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.

SECTION X. (Book 10)

Christ installed into his Ministry by baptism, and by the unction of the Holy Ghost: his Pedegree by his Mother Mary.

St. MATTHEW. CHAP. III.

Ver. 13. THEN cometh Ie∣sus from Galilee to Iordan unto Iohn, to be ba∣ptized of him. 14. But Iohn forbad him, saying, I have need to be ba∣ptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15. And Iesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16. And Iesus when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a Dove, and lighting upon him. 17. And lo a voice from Heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.

St. MARK. CHAP. I.

Ver. 9. AND it came to pass in those days, that Iesus came from Naza∣reth in Galilee— —and was baptized of John in Iordan. 10. And straight way com∣ing up out of the water, he saw the Heavens opened, and the spirit like a Dove descending upon him. 11. And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.

St. LUKE. CHAP. III.

Ver. 21▪ NOW when all the people were bapti∣zed: And it came to pass that Iesus also being baptized and praying, the heaven was opened. 22. And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a Dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven which said, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased. 23. And Iesus himself began to be about thirty years of age being [as was supposed] the son of Ioseph, which was the son of Heli, 24. Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Ianna, which was the son of Ioseph, 25. Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26. Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Ioseph, which was the son of Iuda, 27. Which was the son of Ioanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zo∣robabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri. 28. Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Co∣sam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29. Which was the son of Iose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Io∣ram, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi. 30. Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Iudah, which was the son of Ioseph, which was the son of Ionan, which was the son Eliakim, 31. Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32. Which was the son of Iesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33. Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Pharez, which was the son of Iuda, 34. Which was the son of Iacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abra∣ham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35. Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phaleg, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36. Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noah, which was the son of Lamech, 37. Which was the son of Methusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Iared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38. Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Reason of the Order.

THERE can be no doubt or scruple about the subsequency of the beginning of this Section to that that was next before, for the three Evangelists have so unani∣mously ranked them together, that the order needeth no more confirmation. But about this latter part or the genealogy of Christ there is something more difficult. For some Har∣monists have brought this line of Luke, and that of Matthew together, some bringing Matthews hither with Lukes to Christs baptism, and others this of Luke, to the time of Mat∣thews to Christs birth: But as the Evangelists have laid them asunder, so are they to be kept asunder, and to be disposed in the Harmony according as they lie: for pregnant reasons may be given why the two have laid them at times so far distant. Why Matthew at our Savi∣ours birth, the reasons were given their, in there proper place; and why Luke at his bap∣tism, may be the better seen by looking on the promise, Gen. 3. 15. The seed of the woman shall break the head of the Serpent. Matthew wrote his Gospel chiefly for the Jews; and there∣fore it was necessary for him to shew and approve Jesus for the Messias by his Pedigree, which was the manifest and the chiefest thing that Nation looked after, for the judging of the true Christ; this he doth therefore, at the Story of his birth, and beginneth it from Abra∣ham, who was the ultima Analysis, or the furthest that they cared to look after, as concern∣ing his discent. But Luke a companion of the Doctor of the Gentiles in all his travailes writeth his Gospel for the Gentiles, as well as for the Jews: and therefore he sheweth Christs descent at the Story of that time, at which he was first born toward the Gentiles, that is, at his revelation at his baptism, from whence he first began to preach the Gospel. The first words of the promise, the seed of the Woman, the Evangelist sweetly ex∣poundeth in this genealogy, shewing through seventy five descents, that he was the seed of the woman promised to Adam in the garden, and therefore he draweth his line from Adam, in whose loins the Gentiles were, for whom he writeth as well as the Jews, when the promise was made. The latter words, Shall break the head of the Serpent, begin to take place from the baptism of Christ and forward: and first in his victory against Satans temptations, which is the very next story that the Evangelist handleth, and then in his preaching of the Gospel, the power of which must destroy the Kingdom of Satan, from that time forward.

Harmony and Explanation.

Mat. 3. ver. 13. Then Iesus cometh, &c.

THE Tabernacle in the wilderness was six months current in working and preparing for, before it was finished and set up. For on the tenth day of the month Tisri, which answereth to part of our September, Moses cometh down from his third Fast of forty days, and bringeth with him the glad tydings of Gods reconciliation to his people, and in sign thereof the renewed Tables, and the welcome command to make the Taberna∣cle. From that time forward the working and offerings for the making of the Sanctuary began, and six months after it was finished and erected, namely, in the month of Abib, Exod. 40. So long a time was the Baptist conceived and born before the conception and birth of our Saviour, Luke 1. 26. and so long a time did he preach and baptize and pre∣pare

for the great building of the Gospel before our Saviour himself came, and by his own baptism and preaching reared it up. For as our Saviour was baptized and entred into his ministerial function, when he began to be thirty years of age, and that according to a legal ordinance, as shall be shewed ere long; so likewise did the Baptist begin to preach when he began to be thirty, which was six months current before. And this may be the better supposed if it be but considered how great multitudes were baptized of John before the baptism of Christ, and how far he travailed up and down to preach. Of the latter, Luke witnesseth thus, And he came into all the Region round about Jordan, Preach∣ing the baptism of repentance, Luke 3. 3. And Matthew of the former thus, There went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the Region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him. A space of ground not to be travelled over [with resting in many places by the way] and a number of people not to be baptized in a short space of time.

Now the reasons, why Christ that needed no cleansing, being purity it self, would be baptized, are given divers.

As first, that by this Symbole he might enter himself into the society and fraternity of the Christians, as by Circumcision he did of the Jews: like a King, [it is Jansenius his comparison] that to unite and indear himself to any City of his Subjects, condescen∣deth to be made a freeman of it, as are the ordinary Citizens.

Secondly, that he might bear witness to the preaching and baptism of John, and might receive testimony from him again.

Thirdly, that by his own baptism he might sanctifie the waters of baptism to his Church.

Fourthly, that he might give example himself, of the performance of that, which he injoyned to others, and by his own coming to be baptized, teach others not to refuse that Sacrament.

Fifthly, that he might receive testimony from heaven that he was the son of God.

Sixtly, that he might occasion the revealing of the Trinity.

Seventhly, that he might shew the descending of the Holy Ghost on the waters of Baptism.

But eightly, the main reason of all, and that which is equal to these all, is that which is given by Christ himself, namely, that he might fulfill all righteousness; of which anon.

Ver. 14. But Iohn forbad him.

So Peter forbad Christ to wash his feet, not in any surly frowardness, but in an holy humility, having an eye upon his own unworthiness. This refusal of John, being of the same nature, seemeth to have had respect to three things according to the several persons there present, Christ, the people, and himself.

First, in regard of Christ, because he needeth no baptism, in that he needed neither repentance nor remission of sins.

Secondly, in regard of the people, lest they might mistake, and seeing Christ baptized as well as they, might judge him sinful as well as themselves.

Thirdly, in regard of the Baptist himself, who had told the people so oft, and so constantly of him that came after him, that he was greater then he: and that his bap∣tism was more excellent then his, and how would this cross that testimony of his, in the eyes and hearts of the people, when they should see him as an inferiour, come to be baptized of John? But,

Fourthly, and chiefly this his reluctancy proceeded from his true and right comparing of Christ and himself together, the Majesty and purity of him, with the baseness and sin∣fulness of himself, and therefore he saith, I have need to baptized of thee, &c. Not re∣fusing the service, nor crossing the will of Christ, but confessing the unworthyness of himself, and ponderating the inequality of the persons.

But it may not unfitly nor unseasonably be questioned here, how the Baptist knew that this was Christ, seeing that he saith himself, I knew him not, but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, on whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding on him, the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost, Joh. 1. 33. Now the descending of the Holy Ghost was after he was baptized, and these words, I have need to be baptized of thee, were spoken before. To this doubt and scruple many answers are given, but not so many resolutions.

First, some take the words I knew him not, &c. to be spoken by John, to make his testimony to be without suspition: For John and Jesus being a kin by birth, [for their Mothers were Cousins, Luke 1. 36.] it might be surmised that John gave so high and large a testimony of him for kindred and affections sake, therefore he protesteth that he knew him not in any such a way, but only by divine revelation. Thus Chrysostome and Theo∣phylact.

In which answer if there be any satisfaction at all, which is but little, yet is it not to our whole quaere, but only to the least part of it.

Secondly, some thus, that John before his baptism knew that he was the Christ, but not that it was he that should baptize with the holy Ghost and with fire, till he saw the Spirit descend upon him; and thus Theophylact again, and upon this he fixeth, as on the most genuine and proper resolution, which is very hard to apprehend or collect out of the words of John, in his whole Sermon: for this maketh him to distinguish betwixt Christ, and him that should baptize with the Holy Ghost, and to make them two distinct persons in his opinion, whereas both his own words, and no doubt the expectation of the people did take him for one and the same to be Christ.

Thirdly, their opinion is ye•• far more strange, that think that the Baptist took not Christ for Christ, when he gain-sayeth his being baptized by him, but for some extraor∣dinary holy man, and continued in this opinion till the descending of the holy Ghost confimed him in the Truth, that he was the Messias: For it is not imaginable that John having the peculiar Commission from God to baptize all that should come unto him, should himself desire to be baptized by another man. And again, his words, I have need to be baptized by thee, shew that he understood that it was he that Baptized with the Holy Ghost, as will appear by and by.

Fourthly little less improper and equally strained is the Exposition of Augustine, that John knew indeed that he was the Christ, and that it was he that should baptize with the Holy Ghost, but till he saw the descending of the Holy Ghost, he knew not that it was only he that should baptize with the Holy Ghost, or that he reserved the propriety of the power of baptizing to himself alone, and did not communicate it to his Ministers. And this propriety the Schools make to consist in these four particulars: 1. That he reserved to himself the power of instituting baptism, though he communicated the power of baptizing to others. 2. That he can confer the grace or effect of Baptism, without the administration of the Sacrament, which the Ministers cannot. 3. That he giveth efficacy to baptism by his death. 4. That Baptism is administred and given in his name. Which gloss as the Father strained out of the Text to retort upon the Dona∣tists, that maintained that this Sacrament administred by a wicked minister availed no∣thing, so is it but strained, and that strangely too, for how can it possibly be collected, that John should collect any such thing from the descending of the Holy Ghost?

Fifthly, More plausible is their resolution that hold that John knew Christ indeed in some measure before his baptism, but not so fully as after, when the Holy Ghost descen∣ded. But,

Sixthly, a plenary and sufficient satisfaction to the question may be had by these three observations.

First, that John though he knew the mystery of the incarnation of the Messias, and his excellent and divine graces, and that he was neer at hand, yet had he never seen his face till now, nor knew he him by sight till he came to be baptized.

Secondly, That then he knew him by a present revelation, as Samuel knew Saul, 1 Sam. 9. 15, 17. For if in his Mothers womb he leaped at the approach of Christ in the womb of his Mother, much more may it be conceived, that by the revelation of the Spirit he knew him and acknowledged him now.

Thirdly, That the sign which was given him when he began to baptize, On whomso∣ever thou shalt see the Holy Ghost descend, &c. was not given him for his first knowledg of Christ, but for the confirmation of that knowledge that he had of him before: and for his assurance and confidence to point him out unto the people. And such a one was the sign given to Moses, Exod. 3. 12: not for first his instruction that he was sent by God, but for his confirmation in that wherein he was before instructed, nor that neither so much for himself as for the people.

§ I have need to be baptized of thee.

He meaneth not, with the baptism of water, which he himself administred to others, but with the baptism of the Holy Ghost. For, first, Christ himself baptized none with wa∣ter at all, Joh. 4. 2. but referred the administration of this Sacrament to others.

Secondly, the Baptism wherewith he baptized, was of the Holy Ghost, ver. 11. and it cannot be doubted that when John speaketh of being baptized by Christ, he meaneth the proper baptism wherewith Christ baptized.

Thirdly, it is not consonant to reason, that John should complain of the want of that which he so plentifully afforded unto others: but though he himself were not baptized, in water, yet his special deputation from God, to be the first and chief baptized, made that he needed it not.

Fourthly, be it granted that John speaketh of baptizing with water, as some Commen∣tators would have it, yet are not his words to be understood simply of any absolute ne∣cessity that he had of baptism, but comparatively betwixt him and Christ, that it was sitter that he should be baptized by Christ, than Christ by him. For so the Phrase I have need, is used, not always to import necessity, but sometimes conveniency. And so doth the Rabbinical word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 indifferently signifie, and divers words that signifie ne∣cessity in other tongues.

Ver. 15. Suffer it to be so now.

The Emphasis of this clause is held to be in the word now: As shewing that how∣soever Christ was the Son of God, and should in time reveal himself mightily so to be, as Rom. 1. 4. yet now the time required that that his glory should be veiled under his humiliation, and his divinity concealed till its proper season to be revealed. This exposition is as currant as any among Expositors, how substantial let the Reader judge. For,

First, the baptizing of Christ by John, was not so great a means to veil his Divi∣nity as it was to reveal it: for then he had the testimony from Heaven, that he was the Son of God.

Secondly, there needeth no other reason to be looked after why Christ saith, suffer it to be so now, than what he himself giveth, in the very next words following: For thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. The word now, as it lyeth in the English, might be taken for the sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so ordinary in the Hebrew, words of intreating or perswasion, and might very well also suit with that sense here, if the LXX traslated them by the Greek word here used 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but they do not: therefore may we the more justly suppose the word to be emphatical in some respect, and the respect seemeth to be this. Whereas John had told the people before of Christs baptizing with the Holy Ghost, and had told Christ in the verse preceeding, that he had need of that bap∣tism, to that it is that our Saviour giveth this answer, Suffer it to be so now, as meaning thus: That it was true indeed that he was he that should come after him, and he that should baptize with the Holy Ghost, of which baptism John had more need from him than he of Johns; yet the time of that his baptizing was not yet come, for first must he fulfil all the righteousness required of himself, before he was to pour out or bestow that bap∣tism of the Spirit upon others: And therefore must John suffer him to be baptized now with the baptism of water, for that baptism of his with the Spirit was not yet to be exhibited.

§ For thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousnes.

The greatest doubt and difficulty in this clause is, what our Saviour meaneth here by righteousness, which being resolved upon, the other smaller words, and less scrupulous in it, will offer themselves the more readily to be understood.

First, Hilary, though somewhat obscurely, seemeth to construe it of the righteousness of the Law, for by him, saith he, all righteousness was to be fulfilled, by whom alone the Law could be fulfilled.

Secondly, but Hierom speaks it out more plainly and fully and understandeth it of all righteousness of the Law and of nature, either of which indeed were not an unpro∣per gloss to be applyed unto Christ alone; but since the word us, joyneth the Bap∣tist also in the same fulfilling with him, it is not safe to understand it of all the righte∣ousness of the Law, because it is not pious to hold John the accomplisher of it, as well as he.

Thirdly, Theophylact, and some others with him go the same way with these Fathers named, but they go somewhat further, for they add, that Christ had fulfilled all the Law already, but only in this one particular of being baptized, and when he had per∣formed that, he had compleated all righteousness. But the word us spoyleth this ex∣position, as well as it did that before: and it will be some work to prove that baptism, taken in its proper sense, or as John administred it, was any part of the Law that Christ was to fulfill.

Fourthly, others descant upon the words litterally, and take righteousness for justice distributive, and baptism for a special part or act of it: For he that is baptized, saith Lu∣dolphus, pleaseth God, pittieth his own soul, and edifieth his neighbour by his example, and so fulfilleth all justice, in that he doth to God, himself, and his neighbour what he ought. An Encomion of baptism, and a new invention of fulfilling the Law, which I suppose was never dreamed of before.

Fifthly, to omit other expositions much like this, which some have given, not near to the text, nor truth: Jansenius and some with him, but not so largely as he, do para∣phrase it thus. According as I by an humble submission desire to be baptized by thee, so it be∣cometh us, because we are sent of God the Father, to call men away from all unrighteous∣ness, and to teach the people, to fulfill and perform in work whatsoever is right, omitting nothing, be it never so little, which we know to be agreable to the will of God. Therefore he importeth not, that by the receiving of baptism all righteousness is fulfilled; but that by them that are Masters and Teachers of all righteousness, nothing is to be passed over which is right, although they be not bound thereto by necessity, and though the thing it self seem never so small. Which exposition though it be good and sound in regard of the truth contained in it, yet seemeth it not to be punctuall and seasonable for this place. For whereas the very marrow and pith of it lyeth in this, that Christ and John being teachers of the people, must practice themselves what they teach others to practice; and therefore must Christ be baptized for example to others: let the Reader judge whether the infe∣rence be good by this, that John himself was never baptized: and consequently whether the application of such a sense to these words, be fitting and agreeable.

Sixthly, Chemnitius yet goeth nearer the text and the mark, and bringeth the word Righteousness to reflect upon men: explaining it thus: that since Christ came to conferr and apply righteousness to men, and accordingly to sanctifie every thing and means that might conduce to convey the same unto them, therefore would he thus consecrate baptism by his own being baptized, and give vigor to it to be a seale and strengthener of righteousness and grace begun: and in this sense he saith that it becometh him to fulfill all righteousness, or every thing whereby the righteousness of man may be forwarded and promoted, and because John was the Minister of Baptism; therefore in the word us, he joyneth him also in the fulfilling with him. To this purpopose he and far more largely coming as close to the mark, as any we meet with, and yet [if I judge aright] not so close as to hit it in these two respects.

First, in that he seemeth to hold, and so also do many others with him, that Christs performance of the several parts of righteousness, personally in himself, was requisite to the sanctifying of such things to others, whereas his very institution of any such a thing giveth validity sufficient to it without his own actual example: As in this very thing in hand concerning baptism, if Christ instituted that in the hand of John for a Sacrament to continue in his Church for ever, I cannot see what vertue, vigor, or efficacy his being baptized by John added to it, more than his institution of it before had done, save only for the more sensible reverence of it in the eyes of the People.

Secondly, and chiefly, because it is harsh and bold, to conceive that Christ in the per∣formance of any thing that might tend to mans justification, should take a man to be a sharer and co-worker in such equality as the words thus and us do make the Baptist.

By righteousness therefore in this place may rather be understood the equity and justice of the Law, and Christs fufilling of the same. Not the moral, for that opinion we re∣fused before, but the other parts of it, which were either Prophetical, or figurative and tipical. Not denying his fulfilling the moral Law neither, for that he performed to a tittle, being without the least taint of sin, either in thought, word, or deed, but rather il∣lustrating and setting forth his performance of that the more, in that he was also so punctu∣tual to fulfill the other parts of the Law which were less material. And to this expo∣sition of righteousness, namely, for the equity of the Ceremonial or typical Law, not only the matter or thing in hand it self, but even every word also that is in this clause do give their consent and confirmation.

For, first, if we look upon the Ceremonial Law it self, and the reason why it was given, we shall find that it was neither so exact and exquisite in regard of it's injunctions, nor so strict or necessary to be performed in it self according to the Letter, as it was in re∣gard of its significancy of good things to come; the force and vertue of it consisting not so much in its very verbal precepts, and corporal observances, as in its representative and typical predictions and fore-shewing of some better things to come thereafter. And how∣soever those Rites and Ceremonies had their obedience in the practices of the Jews, yet their equity and very intent indeed they had not but in the fulfilling of Christ.

Secondly, if we look also upon baptism which was the matter now in agitation, and the baptism of Christ also, how they were both fully and plainly prefigured under le∣gal Rites and Ceremonious observances, was shewed before.

Thirdly, it was requisite that Christ should fulfill the Ceremonial Law, as well as the moral, in some kind of necessity, though not as much for the one as for the other. For as the Moral was a Law of Faith, so also was the Ceremonial a Law of hope, as the judicial was also of Charity. In the Moral Law it was shewed to man what he was to do, but withall he saw by the same Law his own disability and impossibility of performing what was to be done. The sight of this driveth man to lay hold of Christ that performed that

Law for him; and thus the Law, though it be according to the letter a message of death, yet in the spirit it is a doctrine of Faith unto life. The Jew being thus entred by the moral Law into the School of Faith, then came in the Ceremonial, and was as an usher of hope: for by those rites and legal observations, the memory of Christs coming was continually kept fresh, and the eye and expectation, and the fruit and application of his performance of the moral Law for the good of men dayly read in those typical and shadowed lectures: As therefore as it was absolutely necessary that Christ should fulfil the moral Law in regard of all men, so was it respectively necessary that he should answer and accomplish the Ceremonial, in regard of the Jew. For if the outward observance thereof were for nothing so much, as to lead his eye and expectation to Christ, and the very life and equity thereof were included in him, how necessary was it that for the sake of that people, and for confirmation both to them and all others, that he was Christ that was to come, that he should fulfill that part of the Law, as well as the other? At the least how fitting? And so he saith in the place in hand, Thus it becometh us to fulfill all the equity of the Ceremonial Law. Now the Ceremony to which our Saviour looketh in these words, was the washing of the Priests in water, when they entred into their function, Exod. 29. 4. Lev. 8. 6. the equity of which appeared in him, when he was bap∣tized at his entrance into his Ministry. And this indeed was the manifest and properest end and reason of Christ being baptized; namely, that by baptism he might be installed into his Ministerial office.

Luke 3. ver. 21. Now when all the people were baptized, &c.

Not all that were to be baptized by John, for the contrary is evident, Joh. 3. 23. where John is baptizing a twelve month after this; but all those that were reckoned by the E∣vangelist before, from Jerusalem and Judea, of Phrarisees, Sadduces, Publicans, and Sol∣diers, which he now reckoneth up in this summa totalis of All the people, to shew what multitudes were baptized into Christ, before Christ came to be revealed.

But it may be questioned among all this number, whether there were any women bapti∣zed by John, or no. And the doubt may seem to be equally ballanced, for as the silence of the Text doth seem to deny it, so reason on the other side doth strongly affirm it.

For, first, the baptism of John was such a thing as women might receive as well as men, in regard of possibility, which they could not possibly do by Circumcision.

Secondly, it was such a thing as they might receive as well as men, in regard of ca∣pability, for women were as ready to repent, as they.

But, thirdly, that which putteth it out of all doubt, that women were baptized by him, is the testimony of our Saviour, Matthew 21. 32. John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not, but the Publicans and the Harlots believed him.

§ Jesus also being baptized.

About the time, place, and manner of our Saviours baptism, the Evangelists have been so silent in this place, that what is to be resolved upon them is to be fetched from and by comparison of other texts, and collection from other places, which about the first will give very full satisfaction, about the second indifferent, and about the last, little or none at all. The time then of his being baptized, that is, the time of the year, is only, or at least, chiefly to be found, by computing the time or length of his Preaching, and therewith considering the time or season of his death. Now the length of his Preach∣ing, or from his baptism to his death, was justly and exactly three years and an half, as was touched before: And from that very thing or in relation to it, that number is so very renowned in Scripture, being sometimes expressed in the plain terms, of three years and six months, Luke 4. 25. sometimes by half a week, Dan. 9. 27. sometimes, by a time, times, and half a time, Dan. 12. 7. Rev. 12. 14. and sometimes, by a thousand two hundred and threescore days, Rev. 11. 3. & 12. 6. and sometimes, by forty and two months, Rev. 11. 2. To evidence which account of his Ministery, first may be produced the Text of Daniel alledged instantly before, chap. 9. 27. where it is said, that Messias should confirm the Covenant for many for one week: or in that one week rather, namely, which he reckoneth the last of the seventy: for first, he nameth seven weeks by themselves, and then sixty two by themselves, ver. 25. which every one knoweth made sixty nine; and then coming to speak of the last week which was to make up the seventy▪ he saith, that in that one week, Christ shall confirm the Covenant for many: and then describing and de∣claring the exact time of that his work, he saith, And in half that week shall he cause sacrifice and oblation to cease.

Now that by these weeks are meant weeks of years, or as many years as a week hath days, hardly any man ever denyed, or suspected the contrary; and that then by half a

week, is meant half seven years, or three years and an half, there can be as little doubt or scruple: This then the Angel Gabriel telleth was the exact time in which the Messias did confirm the Covenant, and was bringing to an end Sacrificing and other Cere∣monies, or the time of his Preaching the Gospel, which was from his Baptism to his death.

Secondly, if not for proof, yet for better illustration of the same, may be produced that place of the Gospel alledged so lately also before, namely, Luke. 4. 25. where Elias is a glorious type and resemblance of Christ, in a sweet and harmonious discord and diffe∣rence: For as he shut up heaven by his prayer, and there was no rain for three years and six months, so Christ opened heaven at his baptism, as it is said in the verse in hand, and continued to distil the divine dew and rain of his heavenly doctrine, as Deut. 32. 2. for the same space of time.

And thirdly, as there is such evidence for the time averred; from a Prophecy, and such illustration from a type, so is there a full confirmation of it in the Evangelicall story. For John hath plainly parcelled out the three years by four Passeovers: as the first, chap. 2. 13. the second, chap. 5. 1. the third, chap. 6. 4. and the fourth, chap. 13. 1. &c. and the odd half year [which since he dyed at the last Passeover must be laid before the first] was taken up in these particulars, of his journey into the wilderness, and forty days fast, Mat. 4. 1. his return to Jordan, and abode thereabout, John 1. 29. 35. 44. his voyage into Galilee, and miracle at Cana, John 2. 1. his removal after some space to Ca∣pernaum, and some abode in it, chap. 2. 12. and thence his journy to Hierusalem, to the first Passeover of the four, John 2. 13. So that it being thus apparent that the length or space of his Preaching was three years and an half, from his baptizing to his suffering, it being withall considered that he dyed at Easter, it will readily follow that he was bap∣tized half a year before that time of the year, namely, in the month Tisri, or Septem∣ber; And it being again considered that he was baptized, when he was just entring upon a new year of his age, as shall be observed anon, it will thence likewise follow that he was born at the same time of the year also. And who is he that can imagine that the renownedness and fame of this month in the Old Testament, both befor the Law and un∣der it, was for any other thing so much as in reference and prefiguration to, and of these glorious things?

Now though there be these assured evidences of the time of the year when our Savi∣our was baptized, yet is there but conjecture of the time of the month: And that may most constantly be conceived to have been at the Feast of Tabernacles, which began on the fifteenth day of the month, Levit. 23. 33. upon these probable and not altogether un satis∣factory reasons.

First, because he dyed on the fifteenth day of the month Abid or Nisan, the day after the Passeover, and to make the odd half year, spoken of before, an exact and just half year indeed, his baptism must be fixed on the fifteenth of Tisri.

Secondly, the two other of the three solemn Festivals, the Passover and Pentecost, Christ accomplished, or fulfilled what they signified, by his death at the one, and by the giving of the holy Ghost at the other, and there is no reason to think the third, or the Feast of Tabernacles any less figurative, or typical then the other, and as little to think that he should leave the equity of that unsatisfied more than the other, and if he answered not that in his birth and baptism, he answered it in nothing at all.

Thirdly, the very nature of the Feast of Tabernacles, and the occasion and reason of its institution have a forcible reference to such a thing. For though Moses hath given but this reason for one Custom and practice which they used in the Feast, Ye shall dwell in booths seven days, that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the Land of Aegypt, Levit. 23. 42, 43. Yet had the original and institution of ••he Feast a great deal more in it. For the main occasion was this: Moses having after long fasting and prayer made the peace of Israel with God about the Golden Calf, and having obtained the Tables renewed, which himself had broken, and regained the commission to build the Tabernacle, which had been suspended because of that sin; on the tenth day of the month Tisri, [which according to our account was about the two or three and twentieth day of our September] he coming down from the Mount, bringeth these glad tydings of peace and reconciliation to the people, for which that day was observed for the day of reconciliation or expiation ever after: and the people now hearing that they must make the Tabernacle in which God would dwell among them, and that they must not remove from the place where they were, viz. from Mount Sinai, till that be finished, they then addressed them selves to pitch their tents, and make them booths for their winter abode there, and instantly fall upon the work of the Sanctuary, and this was it that was the occasion of that solemn Feast in succeeding times. Now let the substance be laid unto the shadow, and the Antitype and figure brought together, and the application is not only sweet, but also somewhat evincing. For since the occasion of

that Feast was God coming to dwell among the people in his Tabernacle and that now first begun or exhibited, and this just half a year after their first delivery from Egypt; ob∣serve how fully these are answered in Christs shewing himself to the world at his baptism, in whom God dwelleth among men; and this the first revelation of him to the world, and this just half a year since John began to publish the delivery of men from the bondage of Sin and Satan, by the preaching of the Gospel.

Fourthly, the Consecration of the Temple of Solomon was at this very time, namely, in the seventh month, or the month Ethanim, which is all one with Tisri, and thence the service of it began, 2 Kings 8. 2. Now since Christ himself averreth that the Temple was a figure of his body, John 2. we may follow the Allegory with the more boldness, and apply the dedication of that, and the time of the dedication, to his consecration by baptism, to his ministerial service, and parallel them both in the very same time.

Secondly, the certain and determinate place where our Saviour was baptized, cannot absolutely be fixed and resolved upon by any warrant of Scripture: though many have been so confident as to point it out, and to shew a cross set in the very place of the River, and miraculous curing of Lepers in the water. The Evangelists have given no more settlement of it then this, that it was in Judea, and that it was in Jordan: Two circum∣stances the more remarkable.

First, because that after that baptism of our Saviour, we cannot certainly find John bap∣tizing either in the same Country, or in the same River ever again. For whereas there is mention of his being about six weeks after this in Bethabara, John 1. 28. that was both on the other side Jordan, and it was a water different from Jordan, Jud. 7. 24. and of his baptizing in Enon, a whole twelvemonth after this, Joh. 3. 23. that was also out of the precincts of Judea, and distant somewhat from the banks of Jordan, and the waters there, the waters of the place it self and not of that River. And this sheweth the reason more plainly, why Luke in the clause next before this that we have in hand, summeth up the baptism of all the people, before he speak of our Saviours: because that there were now collected out of Judea, all the harvest of believers that might be gathered in by the preaching of John, and when Christ was baptized, John was to re∣move to another place.

Secondly, from this, that Christ was baptized of John in Jordan, and in Judea, it will almost inevitably follow, that he was baptized in the place, where the river was dryed up, and the Israelites first entred into the Land of Canaan. For if it be considered, 1. That the Army marched through the channel in two main bodies the one on the one side of the Ark, and the other, on the other. 2. That either of these main bodies were two miles distant from the Ark on either side, and consequently four miles from each other.

Thirdly, That these two great squadrons consisting either of them of so very many thousands marched in an extraordinary breadth, because they were to pass over in a rea∣sonable time, it will follow hereupon, even past all denyal, that this their passage took up all the length of Jordan, that it had in Judea, or very near it, so that the place we seek for, is within this compass: and by this we may observe the substance sweetly answer∣ing to the figure, and way made through the waters of Jordan, to the heavenly Cannan by baptism▪ in the very same place where there was to the earthly, by its drying up.

Thirdly, The manner of his baptizing differed not from the common manner that John used with others, save in one particular. For he went into the water, had water sprinkled on him, and prayed as well as they, but whether John used the same form of words in bap∣tizing of him that he did to the other, or some other, or none at all, is some question or scruple. The least is of the first, for it may be readily resolved that he baptized not him in the same words, that he did the others, because he then should have baptized him in his own name, which who can imagine? and into him, or in his name which was to come, which had been to have pointed out another Christ. Betwixt the two latter the scales are ballancing, and they weigh so even, that it is not much material which way your allowance doth turn them, for the Quaere it self is of far more curiosity then necessity: For why might not John baptize him in varyed words? As, I baptize thee with water to the Preaching of the Gospel; or why might he not baptize him without any words at all, since he received baptism, not so much for a Sacrament, as for satisfaction of the ty∣pical Law? Let the Readers judgment weigh down the scale.

Mat. 3. Ver. 16. He went up streight out of the water.

The invention of Auricular confession hath invented a strange Exposition of this clause. For the rest of the people, say some, standing in the waters, I know not how deep▪ after they were baptized, confessed their sins unto John before they came out, being detainded there by him, until they had so done, but Christ, because he had no

sin, needed no such confession, and therefore he came suddenly out of the water after he was baptized. A gloss that includeth impossibilities. For neither was it possible that so great multitudes should be baptized in so short a time, if every one made a singular confession of their sins to John; nor was it possible that John should indure so long in the water as this work would require, and never come out, for if they stood up to the neck in the river, I cannot think but that he also stood some deepness in the water. But this speedy coming of our Saviour out of the water after he was baptized, is expressed by the Evangelist, only to shew how near and close the opening of the heavens was to his baptizing, namely, that it was almost in the very same instant, as Mark explaineth it; And straightway coming up out of the water he saw the heavens opened, &c.

Luke 3. vers. 21. And praying.

This it seemeth was the manner of those that were baptized, as soon as they were baptized, to come up out of the water and pray, and this explaineth that before, about confessing their sins, that it was not to John, but to God, as soon as they came out of the water. Now since Christ had no sins to confess of his own, the tenour of his prayer tended to another purpose. If we think it was for the glory of God, for the conversion of many by his Ministry which he was now beginning, for the preservation of the Elect, and the sanctifying of the Church, and the like, we think not much amiss, since we find his prayers in other places to be made and tendered to the same effect. But it seemeth rather that his prayer at this time was for what followed upon his prayer, the sending down of the Holy Ghost, and the glorifying of him by a testimony from Heaven. For, first, the Text hath laid his prayer, and the opening of the Heavens so closely, and so consonantly withal together, Jesus praying the Heavens were opened, as that it seemeth to point out what was the tenour of his prayer by the consequent upon it.

Secondly, In another place there is the like return upon the like prayer, Joh. 12. 28. Father glorifie thy name; there came therefore a voice from Heaven, &c.

Thirdly, It being considered that our Saviour was to enter now upon the great work of Redemption, and the preaching of the Gospel, it will be the less strange to conceive that he prayed for the visible sealing of him to that work and office by the Holy Ghost, and for a testimony of him that he was the Messias.

Matth. 3. ver. 16. Lo the Heavens were opened.

There is no material difference in the thing, though Luke hath put the Heaven in the singular number, and Matthew, the Heavens, in the plural, for one followeth the Idiome of the Hebrews, and the other of the Greeks. For the Hebrews cannot call the Heaven by its proper name, but in the plural or dual number 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Heavens: but the Greeks can in the singular. And so little doth the Syriack make of this difference of num∣ber in the two Evangelists, that he translateth it just cross, Matthews plural in the singu∣lar, and Lukes singular in the plural.

About the opening of the Heavens or the manner of the same, as it is of far more consequence to inquire, so it is of difficulty to resolve, because of diversity of opinions, and probabilities several ways.

First, Some deny the opening of the Heavens at all, but understand that Christ saw them opened, and the Holy Ghost descending intellectually only, or by spiritual vi∣sion, as Ezekiel saw the Heavens opened, Ezek. 1. 2. But this exposition is very im∣proper, for John saw the same also, and the descending of the Holy Ghost was in a bodily shape and not imaginary, and the voice was Articulate and Audible, and not visionary.

Secondly, Others deny also the opening of the Heavens, but with another manner of evasion, and exposition. For there was, say they, no seisure or parting of the Heavens asunder, because they are incorruptible, but a great, glorious, and miraculous light shone round about Christ, as if the very highest Heaven had been open, and the light thereof imparted clearly to the Earth: But this opinion also is confuted by the word that Mark useth, differing from the other two. For though the phrase, The Heavens were opened, would admit of such a Metaphorical or comparative exposition, yet when Mark saith expresly, that the Heavens were cloven, or parted asunder, for so is his word in the Original, [the Syriack expresseth it by the very same word that the Chaldee Pa∣raphrast useth in Lev. 11. for parting of the hoof] it inforceth us to look for a literal interpretation in it, and not a tropical.

Thirdly, Aquinas evadeth the real opening of them with this gloss stranger than both the other, and by another intellectual vision than that that was spoken of before: For it may also be understood, saith he, of an intellectual vision, namely, that Christ [baptism being now sanctified] saw Heaven open unto men. But this exposition the word of Saint Mark, newly mentioned, confuteth much more than it did the other.

Fourthly, Mark therefore tying us to a litteral sense, and to understand a real and proper cleaving of the Heavens indeed, the doubt now only resteth, what Heaven it was, whether the Aereal or Aethereal, for so are the heavens properly distinguished, ac∣cording to the significancy of the Hebrew word Shamaiim, which importeth a duality, or a thing doubled. Answer, It was only the Aereal, for that is called Heaven, and the Fir∣mament, Gen. 1. 8, 20. as may be confirmed by these reasons:

First, Because there needed no further seisure in the Heavens, than the renting of the clouds in the middle Region, either for the descending of the Holy Ghost, or of the voyce, or for the satisfying of the eyes and ears of the spectators, and hearers, that they came from Heaven.

Secondly, Because the Scripture in other places speaking of things which came but out of the clouds, yet useth the very same term to express the clouds by, that is used here, namely Heaven: As, The Lord that gave the Law out of a cloud, Exod. 19. 16. is said to have spoken from Heaven, Exod. 20. 22. So the like voice to this here, that came out of a cloud, Luke 9. 35. yet is said to come from Heaven, 2 Pet. 1. 18. And Elias that by his prayer shut up the clouds, that there was no rain, is said to have shut up Heaven, Luke 4. 25. The opening of the Heavens then was the renting of the clouds, as we see them rent, when the lightning comes forth, and out of that rent came the Holy Ghost in visible shape, and the heavenly voice. And thus did the Gospel or Preaching of Christ begin with the opening of the Heavens which the Law had shut, and thus were the heavens shaken, when the desire of all Nations came first to be revealed openly, as Hag. 2. 6, 7. The very same difference of expression that is betwixt Saint Mark and the other Evange∣lists, is betwixt the Hebrew, and the LXX in Isa. 64. 1. for the Original readeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, thou wouldest or hast rent, but the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, If thou open the Heavens, &c.

Matth. 3. ver. 16. The Heavens were opened to him.

To him, to whom? To Christ, or to John? Why, to the eyes and beholding of them both, for in that John saith, he saw the Holy Ghost coming from or out of Heaven like a Dove, Joh. 1. 32. he maketh it past denial, that he saw the opening of the Heavens; but the word to him in this place must be reserved and referred in a singular peculiarity to Christ, and the opening of the Heavens to him, importeth a more emphatical propriety than their opening to his sight. For, the Syntax and Grammatical construction that Mark useth, maketh it impossible to fix the words to him, any other ways than upon Christ: And straightway, saith he, coming up out of the water, he saw the Heavens rent, or cloven, &c. This then being the propriety of the words, that the Heaven was opened to our Saviour, and yet since it was also opened to the sight of John, it doth necessarily inforce us to un∣derstand it otherwise than only to his view or beholding, namely, to his prayer: as the phrase is used by him himself, Knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For had the Evan∣gelist intended only to shew how he saw this apertion in the Heaven, he might have joy∣ned John with him in the same sight; but he would give us to understand by the phrase that he hath used singularly of Christ alone, that the Heavens were not only opened to his sight, but for his sake. And from hence may be confirmed what was spoken before concerning his prayer, namely, that it aimed at such a thing, as Elias prayed, and the Heaven was opened and fire came down upon his Sacrifie. Thus Heaven that was shut to the first Adam, because of his sin, is opened to the second, because of his righteous∣ness, and to all that by faith are partakers of it.

Mark 1. Ver. 10. He saw the Heavens cloven.

This is to be understood as that before, of Christ only, and after the same sense, or to the same purport. But since it is certain that John saw this as well as he, as is also ob∣served before, and yet none of the three Evangelists that record the Story, have given any undoubted or plain evidence of any such a thing; it may likewise be questioned whether the rest of the people which were there present did see this sight as well as Christ and John. Theophylact is peremptory in the affirmative; For all of them, saith he, saw the Spirit coming upon Jesus, lest they should think that the voice, This is my beloved Son,

had been spoken concerning John; but upon the sight of the Holy Ghost they might believe that that voice was concerning Christ. And of this opinion are very many others with him, and no marveil; for who could conceive any other thing? And yet upon the weighing of these Reasons following, we may very well be perswaded to believe the contrary, or that this Heavenly spectacle, and divine voice was conspicuous and audible to none, but only to Christ and John.

First, Because John after this doth himself tell those that were present at this time, that there had stood one among them, but they knew him not, that that was he that was to come after him. For the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, John 1. 26. must of ne∣cessity be rendred in its preterfect signification; for John spake not those words till after Christ was baptized and gone, for he was at that time in his temptation in the wilderness.

Secondly, Because Christ himself also telleth the Jews, that they had never heard his Fathers voice, John 5. 37. and among those to whom he speaketh, were divers that had imbraced the doctrine and baptism of John, ver. 35. and it may very well be supposed, some that were present at his baptism at this very time. The maintain∣ers of the contrary Opinion have spied this scruple and difficulty arising upon that Text, and have gone about to salve it, but with a very improper and dangerous plaister: holding that though they heard this voice, yet they heard not the voice of the Father, but of an Angel which spake in his Name, which shall be examined by and by.

Thirdly, It is improbable that when Christ had such another testimony from Hea∣ven at his transfiguration▪ that he should conceal it from nine of his Disciples, and charge the three silence that heard it, and saw what was done, Matth. 17. 9. and yet should let this voice and vision from Heaven be so publick, as to be heard and seen of all the people.

Fourthly, John himself telleth that this Revelation was given chiefly, if not only, for his sake, John 1. 33.

Fifthly, The preaching of the Baptist was the means that God had ordained to bring the people to the knowledge of Christ, John 1. 7, 31. and this Revelation, to bring the Paptist to it.

Sixthly, Had all the people been partakers of this sight and voice, John had needed no more to have pointed Christ out, but the people would have known him as well as he, nor could the opinion have ever prevailed, as it did, that valued John above him.

Seventhly, When John shewed him forth with the finger, with Behold the Lamb of God, presently Disciples followed him, which they would have done much more, had they thus seen and heard him, pointed out from Heaven; but it is plain they did not the one, and thereupon it may be boldly concluded that they did not the other.

Eighthly, To which may be added, that God ordained preaching, partly of John, partly of Christ himself, and partly of his Disciples, the way to bring the world ac∣quainted that he was Messias. And these divine Revelations were for the instruction and confirmation of them his preachers, who were chosen witnesses for such a pur∣pose, that they thereupon might the more confidently confirm the people. And here∣upon it is observable, that while the Baptist was at liberty, our Saviour contented him∣self with his testimony and preaching, but when he was shut up, then instantly chose he others.

Now if any doubt of the possibility of this, and question how could John see and hear these things, and the other company that was present not do so as well as he: The answer may be readily given by example of Elishaes servant, 2 King. 6. 17. and the two men that went to Emmaus, Luke 24. For the mountain was full of Horses, and Chariots of fire, and Elisha perceived them, but his servant did not till his eyes were opened in a more special manner. And Christ it is like was in the same shape and appear∣ance upon the way when they knew him not that he was in the house when they did, but till then their eyes were holden. Yet if any one will suppose that the people saw the slashing of the opened Heaven, and heard the noise of the voice that came from thence, and took the one for lightning, and the other for thunder, as John 12. 29. we will not oppose it, for now was the season of the year fit for lightning and thunder: but that either they saw the Holy Ghost, or distinguished the words of the voice, any more then Pauls companions did, Act. 9. 7. compared with Act. 22. 9. the reasons alledged do inforce to deny, till better information.

Matth. 3. vers. 16. And he saw the Spirit of God.

The Syntax and construction of Mark, doth tye and fix these words [He saw] only to our Saviour, as it did those before; and both for the reason mentioned; namely, to shew the return and answer of his prayer. But these words of Matthew are not so strict, but that they may equally be applied unto John.

For, first, there may be observed a distinction in the verse, and a kind of differ∣ence of speech betwixt what goeth before about the opening of the Heavens, and this sight of the Holy Ghost. For of that he speaketh thus. And Jesus being bapti∣zed went straightway out of the water, and lo the Heavens were opened unto him. And then cometh he on with a distinct clause concerning the other, And he saw the Spirit of God descending, leaving it at the least in an indifferency, whether to apply it to Christ or John.

But, secondly, it seemeth rather to be understood of John, because he saith him∣self that this descending of the Holy Ghost was given to him for a sign, and that he saw it; and if it be not to be so taken here, none of the three Evangelists have men∣tioned it in the story at all.

And, thirdly, the rather may it be taken of Johns seeing it, because he saith, He saw him descending and coming, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 upon him. Had it been said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 upon himself, it must needs have been understood of Christ upon whom the Spirit came, that he saw the Spirit coming upon himself: but since it i•• upon him, without any reciprocation, it may be the better applied to John, that he saw it. It is true indeed that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes signifieth reciprocally himself, as our Lexicons do give examples, and as it is of force to be taken in Saint Mark in this place, like as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes doth not signifie reciprocally, as in the LXX, in Judg. 7. 24. But why should we take the word out of its commonest and properest sense, unless there were necessity to do it, which in Matthew there is not, though in Mark there be.

Fourthly, and lastly, These words he saw, being understood of John, it maketh that the three Evangelists being laid together, the relation ariseth out of them the more full, and the story more plain. For Luke telling that the Heavens were open∣ed, and the Holy Ghost descended, Mark addeth, that Jesus saw this, and Matthew, that John.

Matth. 3. ver. 16. The Spirit of God.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Gen. 2. 2. The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters in the beginning of the old world, and so doth it here, of the new: It is needless to instance, how oft in Scripture the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of God, as Gen. 41. 38. Exod. 31. 3. Numb. 24. 2. and very many other places; but it is most neces∣sary to observe that wheresoever he is so called, it is in the Hebrew the Spirit of Elohim, in the plural number, and sheweth his proceeding from more persons then one. Contrary to the opinion of the Greek Church that holdeth, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth not from the Father and the Son, but from the Father only.

Luke 3. ver. 22. The Holy Ghost.

As he is called the Spirit, not so much in regard of his own nature, as in regard of his manner of proceeding, so also is he called Holy, not so much in respect of his person, for the Father and Son are Spirits, and are holy as well as he, but in regard of his Work and Office, which is to sanctifie the Church of God. And in this respect he is called by the Hebrews, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Holy Spirit one∣ly, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ruahh hakkodesh, the Spirit of Holiness, for this phrase the Holy Ghost, is taken from the common speech of the Jews: And so is he called by Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rom. 1. 4. and so doth the Syrian call him Rubba dekudsha, in this place.

§. The Holy Ghost descended.

This descending of the Holy Ghost was, first, partly for the sake of John, for this token had been given him, when he first began to preach and baptize, whereby to know Christ when he should come, Joh. 1. 33.

Secondly, Partly for Christ, that he might thus receive his Consecration and Insti∣tution for the Office that he was now to enter upon, the Preaching of the Go∣spel. This was as his anointing to instal him into his Function, as Aaaron and his Sons were with material oyl to enter them into theirs, as Isa. 61. 1. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, therefore hath he anointed me, he hath sent me to Preach the Gospel. And,

Thirdly, Partly for the business and matter that was now to go in hand, namely, Christ beginning to preach accordingly. For,

First, The Gospel is the Spiritual Kingdom and Scepter of Christ, in and by which he was to rule all Nations for ever, and therefore it was agreeable that the Spiri∣tualness of that should be sealed and confirmed by the Holy Spirits shewing himself even in the beginning of it. The carnal rites of Moses were now to vanish, and his Corporal and Ceremonial observances to be changed into a Spiritual Worship: and neither at Jerusalem, nor at mount Gerizim, nor elsewhere, must there be any more adoration, with fleshly and earthly Ceremoniousness, but he that will worship God must worship him in Spirit, as Joh. 4. 21. Therefore it is no wonder, if the Holy Ghost doth now reveal himself, now when his sway of spirituality, and dominion, by sanctifi∣cation is to begin.

Secondly, The Holy Ghost was departed from Israel, after the death of the last Pro∣phets, as was observed before, and now he is to be restored again, therefore himself cometh visibly and apparently at this his restoring, and lighteth upon him to whom it belonged to give and distribute the gifts of the Spirit, to whom he pleased. For as John had told that Christ should baptize with the Holy Ghost, so is that power and priviledge now sealed unto him in the sight of John, when the Holy Ghost cometh down upon him and there abideth.

§. Descended in a bodily shape.

God is said to descend, not that he moveth from place to place, or cometh where he was not before, for he is incircumscriptible, and every where and filleth all places: but in that he sheweth this his presence upon Earth, in such or such a place, by some external sign, and visible appearance: And so he is said to come down to see whether the wickedness of Sodome were according to the cry that was come up unto him, be∣cause he revealed himself to Abraham, Lot, and the Sodomites in the visible and con∣spicuous representation of men: So is he said to have come down upon Mount Si∣nai, because of the outward revealing and expression of his presence there. And so the Chaldee Paraphrast understandeth the Trinities descending, Gen. 11. 5. for a conspicu∣ous appearance of it, for he translateth, The Lord revealed himself to take vengeance, &c. And so is the Holy Ghost said to descend in this story, and in that in Act. 2. not but that he was present in the same places before, by his power and Godhead, but that he revealed and expressed his presence by so sensible an evidence, and by, and in so revea∣led a work.

§. In a bodily shape.

First, It was convenient that the Holy Ghost should reveal himself at this time: First, for the sake of John, who was to have a sensible sign, whereby to inform him which was the Messias, as Joh. 1.

Secondly, In regard of the Holy Ghost himself, whose work in the Church was now in a more special and frequent manner to be shewed under the Gospel, namely, that he might be expressed and revealed to be a personal substance, and not an operation of the Godhead only, or qualitative vertue. For qualities, operations and acts cannot as∣sume bodily shapes, nor ought but what is in it self substantial.

Thirdly, That a full and clear, yea, even a sensible demonstration of the Trinity might be made at this beginning of the Gospel. For it may be observed in Scripture, that the Holy Ghost hath a special regard to express this mystery upon singular occa∣sions, that we might learn to acknowledge the three Persons in one Godhead, as he also doth the two natures of Christ, that we might acknowledge them in one person. So the very first thing that is taught in all the Bible, is this very mystery: For when Moses beginneth the Story of the Creation, he beginneth also to teach that the three Persons in the Trinity were co-workers in it. God Created, there is the Father. God said, there is the Word, or the Son. And the Spirit of God moved, there is the Holy Ghost. And the very same mystery is intimated by the Prophet, treating upon the very same Subject, Isa. 42. 5. Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the Heavens,

and they that stretched them out: That we might learn, that Of him, through him, and to him, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are all things, Rom. 11. 36. So Moses also when he is to teach concerning the creation of man, he first teacheth that it was the Trinity that created him, Gen. 1. 26. And God said, Let us make man after our Image. He saith, Let us, to shew the Trinity of persons: and he saith, In our Image, not in our Images, to shew the unity of essence; That every man, even from the reading of the story of his Creation might learn to remember his Creators in the days of his youth; as Solomon with the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Boraiecha, answereth the same mystery, Eccles. 12. 1. So likewise at the confusion of Tongues the Trinity is expressed, Gen. 11. 7. Let us go down and confound their Language: as it is also at the gift of Tongues, I will send the Comforter from the Father, Joh. 15. 26. Act. 1. 4. Such a one also was the blessing pronounced by the Priest upon the people, when he dismissed them from the daily ser∣vice of the Temple, in the name of the Trinity, Numb. 6. 24, 25, 26. the name Jeho∣vah or the Lord, three times repeated, for denotation of the three Persons, as Paul explaineth it, 2 Cor. 13. 13. When Moses also beginneth to rehearse the Law to Israel, and to explain it, the first thing he teacheth them is the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, Deut. 6. 4. Hear O Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord, is one. Three words answering the three Persons, and the middle word our God, deciphering fitly the second, who assumed our nature, as is well observed by Galatinus. To these may be added, the entrance of Moses his revelation with the Name of the Lord, three times rehearsed, Exod. 34. 6. The Vision of Esay with three Holies, Isa. 6. 3. The begin∣ning of Psal. 50. and of Psal. 136. and many of the like nature, which the heedful reader will observe himself. How fitting then was it that at the beginning of the new world, and the new Law, and the baptism of Christ, the three Persons should be re∣vealed, especially since he ordained baptism to be administred in their Names; Baptize them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Matth. 28. 19.

§. Like a Dove.

It is thought by Austin, and after him by Aquinas, that this was a very living Dove, not of the flock indeed of common Doves, but immediately created by God for this purpose, but created as true a living Dove, as any of them: and the reason they give for this their opinion is this. Because it is not to be said that Christ alone had a true body, and that the Holy Ghost appeared deceiveably to the eyes of men, but that both those are to be said to be true bodies: for as it was not fit that the Son of God should deceive men, so was it not fit that the Holy Ghost should deceive them neither. But it was no difficulty to the Creator of all things, to make a true body of a Dove, without the help of other Doves, as it was not hard for him to frame a true body in the womb of the Virgin without the seed of man. So they, too punctual where there is no necessity, nor indeed any great probability. For,

First, What needed there a real living Dove, when an apparent only would serve the turn? For the descending of the Dove was, that there might be a visible demonstra∣tion of the Holy Ghost his resting upon Christ, and anointing him for his Ministra∣tion: so that the visibility of the Spirit was as much as was required, and there needed no reality of a living body.

Secondly, The Text saith expresly in all the Evangelists, that it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, like or as it were a Dove; which plainly sheweth the similitude to such a thing; and not the being of the very thing it self.

Thirdly, In apparitions of the like nature, when the furthest end of the body appear∣ing, was but for visibility, the bodies that were seen, were not of the very existency and nature of those that they represented, but of another. As the Angels that ap∣peared in humane shapes, had not very living humane bodies, but only bodies assumed and framed to such a representation: And so the fire in the bush, on Sinai, and with the cloven Tongues, was not very real fire, but only a visible resemblance of it; and the like must be held of this Dove, or else it will be such an apparition as never was before, nor since.

Fourthly, The parallel betwixt the appearing of our Saviour, in humane flesh, and the appearing of the Holy Ghost, in a living Dove, is not only very impro∣per, but also somewhat dangerous. For if they appeared alike, then may the Holy Ghost be said to be a very Dove [for Christ was a very man,] and that were im∣proper, and in its kind, to be incarnate, [for Christ was incarnate,] and that is dan∣gerous. And,

Fifthly, As for fallacy or deceiving there could be none, no more than there had been in all other apparitions since the world began, since in such things, the verity and reality of the body that appeared, was not looked after, but only the conspicuity, and the spirit that lay hid under that body.

Now reasons why the Holy Ghost appeared in the shape of a Dove, rather than of any other creature, are conceived, some to have concerned Christ, some to have concerned the Holy Ghost himself, and some to have concerned man. As,

First, To shew Christs innocency, purity, simplicity, charity, and love, for all these qualities are observable in a Dove.

Secondly, To shew the like graces of the Holy Ghost; and Aquinas and Ludolphus do parallel the seven graces of the Spirit, Isa. 11. 2, 3. to seven properties of a Dove; as if any be so curious as to see them, he may, in Lud. in loc. and Aquin. par. 3. quest. 39. Art. 6.

Thirdly, To shew what innocency and harmlesness should be in those that are baptized.

Fourthly, To answer the figure in Noahs flood; for as a Dove did at that time bring tidings of the abating of the waters, so doth it now of the abating of the wrath of God, upon the preaching of the Gospel. These are the common and most current reasons that are given by Expositors, to which may be added:

Fifthly, That since Christ was to have visible testimony from Heaven, it was fittest it should be by the likeness of a fowl of Heaven; For it was not fitting that fire should have come thence upon him, for he was to baptize, and not to be baptized with fire: and for a cloud to come from thence upon him, was reserved till another time, namely, at his transfiguration: and what then can be imagined to descend upon him, but a bird? And what bird so sit as a Dove which was the only fowl that was clean, and allowed for sacri∣fice? Lev. 1. 14.

Matth. 3. ver. 16. And lighting upon him.

In the strictness of the Greek, it is coming upon him, which is to the very same signifi∣cation: especially the addition of the Baptist himself being laid unto it, viz. that it abode upon him, Joh. 1. 32. Some conceive and that not improperly, that the Dove sate upon his head: which if it did, it was like the inscription in the golden plate, that was on the fore-head of the High Priest, and declared him to be Kodesh Laihovah, The Holy one of the Lord, Exod. 28. 36. How long the Dove sat upon him, is not to be questioned, be∣cause not to be answered, it is not unlike, that it did so, all the while he was in the sight of John at this time, especially seeing that the Text saith, that straightway this Spirit drove him into the wilderness.

Ver. 17. And lo, a voice from Heaven.

The testimony of two witnesses, is a confirmation past denial, and greater witnesses than these two could not be produced, the Father and the Holy Ghost, because a testi∣mony could not be given to a greater than to Christ. Nor could these two witnesses have properly gone single, one without the other: the descending of the Dove to point out to whom the voice was intended, and the descending of the voice explaining what was meant by the descending of the Dove.

§. A voice.

Both the Talmudick, and the latter Rabbins make frequent mention of Bath Kol, Fi∣lia vocis, or an Echoing voice, which served under the second Temple, for their utmost refuge of revelation: For when Urim and Thummim, the Oracle was ceased, and Pro∣phecy was decayed and gone, they had [as they say] certain strange, and extraordina∣ry voices upon extraordinary occasion, which were their warnings, and advertisements in some special matters. Infinite instances of this might be adduced, if they might be believed; one allegation in the Talmud shall serve for all, concerning Jonathan the Chaldee Paraphrast. When Jonathan the Son of Uzziel, say they, had composed the Tar∣gum of the Prophets, there came Bath Kol, or a divine voice, and said, who hath revealed my secrets to the Sons of men? And when he went about to explain the Chetubbim, or the books of Holy Writ, there came a Bath Kol, or a divine voice again, and said, It is enough. What is the reason? Because in them is revealed the end of the Messias. In Megillah.

Now here it may be doubly questioned: First, Why they called it Bath Kol, The Daughter of a voice, and not a voice it self? And secondly, Whether this voice that we have in hand, were such a voice as that or no? To the first, If the strictness of the He∣brew word Bath be to be stood upon, which it always is not, it may be answered, that it is called the Daughter of a voice, in relation to the Oracle of Urim and Thummim: for whereas that was a voice given from off the Mercy Seat, within the vail, and this up∣on the decay of that Oracle, came as it were in its place, it might not unfitly, nor un∣properly be called a Daughter, or successor of that voice. But to the second, and which is more material and pertinent to the subject in hand, it may be answered, that this voice was not of the nature of their Bath Kol, upon these two reasons.

First, Because this voice came descendingly from Heaven, but their Bath Kol cannot be proved to have descended; or at least to have constantly come from Heaven. For the Migremus hinc, which gave warning of the destruction of the City, came not from above, but from the Temple, as Isa. 66. 6. And this can hardly be denied to have been one of their Bath Kol voices: And if we will believe the Jewish Authors in every place where they give examples of this their Bath Kol, it will appear rather to be such a voice as came to Samuel, which was so far from a perpendicular descending voice, that he could not distinguish whether it were the call of Eli.

Secondly, Because, whereas the Jews repute their Bath Kol, both the last and the lowest kind of divine Revelation among them, this kind of a voice from Heaven, was both most ancient, as Gen. 21. 17. & 22. 11. and also most honourable, Exod. 20. 22. Deut. 4. 33, 36.

§. From Heaven.

The opinion that these words were spoken by an Angel, deputed by God for that purpose, which some do hold, is not only improper, but also dangerous: improper, be∣cause it crosseth a plain and facile Text; and dangerous, because it bringeth a created Angel into a kind of equality, and compartnership with the sacred Trinity. For,

First, Why should there be any surmise of such an Angel, uttering these words, unless it might be thought that God could not utter them himself?

Secondly, As Paul saith, To which of the Angels said God at any time, Thou art my Son? So may it be said much more, which of the Angels ever durst or might call Christ his Son?

Thirdly, Peter speaking of the Parallel, or like voice to this, which was uttered at our Saviours transfiguration, he saith, it came from the excellent glory, which doubtless shew∣eth more than from an Angel, 2 Pet. 1. 17.

Matth. 3. Ver. 17. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.

In Mark and Luke it is, Thou art my beloved Son, &c. whereas Matthew expresseth it, This is: which though it shew some difference, yet is it not material: nor doth the diffe∣rence breed so much difficulty, as it doth satisfaction to the Reader, and fulness to the story: For the two Evangelists first named, relate it as spoken to Christ, for the sealing of his person, and in answer to his prayer; but the other expresseth it only as spoken of Christ, and not to him, but pointing him out to the notice of John.

Now this whole speech is taken from 2 Sam. 7. 14. Psal. 89. 26, 27. and Isa. 42. 1. and when it is uttered again from Heaven, at our Saviours transfiguration, this addition Hear him, is put to it; Matth. 17. 5. Luke 9. 35. sealing him then for the great Prophet of his Church, whom all must hear, Deut. 18. 15. as it sealeth him now for the high Priest of his Church, being now to enter into his Ministry.

Luke 3. ver. 23. And Iesus himself began to be about thirty years of age.

Agreeable to this age of Christ, when he began his Ministery, was the age of the Priests, when they entred their Office, Numb. 4. 3. the age of Joseph, when he came to promotion, Gen. 41. 46. and the age of David, when he began to Reign, 2 Sam. 5. 4. Now how this is to be understood is some controversie: Some there are that take it thus, that Jesus was now fully and perfectly thirty: Others thus, that he now began or drew on to be full thirty, and so preaching three years and six months, that he died at thirty three years old and an half.

But this interpretation, the phrase used by the Evangelist, and the common and ordi∣nary manner of the Scriptures reckoning of the ages of men, and of other things doth sufficiently contradict: For,

First, In that Luke saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he was baptized, beginning to be as it were thirty: the word beginning to be, denieth his being thirty compleat; and the word as it were, denieth his drawing upon thirty compleat likewise: For if he were full thirty, then he began not to be so: and if he were drawing on to full thirty, then was he not drawing to as it were thirty, but to thirty indeed. By the phrase therefore, is to be understood, that he was now nine and twenty years of age compleat, and just now entring upon his thirtieth: and this the Evangelist hinteth so clearly, that it needeth not much con∣firmation: For that he was in his thirty current and not compleated, is plain by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it were thirty, that is, thirty years old, after a certain reckoning: and that he was but now entring upon this his thirty current, is as plain by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he began but to be so.

To which also, secondly, may be added the common and current use of Scripture in reckoning of ages, either of men or beasts, to account the year which they are now passing, for a year of their age, be it never so newly or lately begun: Examples of this it is needless to give, the thing is so usual and obvious to every eye.

So that now to take up the times of the world, and of our Saviour, according to this computation, they result to this.

First, That since he was born in the year of the World 3928. stilo veteri, but newly begun, he was baptized in the year of the World 3957. but newly begun, by the same stile likewise.

Secondly, That since he was born in Tisri, he was also baptized in Tisri.

Thirdly, That since his last residence in Bethlehem, to his first appearing publickly in the work of the Gospel, were full seven and twenty years: all which time he had lived either in Nazareth, the Town of his Mother, or in Capernaum, the Town of his suppo∣sed Father, and so his birth in Bethlehem, is utterly grown out of the thoughts and ob∣servation of the people.

Fourthly, That he hath now three years and a half to labour in the Gospel from his Baptism to his crucifying, Rabbi Janna said, Three years and a half the glory of God stood upon Mount Olivet, and preached, saying, Seek the Lord while he may be found, call upon him while he is near. Midr. Tillin.

Fifthly, That he lived but two and thirty years and an half: and that his thirtieth year was the first year of his preaching, and not the last year of his private life. Compare the date of Davids reign in Hierusalem, 1 Chron. 29. 27. The time that David reigned over Israel, was forty years: Seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty three years reigned he in Heirusalem. Exactly, Seven years and six months reigned he in Hebron, 2 Sam. 5. 5. and then thirty and two years and six moneths reigned he in Hierusalem.

Sixthly, That if Hierusalem were destroyed exactly forty years after our Saviours death, as it is apparent it was, both in Christian and Heathen Stories, then that destructi∣on of it befel just in the four thousand year of the world, and so as the Temple of Solo∣mon had been finished Anno mundi exactly 3000, so in Anno mundi exactly 4000. both the City and the Temple that then was, was destroyed never to be repaired or re∣built again. And from that time most properly began the Kingdom of Heaven, and the new Hierusalem, when that earthly Kingdom, and that old City were utterly ruined.

§. Being [as was supposed] the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

At every descent in this Genealogy, the word Jesus is to be understood, otherwise the first and last descents are improper, and different in stile from all the rest. For Joseph was not the Son of Heli, but only his Son in Law, and Adam was no more the Son of God, than any of the other holy men, that were named before. The sup∣ply therefore is thus to be made to make all proper, Jesus, being as was supposed the Son of Joseph, Jesus the Son of Heli, Jesus the Son of Matthat, &c. Jesus the Son of Seth, Jesus the Son of Adam, Jesus the Son of God.

And the like stile of Genealogy, Moses useth, Gen. 36. 2. Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon, where Anah is not called the daughter of Zibeon, for he was a man and not a woman: no more was Joseph the Son of Heli, for he was only his son in Law, but the word Aholibamah is to be supplied thus, Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, Aholibamah the daughter of Zibeon.

Heli or Eli [for the name seemeth to be the same with his in 1 Sam. 1. 3. &c.] was not the natural Father of Joseph, for Matthew told us plainly before, that it was

Jacob that begot Joseph, but Heli was the Father of Mary, and Father-in-Law of Joseph only: Now because it is not used in Scripture to mention any women in a pedigree, or to run the line from the Mother, but from the Father to the Son, therefore Mary is not here named at all, but intimated or included, when the line begins from her Father, and calleth her husband his son, which he was only because of her.

So that Luke intending to shew Christ the seed of the woman, must of necessity reckon by Mary the daughter of Heli, as Matthew intending to shew him the heir of the Crown of David, doth reckon by Joseph the heir male apparent. In comparing and lay∣ing together these men that Matthew and Luke have named, in the ancestry of Jo∣seph and Mary, betwixt the returning out of the captivity, and the times of our Sa∣viour, we find that every one man in the stock of Joseph, did almost outlive two of those in the line of Mary, the one line affording twenty descents betwixt those two periods, and the other but one above half so many: which easily and readily confuteth that opinion that some have strangely held, that the persons in the two Genealogies have been the same men, only under different names: and it helpeth somewhat to settle the times between those two periods, against the different miscountings of seve∣ral men, some stretching them longer than the eleven persons named in Matthew could stretch to live, and some cutting them shorter than the twenty named in Luke could be comprehended in.

Ver. 27. Which was the Son of Salathiel, which was the Son of Neri.

Neri was the natural father of Salathiel: he seemeth to have been so named from the candle which the Lord reserved for David and his house, 2 Chron. 21. 7.

Ver. 31. Which was the Son of Nathan.

2 Sam. 5. 14. 1 Chron. 3. 5. It is like that he was named after Nathan the Prophet, who brought David word of the promise, 2 Sam. 7. and of the cotinuance of his house, which failed in the race of Solomon: but continued in the race of this Nathan, till the King came that was to sit on Davids Throne for ever. Here again the number of persons in the Genealogy of Mary, betwixt David and the captivity, exceed the number in the Genealogy of Joseph, in Matth. 1.

Vers. 36. Which was the Son of Cainan, which was the Son of Arphaxad.

In Moses it is said Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber, Gen. 10. 24. & 11. 12. And so is it briefly reckoned, 1 Chron. 1. 24. Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, without any mention of Cainan at all, nor is there any memorial of such a son of Arphaxad throughout all the Old Testament, nor indeed was there ever any such a man in the world at all. Here therefore is an extraordinary scruple, and a question of no small difficulty meeteth us; where Luke found the name of this man, which is not to be found elswhere in all the Bible? And whether it be not an error in the Text, and were not a miscarriage in the Evangelist, to reckon a man for an ancestor of Christ, that the world never saw, or that never was upon the Earth.

Answer, It is easie indeed to resolve, where Luke found this name of Cainan, and from whence he took it, namely from the Greek Bible, or the Septuagint, which hath inserted it in those places of Moses that are alledged; but when this is resolved, the greater scruple is yet behind, of his warrantableness so to do, and of the purity of the Text, where it is so done.

The Seventy Translatours indeed read Gen. 10. 24. thus, Arphaxad begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Sala, and Sala begat Eber. And in Chap. 11. they say, Arphaxad lived one hundred and thirty five years, and begat Cainan, And Cainan lived one hundred and thirty years and begat Sala, and Cainan lived after he begat Sala three hundred and thirty years. And from hence hath Saint Luke without controversie taken in Cainan into this Genealogy, a man that never was in the world, but the warrantableness of this in∣sertion will require divers considerations to find it out. As let the Reader be pleased seriously to ruminate upon these.

First, That the Seventy Translatours did that work unwillingly, and for fear: For the Scripture was the Treasure of the Jews, which made them more glorious than any Nation under Heaven. Therefore to communicate this their riches to the Heathen, whom they abominated and detested, was as much against their heart as what was most. So that had not the fear of the power of Ptolomy brought them to the work

of the Translation, more than their own good will, there had been no such thing done. Ptolomy Lagus, the Father of Ptolomy Philadelphus, for whom they translated, had carried away an hundred thousand Jews captive into Egypt, as saith Aristeas, so that the fear and dread of that house lay upon them, that they durst deny it nothing, which otherwise they would most vehemently have done such a thing as this, to have communicated their Scriptures to the Heathen in a vulgar Tongue.

Secondly, The Translation then being undertaken for fear, and with so ill a will [that as Aristeas, who was present at the work, saith, the Translatours were very unwilling to go for Egypt, though he interpret it, because loath to go from Eliazar the High Priest] and that the Jews kept a mournful fast every year, sorrowing for that work of the Translation. It cannot be expected that the Translation will be done with any more fidelity, than barely what will keep the Translatours out of danger.

Thirdly, Therefore they strive as much as they can, to conceal the Truth and Trea∣sure of the Scripture from the Heathen, and as much as they dare to delude them. Their chief means for this, is to use an unpricked Bible, in which the words written without vowels, might be bended divers ways, and into divers senses, and different from the meaning of the Original, and yet if the Translation were questioned, they might prick or vowel the word, so as to agree to their Translation. How they have dealt in this kind, there is none that ever laid the Hebrew Bible, and the Septuagint together, but hath observed.

Fourthly, Their differences from the Original, which were innumerable, were partly of ignorance, they themselves not being able to read the Text alway true in a Copy unvowelled. But this ignorance was also voluntary in them, they not caring to mistake, so that they might do it with their own security.

Their general care was, that since of necessity they must Translate the Bible, as lit∣tle of it might be imparted and revealed by the Translation as was possible.

Their particular and special heed was also, that those places of the Text, which Translated Literally, or according to the true meaning, might prove dangerous any ways to the Nation of the Jews, or bring them into distaste with the potent King for whom they Translated, should be so tempered and qualified that no hazzard might arise, nor any such matter might be seen.

Fifthly, It was a common speech among the Jews, and rang ordinarily in their Schools, and Pulpits, That the seventy Souls of Jacobs family, that went down into Egypt, were equivalent, or answerabe in worth to all the seventy Nations of the World.

This was a dangerous doctrine for the Jews, if it should come to be known, (as it could not choose but be) especially when their puissant enemies should find the numbers agreeable, of seventy Souls, Gen. 46. and seventy Nations, Gen. 10. To prevent any such danger, the Translators thought it a sure way, to spoil the just number in both places, and so they did reckon seventy five Souls, and seventy two Nations, both which accounts are followed by Saint Luke, Act. 7. and in this place.

Sixthly, The several persons reckoned Gen. 10. Every one of which was the Fa∣ther and original of a several Nation, be just seventy. The Translatours to spoil the sum, which might prove perilous, have added two more, and both of the same name, Cainan, the one the immediate son of Sem, the other his Grandchild, or the son of Ar∣phaxad. For ver. 22. of that Chapter, they read thus. The sons of Sem were Elam, and Ashur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram, and Cainan; and vers. 24. thus, Ar∣phaxad begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Sala.

In which additions, these two things are very observable.

First, The place where they have thrust in these two men: Namely, so close to Sem, as could not possibly be closer, unless they would have had him to have had two sons of the same name, Cainan.

Secondly, The name it self, that they have thus chosen twice over, namely Cainan, which signifieth mourning or lamenting. So Enosh called his son, Gen. 5. 9. Because of the lamentable corruption of Religion in those times: And it is without doubt, the Translatours in the iterated choice of this word, or heavy and doleful name, in∣tended to shew some inward sorrow: the cause of which may be best imagined, by laying the name, and the place of it together.

The blessing of Noah upon Japhet, God shall inlarge Japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Sem, Gen. 2. 27. The Jews themselves of old, understood, to aim at the Greek Tongue, viz. that God should use that as a means for the admission of the Heathen to the secrets and mysteries of the Jews Religion. This was their vexation at all times, to hear, or to think of the Gentiles being called, as appears by Jonah, Chap. 4. 1. by the Nazarites, Luke 4. 28. and by them of Jerusalem, Act. 22. 21, 22. For Moses had plainly told them, that their calling in, should be the others casting off, Deut. 32. 21.

Therefore, it could not but be a most vehement sorrow, and main vexation to these Translators, that they, perforce, and so sore against their wills, must be made the in∣struments, by translating the Bible into Greek, to let Japhet, or the Heathen, into the tents of Sem.

This sorrow, as their Nation expressed by a mournful Fast, so did they themselves among other things, by a lamenting and sorrowing name, Cainan twice over, put in so close to Sem, as if they called on him to mourn with them, because his tents were now unlocking for the entrance of the Gentiles.

Seventhly, God using the Septuagint, as the Key for admission of the Heathen, and as an Harbinger to the New Testament, left it not there, but therein used it also in alle∣gations from the Old, yet oftentimes differing from the letter of the same, but never without special reason.

Eighthly, Saint Luke, as he followed the Doctor of the Gentiles, Saint Paul, so he wrote his Gospel for the Gentiles: therefore whereas Matthew writing his for the Jews, deriveth the Genealogy, but from Abraham the first Father of the Jews, This Evange∣list writing for the Gentiles, fetcheth the Line from Adam, the common Father of all, both Jews and Gentiles.

This is the aim and scope of this Genealogy, and the reason why it is set at Christs Baptism:

First, To shew that there was no distinction of persons in the promise given to Adam, for all Nations were then equally in his loins: for this, the holy line runs down to him.

Secondly, That therefore all Nations have equal interest in the Messias, and that in the Preaching of the Gospel, which Christ began from his Baptism, there should be no difference of people made, as there was before. This being the intent of the Pedegrees placing here, as the very placing of it doth inevitably evince, it is not only warrantable, but also admirably divine, that Luke taketh in Cainan from the Seventy.

For, first, writing for Heathens, he must follow the heathens Bible in his quo∣tations.

Secondly, In Genealogies he was to be a Coppier, not a Corrector.

Thirdly, and chiefly, In following this insertion of the Seventy, he imbraceth not their error, but divinely draweth us to look at their intent.

When Jude mentioneth Michaels striving with Satan about the body of Moses, he approveth not the story as true, which he knew to be but a Talmudick Parable: but from the Jews own Authors, he useth this as an argument against them, and for their in∣struction.

So though Luke from the Seventy, the Bible of the Heathen, have alledged Cai∣nan the son of Arphaxad, he alledgeth it not as the truth more than the Hebrew, but from the Septuagints own authority, or from the matter which they inserted in di∣staste of the calling of the Heathen, he maketh comfortable use and instruction to the Heathen concerning their calling.

First, They put in two men, Gen. 10. that they might dissemble their arrogating of singularity above all Nations, and to make Ptolomy believe, that there was no such distinction of people held by them: [but they thought otherwise.]

Luke reserves the one of these in his pedegree (for the other could not come in it,) to teach the Gentiles really, what they did in dissimulation, that there was no such distinction of Nations in the sight of God, even the Seventy themselves being witnesses.

Secondly, They used a mournful name for the men whom they inserted, in de∣testation of the coming in of the Gentiles; Luke reserves this also for the comfort of the Gentiles, which were now to be called in: To teach them from the Jews own confession, that the divulging of the Gospel in vulgar languages, should bring Japhet into the tents of Sem: which thing was now ready to begin, when Christ at his Baptism is anointed to Preach the Gospel, and to send it abroad to be

Preached both to Jew and Gentile. And what the Seventy in their Cainan sor∣rowed to see afar off, Luke in his Cainan calls to behold now with comfort near at hand.

Thus are the Censers of Korah and his company though ordained for an evil end by them, yet reserved in the Sanctuary for a good by the command of GOD.

Ver. 38. Which was the Son of Adam, which was the Son of God.

Thus hath the Evangelist shewed Christ to be the seed of the woman, promised to Adam, and descended from him: And that, he that was proclaimed the seed of the Woman to Adam, in the garden, was now pointed out and proclaimed the Son of God, from Heaven to John, at Jordan. And thus doth the Evangelist conclude this Genealogy with a clear expression of Christs two natures, his humanity, for he was the son of Adam; his divinity, for he was the Son of God: And this lesson, of these two natures being knit and united in the person of our Saviour, the Evangelists all of them teach very frequently as they go along, as a thing of chief and choice observa∣tion: which we shall take up and observe, as we proceed.