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.

§. Art thou that Prophet?

There is some question whether to read it in the force of the Article, or no; there are some that do read it so, and some that do not. The Syriack and the Vulgar Latine take no notice of the Article at all, but read it as if it were without, Art thou a Prophet? And so doth the margin of our English Bible: But others, with our English Text, do interpret the words as speaking of some peculiar Prophet, which was neither Christ nor Elias, but some other pointed at and intended by that prediction, Deut. 18. 15. Vid. Cyril and Chrysost. &c.

It is hard to guess at the mind of these Jews that speak these words we have in hand, for both the Greek expression in this Text, and the Jews exposition of that in Deutero∣nomy, do so indifferently carry it either to a Prophet in general, or to some singular Prophet in particular, that it may be an equilibrious case, whether to take it the one way, or the other. I rather take it the former, and cannot but apprehend that their questi∣oning of the Baptist in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is indefinitely meant, art thou a Pro∣phet? Not this or that Prophet, but art thou a Prophet at all? For prophesie had been long decayed amongst them, and when they saw one appear now of so prophetical a cha∣racter, as the Baptist was; and when he had resolved them he was neither Christ nor Elias, their properest question then was, art thou then any other Prophet come after so long a time as there have been no Prophets among us? And he answers, No; that is, not in their sense, not a Prophet of the same Ministery with those in the Old Testament, but of ano∣ther nature; or not one of those Prophets of the Old Testament revived, as Matth. 16. 14. but a Minister foretold of by one of those Prophets, as Esay 40. 3.

The reason that I refuse the strict interpretation of this question, [Art thou that Pro∣phet, as if they spake of some particular man] is, partly, because the article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not al∣ways to be construed in such a strictness, as pointing out a particular thing or person, but is very commonly, nay, most commonly of a more large and general signification. But chiefly, because I find not in the Jewish Writers any particular Prophet mentioned, whom they expected to come as they did Christ and Elias: and for ought I find, they do not in∣terpret that place in Deut. 18. 15. of any such a particular person, but of the succession of Prophets in generall; It is true indeed, that Aben Ezra understands it of Joshua, and Rab. Sol. on Jer. 1. understands it of Jeremy, but this was of Joshua, and Jeremy in their times: but of any such singular person that they expected in the last times, I find no mention, unless the Priest of righteousness spoken of a little before, or Messias ben Joseph, should be reduced under this notion and name of That Prophet.

Ver. 25. Why baptizest thou then?

It is observable, that they never question what he meant by his baptism, but what he meant to baptize: they inquire not concerning the thing, but concerning his person and authority: And in all the time of his course and ministery, we never find that they made the least scruple what his Baptism was, or what it meant, but only they look on him, and wonder and question what he hath to do to baptize: And the reason of this was, because the rite and custom of baptizing, had been in common and ordinary practice and use among that Nation many hundreds of years before John ever appeared among them; And as this common and known custom of Baptism used among them continually and ordinari∣ly so long before, and then, made them that they never wonder, nor question, nor make strange of Johns baptizing, as to the thing it self; so the consideration of this very thing may give us much light and satisfaction in that controversie that is now afoot among us, concerning the baptizing or not baptizing of Infants. It is urged by those that deny Infants baptism, that there is neither command for it, nor example of it in the Scripture, as there was for Infants circumcision. Now this consideration giveth one ready answer, if there were no other to be given; If baptism, and baptizing of Infants had been as strange, and unseen, and unheard of a thing in the world till John Baptist came, as cir∣cumcision was till God appointed it to Abraham, there is no doubt but there would have been a command or example expresly given for the baptizing of Infants, if God would have them to be baptized, as there was for the circumcising of Infants, because God would have them to be circumcised: But when the baptizing of Infants had been a thing as commonly known, and as commonly used long before John came, and to his very com∣ing, as any holy thing that was used among the Jews, and they were as well acquainted with Infants baptism, as they were with Infants circumcision; it doth not follow, that there needed so express and punctual command or example, to be given for the baptizing of Infants, which was well enough known already, as there needed for Circumcision of

Infants or others, which was a thing that till its institution had never been heard of, nor dreamed of in the world.

I shall crave a little leave of the Reader for so much digression, [for so I know he can∣not but account it] as from the Jews Authors and Antiquities, to give him some account of these two particulars, which it may be, may prove of some use in the point in menti∣on, viz. 1. The ancient use and practice of baptism among the Jews, before the Gospel began to be preached by John the Baptist. And 2. The common use and practice of ba∣ptizing of Infants in those times.

1. Of the antiquity, and long and ancient use of baptism under the Law, we have first this testimony in Maimonides, the great register of the Jews customs and antiquities, in his treatise Issure Biah, perek. 13.

By three things (saith he) Israel entred into Covenant, by Circumcision, Baptism, and Sacrifice:

Circumcision was in Egypt; as it is said, No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof: Moses our Master circumcised them, for they had all forsaken the Covenant of Circumcision in Egypt, but only the tribe of Levi, as it is said, And they keep thy Covenant.

Baptism was in the wilderness, before the giving of the Law, as it is said, And thou shalt sanctifie them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their garments.

And Sacrifice, as it is said, And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings, they offered them for all Israel.

And so in after times, when a heathen will enter into the Covenant, and be gathered and joyned under the wings of the divine Majesty, and take upon him the yoke of the Law, Cir∣cumcision and Baptism, and a freewil offering is required; and if it be a female, Baptism and an offering, as it is said. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 As it is with you, so shall it be with the stranger. How is it with you? With Circumcision, and Baptism, and a free offering: So also the stranger for ever, with Circumcision, and Baptism, and a free offering, &c. But at this time, when there are no offerings, Circumcision and Baptism are necessary, but when the house of the Sanctuary shall be built, then shall he also bring an offering. A stranger that is circumcised and not baptized, or that is baptized, and not circumcised, is not a proselyte till he be both circumcised and baptized. Thus Maimonides; and to the same tenor the Talmud also in Jebammoth perek. 4.

A stranger that is circumcised and not baptized, Rabbi Eliezer saith, Behold he is a prose∣lyte, for so we find by our fathers, which were circumcised and not baptized.

He that is baptized and not circumcised, Rabbi Jehoshua saith, Behold he is a proselyte, for so we find by the Maids that were baptized, but not circumcised: but the Wisemen say, Is he baptized and not circumcised, or is he circumcised and not baptized? He is not a proselyte, until he be both circumcised and baptized.

It is necessary, saith Maimonides again, that he be baptized before a triumvirate, or before a consistory of three: If a man come and say, I was proselyted in such a consistory, and they baptized me, he is not trusted to come into the Congregation till he bring witness: As they cir∣cumcise and baptize proselytes, so they circumcise and baptize servants taken from heathens. And a little after he mentioneth the place and manner of baptizing, and what multitudes were proselyted, in the days of David and Solomon, and baptized, before private per∣sons: because the Sanhedrin would not then admit proselytes solemnly as at other times, suspecting they might be proselyted either for fear of the power, or for love of the pomp of Israel in those times; yet he concludes, that Whosoever was circumcised and ba∣ptized though only before private persons, and though for some by-respect, yet being circumcised and baptized, he was come out of the state of Heathenism. Much more might be produced out of their own Authors, [men, enemies to our Baptism, and the testimony of an ene∣my is a double testimony] but this enough to shew the antiquity, common use, and or∣dinary knownness of Baptism under the law, long before the times of John the Baptist, sometime used single without circumcision, but most commonly joyned with it; by which we may observe, that Baptism was no strange thing when John came baptizing, but the rite was known so well by every one, that nothing was better known than what baptism was: and therefore there needed not such punctual and exact rules about the manner and object of it, as there had needed, if it had never been seen before: what needed it in the Gospel to tell, that such or such persons were to be the objects of baptism, when it was as well known before the Gospel began, that men, and women, and children were the objects of baptism, and were baptized, as it is to be known that the Sun is up when it shineth at noon day?

These two things therefore are observable about our Saviours instituting baptism for a Gospel Sacrament.

1. That he took up Baptism which was used as an additional to circumcision, instead of cir∣cumcision: And so did he also in the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper. For after the Paschal Lamb was eaten, it was the common custom of the Nation, that the Master of

the family brake a piece of bread, and distributed it among the company, and after it he distributed a cup of wine: now our Saviour took up this which was an additional to the Passover, to be a Gospel-sacrament in stead of the Passover.

2. That he took up baptism as it was in common and known use, and in ordinary and familiar practise among the Nation, and therefore gave no Rules for the manner of ba∣ptizing, or for the age or sex of the persons to be baptized, which was well enough known already, and needed no rule to be prescribed.

Now for the second thing proposed, and about which there is the greatest difference and controversie among Christians in the matter of baptism, which is about the baptizing of Infants, the Jews used it also in as common and ordinary practice, as they did to ba∣ptize any others, as appeareth also by these their own testimonies.

In the Talmud in Cetuboth perek. 1. they have these words, Rab. Hona saith, a little one they baptize by the appointment of the Consistory 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Hebrew gloss upon that place, saith, If he have not a father, and his mother bring him to be proselyted, they baptize him, because there is no proselyte without Circumcision and baptism. And there must be three at his baptism [as three are necessary at the baptism of every proselyte] and they become a father to him, and he is made a proselyte by their hands.

The Talmud Text proceedeth thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What do we learn hence? That he hath benefit by it; and they priviledge a man, even though he knew it not, for so doth the Gloss interpret the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not to his face, that is, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not to his knowledge, and a little one is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 capable of understanding.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: It is a tradition, that they priviledge a person though they know it not, but they do not dispriviledge a person without his knowledge. And thus do they answer that objection that is now afoot against Infants baptism, viz. that it is not fit that they should be baptized, because they have no understanding: they make it a non sequitur, for say they, a priviledge may be put upon a person, though he himself know not of it. And in the very place out of which these words are cited, even a little before them, the Talmudicks speak of a proselytess and a captivess, and a maid, redeemed, proselyted, and manumitted, being less than three years old and an half, and they have a case upon it about contracts and dower.

And Maimonides in the treatise Abadim, or concerning Servants, Chap. 8. at the very con∣clusion of the Chapter, hath this saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An Israelite that takes a little heathen, or that finds an heathen Infant, and baptizeth him into the name of a proselyte, behold he is a proselyte. And in the treatise Issure biah in the Chapter cited erewhile; he saith, A woman proselyted and baptized, when she is great with child, her child needeth not then to be baptized when he is born: otherwise it was requisite that he should be baptized. By these and other testimonies which might be pro∣duced, it is apparent that baptism, and baptism of Infants was in common use before John appeared. And it doth not only shew a reason why the Jews never question him what baptism meant, [but by what authority he didbaptize] but also it sheweth a reason why the New Testament is so sparing in expressing the object and manner of baptism, namely, because both baptism it self, and those things were commonly and ordinarily used and known before.

Vers. 28. In Bethabara beyond Iordan.

It is but as labour lost to go about to shew how many translators and expositors ap∣prove this translation, Beyond Jordan, since there is not any to be found, that ever took this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in other sense till Beza found a new. Now he translates it secus Jordanem, not beyond but besides Jordan, and so doth he likewise, Matth. 4. 15. & 19. 1. and indeed with some probability at the first appearance: But when the signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the history, and historical sense of these places alledged, is better viewed; we shall find his interpretation contradicted by both. For first, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth most pro∣perly and genuinely signifie ultra or trans, and not juxta or secus, beyond and not besides; as might be evidenced by most copious examples both in Scripture and Heathen Writers, we shall not be tedious in allegations in which we might be even endless, take but these two pregnant ones for a pattern, Matth. 8. 18. Joh. 6. 1. & 17. 25. & 18. 1. Mark 4. 35. & 5. 1. &c. And divers places in the LXX. and it will be hard, if not impossible to shew where ever 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth secus. To which may be added the signification of several words derived from this, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and others, which all carry in them the signi∣fication of going beyond, over, or to the other side.

Secondly, Consider but the progress of John in his baptizing. He first beginneth in Judea, and coasteth on that side Jordan within the land of Canaan, Matth. 3. 1. and kept not fixed to this or that place, but moved up and down at a large distance, and had disciples come to him to be baptized from a very large circuit, as is evident by those

expressions of Luke and Matthew, He came into all the country about Jordan, Luke 3. 3. And there went out to him all the regions about Jordan, Matth. 3. 5. And withal Luke saith, that all the people were baptized by the time that our Saviour came to his baptism, Luke 3. 21. which I cannot see how it should be understood otherwise, than that John had made all his harvest, and finished all the Ministery that he should use on that side the River which he had now coasted upon a whole half year together, now therefore he was to remove to the other side.

Thirdly, It cannot but be an impropriety to talk of Johns baptizing besides Jordan, as if when he baptized in Bethabara, he baptized in Jordan it self, as Beza himself denieth not.

Fourthly, The people in Cap. 3. 26. say to John, Rabbi, he that was with thee, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 baptizeth. Now if this be to be rendred besides Jordan, how needless will this appear, since John all the half year that he baptized, was hardly any where else? And this impro∣priety it is very like caused Beza to translate it there ad trajectum Jordanis, by what war∣rant of the Greek, I cannot see. And as for those two places that he alledgeth to confirm his sense, namely Matth. 4. 15. & 19. 1. the shortness of the language that the Evangelist hath used in both places, was that that drove him into this interpretation: For the Text of Matthew 4. 15. cited from Esay 9. 1. doth so plainly speak to the 2 King. 15. 29. that it is past all doubting, as will be cleared there: Now in that Text of the Kings there is evident expression of affliction of Israel on both sides Jordan, which Esay speaking to, doth utter it very short, as it is usual with the Scripture to do, when it speaketh from known stories: And as for that in Matth. 19. 1. The Harmonizing of the Evangelists will shew it most undoubted; that Jesus in that story did go over Jordan indeed, as may be seen, Joh. 10. 40. & 11. 7. which speak in reference to this very story; but both Matthew and Mark have given the story in so short terms, as breedeth ambiguity to him that shall look no further than their Texts for the exposition one of another. For they only say thus, He departed from Galilee; and came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan: but their meaning is this, that he came into the coasts of Judea, and so beyond Jordan; for the sto∣ry of that one verse comprehendeth as much story, as is contained from Joh. 7. ver. 10. to Joh. 10. ver. 40. And whereas those Evangelists say only thus much briefly, He came into the coasts of Judea, the story at length was this, He came to Hierusalem, and there he stayed from the feast of Tabernacles, Joh. 7. 2, 10. which was in September, till the feast of Dedication, which was in December, Joh. 10. 22. Then he goeth to the other side of Jor∣dan, ver. 40. as shall be cleared past denial, by Gods assistance, when his providence and goodness shall bring us thither: So that in both these Texts alledged, the Ellipsis or want of the conjunction And, which is most common in the Scripture stile, hath bred this diffi∣culty, and that being added [as the very nature and truth of the thing it self requireth it to be understood] the doubt had been removed: the places being read thus, The way of the Sea beyond Jordan and Galilee of the Gentiles: And he came into the coasts of Judea, and beyond Jordan.

Now where this Bethabara was beyond Jordan, is still under scruple; it is very common∣ly apprehended to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The place of passage, either where Israel came over when they entred the Land, or the common Ford that the people went over from one side to another▪ from Judea to Perea at the Fords of Jericho.

Now as for the first, it is a very uncertain scantling; seeing that the space of Israels passage, as was observed on Luke 3. 21. was very many miles: And as for the second, it carrieth great probability with it, if it can but be satisfied, how Christ and his Disciples, could travail from thence to Cana in Galilee in three days, nay to be there at a feast on the third day. The 10 Chapter of John, and the 40 verse, must help us to some light in this obscurity. It is said there, that Jesus went again beyond Jordan, into the place where John at first baptized; upon which Texts let us take up these observations:

• 1. That Jesus in this story, went ultra, or trans Jordanem, over the River, and not only aside of it: for in Joh. 11. 7. he saith unto his Disciples, let us go into Judea again; Now had he not gone over Jordan, he had been in Judea already.
• 2. That he went to the place where John at first baptized, that is, where he first bapti∣zed beyond Jordan; this was Bethabara.
• 3. That he went over Jordan at the Fords of Jericho, for he went the common rode from Jerusalem to Perea; or at the least, most certainly he came back again at that passage: compare Luke 18. 31, 35.
• 4. That Bethabara was not adjoyning to Jordan at that passage, but at some distance from it: For if we look into this story of his journey beyond Jordan in the other Evan∣gelists, we shall find that he had some journies beyond the River, as Mar. 10. 17. One came to him when he was gone forth upon his journey, whilst he was beyond Jordan.

The opinion therefore of Jerome cannot be current, that holdeth Bethabara to be buildings at the passage of Jericho, on either side Jordan, one over against another, on the Rivers brink; for then how could Christ, having passed over at that passage,

travail when he was beyond Jordan, and yet go but to Bathabara? But it seemeth rather to me, that this place was far more northward up Jordan, and lay over against Ga∣lilee; and that Christ going over at the passage of Jericho, coasted up a good way on the left hand, many miles before he came to Bethabara. And I should rather suppose, that it was called Bethabara, or the place of passage, as being the landing place on the other side of the point of the lake Genazareth, over against Galilee, than the landing place on the other side of Jordan, over against Jericho.

And the Reasons that induce me to place it there, are these:

1. Because John had coasted up and down Jordan on Judea side for a long time toge∣ther, and there he had gathered up all the Converts that were to be had: what then would it avail him to go on the other side the River, just opposite to the places where he had been so long? The River was not above twenty or thirty yards over, or grant it twice or thrice so much, nay, grant if fifty, as Baal haleurim on Numb. 10. and the time that he had spent on Judea side, was all the Summer, and why should it be thought that converts were now to be had on the further side▪ which might with as much facility have come thirty or forty yards further to him to the other side Jordan, especially in Summer it being no great water to get over?

2. Because of the quickness of Christs journey from Bethabara unto Cana; which was travailed by him in far less than three days. The first night he came to Capernaum, the City of his abode, vers. 39. as we shall shew there; and that two hours before night, which from the Fords of Jericho was impossible to do, unless he had shewed a miracle, which in this we know he did not.

3. It is a great perswasive to believe, that John was now baptizing near Galilee, be∣cause of the Galileans, Peter and Andrew conversing with him.

Vers. 29. Behold the Lamb of God.

This is the first time that John pointeth out Christ personally, or demonstrateth to the people, This is the man: He had hitherto spoken of him, and born witness to him conti∣nually, to all that came to be baptized by him, both before Christs baptism and since, but till now he could never shew them who it was of whom he spake so much, and so much ho∣nour. When Christ came to be baptized, the Holy Ghost had no sooner come upon him, but he was rapt away into the wilderness: and then John sends this honorable testimony after him, This was he of whom I spake, &c. But then it was too late for the people to ob∣serve who he was, for he was gone out of sight. Since that time till now, he had been in the wilderness among the beasts, and this is his first revealing of himself among men again, and now it is seasonable and necessary for John to demonstrate him.

The title that he giveth him, the Lamb of God, plainly referreth to the Lamb of the daily sacrifice; and it is so called, according to the common stile and phrase by which things devoted to God were expressed, as, The bread of God, Lev. 21. 21. The night of the Lord, Exod. 12. 42. A Nazarite of God, Judg. 13. 5. The candle of God, 1 Sam. 3. 2. Now that Lamb was so familiar, common, and conspicuous a lecture of Christ, and it was the first conspicuous lecture of Christ that was in the world, Revel. 13. 8. that John could not have chosen an Epithet that would speak him out better, than to use an expression from the morning and evening Lamb that was offered at Jerusalem. For besides that, 1. John had had newly to deal with Priests and Levites whose chief employment was about that Lamb. And 2. besides that it was about sacrifice time on the second day when John useth these words, between three and four a clock in the afternoon, ver. 39. And besides that 3. the Lamb represented the innocency and purity of Christ, in his being without spot; and the death of Christ in being offered up. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ignat. Mart. Epist. ad Tarsenses. It was 4. most proper and pertinent to the doctrine and preaching of John which he had used before, to use now such an Epithet for Christ when he came in sight: For he had still spoken of remission of sins, and remission of sins still, to all that had come to be baptized, Mar. 1. 4. a doctrine not usual among them that stood upon their own righteousness and performance of the Law: and therefore when Christ first appear∣eth, he from an allusion to the daily Lamb, upon whose head the sins of the people were confessed and laid, sheweth how remission of sins cometh indeed, namely, by the sacrifice of this Lamb of God, Christ, who should bear and take away the sins of the world, as that Lamb did in figure, the sins of the Jews.

Vers. 31. And I knew him not.

The clause is spoken to, and explained in the Notes on Matth. 3. 14.