To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
JOHN a 1.1 bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This b 1.2 was he of whom I spake, He that c 1.3 cometh after me is preferred before me, for he was before me. 16. And of his fulness have all we recei∣ved, and grace for grace. 17. For the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Iesus Christ. 18. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is d 1.4 in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
19. And this is the record of Iohn, when the Iews sent Priests and Levites from Ieru∣salem to ask him e 1.5 Who art thou? 20. And he confessed and f 1.6 denied not: but confessed, I am not the Christ. 21. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, g 1.7 I am not. Art thou that Prophet? And he answered, no. 22. Then said they unto him, Who art thou, that we may give an answer to them that sent us? What sayest thou of thy self? 23. He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness; Make streight the way of the Lord, as said the Prophet Esaias. 24. And they which were sent, were of the Pharisees. 25. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that Prophet? 26. Iohn answered them, saying, I baptize with water, but there h 1.8 standeth one among you, whom you know not; 27. He it is who coming after me, is pre∣ferred before me, whose shoo latchet I am not worthy to unloose. 28. These things were done in i 1.9 Betha∣bara beyond Iordan, where Iohn was ba∣ptizing.
29. The next day Iohn seeth Iesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the k 1.10 sins l 1.11 of the world. 30. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me, for he was before me. 31. And I knew him not but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32. And Iohn bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33. And I knew him not, but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me; Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descend∣ing, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34. And I saw, and bare record, that this is the Son of God. 35. Again, the next day after, Iohn stood, and two of his Disciples; 36. And looking upon Iesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God. 37. And the two Disciples heard him speak, and they followed Iesus. 38. Then Iesus turned, and saw them fol∣lowing, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, m 1.12 Rabbi (which is to say, being interpreted, Master)▪ where dwel∣lest thou? 39. He saith unto them, Come and see; they came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day; for it was about the tenth hour. 40. One of the two which heard Iohn speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peters brother.
41. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Mes∣sias, n 1.13 which is, being interpreted, the Christ. 42. And he brought him to Iesus, and when Iesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Si∣mon the son of Iona, thou shalt be called Ce∣phas, which is by interpretation, Peter. 43. The day following, Iesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith un∣to him, Follow me: 44. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45. Philip findeth o 1.14 Nathaneel, and saith unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets did write, Iesus of Nazareth the son of Ioseph. 46. And Nathaneel said unto him, Can there any good come out of Nazareth? Phi∣lip saith unto him p 1.15 Come and see. 47. Iesus saw Nathaneel coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile. 48. Nathaneel saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Iesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the figtree I saw thee. 49. Nathaneel answereth, and saith unto him, Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel. 50. Iesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the figtree, believest thou? Thou shalt see greater things than these. 51. And he saith unto him, q 1.16 Verily, ve∣rily, I say unto you; Hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
THE Evanglist John, of all the four, hath only given us an account of what passed from John the Baptist either in doctrine or action, from the time of Christs bapti∣zing, till Johns imprisonment; yea, (set the temptation aside) there is none of the four but he, that hath told us any passage concerning Christ himself in all that space. For the very next thing that Matthew and Mark relate, after they have done with the story of the temptation, is about Johns imprisoning, Matth. 4. 11, 12. Mark 1. 13, 14. And Luke, though he express not that particular thing in clear terms, yet doth he in the very next story after the temptation, speak of passages that were not done till after that time, as will be seen in their due place. There is therefore in all the three a general silence of any actions of our Saviours, for the space of above a whole twelve month together, namely from about the middle of our November when the temptation was ended, till about the latter end of November come twelve month, when Jesus upon the report of
Johns imprisonment, departs into Galilee, as we shall take up the time more particularly, when we come to Joh. 4. 35. Now why the three Evangelists should be so unanimously silent in so great a matter, for so long a time, needs not be questioned, since the Holy Ghost hath provided that by a fourth, that should be supplied what they had omitted. The Evangelist John therefore doth in this Section, and from hence forward to the end of the fourth Chapter, give us the story of John the Baptist, and of our Saviour from the time of our Saviours being baptized by him, till his arrival in Galilee after Johns im∣prisonment: And whereas the other three had only mentioned the actions of John, and his testimony of Christ before his baptism, this Evangelist doth in this Section give us ac∣count of more actions of, and more testimonies concerning Christ after. Therefore it needeth not to breed any scruple to any intelligent Reader, to see in this Chapter Peter and Andrew following Jesus before he call them, and that even while the Baptist is at li∣berty, and to see in Matth. 4. and Luke 4. Peter and Andrew called before they follow Jesus, and the Baptist then shut up in prison: I say, it needs not to breed any scruple, since these are relations of two several stories, done and acted at a great distance of time; that in this Chapter but a little while after Christ was baptized, and that in Matth. 4. a whole twelve month after.
Now this Section that is before us consisteth of several stories, and for the clearing and demonstrating of their proper order, it will be requisite to shew the subsequence of them one to another, and the subsequence of them all to the temptation of Christ, which was treated of in the Section before. For the evidencing of which, let it but be first obser∣ved, that all these passages here mentioned, came to pass after Christ was baptized, as was said before, and as it is apparent, Vers. 15. 32, 34. and then to cast the whole Secti∣on, or at least the beginning of it, into an Historical paraphrase, will best shew the order.
As soon therefore as Christ was baptized, and the Spirit was visibly come down upon him, immediately, (as Mark expresseth it) the same Spirit driveth him, or catcheth him away from Jordan in some visible rapture towards the wilderness; so that those that were present could see it, as it is most probable, and take notice of it at the very instant and moment of his taking away, though they had not observed or taken notice of him before, nor saw him again at that time any more. And such a sodain rapture, and invisible im∣pulsion of the Spirit, seemeth to have given occasion to John the Baptist, to cry out with vehemency, This was he of whom I spake: For it seemeth by those words, that Christ had been there with that company to whom John speaketh, but was not present at this time when he speaketh to them▪ For had he been present, it had been more proper to have said, This is he, than, this was: And had there not been some visible demonstration and pointing out of Christ, in the sight, and to the knowledge of the people, they had been never the wiser to understand, who it should be that John meant by the word this; But when all the people present had seen one of the company rapt and taken away suddenly by a visible catching of the Spirit from the midst of them, and then heard John to cry out, This was he of whom I spake, all their thoughts would readily fix upon the proper object whom John intended, and they would understand then that that was the Messias, though they had not known, nor minded him whilst he was amongst them. And this seemeth to me to be the proper reason why the Evangelist useth the preterimperfect tense, (which Beza could see no reason why he should) because he speaketh of Christ which had been with John at Jordan, and was but newly gone out of his sight. So that the first verse of this Section, according to this construction, doth properly come in its or∣der, in the time between Christs baptizing, and his getting into the wilderness; and ac∣cordingly it might have been laid after the very first verse of the last Section, and there have made this series of the Story, And immediately after the baptism of Jesus, the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness; and when he was rapt away, and but newly out of sight, John bare witness, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake; but I was unwilling to part that story which lieth so joined, and it is timely enough to give notice of the order in this place.
Now the next story in this Section, of the discourse betwixt the messengers of the Jews and John, they questioning who he was, and what he meant to baptize, it was just in the time while Christ was under the last temptation, or as he was returning from the high mountain, wheresoever it was, to Jordan again: for the Text telleth expresly, that on the next day after this dispute, Jesus appeareth at Jordan in the sight of John, ver. 29. and from thence forward the connexion of the stories following is so clear, ver. 35. & 43. that it needeth no further demonstration.
Ver. 15. Iohn bare witness of him, and cried, &c.
THE Evangelist from the beginning of the Chapter to this place, and in it doth purposely go about to shew what declarations and demonstrations were given of Christ, both before his coming in the flesh and after: what before, we shewed in their proper place upon the Chapter to the fourteenth vers. what after, is shewed in this verse, and the next that follows: In the fourteenth verse, he tells, that Christ declared himself to be the only begotten of the Father, by conversing among his Disciples, full of grace and truth: And in this verse he sheweth how John declared and published him to all that came to be baptized, and in the next verse, how his Disciples received of his ful∣ness, &c.
Now Johns manner of testimony of him, he expresseth by these two words, He bear∣eth witness, and cried, words of different tenses, as was observed before, and of some dif∣ference of sense in that diversity.
The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the present tense, is properly to be understood, 1. Of Johns whole Ministery, Function, and Office, as vers. 7. explaineth it, He came for a witness: not to be restrained to this or that particular, vocal and verbal testimony that John gave of Christ, no nor to all the vocal testimonies that he gave of Christ, but to be dilated to Johns whole course and ministry that he beareth witness to Christ, in that God raised up such a one to be his fore-runner: And the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the praeter tense, is to be ap∣plied to the particular testimony that John gave of Christ in that his ministery: so that the former word referreth to Johns person, and his whole function, and the latter only to the manner of his executing of one particular of that function.
2. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may also include Johns martyrdom for the truth, by which he beareth witness unto Christ even unto this time, as Abel being dead, yet speaketh, as Heb. 11. 4. And in this sense should I understand those words of this same Evangelist in his first Epistle, Chap. 5. vers. 6, 8. Jesus Christ came by water and blood; and the Spirit beareth witness. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and Blood; that is, the Spirit of Prophesie, Baptism, and Martyrdom: all three agreeing in one testi∣mony of Christ, that he is he: The Prophets speaking so jointly of him, Baptism bring∣ing in so many unto him, and Martyrs sealing unto him with their dearest blood: The scores that have prophesied of him, the thousands that have suffered death for him, and the many thousands that have been baptized into him, bearing witness of him on earth, as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost do in heaven.
We do not find that John had at any time before Christs baptism, given any such testi∣mony as these words. He had said indeed, A mightier than I cometh after me, whose shoos I am not worthy to bear, and whose shoo latchet I am not worthy to unloose, as the other three Evangelists agree in the relating of it; but these words, He is preferr'd before me, for he was before me, we heard not of till now: Yet is it to be conceived that the Baptist speak∣eth to the same sense now that he did before, as vers. 27. sheweth his intention, though he have altered his expressions: For it is a very common custom of Scripture, in alledg∣ing of former speeches, to give the sense, but not to keep exactly to the words. And yet it is not without its weight, that whereas Johns constant testimony of Christ before his baptism was, A mightier than I cometh, he should as constantly after his baptism use this, He coming after me is preferr'd before me; as here, and vers. 27. & 30.
Now the reason of this seemeth to be, because Christ had now appeared, and no migh∣ty work had been yet shewed among the people by him; no nor any thing done in their eyes or hearing, which might give them occasion to conceive, that he was mightier or stronger than John. The appearance of the Holy Ghost, and the voice from heaven, they had neither seen nor heard; only his catching away from Jordan at this time, it is probable they saw, therefore John to clear their apprehensions from any carnal miscon∣struction of his words, explains himself, that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, A mightier than I, they were not so to understand, as to look for any present visible demonstration of power or miraculousness from him, but that they should take notice that he of whom he spake those words, was before him in rank and dignity, for he was before him in time and of∣fice, nature and qualifications, though he came after him.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: which the Vulgar Latine hath dangerously translated, Ante me factus est, he was made before me; and accordingly the Arians in ancient time made use of this place in this sense, against the eternity of the Son. Whereas the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as Beza well observeth it) in the New Testament, doth constantly refer to place, and not to time, as Mar. 1. 2. Matth. 17. 2. Luke 12. 8. & 19. 27, 28. and divers other places, and there∣fore our English hath well expressed it with an intimation of such a thing, is preferr'd be∣fore me: For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this speech of the Baptist, must needs have a di∣stinct and different sense, because the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 between them, doth shew that the one is made the reason of the other; He was before me in place and preheminence, because he was before me in time and being. Now the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which seemeth to refer to the time past, (and which hath occasioned 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by some to be understood concerning priority of time) is to be construed in such a construction, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in Matth. 21. 42. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Acts 4. 11. words not of the present tense, and yet necessarily to be rendred in the present time, I become the head of the corner.
Ver. 16. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
I. These are the words of the Evangelist, and not of the Baptist, and so they are held to be by Cyrill, Chrysostom, Chemnitius, and some others; though there be that hold that they are the Baptists words; and some that think no matter whether's words they be taken to be, either the one, or the other.
They appear to be spoken by the Evangelist: 1. By their agreement with his words in ver. 14. for there he speaketh of Christs being full of grace and truth, and here, of their enjoying of his fulness. 2. By the agreement of the next following verse, which no question proceeded from the same speaker, with the 14 verse also. 3. By the agreement of vers. 18. which as doubtless proceeded from the same speaker likewise, with the same words of the same Evangelist, 1 Joh. 4. 12. 4. Those that the Baptist was speaking to in the verse preceding, were as yet altogether ignorant of Christ, and unacquainted with his appearing, and therefore it was most improper for John to say of himself, and of them together, All we have received, when they had yet received little or nothing at all. 5. The very sense of the words will demonstrate them to be the speech of the Evange∣list, and not of the Baptist, as will appear in taking them up.
II. The verse consisteth of two several and distinct clauses, and the word [and] in the middle of it, though it be a conjunctive particle, yet plainly forceth this distinction; for though it is not to be denied, that there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, very frequent in Scripture, that is, the word [and] very oft bringing on a latter clause, which speaketh but the very same thing, though in plainer terms, with the former, and in explanation of it, yet is this here unlikely to be such a one, though held by divers so to be; for I suppose it will be very hard to match or parallel this verse in all the Scripture with a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is of such a tenour: The verse therefore being thus two distinct and several clauses, it is inevita∣bly and necessarily to be construed in such a kind of syntax and construction; Of his fulness we have received somewhat: and we have also received grace for grace: And this was well observed by Austine long ago, He saith not, saith he, of his fulness we have received grace for grace; but, of his fulness we have all received, and grace for grace; so that he would have us to understand, that we have received somewhat of his fulness, and grace over and above.
III. Although it be most true that all the Saints of God have received all their graces of the fulness of Christ, for so Chrysostom and Cyrill understand and interpret the word ••e; and though it be as true, that the holy Patriarchs and Prophets that were before John, received all their gifts and endowments from the same fulness; for so some others interpret that word we, as if John should mean them, and joyn himself with them, when he saith, We have all received, yet it seemeth that the meaning and intention of the Evangelist in this place, is neither the one nor the other, but that by the word we in this place, he understandeth himself only and his fellow Disciples: For 1. he had used the word in that sense, vers. 14. he dwelt among us, and we saw his glory; where the words us and we do necessarily signifie the Apostles or Disciples only, as was shewed there, and how can the same word we be taken in this verse, which is but two verses off, any way so properly as in the same sense as it was there. 2. The Evangelist is in this place shewing how Christ was declared and published by his Ministers, as well as he shewed himself in his own person: And as John the Baptist was the first, so we the Apostles and Disciples were next appointed to be Preachers and proclaimers of him, as we shall see by the scope of these verses that lye together, by and by.
IV. Now that the Apostles received exceeding much from, or of Christs fulness, there needeth no proving to those that have read the Gospel: They received of that, exceed∣ing much favour, exceeding much sanctification, exceeding much knowledge, exceeding much miraculous power, exceeding much of the Spirit, and over and beside all this, they received grace for grace.
V. This latter clause hath almost as many several interpretations given of it, as there be words in the whole verse, I shall not spare to present the Reader with the variety, be∣cause I will not deny him his choice.
Austine in the place lately alledged, paraphraseth it thus, We received of his fulness, first grace, and then again we received grace for grace. What grace received we first? Faith; walking in faith we walk in grace. What meaneth grace for grace? By faith we * 1.17 obtain God, justification, and life eternal.* 1.18
Chrysostome in Homil. 14. on John, gives it thus, Grace for grace, which for which? The New for the Old; for as there is a righteousness and a righteousness, a faith and a faith, ado∣ption and adoption, a glory and a glory, a law and a law, a worship and a worship, a covenant and a covenant, a sanctifying and a sanctifying, a baptism and a baptism, sacrifice and sacrifice, temple and temple, circumcision and circumcision, so is there a grace and a grace; but they as types, these as the truth: And much in the same tract goeth Cyrill, lib. 2. on John, cap. 21. comparing the Evangelical grace given by Christ, with the legal grace under Moses; and of the same judgment is Beza.
Tolet on this place glosseth it thus, Grace is given to us because of the grace that is in Christ, and we are made acceptable to God because of him: or, as Camerarius that embraceth the same sense doth express it; We have received the favour towards us, because of the favour of God towards the Son. Maldonat saith, Grace for grace is, that some have received one grace, some another. De Dieu taketh it, one grace because of another, the latter because of the former, the first grace is the cause of the second, and the second of a third, and so on. Some take for one grace upon another, or graces multiplied. Others, for grace in us agreeable to the grace in Christ, the like in kind, though not in degree: And for conclusion, there is that supposeth, that grace for grace, meaneth only grace freely bestowed, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth only interpret the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or gratis.
All which interpretations are Indeed true in regard of the matter contained in them, yet whether they are pregnant expositions of this place, the scope of the place, and the intention of the Evangelist in it, may give occasion to doubt and scruple. For the Evangelist is apparently hitherto and here speaking of manifold declarations that were of Christ, or of the several ways and means by which he was revealed, as hath been obser∣ved: and therefore it is the surest way to interpret these words suitable to that scope and intention. And accordingly I cannot but apprehend and render these words so, as that the word grace in the first place should signifie the grace of Apostleship, and grace in the latter place, mean grace in the hearts of the hearers, and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or for, should de∣note the final cause, which construction being taken up in this paraphrase, will more easily be understood. And of his fulness all we his Disciples have received exceeding full and eminent gifts: and withal we have received the grace of Apostleship for the doctrine of the free grace of God, and for the propagating of grace in the hearts of others: And as the scope of the Evangelist draweth the verse unto such a sense, so doth the force and vertue of the language justifie it. For first, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometime in Scripture applied to such a construction, as we put upon it in the first part of the clause, as Rom. 1. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, We have received grace, (the very word used here) and Apostleship, which Beza well glosseth, Gratiam & Apostolatum, id est, gratiam Apostolatus, that is, the grace of Apostleship: Beneficium eximiae plane liberalitatis, quod alibi vocat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. And in the same sense the Apostle speaking, 1 Cor. 15. 9. I am the least of the Apostles, which am not worthy to be called an Apostle, he addeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace on me was not in vain, &c.
Secondly, The Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth sometimes, and very properly denote the end and intention of a thing, and hath regard to the final cause, as 1 Cor. 11. 15. Hair is given to a woman, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that it may be a covering, Heb. 12. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Because of the joy that lay before him, Matth. 20. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, A redemption in behalf of many, &c. And so among prophane Authors it is not seldom used in the sense of Gratia, or for the sake, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, cujus gratia, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, non nullius gratia: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hu∣jus doctrinae gratia, &c. And so may it very fitly be interpreted in this place, we received grace because of, or for the sake of grace, or, in behalf of grace; that is, that it may be ad∣vanced in the thoughts, and propagated and wrought in the hearts of others.
Ver. 17. For the Law was given by Moses, &c.
He had in the verses preceding treated concerning the declaration of Christ before his coming, and after it; both in the Law, and under the Gospel: And in the three last verses before, he had handled this latter head, viz. how he was declared in the Gospel af∣ter his coming.
And now he cometh to weigh the tenor of the Law and of the Gospel; in both which Christ was thus declared, and to compare them together, and the two persons that were the chief Ministers in the exhibition of them, Christ and Moses: the two persons in re∣gard of their Ministery of the doctrine of salvation: and the two things in regard of their tenor, clearness, and exhibition of that doctrine.
The word For in the beginning of the verse, joyneth this verse, and that that went before together, and it pieceth either to the whole verse, to make up this sense, We re∣ceived the grace of Apostleship for the preaching of the Gospel, as Moses did the Law; or ra∣ther to the last word grace, to the result of this sense, we received Apostleship for the propa∣gation and advancement of grace, whereas Moses gave the Law for the advancement of works: for so the opposition that is in this verse, doth hold it out; as may be observed.
These two words grace and truth stand here in Antithesis or opposition to the moral and ceremonial Law, which was given by Moses; For though Christ was the giver of the Law, as well as of the Gospel, and though the giving of the Law was a work of grace, and the doctrine of the Law, a work of truth, yet if the tenor of the Law and the Gospel be compared together, they will be found to differ mainly in these particulars, though there be a grace and truth to be found in either of them.
First, The Law indeed held out the doctrine of Salvation, and taught of good things to come, but it was so darkly and obscurely, and in such vailed types and shadows, that it was rather groped after, than seen: and therefore those things are called darkness at the fifth verse of this Chapter: and the Jews that lived under them, yea and gained salvation from the knowledge of them, yet are said to be, not perfect without us, Heb. 11. 40. that is, imperfect in the knowledge of the doctrine of Salvation, till the Gospel brought us Gentiles in. But the Gospel revealed Christ, and the way of salvation so clearly, and in so evident and plain a manner, that all those types, shadows, predictions, and represen∣tations, received their equity, accomplishment, and fulfilling, and it shewed apparently, what was the substance and intention of them; so that what the Law held out in figures, the Gospel did in truth.
Secondly, Although the Law were in the spirit and marrow of it a Doctrine of Faith, yet in the letter and outward administration of it, it was but a messenger of Death, 2 Cor. 3. 7. challenging exact performance, which no man could yield, and denouncing a curse upon him that performed it not, and so concluded all men under sin and a curse; but the Gospel cometh and preacheth to another tune, and to a more comfortable te∣nor, promising remission to the penitent, though they had not performed what the Law required, and assuring salvation to the believer, though he had no works nor righteous∣ness of his own to own; and thus it speaketh grace and pardon, whereas the other did a curse and condemnation: And therefore is it divinely thus opposed by the Evangelist, be∣twixt the Law and the Gospel in these two particulars, according to the two parts of the Law Moral and Ceremonial, and according to the two main Doctrines of the Gospel, Re∣pentance and Believing.
For the Moral called for obedience, and challenged them under condemnation that obeyed it not: but grace and pardon came by Christ, and was offered in the Gospel to those that should repent for their not obeying.
The Ceremonial Law preached Christ under obscure representations, and difficult to grope him through, but the truth of what those obscurities involved, and what those re∣presentations figured, came by Christ, and the Gospel holds it out, and calls for faith in him that hath accomplished them: And thus is grace and truth said to come by Jesus Christ, and these to be the tenor of the Gospel in opposition to the Law, not as grace opposeth ungraciousness, but as it opposeth condemning, nor as truth opposeth falshood, but as it op∣poseth shadows.
Vers. 18. No man hath seen God at any time.
This is spoken from Exod. 33. about Moses his desiring to see the Lord.
The oregoing verse made a difference between Moses and Christ, which this verse pur∣sueth; Moses desired to see God, but could not see him, Exod. 33. 20. for no man hath seen God, or can see him, and live, but Christ hath been in his bosom, hath seen him, and revealed him. Moses beggeth to know the way of God, and God promiseth him the com∣pany of his presence, vers. 13, 14. He beggeth again to see his glory, and God answereth him, that he will shew him his goodness, vers. 18, 19. and more of God he saw not, and so much of God hath none seen besides him, but only the begotten Son which is in the bo∣som of the Father. The story of Moses is divinely alluded to in this place; for as concer∣ning the presence of God, the Evangelist saith, he dwelt among us. As concerning his glory, he saith, that they beheld it; and as concerning his goodness, he concludeth, he was full of grace and truth, vers. 14. And though no man hath seen God at any time, yet Christ imaged him forth among his Disciples, with a glory agreeing to the only begotten Son of God, and he hath declared him plainly in the doctrine of the Gospel, a doctrine full of grace and truth.
It is apparent by this clause, that the Evangelists main intention hereabout, is to speak of the doctrine and declaration of God, Christ, and the Gospel, and the publication of all unto the world; He speaks of Johns publishing of this, ver. 15. and of Johns publish∣ing of this again, v. 19. and of Moses publishing of this in his kind, ver. 17. and of Christs doing it in his kind, ver. 18. and therefore certainly it cannot but be unconsonant to the scope of the place, and to the purpose of the Penman, to interpret the 16 verse clean to another tune, about receiving grace of remission and sanctification, and this is that that hath mainly induced me to interpret it as I have done, because I see it plainly that the Evangelist applies himself in the whole context to treat concerning the witnesses, and the publication and declaration of Christ and the Gospel.
Vers. 19. The Iews sent Priests and Levites.
The Baptism and Ministery of John was of so strange a tenor, as was observed before, [viz. that whereas the Law preached for works, he should call for repentance, and whereas Baptism had been used hitherto for admission of heathens to the Religion of the Jews, he should now use it to admit the Jews to a new Religion] it is no wonder if that Court who were to take notice and cognizance of matters of this nature, were very inquisitive and scrutinous after the business, to know Johns authority and his intention. It is rather to be wondred at, that they had let him alone all this while, and never had him in ex∣amination yet. John had now followed this course and calling, about eight months to∣gether, and six of these eight had he spent in Judea, in their own country, and yet for ought we read, they had never quarrelled with him till this very time: now what the cause of their long-forbearing should be, is hardly worthy the inquiring after, only this we cannot but acknowledge a chief reason of it, namely, God so dispensing and disposing, that his Ministery might run interrupted, or without any let, till Christ should begin to shew himself in his Ministery; which the very next day after this dispute he did: And so the Gospel might have no stop in this beginning of it, but while Christ preached not, John should preach without trouble, and when John began to be troubled, Christ should then be ready to preach.
The scrutiny and judging of a Prophet, belonged only to the Sanhedrin or great Council at Jerusalem; and so is the Talmudick tradition, in the Treatise Sanhedrin Perek. 1. They judge not a Tribe, nor a false Prophet, nor the High Priest, but in the judicatory of Seventy and one; and to this law and practise of theirs, those words of Christ relate in Luke 13. 33. It cannot be that a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem: because a Prophet could not be judged upon life and death in any place but there.
This Court and Councel sent these messengers to John to make enquiry after him, and after his authority; and so is the word, the Jews, to be understood in this verse, for the representative body of the Jews in the great Judicatory. And they send Priests and Le∣vites to examine him, as men of the greatest knowledge and learning in the Law, and men of the likeliest abilities to try him, and to dispute and discourse with him according to that in Mal. 2. 7. The Priests lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth.
Vers. 20. But confessed I am not the Christ.
We do not perceive by the Text, that this question, whether he were the Christ, or no, was proposed to him at all, yet he giveth satisfaction to this first: partly, because the time of Christs appearing was now generally thought by the Nation to be at hand, Luke 2. 26, 38. & 19. 11. & 24. 31. Joh. 4. 25. &c. and partly, because the eminency of John had made the people look upon him, with some questioning whether he were not the Christ, Luke 3. 15.
Vers. 21. Art thou Elias?
When he hath resolved them that he is not the Messias, they presently question whether he be not Elias, Messias his fore-runner: for their expectation was of the fore-runners bodily coming, as well as of Christs. Their opinions concerning Elias his first coming, and who he was then, and of his latter coming, and what they look for from him then, it is not impertinent to take up a little, in their words and Authors.
Some of our Rabbins of happy memory (saith Levi Gershom) have held, that Elias was Phinehas; and this they have held, because they found some correspondency betwixt them. And behold it is written in the Law, that the blessed God gave him his covenant of peace. And the Prophet saith, My Covenant was with him of life and peace: And by this it seemeth that God gave to Phinehas length of days to admiration: And behold we find that he was Priest in the days of the Concubine at Gibeah, and in the days of David we find it written, And Phi∣nehas the son of Eleazar was ruler over them of old, and the Lord was with him, 1 Chron. 9. 20. And he was the Angel that appeared to Gedeon and to Jephthah, and the Spirit of the Lord carried him like an Angel, as we find also of Elias. And for this it is said, They shall seek the Law at his mouth, for he is the Angel of the Lord; and for this cause also he saith, Be∣fore time, and the Lord was with him. And behold we find Elias himself saying unto the Lord, Take now my life from me, for I am no better than my fathers: meaning, that it was not for him to live always in this world, but a certain space after the way of the earth, for he was no better than his fathers: We find also that he died not, after he was taken away from the head of Elisha, for there came afterward a writing of Elias to Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, as it is mentioned in the book of Chronicles. Thus Ralbag on 1 King. 17. And thus the Jews hold Phinehas and Elias to have been but one and the same man.
And what they held concerning Elias his singular eminency for Prophesie whilst he li∣ved, it appeareth by R. Samuel Lanjado, in his Comment on 2 King. 2. Elias, saith he, was so indued with Prophesie, that many of the children of the Prophets prophesied by his means: Our wise men of happy memory, say, Whilst Elias was not laid up, the Holy Ghost was in Is∣rael, as it is said, the children of the Prophets that were at Bethel said to Elisha, To day God will take thy Master from thy head: they went and stood afar off, and they passed over Jordan: It may be because they were but a few: the sense telleth, that there were fifty men of the sons of the Prophets. It may be they were private men: The text saith, Thy Master: It is not said, our Master, but thy Master; shewing that they were wise men like Elias: When Elias was taken up [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 treasured up] the Holy Ghost departed from them, as it is said, And they said, Behold there is with thy servants fifty men, men of strength, let them go and seek thy Master, &c.
And concerning the departure of Elias, and his estate after, the same Author giveth the opinion of his Nation, a little after in these words: I believe the words of our wise men of happy memory, That Elias was taken away in a whirlewind in the Heaven, that is, in the air, and the Spirit took him to the earthly paradise, and there he abideth in body and soul: therefore they say that Elias died not, and they say moreover that he went not into the firma∣ment: And they say that some have seen him in the School [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] And that he shall come before the great and terrible day of the Lord come.
Now his coming before the day of the Lord, they hold to be twofold, one invisible, as that he cometh to the circumcision of every child, and therefore they set him a chair, and suppose he sitteth there, though they see him not: And the Angel of the Covenant which you desire, behold he cometh, Mal. 3. 1. The Lord shall come to his Temple, this is the King Messias, who also is the Angel of the Covenant, or he saith, The Angel of the Covenant in reference to Elias: And so it is said, That Elias was zealous for the Covenant of Circumcisi∣on, which the Kingdom of Ephraim restrained from themselves, as it is said, I have been ex∣ceeding zealous for the Lord God of Israel, for the children of Israel have forsaken thy Cove∣nant. He saith unto him, Thou wast zealous in Shittim, [Phinehas in Numb. 25.] and art thou zealous here concerning Circumcision? As thou livest, Israel shall not do the Covenant of Circumcision, till thou seest it with thine eyes: From hence they have appointed to make an ho∣norable Chair for Elias, who is called the Angel of the Covenant. Thus Kimch. on Mal. 3. 1.
Of this matter, and of the Jews present expectation of Elias at every circumcision, learned Buxtorfius giveth an ample relation, in his Synagoga Judaica, cap. 2.
On the eighth day in the morning, saith he, those things that are requisite for the Circumci∣sion are duly prepared. And first of all two seats are set, or one seat so made, as that two may sit one by another in it, covered with rich coverings, or cushions, according as every ones state will bear: In the one of these seats, when the child cometh to be circumcised, sitteth the Sponsor, or Godfather of the child, and the other seat is set for Elias. For they conceive that Elias cometh along with the Infant, and sitteth down in that seat, to observe whether the Circumci∣sion be rightly administred: and this they conceive from Mal. 3. 1. And the Messenger of the Covenant whom ye seek, behold he cometh: when they set that seat for Elias, they are bound to say in express words, This is the seat of the Prophet Elias: That seat is left standing there, three whole days together. Rabbi Juda the holy, once perceived that Elias came not to one Cir∣cumcision, and the reason was, because the child circumcised should once turn Christian, and for∣sake his Judaism. They use to lay the child upon Elias his cushion, both before and after his Circumcision, that Elias may touch him. Thus he, and more largely, about their fancy of Elias his invisible coming upon that occasion. And in the thirteenth Chapter of the same book, he relateth how they expect him visibly at the other Sacrament even every Pass∣over; when among other rites and foolish customs, they use over a cup of wine, to curse all the people of the world that are not Jews as they are: and that they do in this prayer, Pour out thy wrath upon the Nations which have not known thee; and upon the Kingdoms that have not called upon thy name; Pour thine anger upon them, and let the fury of thy wrath lay hold of them, &c. Which while the Master of the house is praying, one runs to the gate, or door of the house, and sets it wide open, in sign of their deliverance, and in hope of Elias his coming to tell them of the approach of the Messias: And presently in comes one cloathed in white, that their children may believe that Elias is now come among them indeed.
And in the eleventh Chapter of the same book, he relateth, that every Sabbath day at night, they call hard upon Elias, and since he vouchsafed not to come among them on the Sabbath, which is now past, they earnestly intreat him, that he would come the next Sabbath day. And their Rabbins and Wisemen have taught them, that Elias every Sab∣bath day, sitting under the tree of life in Paradise, takes account of, and writeth down the good works of the Jews in their keeping of the Sabbath.
I shall trespass too much upon the Readers patience, if I trouble him with any more such trash and ridiculous sluff, as this is about this matter: Ihave been the bolder with him, that I might the more fully shew the earnest and foolish expectation of that blinded Nation in this particular: I shall only crave leave to alledge some few expressions more out of their own Authors upon this subject, that here once for all, their doctrine and opinion of the coming of Elias, [which cometh in mention now and then in the Evan∣gelists] may be handled, and may trouble us no more.
Their second and greater expectation then of Elias, is, that he will come visibly and bodily before the coming of the Messias; and that he will do great things when he com∣eth. The Disciples well knew and spake the common opinion of the Nation, when upon our Saviours discourse concerning his own resurrection, they make this reply; Why then say the Scribes that Elias must first come? Matth. 17. 10.
And so are their Authors full of assertions to such a purpose.
The four Carpenters in Zechary [saith Rabbi Simeon] are Messias ben David, Messias ben Joseph, Elias, and the Priest of righteousness, vid. Kimch. in Zech. 1.
Elias shall restore three things in Israel, [saith Rabbi Tanchuma] the pot of Manna, the cruse of the anointing oyl, and the cruse of water. And as some say also, Aarons rod with its blossoms and almonds, Tauch. on Exod. 1.
The Talmudists in Erubhim, Perek. 4. are discoursing of this coming of Elias, and in∣quiring the time; and they have this conclusion, That Israel is assured that Elias will not come but on the evening of the Sabbaths, or on the evening of Feastival days: and when he cometh, they shall say to the great Sanhedrin, He is come, fol. 43.
And in the Treatise of the Sabbath, they intimate, that one work of Elias when he thus cometh, shall be to destroy. Every one (say they) that observes stedfastly three re∣pasts on the Sabbath, is delivered from three vengeances; From Messias his destroying, from the Judgment of hell, and from the war of Gog and Magog: From the destruction of Messias; It is written here, The day [viz. remember the Sabbath day] and it is written there, Behold I send unto you Elias the Prophet before the day come, &c. Perek. 16. fol. 118.
And in a common and current proverb among them, they hold that another work of Elias, when he cometh, shall be to resolve doubts and scruples, and to unite doctrinal knots.
And that he shall purifie Bastards, and make them fit to come into the congregation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vid. Kimch. in Zech. 9.
And that he shall be one of the seven Shepherds and eight principal ones mentioned, Michah 5. 5. Our Rabbins say, Who are the seven Shepherds? David in the middle, Seth, Enoch, and Methuselah on his right hand, and Abraham, and Jacob, and Moses on his left. And who are the Eight principal ones? Jesse, Saul, Samuel, Amos, Zephany, Ezekiah, Elias, and Messiah, Kimch. in Mich. 5.
And for this coming of Elias, doth Elias Levita so heartily pray, in Tisbi, in rad. Tish∣bi, Elias was in the days of Gibeah: So let it be Gods good will that he may be with us in this time, and let that verse be accomplished upon us, Behold I send you Elias; So is the prayer of Elias the Author.
By these and divers other speeches of the like nature, which might be produced out of the Hebrew Authors, shewing the common opinion of that people concerning the com∣ing of Elias bodily before the coming of Christ, it is no wonder, if when the Jews saw so eminent a man as John the Baptist come in so powerful a way of Ministry, so great a change of a Sacrament, and so strict austerity of life, they question with themselves, and with him, whether he be not the Messias, and when he denies that, then whether he be not Elias. But it is some wonder, [and that the rather, because our Saviour hath long ago resolved what was meant by that place of the Prophet, Behold I send Elias, and hath plainly told that John the Baptist was the Elias that was to come] I say, it is a wonder [this considered] that ever this Jewish opinion of Elias coming before the coming of the Messias, should be so transplanted into the hearts of Christians, under this notion of Elias his coming before Christs second coming, as that so many understand it as literally, personally, and really, as ever the grossest Jew in Judea did.
It were endless to reckon their names, both Ancient and Modern, that have verily be∣lieved, and as boldly asserted, that Enoch and Elias shall come visibly and bodily to de∣stroy Antichrist, to convert the Jews, and to build up the elect in the faith of Christ. He that desires names, may see enow in Bellarmine de Roman. Pontif. lib. 3. cap. 6. where he proves that the Pope is not Antichrist, by this argument, that Elias and Enoch never came against him; in Cornel. a Lapide in Apocal. 11. where he holds the two witnesses to be these two men, Enoch and Elias.
It is somewhat beside our work, to take up this controversie in this place, but it may not be besides the advantage of the Reader, to take up two or three considerations up∣on this matter, and to ruminate and study upon them, towards the confutation of this groundless opinion.
1. That the great and terrible day of the Lord, before which Elias was promised to come, is exceedingly mistaken by those that understand it of the day of Judgment; for it mean∣eth only, the day of the destruction of Jerusalem; as might be proved at large by divers other places of Scripture, where the same phrase is used: And the like misconstruction is there of the phrase, in the last days, by taking it for the last days of the world, whereas it meaneth only the last days of Jerusalem.
2. Those two witnesses mentioned, Rev. 11. upon whom there are so various glosses, and different opinions, are pictured and charactered out like Moses and Elias, and not like Enoch and Elias, as is plain by the Text; for that speaketh of shutting up heaven, turn∣ing water into blood, and plaguing the earth, which had been the actings of Elias and Moses, and none but they, and no mention of Enochs ever doing such a thing at all. We have therefore from that place, as little warrant to look for Elias his bodily coming before the end of the world, as we have for the bodily coming of Moses.
3. The proper meaning of that Prophesie concerning the two Witnesses, is to set forth the state of the Church towards the end of the world, when the Jews shall be called, and knit together into one Church with the Gentiles; shewing that God will raise up a power∣ful Ministery among either people, which the Holy Ghost characters, by Moses the first Minister and Prophet of the Jews, and Elias the first Minister and Prophet of the Gentiles: These two people, and this double Ministery are as two olive trees and two candlesticks, standing before the Lord of the whole earth: This Ministery shall be opposed by Antichrist, and almost destroyed and brought to nothing: And as Antichrist hath caused a general de∣fection and apostasie already in the world, having even slain Religion, and the preaching of the Truth, till in the age last past they revived again: So shall he cause a defection and falling away for a season in the Church of the Jews after their calling, so that Religi∣on and the truth shall be in a manner extinguisht among them, that Antichrist may make the measure of his iniquity full. And as Rome in her heathenish power, did first destroy the old Jerusalem, and then persecute the new: so must she do in her Antichristian power and mischievousness: first undo the Christian Church consisting of Heathens only, as it hath done already in the dark time of Popery over all the world; and then undo the Church consisting of Gentiles and Jews united together; but God shall revive it; and then the true Religion and the Ministery of the Truth shall live again by the power and Spirit of God put into them.
That this is the aim of that prophecy in the eleventh of the Revelation, might be shewed, if it were seasonable, by many arguments, and consequently that the expectation of Enoch and Elias to come bodily, and to fight with Antichrist, &c. hath not the least co∣lour or ground from thence at all; but this is not a place to dispute that Text.
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:
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.
The baptism of John did tend to the manifesting of Christ, especially two ways: 1. Be∣cause by the strangeness of his Ministery, and the wonder of such a baptism as his was, the eyes of all the people were drawn to look after what he meant by it: For though his ba∣ptism for the manner of it, was suitable to the baptism so well known among the Jews, as was observed before, yet was the doctrine and end of it so strange to them, that it put the whole Nation to an enquiry what was in it. And 2. then did John preach Christ [as ready to come] to every one that came to be baptized.
Vers. 39. They came and saw where he dwelt.
It is questionable whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here doth intimate, his Inn, or his habitation, but I rather understand the latter, and that the place was Capernaum; where Christ had an ha∣bitation, and was a member or Citizen of that City: For though he was a Nazarite in regard of his mothers house and residence, yet it is very probable he was a Carpernaite by his father Josephs. For,
Now Capernaum standing upon the banks of Jordan, and on the very point of the lake of Genazaret, as Jordan began to spread it self into that lake, he, and these disciples that go with him, pass over the water before they come thither, for now they were on the other side Jordan where John baptized.
Vers. 40. One of the two was Andrew, Simon Peters brother.
Who the other was, it is uncertain and undeterminable; possibly it might be the Evan∣gelist John himself, but there is no fixing on him, or any other particular man: but this may be observed, that Peter was not the first that came in for a Disciple to Christ, but his brother Andrew and another. And it was well he was not the first, that so much of the Romanists boastings may be stopped.
Andrew speaketh, 1. In reference to the expectation of the Nation, that looked so much, and so earnestly for the coming of Christ, and for his coming at this time. 2. In reference to the opinion of the Nation, that held that when Christ came, none should know whence he was, Joh. 7. 27. And 3. in reference to the common and constant testi∣mony of John, that spake so much of Christ to come after him.
The word Messias doth solely and singularly betoken Christ, as it is interpreted most pertinently by the Evangelist here, and Chap. 4. 25. For though the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in He∣brew, in the Scripture, signifieth any anointed one whatsoever; yet in this Greek form, Messias, it never signifieth but only Christ. Nor is the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used in He∣brew Authors, but in the same sense, and so it is used infinitely among them: sometimes set single without any other addition, and very often with this addition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The King Messias; as he that is never so little versed in Jewish Authors, will find in great va∣riety. In this propriety the word is used, Dan. 9. 25, 26. and so was it confessed by the Ancient Jews, though the Modern would elude it. The Jews of the Talmud age, say, that the end of the Messias was spoken of in the Book of Cetubhim, aiming at this place; but how the latter generations turn off such a sensee, see in R. Saadias, and Rab. Sol. in loc. &c.
Vers. 42. Thou art Simon.
Christ nameth him at the first sight, and hereby sheweth that he was the Messias, in that he could thus name Simon and his father, with whom he had had no converse before.
Simon, or Simeon, as the Syriack renders it, [for they are all one, as Acts 15. 14.] was a name that was exceeding much in use among the Jews at this time, as Matth. 27. 32. Mark 3. 18. Luke 2. 15. Acts 8. 9. & 13. 1. &c. And it was very frequent in use in their Schools in putting of cases, as, Reuben borrowed such a thing of Simeon, &c.
The Jews themselves seem to have brought the Hebrew word Simeon, into this Greek manner of pronouncing, Simon; for their own Authors speak of one Rabbi Simon.
Bar Jona in the Syriack, Matth. 16. 17. and Simon Jona in the Greek, Joh. 21. 15, 16, 17.
There are that conceive a corruption to be in the writing of this word; for [say they] it should be Joanna. And of that mind is Jerome, the Vulgar Latine, Erasmus, at Joh. 21. 15. and of that writing is Erasmus his Greek copy there, and some others here: But up∣on what ground this facil and most general reading, of Jona, [for so the Syrian, Arabick, most and best Greek Copies, and most translations utter it] should be forsaken, and one so far fetched and strained as Joanna be imbraced, and taken for the right, I cannot yet understand or apprehend.
Certainly Jona is the Genitive case of Jonas in the LXX, Joh. 4. 8. and in the New Testament, Matth. 12. 21, 39. And why the father of Peter, should not be thought to be Jonas, as well as Joannas, I believe it will be very hard to shew a reason; We have mention of Rabbi Jona among the Jewish Doctors; which sheweth that the name was gi∣ven to others besides the old Prophet, and there is no reason why a private man might not carry it as well as a Doctor. Sure it is that the very word Jona, applied thus to Pe∣ter, doth give a very good hint, to compare him and the old Prophet together: For they were both preachers to the Gentiles, both of them declined that employment: and both of them declined it at Joppa. Compare Jona 1. and Acts 10.
I. Change of names in Scripture is frequent, and most common for the better, as Abrams into Abraham, Jacobs into Israel, Hosheas into Jehoshua, and Solomons into Jedi∣diah; though sometimes there is a change for the worse, as Jerubaal into Jerubosheth, 2 Sam. 11. 22. Sychem into Sychar, Joh. 4. 5. &c.
II. Christ changeth the name of three Disciples only, Peter, James, and John, Mark 3. 16, 17. as God had changed the names of three men only in the Old Testament, Abram, Jacob, and Solomon.
III. Now as concerning the name Cephas, which Simon carried hence-forward, 1 Cor. 1. 12. & 15. 5. Gal. 2. 9. it is a Syriack word, framed into an adjective, and into a Greek ut∣terance, by addition of s in the latter end.
Ceph indeed is used sometimes in the Hebrew, as Jer. 4. 29. Job 30. 6. But Cepha sound∣eth of the Chaldee idiom, and is used very frequently by the Paraphrasts; most common∣ly to render the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as D. Kimchi noteth in Michol, and as may be ob∣served in Numb. 20. 8, 10, 11. Judg. 20. 45, 47. & 21. 13. 1 Sam. 23. 28. and divers other places: and sometime to express the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when it signifieth, a point of land, or sea, as Josh. 15. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Chaldee renders it: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 meaning, as saith Kimchi on the place, the point of a Rock that looked South-east. But it will easily be agreed upon about the signification of Ceph and Cepha, namely, that it denoteth a Rock, in the most proper and most common meaning of it: But the scruple is whether Cephas be the very same with Cepha in signification, yea, or no, and whether the letter s added in the end, do change the sound of it only, and not the sense.
To me it seemeth, that Cephas is of an adjective signification, and betokeneth not a Rock, but Rocky, not Petra, but Petrosus, or belonging to the Rock: and I am induced to this opinion upon these grounds and arguments:
1. Because it is uttered Cephas, and not Cepha; for although it is ordinary with the language of the New Testament to add s in the latter end of some words, to make them sound of a Greek pronunciation, as Ezekias, Manasses, Messias, Barnabas, &c. and though I think it doth so here, yet do I not conceive it doth so here for that end only, but for some other further purpose and intent.
As 1. To mark it for a proper name, and to take it off from being taken otherwise: and so Barnabas, Barsabas, and Elymas, are marked with the same mark, for the same end.
2. To change its sense, as well as its nature, and to alter it from a substantive significati∣on to an adjective, as well as from a common noune to a proper: For as the Evangelist maketh a clear distinction between Petros and Petra, Matth. 16. 18. as all orthodox Ex∣positors upon that place grant; so certainly is the like to be made betwixt Cephas and Ce∣pha; for these Syriack words our Saviour used when he uttered that speech.
And to this purpose it is also to be observed, that the word Petros is not used for a Rock in all the Scripture: It is in use indeed in that sense among Heathen Authors, but in the LXX. and in all the New Testament it is scarcely to be so found: Now if the Evan∣gelist meant to tell us, that Cephas signifieth a Rock, it is wonder that he would use the word Petros, which never occurreth in that sense in all the Bible, and refuse the word Petra, which signifieth so in the Scripture hundreds of times; Nay, say some of our Greek Dictionaries, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Petra is the common name for a Rock, even in the Heathen Greek Language, but Petros, is but the Attick dialect. And therefore I cannot but wonder that Petrus in this place should be translated Petra, as Beza in Latin, and Brucioli in Italian render it; and our English to the same sense, Thou shalt be called Ce∣phas, which is by interpretation, a stone.
For the taking up therefore of the sense and meaning, and of the reason and occasion of this name given to Simon, these particulars are to be taken into consideration.
I. That Christ called him Cephas, totidem literis, and not Cepha: and that he was com∣monly so called among the Disciples, Cephas, with the s sounded in the latter end. I know it is a common opinion to the contrary, as Beza on Matth. 16. 18. utters it Dominus Syriace loquens, nulla usus est agnominatione, sed utrobique dixit Cepha: and accordingly the Syriack translater every where expresseth it.
But let it be observed, 1. That as the Jewish Nation was full of Greek names, which were Greek names indeed, as Andreas, Nicodemus, Alexander, &c. so did they frame many of their Jewish names, which were Jewish names indeed, into a Greek pronunciation, and so pronounced them among themselves, as Theudas, Baithus, and others in the Talmud; and Heraudes for Herod in the Syriack translater, &c. And why Cephas should not be so used among them and other Greek-sounding Syriack names in the New Testament, I have not yet met with any reason that giveth any satisfaction, nor indeed with any Author that gi∣veth any reason.
And let it be observed, 2. That whereas generally common nouns in the Syriack tongue, do end in a, as Aceldama, Abba, Gabbitha, Talitha, Acts 1. 19. Gal. 4. 6, Joh. 19. 13. Mar. 5. 41. when they are to be framed into proper names of men, it is done by putting s to the end of them, as Barabbas, Elymas, Barnabas, &c. And of the same nature is Cephas here: Now since this change of nouns from common to proper was made among the Jews, what reason can be given why this letter that made the change should not be reserved among the Jews also? Did the Greeks only call Simon, Cephas, and not the Jews? And did the Greeks call the other men Barnabas and Barabbas; but the Jews Barnaba and Barabba?
Consider, 3. How common the Greek Bible or the LXX. was in use among the Jews at this time, and how much mixture of Greek words was used in their common language at this time, as appeareth by the Syriack translater, the Chald. Paraphrasts, the Talmuds and others the most ancient Jewish Writers, and then we have good cause to think, that they that used the whole Bible in Greek, and that used to speak so much Greek mingled with their Syriack language continually, would not stick to utter one letter that sounded of the Greek, when that letter was only and properly added to denote a proper name.
But you will say, that the New Testament writeth, Ezekias, Josias, Jonas, and the like, with s in the end, as these words are written, and yet there is none that can think that the Jews uttered those words so, but as they are written in the Old Testament, Ezekiah, Josiah, Jonah. It is true, that it is most like they did so, but the difference betwixt them and these words that we have in hand, is so apparent, that it is hardly needful to shew it: those were proper names originally, these were common names made proper: those had s added in the end, not to shew that they were proper names, but to supply the Hebrew h or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Greek in the end of a word cannot utter; but these have s added in the latter end, purposely and intentionally, to make them proper names, and to shew that they are so.
And 4. let it be observed, How it could be possible for the Disciples in those words of our Saviour, Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram, Math. 16. 18. to understand them other∣wise than that Peter should be called the Rock, if Christ used Cepha in both places: Thou art Cepha, and upon this Cepha; Thou art a Rock, and upon this Rock will I build my Church: let any one but judge what interpretation they could make of it, by his own construing and interpreting it, according to the propriety, as the words lie before him. Therefore it is more than probable, that Christ called his name Cephas, uttering and sounding the s in the latter end; and that the addition of that letter was not from the Evangelist, but from Christ himself; and that in the speech mentioned, he thus differenced the words, Thou art Cephas, and upon this Cepha will I build my Church.
II. Now the reason why our Saviour giveth him this name Cephas or Rocky, was not so much for that he was built upon the Rock, for so were all the rest of the Apostles except Judas, but because he had a special work to do about that building which Christ was to found upon the Rock. For in those words, upon this Rock will I build my Church, he
meaneth the Church of the Gentiles, which was now in founding, and in that building Peter had this special and singular work and priviledge, that he was the first that preached the Gospel to the Gentiles, Act. 10. & Acts 15. 7.
For so should the word be rendred, and not as our English hath it, which is by interpre∣tation a stone. This is a passage like that in the verse preceding, Messias, which is by inter∣pretation, Christ; and that Acts 9. 39. Tabitha, which is by interpretation, Dorcas: where our Translaters have very properly observed and followed the intention of the Evange∣lists, which is, to give these proper names out of one language into another, and not to give them out of proper names into common nouns: And here they should have follow∣ed the same course, which they have done in the margin, but have refused it in the Text: The Arabick and Vulgar Latine, and divers others, translate it Petrus according to our sense: but the Syriack translateth not the clause at all.
Vers. 43. The day following.
Jansenius dare not suppose this to be the next day after that Andrew and the other Dis∣ciple followed Jesus to his own home; but he thinks it was the day after Christ had na∣med Simon, Cephas. The cause of his doubting is this, because it being late towards night, when Jesus and Andrew, and the other Disciple came to the place where Jesus dwelt, ver. 39. he cannot suppose how Peter should be found and brought to Christ before the next day: and yet he confesseth Epiphanius to be of opinion against him. But it being obser∣ved that Peter and Andrew were brethren, that they dwelt together, Mar. 1. 29. that they fished together, Matth. 4. 18. &c. it will be no difficulty to conceive how Andrew might find out Peter upon a sodain, and bring him to Jesus that very night that they came into Capernaum, though it were late; and accordingly there is no scruple to expound this, day following, of the very next day after.
Vers. 44. Bethsaida.
This was a Town that stood beside the lake of Gennesaret, changed by Philip the Te∣trarch into the form or state of a City, and named by him Julia, after the name of Caesars daughter: so Josephus witnesseth, Antiq. lib. 18. cap. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Town Bethsaida by the lake of Gennesaret, he brought to the dignity of a City, both in multitude of inhabitants, and in other strength, and called it after the name of Julia the daughter of Caesar.
Bethsaida, signifieth the house, or place of hunting; and it seemeth to have been so cal∣led, because it stood in a place where was store of Deer or Venison. And to this sense is that passage of Jacob to be understood, Gen. 49. 21. Nephthali, a Hind let loose, that is, Nephthali shall abound in Venison, as Asher with bread and oyl, ver. 20. and Judah with wine, ver. 11. view the places in the original. Now Bethsaida stood either in, or very near the tribe of Nephthali, as shall be shewed elsewhere.
Andrew and Peter after this removed and dwelt in Capernaum, Mark 1. 21, 29. because they would be near Christ whose residence was there, as was observed before: And there Peter pays tribute for himself, as in proper place, Matth. 17. 27.
Now to insist upon the studiousness of Philip and Nathaneel in the Law and Prophets, as some collect it out of this expression; there are these things most observable out of these words: 1. That the whole Scriptures of the Old Testament are comprehended under these two heads, the Law and the Prophets. And so again, Matth. 11. 13. Luke 16. 29. For though indeed the Law and the Prophets only were read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day, as Acts 13. 15. yet the third part of the Old Testament called Cetubhim or Hagiographa, did prophesie of Christ, as well as the other two, and so must of necessity be included here: For what book of Scriptures is more full of prophesies of Christ, than the book of Psalms? And what hath more clear prediction concerning Christ, than the book of Da∣niel? And yet neither of these are taken in among the books of the Prophets as the Jews
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
did commonly divide them in their Bibles, and read them in their Synagogues, but they come under the third part, Cetubhim. And therefore as by the Law here, is to be under∣stood all the Books of Moses; so by the Prophets, is to be understood all the Old Testa∣ment beside: And so what is spoken in a Psalm, is said to be spoken by a Prophet, Matth. 13. 35. and Daniel is called a Prophet, Matth. 24. 13. And so the Penman of the book of Job, Esther, Chronicles, &c. deserve the same name. And this very consideration were argument enough, if there were no more, to plead Solomons salvation.
2. That Christ is the general and chief subject of the Law and the Prophets. And here are we got into a very large field, if we would but traverse it, to shew how Law and Pro∣phets in types and prophesies did speak before of Christ: but this consideration, and par∣ticulars of it will be continually occurring and emerging as we go along.
3. That when Nathaneel saith, That we have found him of whom Moses and the Prophets did write, Jesus of Nazaret, he meaneth not, that either Moses or the Prophets had so arti∣culately named him, but that Jesus of Nazaret proved to be he of whom they had written and spoken so much.
Vers. 46. Can there any good thing come out of Nazaret?
This seemeth to be spoken by Nathaneel, not only as referring to the poorness and ob∣scurity of the City Nazaret, [as that it is neither mentioned by the Prophets to be a pro∣ducer of any good, nor likely in it self to be so, being a place of an inferior and contem∣ptible rank] but as referring rather to the wickedness and prophaneness of the place, that it was so wretched and ungodly a City, that it was unlikely that any good thing should come out of it? The wickedness of the people of this place appeareth, Luke 4. 29. when they are so desperate as to go about to murder Christ at his first appearing among them.
Vers. 47. compare Jer. 9. 4, 5, 6. Behold an Israelite indeed, &c.
Although this be the character of every true Christian, as Esay 65. 8. and it be accor∣dingly conceived almost generally by Expositors, that our Saviour aimeth only at such a thing here, namely, that this is one that serveth God sincerely, and with a good heart, and this is such a one as God requireth a man to be in the profession of Religion, yet can I not apprehend this to be the sole and proper meaning and intention of these words; for why might not the same have been spoken of, and to Peter, Andrew, and Philip? Certain∣ly they were very sincere and upright towards God, and were Israelites indeed, without guile or hypocrisie in matter of Religion, as well as Nathaneel; their fetching one ano∣ther to Christ, and the readiness of them all in imbracing of Christ, confirmeth this past all denial: and it is hard and harsh to think that Christ should give that for a singular En∣comion to Nathaneel, which might generally be given to any of his Disciples: when he nameth Simon Peter, it was for some singular and peculiar respect, and so when he nameth James and John, Boanarges; and doubtless when he passeth such a character as this upon Nathaneel, it was for some regard and respect in which he was differenced from other men.
The cause and occasion therefore of this description of him by our Saviour, I conceive rather to be Nathaneel's uprightness and deceitlesness towards men, than towards God, though his uprightness and sincerity towards God is by no means to be denied. And it seemeth that this was a common name and title which Nathaneel had got among his neigh∣bors, and those that knew him, for his very honest, upright, and exemplary dealing, con∣verse and integrity amongst them, that he was commonly called the guiltless Israelite, as that Roman was called verissimus, for his exceeding great truthfulness. And truly to me it is very probable, that the great variety of names that we find divers men in Scripture to have had, [as some to have two names, some three, some more] proceeded in very many of them from this very cause and occasion, namely, their neighbors and acquaintance ob∣serving some singular quality in them, and action done by them, gave them some denomi∣nation or other agreeable to that action or quality: So Gedeon came by his name Jerub∣baal, Judg. 6. 32. and Jerubesheth, 2 Sam. 11. 21. So Shemaiah the false Prophet came to be called the Nehelamite, or the dreamer, Jer. 29. 31. and divers others mentioned in Scri∣pture, and in Josephus, some of which will be taken up in their due places: Now it be∣ing a common title that Nathaneel had got among all that knew him to be called the Is∣raelite without guile; our Saviour when he sees him come towards him, calls him by the same name; and thereupon Nathaneel questions him how he came to know him, that he could so directly hit upon his common denomination.
Vers. 48. When thou wast under the figtree, I saw thee.
This seemeth to refer, not only to his being under the figtree, but to some private and secret action that he did there; and for which he went thither: And as our Saviour convinceth the woman of Samaria that he was the Messias, by telling her of her evil acti∣ons that she did in the dark and secret, so doth he Nathaneel, by hinting some good things that he did from the eyes of men under a figtree, before Philip light on him there, as pray∣ing, vowing, or some other action which none knew of but himself: And this appeareth rather to be the matter that Christ aimed at; and that worketh in Nathaneel for his con∣viction, because that it was possible that Christ might have been near the figtree himself as well as Philip, and he might see Nathaneel, and Nathaneel not see him, and so might Na∣thaneel have supposed; but when he telleth of some secret action that passed from him under the figtree, which his conscience told him that no mortal eye could be conscious to but himself, then he crys out, Thou art the Son of God, &c.
Vers. 49. Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel.
This he speaketh from 2 Sam. 7. 14. Psal. 2. 6, 7. & Psal. 89. 26, 27. Where God set∣teth his own and only begotten Son upon his hill of Zion, and throne of David, and to rule over the house of Jacob for ever, Luke 1. 33.
Vers. 51. Verily, verily, I say unto you.
In the Greek it is Amen, Amen:] Now because this manner of expression is exceeding usual in the speeches of our Saviour through the Gospel, sometimes single Amen, as in the rest of the Evangelists, and constantly doubled in John, Amen, Amen; and because this is the first place according to our Harmony-order and method, that we meet with the word at all, it will be pertinent here to take up the meaning of it once for all, and to consi∣der these two particulars concerning it: 1. What our Saviour doth properly intend and mean by Amen, when he useth it so oft: And 2. Why John the Evangelist doth constant∣ly use it doubled, when the other three never use it so at all.
1, As to the first, it is to be observed, [and that is well enough known] that the word Amen is an Hebrew word, and is very commonly used in the old Testament; but this withall is to be observed [which it may be is not so commonly noted] that it is never used in the Old Testament, but by way of wishing or apprecation, (the sixteenth verse of Esay 65. only excepted, of which anon) As when it cometh single, as Deut. 27 twelve times over, where the LXX render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be it done. 1 Kings 1. 36. where the LXX have it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so be it, Nehem. 5. 13. Jer. 28. 6. Psal. 106. 48, &c. Or when it cometh double, Numb. 5. 22. Psal. 41. 13. & 72. 19. & 89. 52. which the LXX ex∣press 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be it done, be it done, or so be it, so be it. In all these places it is used by way of prayer or imprecation, according as the subject matter was to which it was applyed, as David Kimchi expresseth it in Micol in the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: It is spoken, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 either by way of prayer, or by way of undertaking, as that they take upon them a curse if they transgress.
But in these utterances of our Saviour the sense of it is altered from precatory to as∣sertory, or from the way of wishing, to the way of affirming: for what one Evangelist expresseth, Amen I say unto you, This poor widdow, &c. Mar. 12. 43. another uttereth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Of a truth I say unto you, &c. Luke 21. 2. Mathew saith, Amen, I say unto you, That some that stand here, &c. which Luke giveth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Of a truth I say unto you, Luke 9. 27. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Matth. 23. 36. is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, truly, Luke 11. 51. &c. For indeed the word Amen doth properly betoken and signifie truth, at is apparent by the con∣struction of that verse forementioned, Esay 65. 16. He who blesseth himself in the earth, shall bless himself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth, shall swear 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the God of truth: as not only our English, but also R. Sol. and David Kimchi do well render it; and the gloss of Kimchi upon the place is worth the citing; He saith in the earth, saith he, because in all the world there shall be one truth, and that shall be the truth of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the God of truth.
Now Christ is called Amen, Rev. 13. 14. as being not only the faithful and true witness, but even he in whom all the promises of God are yea and Amen, 2 Cor. 1. 20. and even truth it self.
Therefore when he cometh to publish the Gospel, which is that one truth that should be in all the world, (for the prophet Esay speaketh there apparently concerning the times of the Gospel) he speaketh of his own (as he saith the Devil doth when he speak∣eth a lye, Joh. 8. 44.) and useth a different stile from the Prophets, (which used to au∣thorize
their truths with, Thus saith the Lord,) and speaketh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, upon his own Authority, as the God of truth: Amen, I say unto you. In this word therefore is inclu∣ded two things, namely, the truth spoken, and the truth speaking it; and the expression doth not only import the certainty of the things delivered, but also recalleth to consider that he that delivers it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Amen the God of truth, and truth it self. And this consideration will help to give a resolution to the second scruple that was proposed, and that is, why John alone doth use the word doubled, and none other of the Evangelists.
I am but little satisfied with that gloss that is given by some upon this matter, namely, that John doth constantly double this word, because the matters spoken by him are of a more celestial and sublime strain, than the matters spoken by the other Evangelists, and there∣fore the greater attention is challenged to them by this gemination; for neither can I see, nor dare I think of any such superiority and inferiority in the writings of the Evan∣gelists.
Nor do I suppose that Christ used this gemination himself, (for it is very strange that in those speeches that this Evangelist mentioneth he should do so, and in the speeches that the others mention he should not do so, when it may be sometimes it was the very same speech) but I conceive that the Evangelist hath doubled the word, that he might ex∣press the double sense which the single word in our Saviours mouth, and in the other Evangelists includeth. And so he addeth nothing to what Christ spake, but explaineth his speech to the utmost extent. He saith in the other Evangelists Amen singly, but he meaneth thus doubly, This is truth, and I am truth that speak it: Now John that he might clear this double meaning, doth double the word Amen, Amen, the one whereof doth re∣fer to the thing that is spoken, and the other to the person that speaketh it. But the question proposed, is not yet resolved, why John should do thus, rather than any of the other; but the same answer that resolveth why John should relate so many things that none of the other three do ever mention, will resolve this: namely, that it was Gods will and disposal that there should be four that should write the Gospel, and that some writing one thing, and some another, some after one manner, some another, the Story should be divinely made up to its full perfection. Now John wrote last, and he had warrant and opportunity to relate what the others had omitted: And as for the particular in hand, he saw that the other had only produced this word single, as Christ indeed had continually uttered it, and that they had some of them expounded it in a place or two 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ to shew that it was to be taken in these speeches in a meaning different from that precatory strain in which it was constantly used in the Old Testament: but yet that there was some∣thing more included in the word, and therefore he is warranted by the holy Ghost to ex∣plain it to the full in two words, Amen, Amen: And thus the counsels of the Lord of old, uttered and revealed by the Prophets, do in the preaching of the Gospel by our Saviour prove 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Truth, truth, Esay 25. 1.
Observe the manner of our Saviours answer; the text saith, he saith to him, but his words are aimed at them all, Amen, Amen, I say to you, Ye shall see, &c. He applyeth his speech to all in general, though he spake more singularly, (as the Text telleth) to Natha∣neel in prosecution of the discourse that had been betwixt them before.
Now the main difficulty of this speech lyeth in this, in what sense to understand, the opening of the Heavens; and where and how these Disciples saw the Angels ascending and descending upon Christ: The words are capable of a double construction, and some give them the one, and some the other: some understand them literally, that the Disciples did at some times see the Heavens opened indeed, as John the Baptist had done, Luke 3. and the Angels ascending and descending upon Christ indeed, though never a one of the Evange∣lists mention it. And fair arguments and probability they shew for this, which I shall not spend time to mention.
But others conceive the words are to be interpreted in a Metaphorical and borrowed sense, and not according to the letter, and so taken, some interpret them one way, some another.
I confess that I have stood at this place, tanquam in bivio, a very long time, and can hardly tell which way to take: both the interpretations of the thing, both the literal and the tropical, carrying so fair a colour and appearance with them. But I cannot but in∣cline to the latter, namely, to conceive that Christ here speaketh in a borrowed sense, and by the opening of Heaven, and the ascending and descending of Angels, that he meaneth not historically, that that very thing was to be done, but mystically meaneth some thing else, which he thought good to express by these borrowed phrases. And that which mainly swayeth me that way is, [besides the silence of all the Evangelists, that never mention such a thing really done] the force and signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Our
English and Erasmus render it hereafter; and so have left the time at a very large and un∣certain scantling. But the Syriack and the Vulgar render it, from this time, or hencefor∣ward, and so it is most properly and naturally meaneth: For it signifieth not only a date of time, and some one action done after that date at a time uncertain; but a conti∣nuance of such actions or things from that date forward.
Now our Saviours meaning in this phrase is, that from this very time forward he would declare and shew himself in his Ministery gloriously and with power, and henceforward should his Disciples see and perceive so much by glorious demonstrations of him, that they might know that he was the Christ.
His expressions of the Heavens opened, and the Angels ascending and descending, refer and allude to Ezekiels vision at Chebar, Ezek. 1. 1. and to Jacobs at Bethel, Gen. 23. two as glorious revelations of Christ, as any vision the Old Testament mentioneth.
His meaning may be given in a paraphrase, thus; Nathaneel dost thou think it so great a matter, that I could see thee though thou wert so close, and private, and secret under the figtree? thou shalt see far greater things than these; for I tell you all: From this time forward I must begin to preach the Gospel, and ye shall perceive that I have such knowledge of things, as if heaven it self were open to me: and such power of miracles and doing wonders, as if the Angels were continually going on errands for me, and do∣ing my will. And accordingly the Evangelist relateth that on the very next day he shewed a miracle at Cana in Galilee, and manifested forth his glory: and in the latter end of the same Chapter, he speaketh of his miracles at Jerusalem, and his knowledge of all men, ver. 24.
So that henceforth Christs Ministery in preaching and doing miracles doth begin; the place, Cana: the time, some two months after his Baptism, or thereabouts, for ought is to be perceived from the Evangelists to the contrary.
This title of Christ, which is so frequent in the Evangelists, [and yet which is obser∣vable, never but in his own words] meaneth not only to express a man, according to the Syrian Dialect then used, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bar nosho, nor only to express Christs humanity, or that he was truly man, in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; nor doth it only intimate his humility, when he doth not disdain to call himself so oft by this humble name, though it may have some aim at all these things: but it seemeth to be used so oft by our Saviour concerning himself, as intimating him to be the second Adam, and refer∣ring to that promise that was made to Adam instantly after his fall, of the seed of the Woman that should break the Serpents head: And to this very purpose, as we observed in its place, the Evangelist Luke, at the story of his Baptism, when he was to be installed into his Minstery, and had that glorious testimony from heaven, deriveth his pedegree up to the first Adam, to draw all mens eyes to that first promise, and to cause them to own him for that seed there promised, and for that effect that is there mentioned, of dissolving the works of Satan: And as that Evangelist giveth that hint, when he his now entring this quarrel with Satan, even in the entrance of his Ministery, so doth he himself as he goeth along in it, very fre∣quently and commonly by this very phrase, give the same intimation for the same pur∣pose. Nathaneel had proclaimed him the Son of God, he instantly titles himself, the Son of Man; not only to shew his humanity, [for that Nathaneel was assured of by the words of Philip, who calls him, Jesus of Nazeret, the son of Joseph] but to resolve the thoughts of the hearers to the first promise, and to lead them to look for restoring of that by this se∣cond Adam which was lost in the first. To him was heaven shut upon his fall, and he lost his former converse and attendance of Angels, but ye shall see heaven open, and the Angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man, that you may know that the second Adam is here.
It is true indeed that Ezekiel and Daniel are called either of them Son of Man, Ezek. 2. 1. &c. Dan. 8. 17. and that all men in general are called the sons of Man, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Psal. 62. 9. as nomen naturae, and so we deny not but this title doth denote and shew Christs humanity, and may tell us to what honour God raised our nature in him: But when he doth often stile himself by the title with such an Emphasis, it draws the eyes and thoughts of all to meditate also and consider upon this further thing.
In the Greek it is, John beareth wit∣ness, and cryed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the former word in the present tense, and the latter in the praeter tense; the tenses being either indifferently put one for another, as the the Translator of Cyrill hath rendred them, Testatur, & clamat, or Nove hoc, (as Eras∣mus phraseth it) this strange construction is used by the Evangelists, to shew in the for∣mer word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the continuance of Johns testimony; and in the latter word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the openness, clearness, vigor, and power∣fulness of it: So Chemnitius, Grotius, Beza, &c. Change of tenses indeed is no strange thing in Scripture language, as John 4. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, she departed, and saith, &c. yet this alteration seemeth to carry something more with it, than meerly change of tense, without difference of construction, especial∣ly if the sense and scope of the whole verse be considered and taken up together, which shall be done hereafter in the explanation of it.
Beza conceiveth here that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was, for is, for he saith he can see no reason why the praeterimperfect tense is used in this place; but on the other hand, I see as little reason why John, if he meant to say here, this is he, should not say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, as well as he doth in vers. 27. & vers. 30. and I suppose it will be very hard to give a reason, why in the one place he should say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and in the other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if he meant the same thing. But this also shall be taken into explanation afterward.
Or, that is to come after me, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth, Rev. 1. 8.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth often carry the sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Matth. 2. 23. Luk. 1. 20. Act. 7. 4. & 8. 23. and so may 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rom. 8. 21. be best interpreted in the sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Because the creature it self also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption in the glorious liberty of the sons of God. The preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or in, denoting the time; as, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, As he was breaking bread, Luke 24. 35.
The phrase, in the bosom, see Numb. 11. 12. Deut. 13. 6▪
It is more than probable that they that ask him this question, did know who John was both by birth and name: And therefore their quaere, who art thou? Is pro∣posed to him in regard of his function, ra∣ther than in regard of his person; and meaneth rather, what kind of Minister art thou, than, what man art thou? So Ruth 3. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Quaenam tu filia mea? Who art thou my daughter? that is, Quo sta∣tu tu, or, how is it with thee? So 1 Sam. 17. 55. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whose son is this? Not filius cujus, but filius qualis viri hic, what kind of mans son is this? as is noted there.
It is a common elegancy of the Scripture, to use an affirmative and a negative to∣gether, to make out the same sense, sometimes the negative first, as Psal. 118. 17. I shall not die but live, &c. sometimes the affirmative first, as Esay 38. 1. Thou shalt die and not live: but a negative between two affirmatives, as here, is for the greater emphasis and expression.
I am not.] His answer is to their question in their sense: For although John were that Elias that was prophecied of to come, Mal. 4. 5. as our Saviour doth clearly ex∣pound it, Matth. 11. 14. and the Angel doth tell how it is to be understood, Luke 1. 17. yet was he far from being that Elias that the Jews looked for, and in their sense, as see hereafter. The Scripture doth sometimes title things not as they be really in themselves, but as they be in mens apprehensions, or to mens purposes: as when the Apostle calleth preaching, foolishness, 1 Cor. 1. 21. and when the Holy Ghost calleth Ahitophels counsel good, 2 Sam. 17. 14. &c. And so John giveth his answer here according to the apprehen∣sions of those that ask him the question concerning Elias.
The Syriack readeth it in the present tense, as doth our English, and so doth Beza and divers others, and so indeed might the Greek word very well bear it; but since it is said, John saw Jesus coming the next day, it is an argument that he was not present there now, and therefore it is most proper∣ly to be read in the time past, there hath stood one among you.
The Syr. Arab. Vulg. Cyrill, and divers others, read it not Bethabara, but Bethania; conceiving belike this place to be Aenon, in Chapter 3. ver. 24. with the word Beth put before it (which is most common in the Hebr. Tongue with names of places.) For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are of so near affinity in the root, and of not so far difference in the sound, that it is possible they may be con∣founded one with another, and it is proba∣ble they were so in these mens opinions.
But the uncontroulable warrant of Authentick copies of Antiquity doth read it Betha∣bara, and even reason it self telleth, that it ought not to be read Bethania: For first the Scripture never mentioneth any Bethania near Jordan at all: for the Bethania that it speaketh of, is many miles distant from Jordan. And secondly that Aenon and Bethania were not the same, we shall see elswhere.
In the Greek it is sin, in the singular number: which hath caused some to under∣stand it of original sin only, not minding, it seemeth, the common custom of the Scri∣pture to put one number for another, espe∣cially by the word sin in the singular num∣ber to understand all sins whatsoever.
Here is no ground at all for universal redemption; for the word World, standeth here in opposition to the Jews, as this very Evangelist himself explaineth it, 1 Joh. 2. 2. And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, of the Jewish Nation, but also for the sins of the whole world; and of men of other Nations, and so he meaneth here, that Christ is the Lamb of God, a sa∣crifice, not for the Jews only, but for the Gentiles, and other Nations also.
Rabbi.] This and other titles of their Doctors, as Rab, and Rabban, and Ribbi, were but lately grown into use and request among them, and sprang up but very little before the birth of Christ. The Prophets, and the men of the great Syna∣gogue, and all the generations till the times of Hillel, had been content with their bare proper names, as Sadoc, Baithus, Antigonus, Shammai, Hillel, Shemaja, Abtalion, and the like very frequent and common in mention in the Jewish Authors. But Simeon the son of Hillel, (he that took our Saviour in his arms, Luke 2.) was the first Doctor among them cum titulo, and he was called Rabban: From his times and forward, titles came ex∣ceedingly into request and fashion among them, and none more common than the ti∣tle Rabbi, as appeareth frequently in the Gospel, and infinitely in their own Writers. Now the reason why in these times, and not before, this titularity grew into use and custom so much among them, may be guessed to be either one, or both these two: 1. Because of the contestation that had been continually between the Schools of Shammai and Hillel, they commonly differing in opinion and judgment in every thing almost that came before them (like Scotists and Thomists) and very seldom or never having the luck to concur and consent in any opini∣on: whereupon the Scholars of either took titles upon them, that they might, as it were, by their high swoln Epithets out-swagger one another. 2. Because their learning, as they supposed, (at least their pride) was come to its very apex, or perfection: that passage in the Talmud concerning the Scholars of Hillel, makes it seem no wonder, if they from those times forward did swell into titles. Hillel, saith the Talmud, had 80 Scholars, 30 of them were fit that the Divine glory should rest upon them, as it did upon Moses; 30 others were worthy that the Sun should stand still for them as it did for Joshua; and 20 were of a Form between, &c. It was with the Jews now, as it proved afterward among the Christian Doctors; who when piety, truth, and humility reigned among them, were content with their bare names, as Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, &c. but when pride and error were got aloft, then the titles of Divus, Seraphicus, Angelicus, and the like, came into fashion and entertainment.
These Jewish titles imported, Mastership, Doctorship, or Principality; and were of higher dignity one than another: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aruch. in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Rabbi was a more excellent title than Rab; and Rabban more excellent than Rabbi: Rab was the more proper title of the Babylonian Doctors; Rabbi of the Judaean; and Rabban ascribed to seven men only.
Which is being interpreted, Christ.] These are the words of the Evangelist the historian, and not the words of Andrew: For it was needless for him to tell Peter, what was the meaning of Messias, and ac∣cordingly the Syriack Translater hath omit∣ted this clause: and that in Vers. 42. which is by interpretation, Peter; and that also, Chap. 4. 25. which is by interpretation, Christ, as knowing it unnecessary to tell an Hebrew, or a Syrian, what is meant by Messias, or Cephas.
We find the name Nathaneel in the Old Testament also; as, 1 Chron. 15. 24. Ezra 10. 22. &c. But Philip, and Andrew, and Nicodemus, &c. were names of a latter edition, taken up into use since the Grecian power and language had overspread Judoa▪ and those Eastern Countries. This Natha∣neel was of Cana of Galilee, Joh. 21. 2. one of the first Disciples called, and that conti∣nued with Jesus to the very last, as it ap∣peareth by that place in John: Now since all these that are mentioned in this Chapter by name, as Peter, and Andrew, and Philip, were made Apostles, it is somewhat strange if Nathaneel missed the like place.
Come and see.] A very common phrase among Jewish Writers; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Talmud language; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the common Hebrew. They use it when they are about to produce any demonstration, or to declare a matter: and sometime in stead of it they use 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 come and hear, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 come and learn: as see Tauch. fol. 1. col. 2. and fol. 57. col. 1.
Verily, verily.] Gr. Amen, Amen: This phrase shall be opened in the explicati∣on of the Verse: Here let the Reader only observe some peculiar use of the word Amen among the Jews: The Judges adjured a man, saying, We adjure thee by the Lord God of Israel, or by him whose name is Merciful, that thou hast nothing of this mans in thy hand, and he answered, Amen. Or they said N. the son of N. is cursed of the Lord God of Israel, or of him whose name is Merciful, if such a mans goods be in his hand, and he discover it not; and he answered, Amen. Maymon. tract. Shev••gnoth. ver. 11. And so he relateth concerning vows, That whosoever vowed any holy thing, and bound it up with Amen, he was tied, &c. Vid. Sam. Petit. variarum Lect. lib. 1. cap. 7. who concludeth hereupon thus, Cum dicit Christus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, idem est ac si di∣ceret, Juratus vobis dico.
Promeremur.
Ph••l. 3. 6. Rom. 1. 17. 2 Cor. 3. 11. Rom. 8. 4, &c.