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.

Harmony and Eplanation.

Vers. 1, In the days of Herod the King.

THIS Herod was the Son of Antipater an Edomite or of the seed of Esau, as was said before, although Nicholas Damascen (for which Josephus correcteth him) averr that he was of the race of the chief of the Jews that came up out of Babylon. His Fa∣ther Antipater growing into acquaintance and favour with Julius Caesar, had the govern∣ment of Judea committed to him. And he again substituteth his son Phasaelus in the rule of Jerusalem, and of the Country thereabout; and his other Son Herod, who is here spoken of, in the ruling of Galilee. Herod by his prowess and policy indear'd himself to the succeeding Rulers of the Romane State, but more especiall [by observance and pro∣mises]

to Antonius, and by his means to Augustus, whilst they two kept correspondency in the swaying of the Empire: These two by the consent of the Senate make him King of Judea, a man composed, as if they were his four elements, of fawning, policy, cruelty, and unconscionableness. Of whose life and actions Josephus, Egesippus, and others have discoursed at large, and it is not seasonable to insist upon them here. This only is not impertinent to inquire after, what year it was of the reign of Herod, when this story of the Wisemens coming to Bethlehem, and the butchery upon the children there fell out, that it may be seen how long our Saviour was in Egypt, before his return upon the tyrants death, and how soon it was that the Lord overtook this and the other cruelties of the tyrant with deserved vengeance.

Josephus Antiq. lib. 14. cap. 26. hath placed the beginning of Herods reign, under the hun∣dreth eighty and fourth Olympiad, and under the Consulship of C. Domitius Calvinus II. and C. Asinius Pollio, and hath summed the length of it to four and thirty years from the death of Antigonus his competitor, and seven and thirty from the Romans first declaring of him King. Antiq. lib. 17. cap. 10. And with this reckoning of the years of his reign, agreeth Egesippus de Excid. Jerosol. lib. 1. cap. 45. and so doth Eusebius in his Chronicle for the lat∣ter sum of seven and thirty, but differeth far from the beginning of his reign, placing it under the last year of Olympiad 186. eight years at least after the time prefixed by Jose∣phus. And reason he hath indeed to differ from his beginning. For if Herod began his reign in the Consulship of the men fore-named, and reigned but thirty and seven years from thence, it will result in the conclusion, that he dyed the year before our Saviour was born, as may be easily cast by the Catalogue or number of Consuls from Cn. Domitius and Asi∣nius Pollio, which was after the building of the City, Anno 714 to Cornelius Lentulus and Valerius Messalinus, under whom our Saviour was born, which was Anno urbis 751. So that this account of years that Josephus hath given, though it be true for the number, yet can it not be so from that beginning from whence he hath dated them. What shall we say then, by beginning the thirty seven years of his reign, from the time that he was King intire, and sans corrival in the Kingdom; by the death of Antigonus, the last spark of the Asmonean fire? Why, herein also I find Dion differing from Josephus, and Eusebius from them both. For, whereas Josephus hath related that the sacking of Jerusalem by Socius, and the death of Antigonus, were under the Consulship of M. Agrippa, and Canidius, or Caninius Gallus, which was Anno urbis conditae, 717. Dion in his Roman History, lib. 49. hath placed the crucifying of Antigonus, and the making of Herod King by Antony, un∣der the Consulship of Claudius and Norbanus, which was Anno V. C. 716. or a year be∣fore. And Eisebius hath still laid Herods beginning a year or two after.

Baronius hath found out a date different from all these, namely, that Herods years of his Reign are to be begun from the time that he received his Crown from the hands of Au∣gustus, after his victory of Antony, at the battle at Actium; Caesar being then in Rhodes, of which story Josephus maketh mention, Antiq. lib. 15. cap. 10. Augustus being then a third time Consul, and Valerius Messala Corvinus his partner. By which account it will follow that our Saviour was born in the nine and twentieth year of Herods reign, and that Herod lived till he was about nine years old. Which opinion though it best suited to the salving of other passages of Josephus in Chronologie about this time, yet it seemeth to be something too corrosive an application, and a remedy very harsh, upon these respects.

First, Because by this account of his, both about the Wisemens coming and Herods death, he will have Christ to be nine years in Egypt, or thereabout, or according to our reckoning, seven years or little under: Now, in his banishment from his own Country, the means of his Parents and of his own subsistence in a forreign Land for so long a time, is so hard to imagine, that it will breed another and no less a scruple then that in hand.

Secondly, the transition of St. Luke from his presenting in the Temple, to his coming into Nazareth will seem a great deal the more harsh, if eight or nine years are to be taken in between, especially with such as Baronius himself, who will have nothing to come be∣tween at all.

Thirdly, by this opinion must our Saviour be ninteen years old and more, at the death of Augustus, and then how could he be, but beginning to be thirty in the fifteenth of Tibe∣rius, Luke 3. For suppose with the Cardinal that he was nine years old at the death of Herod, then was he ninteen at the banishment of Archelaus, who reigned ten years, as appeareth by Josephus, Antiq. lib. 17. cap. 15. After Archelaus was removed from his kingdom, the same Josephus nameth Cyrenius, and Coponius, as rulers and disposers of Ju∣dea for a season. And after Coponius, Marchus Ambibuchus was Ruler, and after him An∣nius Rufus, and then dyed Augustus. Now lay all these together, and it will follow that our Saviour could not be less then above twenty years old, at the death of Augustus, whereas it is most plain by the Gospel that he was but about fifteen. Let us therefore take these parcels backward, and as they confute the opinion under question, so do they help to set∣tle and resolve the question in hand. For grant that Coponius, Ambibuchus, and Rufus ruled

their single years apiece, after the exile of Archelaus (as it is most like they did, and more then years apiece they could not do, all things well laid together) and take before them the ten years current of Archelaus, and we have thirteen years backward of our Sa∣viours fifteen at the death of Agustuss and this doth bring us to his two years of age or thereabout; which was the time when the Wisemen came to him. So that since Arche∣laus began to reign, when Christ was not very much above two years old, for that he was something above, [it may be some months] the time that Archelaus, wanted of ten years reign compleat, will allow, and that he could not be more then such a space above, the premises well ponderated will conclude, it will readily and plainly follow, that our Saviours birth was in the five and thirtieth year of Herod; and this murder of the chil∣dren of Bethlehem, in his seven and thirtieth; but a month or two, or such a space be∣fore his death. Now whereas some stick not to say, that he was struck with the wound of death that very night that the children were slain, and dyed not many days or hours after, in that we cannot be so punctual; but that he lived not many months after, is more then probable, by the collections and computations mentioned, well weighed, and laid together.

§ Wisemen.

That is, Sorcerers, or Magicians, and so might it not unfitly be translated. For first, though Magus and Magia, admit of a gentle construction, and be often taken, not only in an harmless, but in a laudable sense in prophane Authors, yet are they never so in Scrip∣ture; and by the Idiom and propriety of that, must the word be expounded; and not by Forreign and Heathen Language and acceptation. It is true indeed, that among the Persians the Magi have been renowned for men of excellent wisdom and skill in natural, and in other things, and that none were admitted to reign among them, unless he were well versed in the learning of the Magi; and that Plato, Tully, Philo, Pliny and others, do extol Magia, or Magick, to be the very height and perfection of Philosophy: But the Scripture, who is ever the sure Expositor of it self, doth never take the word, but in the worse sense, for the Devilish and damnable practice and practicers of sorcery and unlaw∣ful arts, as Acts 8. 9. Simon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Acts 13. 8. Elymas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And the Babylonian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Wizards, are so called by the Greek of Daniel, who∣soever traslated it, whether the LXX, or Theodotion, or who else soever, Dan. 1. 20. & 2. 2. &c. Now it is against sense and reason to refuse the sense of Scripture, for a Scrip∣ture word, and to fetch the intepretation of it from Persia, Plato, Pliny, and I know not whence.

2. It doth the more set forth the lustre and glory of the birth of Christ, and the power of himself and kingdom, by supposing that these men that had been hitherto devoted to the arts, service, and converse of the Devil, should now forsake them, and him, and their own delight, and their old profession, and dedicate themselves, travailes and gifts, to a child unknown, far off, and but poorly born.

3. Nor is this opinion but newly minted, but it carrieth with it the passeport and pri∣viledge of antiquity. For Ignatius Martyr in his Epistle to the Ephesians, speaking concer∣ning the Wisemens Star, saith thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Then the wesdom of this world grew foolish, Sorcery a toy, and Magick a derision: persona∣ting the men in both their contrary professions and devotedness, Devilish and Divine, to Satan and Christ. So likewise Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, speaking of these same men, and how they were qualified and affected before they came to Christ, he saith, they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, captived or led away as a prey by the Devil to all evill actions. And so Theophylact the mouth of Chrysostome, They were, saith he, adversaries or enemies to God, and devoted to Devils in a more special manner: And to this sense doth the Gospel of Mathew in Hebrew render the word, whosoever translated it. But to spare more, those fathers confess their opinion to be the same with these; [and those neither mean ones, nor a few] which hold, some of them, that these Magi had obtained their knowledge concerning the King of the Jews, from Sybilla Ery∣thraeae, and others from Balaam, to whom they hold that they stood in relation not only of Nation and kindred, but also of the same profession and art of Wizardy and Magick.

§ From the East.

This doth something confirm the foregoing opinion of their being Magicians, if it need any more confirmation. For that the East was infamous for Sorceries, auguries and incanta∣tions is apparent by Esa. 2. 6. as it is understood by the LXX, by R. Solomon, D. Kimchi and even approved by the context it self: But what Country of the East this was, whence these men came, is as hard to determine, as it was what manner of men they were.

Divers have asserted that they were of Chaldea, minding, it seemeth, rather the strictest and worst sense; of both the words Chaldeus and Magus, which signifie both one and the same ungodly profession, then the letter of text, and of other Scriptures. For it plainly telleth that these came from the East, and all the Prophets that have spoken of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, have fetched those destroyers from the North, as Jer. 1.

Others therefore do hold them for Persians, and that chiefly because the word Magus, is thought to be originally a Persian word.

But first, as was said before, the Scripture word is to be interpreted according to the Scripture Idiom, and so it consineth them to Persia no more then to any other Country. Secondly, if it should be averred, that the Persian Magi grew renowned from a family of that name, or from some Ancestor that was called Mag or Mago, rather then from any relation that the word hath to the depth of Learning, or any notation for a great Scholar: I suppose it would be hard to prove the contrary; especially since in Babylonia, there was * 1.1 Rab. Mag, or the great Mag, and in Carthage, Mago, two Noblemen or Princes, and for ought we know, no great Scholars neither, of the very same name.

More probable therefore and plausible is their opinion [though it leave the Reader in a Bivium of irresolution] that holdeth these men either for Arabians, or Mesopotamians about Haran: but their resolution the best of all, that bring them from Arabia: and of this mind is Justin Martyr very confidently, in so much that he applieth a Prophecy thereto, namely, Esa. 8. 4. about the breaking of the strength of Damascus.

For first, Arabia is full Eastward from Judea, and the inhabitants thereof are constant∣ly called men of the East, as Gen. 25. 6. Judg. 6. 3. Job. 1. 3.

Secondly, the gifts or presents that the Wisemen offered Christ, were native commo∣dities of the Land of Arabia, as gold of Sheba, Psal. 72. 15. Frankincense from Seba, or Saba, as in the verse, Sua Thura Sabaei, and Myrrhe from thereabouts, as appeareth in sto∣ries: ann it is more probable to think that they would bring the choice commodities of their own Country, as Jacob sent to Joseph, then of another.

Thirdly, to conceive these men for Arabians, doth very well sort and harmonize with some considerable things in Scripture: As 1. the first Proselite to the Jewish Church that we find mentioned in Scripture, was Jethro an Arabian, and of the seed of Abraham: And so if we hold these first Proselytes to Christ, it suiteth very fitly. 2. it agreeth also with that Prophetick Psalm mentioned before, namely, Psal. 71. 3. With the rule and domini∣on, and homage that David and Solomon, Types of Christ, had over and from that Coun∣try. For, 4. much of Arabia was the Land of Canaan, as well as Judea: for the heedfull eye that shall but seriously look upon the Nations, that planted there at the first, will find that the whole Country was inhabited by the two sons of Ham, Cush, and Ca∣naan: and in after time that the seed of Abraham dispossessed them, and dwelt in their steads, not by any usurpation or injustice, but upon the promise made to Abraham of Canaans Land, and upon just title by his victory over the four Kings, which having but lately sub∣dued those Lands, were subdued by him, and with the conquest the right and challenge to that land fell to Abraham. And hence it was that David and Solomon dilated their domi∣nion over these Countreys even to Euphrates, and then was the promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, concerning their children possessing the Land of Canaan, fulfilled to the utmost extent. Now it is more likely to bring these first fruits of the Gentiles to do homage to the King of the Jews, from a Country which did as much to David and Solomon who were types of him, then from a Forreign Nation: and to conceive that they were of the seed of Abraham, rather then of another race.

Vers. 2. Saying, Where is he that is born of the King of the Jews? for we have seen his Star in the East, &c.

The exposition of this Verse will be made up, by the resolution and answer of these three questions. 1. What was this Star that the Wisemen saw? 2. Where it was that they saw it? And 3. how upon the sight of it they could conclude that it did relate to a King of the Jews? To omit the various guesses and surmises that are made, for the satisfaction of the first Quaere, it seemeth to me, that this Star which these Magicians saw at the birth of Christ, was nothing else but that glorious and miraculous light that shone about the Bethle∣hem Sheepherds, when the Angel came upon them with the tydings of the birth of a Savi∣viour, Luk. 2. 9. And that these wizards being that night abroad [belike at their study of Astrology] beheld it at distance, and to them it seemed, being so far off, like a new and un∣couth, and a wondrous Star: And the words in the East, do mean the place of the men, and not of the Star, and are to receive this construction, we being in the East have seen his Star: Not it in the East part of Heaven, but they being in the East part of the Earth:

And their beholding it to be in the Land of Judea, might the more readily bring them to think it betokened the birth of the King of the Jews.

And thus are the three questions resolved together, if the ground-work whereupon all is built, be but firm and solid, viz. that the light or the glory of the Lord that shone about the Shepherds, was that which the Wisemen then supposed and do now call a Star; Upon which let us look a little, and see what probability there may be that it was so.

First, then it is past doubting, that the Shepherds saw the glory of the Lord shine round about them, and the Wisemen, the new Star shine at a distance from them, at one and the same time, namely, at the time of our Saviours birth; For since both these things were to both these parties as a messenger to impart unto them the tydings of the birth of Christ, no reason can be given or supposed why they should not appear to them both, to do this message to them at the very time when he was born: Now the Sheepherds at Bethlehem, and the Magicians in Arabia, seeing on the very same night, a light that was to tell them of the very same thing, what reason have we to think that it was not one and the same light?

Secondly, to conceive that the Wisemens Star appeared to them in the East part of Heaven, maketh the matter far more difficult to resolve, how they came to know that it denoted a King of the Jews, then by supposing that that they saw it hanging over the very Center or middle of the Land of the Jews. For though we cannot but acknowledge that the spirit of God was their chief intelligencer and instructer in this matter, and so could have taught them so much wheresoever they had seen the Star appear, yet can we not but think, that it was a likelier way to read this lesson to them, by setting this light upon the very place where the King that it betokened was born, rather then in the East part of Heaven, where it might seem to denote something among the Indians, rather then among the Jews.

Thirdly, we know it by experience, that a great light or fire that happeneth in any place in the night, be it never so great in it self, or in the eyes of those that are in the place where it is, yet to those that are a great distance off, it seemeth but as a Star or such a thing. And that it might not be so with the Wisemen in this matter, there is neither Analogy of Faith, probability in reason, evidence in Scripture, or any thing I know of will deny.

And lastly, it is not to be omitted without weighing, that as soon as the Wisemen after their conference with Herod, were gone out of Jerusalem to set for Bethlehem, the Star shewed it self to them again. It appeareth now nearer to them, to conduct them to the place where the Child now was, as it had▪ appeared at greater distance at his birth, to sig∣nifie to them that he was born: Then they saw it over or in Judea, which directed them to hearken to Jerusalem: now they see it at Jerusalem almost over their heads, to direct them to Jerusalem.

Vers. 3. He was troubled and all Jerusalem with him.

Herod for fear of the loss of his Kingdom, and Jerusalem for fear of the disturbance of their State. For he having been so long the King of Judea, as seven and thirty years, and having laid the foundation of a successive royalty to his family, in so much policy and cruelty as he had done, how would this make him to startle, to hear of a King newly born unto the Nation, whose subjection his thoughts and endeavours had promised to his own children, and to have the certainty of the thing confirmed from Heaven, by a wondrous and miraculous light? And how must it needs perplex the Jews also, to hear of a new King over them, besides Herod who was set over them by their Lords the Romans? For how ill would the Romans take it that their determination and decree of Herods reign∣ing over Judea, should be so affronted, as that a new King should rise among them? and what could follow upon this, but the Roman Armies, and the Jews misery? Or if they understood this King to be Messias [as the Nation now looked for his coming] yet could it not choose but breed some perplexity in them, partly to think of the rareness of the matter, and chiefly of their being in subjection to so potent a Nation as the Romans, when their deliverer should appear.

Vers. 4. All the chief Priests.

Since there was properly but one high Priest at once among the Jews, by the chief Priests so often mentioned in the Gospel some have understood those High Priests that by the Roman Governours, or otherwise were turned out of their Office, as about these times that matter was ordinary. So Josephus recorded that Valerius Gratus first made Ismael High Priest in stead of Ananus: then deposeth him and maketh Eleazar, Ananus his Son: him again he deposeth, and maketh Simon Fitz Kamithus; and in his room again he set∣teth Joseph, surnamed Caiaphas: which Caiaphas was also removed by Vitellius, and

Jonathan Fitz Ananus placed in his stead. And these men thus turned out of Office, are called (as they suppose) both here and elsewhere the chief Priests. But their opinion is far more warrantable and agreeable to truth that by the chief Priests understand the several heads of the families, or the chief of the four and twenty courses, into which Da∣vid had divided and ordered the Priests, 1 Chron. 24. which are therefore called chief Priests, not so much for Primacy or Superiority that they had in their Ecclesiastical fun∣ction above the rest of the Clergy; as 1. because they were heads of their houses; And 2. because they were of the great Councel, and made a third part of the seventy Elders.

§. And Scribes of the people.

He calleth them Scribes of the people, to distinguish them from the Secretaries or Clerks of particular men, as Baruch was the Scribe of Jeremy, and Seraiah the Scribe or Secreta∣ry of David, 2 Sam. 8. 17. But these of whom mention is here, and so very frequently in the Gospel elsewhere, were not such private or peculiar Clerks, but they were the pub∣lick Scribes or Clerks of the people: and this their Office or function consisted in two particulars.

First, They were the men that took upon them to copy the Bible for those that desired to have a copy. For so great and various is the accuracy and exactness of the Scripture Text in the mystical and profound significances of Letters, Vowels and Accents, that it was not fit that every one should offer to transcribe the Original, or that every vulgar pen should copy things of so sublime speculation: Therefore there was a peculiar and special order of learned men among the Jews, whose Office it was to take care of the preservation of the purity of the Text, in all Bibles that should be copied out, that no corrupion or er∣ror should creep into the Original of the Sacred Writ, and these were called the Scribes of the people, or their Scriveners or Writers of the copy of the Bible. And hence is it that there is so frequent mention in the Rabbins of Tikkun Sopherim, The correction, or direction of the Scribes, or their peculiar and special disposing of the Text, which the Massoreth at the beginning of the book of Numbers observeth to have been in eighteen places, which are reckoned there. These Scribes may be conceived to have been either Priests or Levites, or both, the men of that Tribe being the chiefest Students in the Scriptures; and being bound by their calling to be able to instruct the people in the same, Deut. 33. 10. Mal. 2. 7.

They had eight and forty Universities as it were, belonging to that Tribe, for the edu∣cation of the Clergy in the knowledge of the Law and the Prophets, Josh. 21. and from among the learned of those Students, were some set apart for this Office, which required profound Learning and skill; namely, to be the Copiers of the Bible when any copy was to be taken, or at least to take care that all copies that should be transcribed, should be pure and without corruption.

Secondly, These also were the publick and common preachers of the people, being more constant Pulpit men, then any other of the Clergy; taking on them, not only to be the preservers and providers for the purity of the Text, but also the most constant and com∣mon explainers and expounders of it in Sermons. Therefore it is said of our Saviour, that he taught as one that had authority, and not as the Scribes, Mat. 7. 29. where the Scribes are rather mentioned then any other order, because they were the greatest and most ordinary Preachers. And our Saviour himself, in Mark 12. 25. How say the Scribes, that Christ is the Son of David? Instancing in the Scribes only [whereas the Pharisees, Sadduces, and even all the Nation of the Jews held the same opinion] because the Scribes were the men that were oftest in the Pulpit, and preached more then any other; and so this Doctrine was heard more from them then others.

And thus was Ezra a ready Scribe in the Law of Moses, Ezr. 7. 6. both for the copying and preserving pure the Text of the Scripture, and also for the expounding of it by his Sermons. And such a one is the Scribe that our Saviour speaketh of, that is instructed to the Kingdom of Heaven, that bringeth out of his treasure instructions out of the New Testa∣ment and old, Mat. 13. 52. The Chaldee Paraphrast on Jer. 6. 13. & 8. 10. and in other pla∣ces in stead of The Prophet, readeth the Scribe, taking as it seemeth the Prophet in the same sense that Paul doth Prophecying, 1 Thes. 5. 20. 1 Cor. 14. 5. &c. for the Preacher, and ma∣king the Text speak in the same tenor that it doth here, the Priests and the Scribes.

In the Story of our Saviours arraignment, and elswhere in the New Testament there is mention of the chief Priests, and Scribes, and Elders, Mat. 26. 3. Mark 15. 1. importing that the Great Councel consisted of these three sorts of men. The chief Priests of the seed of Aaron, the Scribes of the Tribe of Levi, and the elders of the people meer lay men: These were all deeply and extraordinarily versed and learned in the Law, but the practise of this their learning had some difference, as the civil, common and canon: 1. The Elders judged the people and matters of debate and controversie, but instructed not the people by way of preaching or ministery. The chief Priests judged and instructed, but it was

more by resolving questions and doubts that were proposed to them, as our Saviour asked them questions, Luke 2. 46. Hag. 2. 11. Mal. 2. 7. then by common preaching Homi∣lies or Sermons. The Scribes were they that were the Preachers or Lecturers, and taught the people from the pulpit, as well as determined upon doubts and debates: And to this triple division of the great and Seraphical Doctors of the Jews, St. Paul seemeth to allude, in 1 Cor. 1. 20. Where is the wise? Where is the Scribe, where is the questionist, or disputer of this world? By the first meaning the Elders of the people, and by the last, the chief Priests.

§. He demanded of them where Christ should be born.

The High Priests were rightly consulted, say the Rhemists, in question of their Law and Religion: for whom should Herod ask, but those that were most likely to give him an an∣swer? But the latter end of their note carrieth a snare with it to intrap the simple: And be they never so ill, say they, they are often forced to say the truth by priviledge of their function: They think they have an undeniable groundwork for this their Doctrine from the pro∣phecying of Caiaphas, Joh. 11. 51. as their notes plead there, ascribing that his prophe∣cying to his Priesthood, and order, whereas the Text ascribeth it to the year and season. This he spake not of himself, but being High Priest that year he prophesied: where the em∣phasis lieth not in the words being High Priest, but in the words, that year, which was the year of sending down of the gifts of the Spirit, in a measure and manner, never known before or after.

Vers. 6. And thou Bethlehem in the land of Iuda, &c.

There is no small difference in this quotation of the Scribes or of the Evangelist, or indeed of both, from the letter of the Text of the Prophet from whom they cite it; nor doth this difference rise by the Evangelists following the translation of the LXX, as oft there doth, for it differeth much from the letter of the LXX also, but it is upon some special reason. Which disagreement that we may reconcile, and the reason of which that we may see the better, we will take up the verse verbatim, and the differences as they come to hand, one by one.

First then, whereas Saint Matthew readeth, Thou Bethlehem in the land of Juda, the He∣brew hath it only, Thou Bethlehem Ephrata, without any mention of the land of Juda at all, and so the Chaldee, and so the LXX, but only with the addition of one word, Thou Bethlehem the house of Ephrata, art the least, &c.

Answ. First, There are that give this general answer to all the differences in this quota∣tion, that the Scribes and the Evangelist tye not themselves to the very words of the Pro∣phet, but only think it enough to render his sense. And this answer might be very well entertained, and give good satisfaction, especially, since that in allegations from the Old Testament, it is usual with the New so to do, but that the difference between the Text and the quotation is so great, that it is not only diverse, but even contrary. Some therefore,

Secondly, Conceive, that the Scribes could alledge the Text no better without the book, and that the Evangelist hath set it down in their own words, for the just shame of those great Doctors, that were no better versed in the Scripture, then to alledge a place in words so very far different from the Text. But he that hath been any whit versed in the writings of the Jews, will find their Rabbins or Doctors to be too nimble textualists to miss in a Text of so great use and import: especially if he shall but consider to what an height of learning they were now come, by the tutorage and pains of the two great Doctors of the Chair, Shammai and Hillel, who had filled all the Nation with learned men the like had not been before.

Thirdly, Whereas some talk of a Syriack Edition which the Jews used at that time more then the Hebrew, and which had this Text of Micah as the Evangelist hath cited it, and that he cited it according to that Edition which was most in use; here are two things presumed upon which it is impossible ever to make good. For who ever read in any Jew of a Syrian Edition of the Prophets besides the Chaldee Paraphrast? Who we are sure readeth not thus: or what Christian ever saw such an Edition, that he could tell that it did so read? For this particular therefore in hand, it is to be answered, that the Scribes or the Evangelists, or both, did thus differently quote the Prophet, neither through forgetfulness, nor through the misleading of an erroneous Edition, but purposely, and up∣on a rational intent.

For, first, though Ephratah had been the surname of Bethlehem, in ancient time, as Gen. 35. 19. Ruth 4. 11. and in the times of the Prophet Micah, yet it is no wonder if that title of it were now out of use, and especially out of the knowledge of this irreligious

King. For the seventy years captivity, and the alterations of the State, did alter the face of the Country, and might easily blot out of use and remembrance such an additi∣onal title of a Town as this.

Secondly, This surname of the Town was taken up in memorial of a woman, as ap∣peareth, 1 Chron. 2. 19. and when the discourse concerning Christ, and where he should be born, was in hand and agitation, it was more pregnant to bring his birth-place to have reference to Juda from whom Herod [though he were ignorant in other particulars con∣cerning his birth] knew he should descend, then to a woman and a title which it is like that he had never heard of before. So that this, that in the Scribes might at the first seem to be a mis-allegation of the Prophet through some mistake, being precisely looked upon, with respect had to the times when the Prophesie was given, and when it is now cited, and to the several persons to whom it will shew to be so quoted upon very sound wisdom and profound reason, these words, in the land of Juda, being used by them for necessary illustration, in stead of the word Ephrata, not as proposing it for the purer Text of the Prophet, but as more sutable, by way of Exposition, for the capacity and apprehension of Herod.

In Micahs time the name Ephratah was common, but in after times it may be it was dis∣used. Howsoever, Micah prophesied to the Jews, to whom this title Ephratah was fa∣miliar, and it is like had the Scribes spoken to Jews too, they would have retained that title, but to Herod who was not so punctually acquainted with it, it was not proper to bring a phrase that he could not understand, or that was uncouth to him, therefore they explain it by one that was familiar both to him and the whole Nation, Bethlehem in the Land of Juda.

§. Art not the least.

This clause is far further from Micahs Text then the other, for whereas here is a very strong and Emphatical negation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Prophet there is none at all, either in the Hebrew, in the LXX. or in the Chaldee Paraphrast. And indeed the Text and the quotation are one clean contrary to another; in Micah, Though thou be little, but in Matthew, Thou art not the least. Towards the reconciling of which difference, it will be necessary in the first place, to take a serious survey of the Prophets Text, and then upon the true interpretation of it, to lay this allegation to it, and to see how they do agree. The words in the Hebrew, whereupon the main doubt riseth, are but these two 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: which our English rendreth Though thou be little. The Septuagint, Thou art the least to be among the thousands: but using a differing word to signifie the least, from that used here: Some books, saith Nobilius, and the other Scholiast upon the LXX. read, Art not the least, as Hierome, Tertullian and Cyprian: but this their reading I suspect rather to be taken from this quotation of the Gospel, then found by them in the Text of Micah. The vulgar Latine, Thou art little among the thousands, &c. The Italian of Brucioli, and the French, Being little to be, or to be accounted. And much to the same tenour with our English, Aben Ezra, and David Kimchi. Rabbi Solom sheweth his construction of it in this gloss, It were fit thou shouldest be the least among the families of Juda, because of the prophaneness of Ruth the Moabitess that was in thee, yet out of thee shall come, &c. Jansenius saith, a recon∣ciliation might be made between the Prophet and the Evangelist, by reading the Prophets Text by way of interrogation, And thou Bethlehem art thou the least? Which answereth in sense to thou art not. But to all these interpretations alledged, this one thing may be opposed, that the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cannot properly agree with the word Bethlehem, according to the Syntax of Substantive and Adjective; because they are of two different genders, as the Grammarian will easily observe, and cannot but confess. For Bethlehem is of the feminine gender, as are all the names of Cities, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of another, as it plain∣ly appeareth by its termination. To construe them therefore together, as Substantive and Adjective, as it is unwarrantable by the Grammar, so doth it make a sense utterly ir∣reconcileable with this of the Evangelist. To which might be added also, that these words being thus conjoyned and construed together, do make but an harsh sense and constructi∣on among themselves, amounting to this, Thou Bethlehem in being little, out of thee shall come a Ruler.

Their Interpretation therefore is rather to be imbraced, that take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Neu∣ter Gender, as it pleadeth it self to be, by its very termination [the Masculine and Neu∣ter in the Hebrew being indifferently taken the one for the other] and do read it thus? And thou Bethlehem Ephrata, it is a small thing to be among the Princes of Juda, out of thee shall come a Ruler, &c. As meaning this, That it is the least of thine honour that thou art reckoned among the Princes of Juda, as equal with them, for thou hast a dignity above this, and above them all in that out of thee shall come a Ruler, which shall feed my people. And to this sense and tenour should I interpret the Chaldee Paraphrase, thought

know indeed that it is generally construed another way: Chizgner havetha leithmannaah: And thou Bethlehem Ephratah, art within a little to be superiour, or perfect, among the thou∣sands of Judah, &c. As let the learned in the language judge whether the words in the Chaldee will not bear that sense: especially the sense of the first word Chizgner, being looked into the Chaldee, in Psal. 2. 12. & 73. 2. Hos. 1. 4. and in other places.

The Text of the Prophet then being rendred in this interpretation, this allegation of the Evangelist will be found, not to have any contrariety to it at all, but to speak, though not in the very same words, yet to the very same tenor and purpose: For while the one saith, It is a small thing that thou art among the Princes of Judah, and the other, Thou art not the least among them, they both fall into the same sense, or at least into no disagreement of sense at all. For if it were to be reputed a small honour to Bethlehem, to be reckoned in equality with the other Princes of Judah, in comparison of a greater honour that she was to have, in the birth of the Messias; it must readily follow what this quotation of the Evangelist inferreth; namely, that she was not the least among them. And thus doth the Evangelist express the Prophets mind, though he tie not his expression to his very words, alledging his Text to its clearest sense, and to the easier apprehension of the hearer. It is a just exception indeed that Jansenius taketh at this interpretation, because that the Scripture useth not to express this sense, It is a small thing, by the word Tsagnir, but by Megnat, as Esa. 7. 13. Gen. 30. 15. and in other places: But as it is true, that it often useth Megnat for that expression; so it is most true, that it useth not that word alone, but others also: As Tikton, in 2 Sam. 7. 19. and Nakel, in Esa. 49. 6. and why not Tsagnir then as well here?

§. Among the Princes of Juda.

In Micah it is, among the thousands of Juda: and so it is translated by the LXX, the Chaldee, the Vulgar, and unanimously by all other Translators: so that here is yet another difficulty and difference in this allegation, the Evangelist still swerving from the Text he citeth. By the thousands of Juda, Rabbi Solomon understandeth the families, and Dav. Kimchi, the Cities; The word is once used in the very propriety of that sense in which the Prophet taketh it here, Judg. 6. 15. My thousand, saith Gideon, is poor in Manasseh: which St. Austin, and R. Esaiah expound that he was Captain of a thousand; Levi Gershom, that his father was Captain; but the Chaldee, and other Rabbins understand it of the thousand in which his family was numbred and inrolled. Howsoever it is understood, it is apparent by this and other places laid unto it, that the several Tribes of the chil∣dren of Israel were divided into their several thousands, and that these thousands were inrolled to this or that City, to which they had relation by habitation, or by inheritance: Villages that were not so populous, were reduced into hundreds, but Cities into one or more thousands, according as they were in bigness and multitude, Amos 5. 3. The City that went out by a thousand, shall leave an hundred, and that which went out by an hundred, shall leave ten: The Villages were justly reputed of an inferiour rank, but the Cities that af∣forded their thousands were accounted Princes: and so may the Prophet be understood, and so the Evangelist reconciled to him. Now the reason of their difference in words, though they both redound to the same sense may be given these.

First, Because the question in agitation was about the birth of a King, and the place, where now in answer to such a Quaere, it was fitter to speak of Princes then thousands, for where should a King be looked for but among Princes?

Secondly, The Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used by the Prophet, doth signifie, both thousands, and Princes indifferently, and so David Kimchi upon that place in the book of Judges cited even now alledgeth; There are, saith he, that interpret Alphi [which our English readeth my thousand] as it were my Father, even as the word Alluph, whose signification is Prince or Lord.

The Evangelist therefore finding the word in the Prophet of this indifferency, useth it in that sense which best suited with the present occasion, both in regard of the question proposed, as also thirdly, in regard of the manner of Christs coming: For it was both the expectation of the Jews, and the fear of Herod, that he would come with a conquer∣ing and victorious temporal Sword, and restore them to a pompous Earthly State, and expel him out of his Kingdom. Now for the Evangelist to have directed in this quota∣tion, to look for Christ among the thousands of Juda, had backed these Opinions, for the term soundeth of War, and it had been a direction where likelier to find an earthly War∣rier, then the Prince of Peace, among the thousands, or among the Militia. And there∣fore he qualifieth the term to the best satisfaction of Herod and the People; Among the Princes. There is that saith it might be construed, In Princes, and not among them, and the meaning to be this, Thou Bethlehem art not the least in the Princes of Juda, that is, in breeding or bringing them forth: but this relisheth more of wit then solidity, and agreeth better with the Latin, then with the Greek Original.

§. For out of thee shall come a Governor.

The Chaldee readeth it in the Prophet, Out of thee shall come Messias; and so is it ex∣pounded by Rabbi Solomon, and David Kimchi. And therefore that is most true which is inferred by Lyranus, that those Catholicks that interpret it of Ezekiah, do more judaize then the Jews themselves. Some Jews indeed, saith Theophylact, do apply this to Zoroba∣bel, but as he answereth, it is like that Zorobabel was born in Babel, and not in Bethlehem: And St. Matthew hath plainly taught both Jews and Gentiles to understand it in another sense. But here again doth he differ from the Letter of the Prophet, but cometh so near the sense, that the difference is as no difference at all.

Vers. 7. Herod privily called the Wisemen.

[Privily.] For had the Jews heard of his pretences [they had so long been acquainted with his policy, tyranny, and ambition] they could readily have descried his mischievous∣ness, and spoiled his bloody contrival, by better information given to the wisemen.

§. Enquired diligently of them the time when the Star appeared.

Had they taken their journy instantly upon the Stars appearing, Herod could easily have computed the time by the length of their journy: but by this his enquiry, it is ap∣parent that they had told him of its appearance at some good space before, which in ver. 16. is plainly resolved to be two years, by the Wisemens own acknowledgment and re∣solution.

Vers. 11. Gold, and Frankincense, and Myrrhe.

The mysterious application of these presents, as Myrrham homini, uncto aurum, &c. be left to them that delight and content themselves in such things: the plain and easie inter∣pretation of the matter is, that they tendred to Christ, the chiefest and choicest commodi∣ties that their Country could afford: which they carried in their treasures, as the Text calleth it, that is, in and among those commodities that the men of those Nations used to carry with them when they travailed, especially when they meant to present any one to whom they went, as Gen. 24. 53. 1 King. 10. 2.

Vers. 15. Out of Egypt have I called my Son.

The two allegations produced here out of the Old Testament, this and that out of Jeremy, in Rama was a voice heard, are of that fulness that they speak of two things a piece, and may very fitly be applied unto them both, and shew that the one did resemble or prefigure the other: as this Text of Hosea, aimeth both at the bringing of the Church of Israel, in old time, and of the head of that Church at this time out of Egypt. Then a Joseph nourished his father; now a Joseph doth so to his redeemer: then was Egypt dead∣ly to every male child that was born, now is it a place of refuge and preservation to this child.

Ver. 18. In Ramah was there a voice heard, &c.

Ramah stood not far from Bethlehem, though they were in two Tribes: and the cry that the poor Parents and children made in Bethlehem, when this matchless butchery was in hand, reach't to Ramah, and was plainly heard thither. Now observe the fulness of this Scripture as it is uttered by the Prophet, and as it is applied by the Evangelist. It was fulfilled in one kind, in the time of Jeremy himself, and then was the lamentation and weeping in Ramah it self; for hither did Nebuzaradan bring his Prisoners, after he had destroyed Jerusalem, and there did he dispose of them, to the Sword, or to Captivi∣ty, as seemed good unto himself, Jer. 40. 1. And imagine what lamentation and crying was then in that City, when so many were doomed there, either to be slain in that place, or to go to Babel, never to see their own Land again. Then was the cry in Ramah, and it was heard no doubt to Bethlehem. But now the Prophesie is fulfilled in another kind, when Herod destroyeth so many Children in Bethlehem, and in the Suburbs and Borders belonging to it: And now the cry is in Bethlehem, and it is heard to Ramah.

§. Rachel weeping for her children, &c.

Rachels grave was betwixt Bethlehem and Ramah, or at least not far distant from either of them, Gen. 35. 16, 20. 1 Sam. 10. 2. The Holy Ghost therefore doth elegantly set forth this lamentation, by personating Rachel [who died in the birth of her Ben-Oni, the Son of her sorrow] sorrowing for her Sons and Children that were thus massacred: And this sheweth that the Text in the Prophet, aimeth in the first place and intention, at the matter of Nebuzaradan: for in Bethlehem, Rachel properly had no children at all, that Ci∣ty being inhabited by the children of Judah, which descended of Leah: but in Ramah dwelt Rachels children, that being a Town of Ephramites descended from Joseph. How∣soever, Rachel may be said to weep for the Babes of Bethlehem as her own children, though they were not strictly and properly her seed, in regard of the interest that she had in all the tribes of Israel, as being wife unto their Father: as Joseph is often called the Father of Christ, being only husband to his mother. And see such another phrase, Gen. 37. 10. Shall I, and thy mother come to bow down before thee? Whereas Josephs mother was dead already.

Vers. 19. But when Herod was dead, &c.

The end of Herod was not long after the massacre of these infants, and his bloodiness which he had used all his life long, and topped up in the murder of these innocents, and in desire to have done as much to the Lord of life, the Lord doth now bring upon his own head. This matter with the children of Bethlehem, we conceive to have been some three months more or less before his end, in which space this was his behaviour, as may be col∣lected out of Josephus.

He had slain long before this, his two sons Alexander and Aristobulus, and now was he about to do as much by his Son Antipater, a child too like the Father, and one whom he left by will the Successor in his Kingdom: Him suspected by him for some machination against himself he had now shut up in prison, and intended him presently for the execu∣tion, but that his sickness whereof he died seizing on him gave some more space to the imprisoned, and some hopes and possibilities of escaping. His disease was all these mixed together, an inward burning and exulceration, an insatiable greediness and devouring, the Chollick, the Gout and Dropsie, his loins and secrets crawling with lice, and a stink about him, not to be indured. These wringings and tortures of his body, meeting with the peevishness of old age, for he was now seventy, and with the natural cruelty which always had been in him, made him murderously minded above all measure: insomuch that he put to death divers that had taken down a golden Eagle, which he had set up about the Temple: And when he grew near to his end, and saw himself ready to die, he slew his Son Antipater, and caused great multitudes of the Nobility and People to be closed up in a sure place, giving command to slay them as soon as he was dead, for by that means he said he should have the Jews truly and really to sorrow at his death. Vid. Joseph. Antiq. lib. 17. cap. 8, 9, 10. and de Bel. lib. 1. cap. 21.

Vers. 20. For they are dead that sought the young childs life.

The like saying is to Moses, Exod. 4. 19. where the word [they] may be understood of Pharaoh and his servants, which jointly sought his life for the Egyptians sake whom he had slain; and were now all dead and worn out in the fourty years of his being in Mi∣dian. But here [it is true indeed, that the seeking of the childs life may well be applied to Herods Servants, as well as himself] but that all they died with him or about the time of his death, who in flattery, or favour, or obedience to him, had promoted the slaugh∣ter at Bethlehem, and had sought the childs life, I know not upon what ground it should be conceived.

I should therefore by the [they] in this place understand Herod and his Son Antipater jointly together: For if it be well considered how mischievous this Antipater was against his own Brethren, and how he wrought their ruine and misery, for fear they should get betwixt him and the throne, yea, how he sought the destruction of his own Father, be∣cause he thought he kept him out of the Throne too long, it may very well be believed that he would bloodily stir against this new King of the Jews that the wisemen spake of, for fear of interception of the Crown, as well as his Father: He died but five days before his fathers death, as it was touched before out of Josephus; and thus God brought this bloodliness of the Father and the Son, and the rest of their cruelties to an end, and upon their own heads at once, and in a manner, together; and thus may the words of the An∣gel be very fairly understood, Take the child and return to the Land of Israel, for Herod and Antipater are dead, that sought his life.

Ver. 22. Archelaus did reign in Iudea in the room of his Father Herod.

Herod had first named Antipater for his Successor in the Throne of Judea; but upon detection of his conspiracy against him, he altered his mind and his will, and nominated Antipas: and changing his mind yet again, he named Archelaus, and he succeeded him; a man not likely to prosper in a Throne, that was so bebloodied: His conclusion was, that in the tenth year of his reign, he was accused by the Nobles of Judea and Samaria, to Au∣gustus, banished to Vienna, and his estate confiscate. Jos. Ant. lib. 17. cap. 15.

Ver. 23. He shall be called a Nazarene.

From Isa. 11. 1. where the Messias is called by the title Nezer, which indifferently signifieth A branch, and the City Nazaret: one and the same word denoting Christ, and the place where he should be born.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Jer. 39. 3.