70 2.
• k 1.157

  Vid. Acts XXII 5.
• l 1.158

  Hieros. Suc∣cah. ••c. 55. 1.
• m 1.159

  Vid. Hor. Heb. ••d. Matth. II. 14
• n 1.160

  Hieros. Schab. fol. 11. 1.
• o 1.161

  Bemidb. rab. fol. 163▪ ••.
• p 1.162

  Sanhedr. fol. 49. 2.
• q 1.163

  Ibid. fol. 52. 2.
• r 1.164

  Ibid. fol. 111. 2.
• s 1.165

  Hieros. San∣hedr. fol. 29. 4.
• t 1.166

  Ibid. fol. 28. 3
• u 1.167

  De••aearim rabba fol. 290 4.
• * 1.168

  Midr. Cohe∣leth, fol. 87. 4.
• x 1.169

  S••nhedr. fol. ••0••. 1.
• y 1.170

  ••••ero•• Kilaim. 〈…〉〈…〉 32. ••.
• * 1.171

  x Schabb. f. 118 2.
• * 1.172

  So••a••. s. 35. 1.
• ‖ 1.173

  Hieros. Joma, fol. 39. 1.
• c 1.174

  Fol. 19. 1.
• d 1.175

  Antiq. lib. 15 cap. 13.
• e 1.176

  Chagigah, fol. 16. 2.
• f 1.177

  Sanhedr. cap. 1. hal. 3.
• g 1.178

  Maimon. San∣hedr. cap. 4.
• h 1.179

  Lib. 14.
• i 1.180

  Nat. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 12.
• k 1.181

  Di••••. Cass. in Vit. Trajani.
• l 1.182

  Hieros. Jeva∣m••th, fol. 3. 1. & Bab. Jeva∣m••th. fol. 16. 1.
• m 1.183

  Hieros. Bera∣ceth. fol. 9. 1.
• n 1.184

  Geograph. lib. 14.
• o 1.185

  Mela, lib. 1. cap. 14.
• p 1.186

  Strabo, lib. 12
• q 1.187

  Plin. lib. 5. cap. 27.
• r 1.188

  Bemedv. rab. fol. 227. 2.
• s 1.189

  Antiqu. lib. 8. cap. 2.
• t 1.190

  Hieros. Sotah, fol. 17. 2.
• u 1.191

  Hieros. Taa∣nith, fol. 65. 3.
• * 1.192

  In loc.
• ‖ 1.193

  In loc.
• w 1.194

  Succah, fol. ••2. 1.
• x 1.195

  Midr. Tillin. ubi. supr.
• a 1.196

  Poc. Miscell. 3.
• b 1.197

  Strab. Geogr. lib. 12.
• c 1.198

  Ptol. tab. A∣siae. 1. cap. 6.
• d 1.199

  Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 27.
• * 1.200

  Lib. 8.
• e 1.201

  Pausan. lib. 1.
• f 1.202

  Strab. lib. 12.
• g 1.203

  Sanhedr. fol. 69. 2.
• h 1.204

  Avodah Za∣rah, fol. 11. 2.
• i 1.205

  Shemoth rab∣ba, fol. 152. 3.
• k 1.206

  Bava bathra, fol. 60. 2.
• l 1.207

  Maimon. Is∣••••r. beah. cap. 1. & per ••or. tract.
• m 1.208

  Idem, ibid. cap. 14.
• n 1.209

  Sanhedr. fol. ••9. 1.
• o 1.210

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 in •••••••• •••••• & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 IX.
• p 1.211

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 fol. 76. 2.
• q 1.212

  Maimon. Ma∣acaloth Asu∣roth, cap. 6.
• * 1.213

  Lib. 9.
• r 1.214

  Maim. Maa∣caloth Asuroth, cap. 5.
• s 1.215

  Cholin. fol. 33. 1.
• t 1.216

  Antiqu. lib. 20. cap. 5. & De Excid. lib. 2. cap. 21.
• u 1.217

  Shekalim, cap. 6. hal. 1.
• w 1.218

  Pesachin, c. 1. hal. 6. & Misn. Hieros.
• x 1.219

  Tsemach, Da∣vid.
• y 1.220

  Juchasin, fol. 57. 1.
• z 1.221

  Moed. Katon. sol. 16. 1.
• a 1.222

  Yuchasin, fol. 15. 2.
• b 1.223

  Ramban in Avoth. cap. 1.
• c 1.224

  Avoth R. Na∣than, cap. 5.
• d 1.225

  Aruch in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• e 1.226

  Vide Juchas. fol. 14. 1.
• f 1.227

  Massech. Soph. cap. 1.
• g 1.228

  ••••tiqu. lib. 1. cap. ••.
• h 1.229

  Megill. fol. 9. 1. & Massech. Sopher. cap. 1.
• i 1.230

  Sanhedr. fol. 90. 2.
• k 1.231

  I••s. de excid•• lib. 2. c. 12.
• l 1.232

  Jadaim. cap. 4.
• m 1.233

  Menacoth. fol. 65. 1.
• n 1.234

  Schabb. fol. 108. 1.
• o 1.235

  Rosh hashana. cap. 2. hal. 1.
• * 1.236

  q Hieros. Joma. fol. 39. 1.
• q 1.237

  Hieros. Schab. fol. 3. 3.
• r 1.238

  Hieros. Avo∣dah Zarab, fol. 40. 1.
• s 1.239

  Nat. Hist. llb. 3. cap. 8.
• t 1.240

  Strab. lib. 6.
• u 1.241

  Ibid. lib. 17.
• w 1.242

  Megillah, fol. 9. 2.
• x 1.243

  Jadaim. cap. 4. h••l. 8.
• t 1.244

  ••••••. 14.
• y 1.245

  Jevamoth, fol. 63. 2.
• z 1.246

  Sanhedr. fol. 37. 2. & Bemid. rab. fol. 259. 2.
• a 1.247

  Bemidb. rab fol. 239. 3.
• b 1.248

  Dionys. lib. 6.
• c 1.249

  Pausan. in Messenjacis, vel lib. 4.
• d 1.250

  Pausan. in Atticis, vel. lib. 1.
• e 1.251

  In Corinthi∣acis, vol. lib. 2.
• f 1.252

  Strabo, lib. 5.
• g 1.253

  Echah rabba∣tha, fol. 81. 2.
• h 1.254

  Maccoth. fol. 24. 1.
• * 1.255

  i Z••••im. lib. 2.