Tricoenivm Christi in nocte proditionis suæ The threefold svpper of Christ in the night that he vvas betrayed / explained by Edvvard Kellett.

PAR 10.

AGainst the learned, and accute opinion of Genebrard (on whose side, are Elias Levita, David Kimchi, and Rabbi Iacob) the Iesuite Ribera struggleth hard (on Hag. 1. and 2. Chapters) canvasing this poynt; whether the five things were wanting, in the second Temple, which were in the first Temple? Genebrard, and many others, of great note, say, that the fire from heaven, which lighted on the Altar, Levit. 9.24. was not in the second Temple. Ribera affirmeth it, from the authority of, 2 Macc. 1, 19. but say I, that was rather water than fire. No fire, but thicke water, ver. 20. and, if at the shining of the Sunne; a great fire was kindled, either the Sunnes heate might naturally burne the subjacent combustible things, as it doth the Phoenix and her death-bed of Spices; or, if it were an heavenly fire ex∣traordinary, it was a new fire, like that of Elijabs (whose fire did kindle, at the end of Eliah his short prayer, whether the Sunne shined or no, 1 Kin. 18.38.) or like those descending fires (which expected not the shining, heating, or kindling from

the Sunne) 2 King. 1.10. and 12. verses; the old sacred fire of the Altar, it was not. And herein Ribera was foulely deceived (that I may not now question the authoritie of the second Book of Macchabecs) How apt Naptha is to conceive fire, every Schol∣ler knoweth; even as apt as Pitch, Brimstone, or Powder; it being a kinde of liquid bitumen; but Nehemiah himselfe called this thing Napthan, 2 Macc. 1.36. which little differeth from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greeke, or Naptha in Latine; and out of doubt, poyn∣ted plainely, that Art, and Nature concurred without miracle, to kindle that fire, though the King of Persia understood not so much.

2. The Vrim, and Thummim was not in the second Temple; say the whole streames, with Genebrand. Ribera opposeth it, grounding onely on Iosephus. But the great vaunter of his owne Nation, is not a fit man to crosse the current; and yet Iosephus himselfe (Antiq. 3.9.) confesseth, that 200▪ yeares before he writ so; the vertue of them failed; God being angry for the prevarication of his Lawes; as if they angred not God, above 200. yeares. And yet, if it were so, there is no men∣tion of them, neere the dayes of our Saviour; nor were they in the Temple, with him; and, after bis death, at the destruction of the Temple, other Monuments, and sacred reposites being found, the Ark was not found. Some, as polluted, were put from the Priesthood; and the Governour told them, they should not eate of the most holy, till there stood up a Priest, with Ʋrim, and with Thummim, Ezra. 2.69. which is repeated, Nehe. 7.65. Now, though the Governour did hope, that the Lord would give the same priviledges to the intended second Temple, as he had to the first: yet, fince we know no such thing, we need not beleeve it; but may firmely conclude, that at the building of the second Temple, they then had them not; though they stood, in expectancy thereof; and if they had them, in likelihood; we should have heard of it. Some write, saith Ʋatablus, on this last place; that this must needs be understood of Christ; for the Ʋrim, and the Thummim, which Mo∣ses put in the breast-plate, were not in the second Temple. Montanus thinkes, Tempore Iremiae desiisse, that they ended, in the dayes of Ieremy the Prophet; and the reason of not finding them againe, he ascribeth to this; Id agente Deo, ut hominum genus sanctiorum, etiam, rerum quae novi Testamenti tempore oblata sunt, desiderio, & expectatione afficerentur: It was Gods good will, and pleasure so to have it, that men might be affected with the desire, and expectation of more holy things, which were offered, in the time of the new Testament; you shall finde the decay of the Ʋrim, and Thummim, confirmed by the Tractat Jomah, Rabbi Salomoh; Joseph Ben-Gorion; Abrabureb in his Commentary on Pirke Aboth; and Rab. Aben-Ezra. Against single Iosephus, the Iewes themselves administer an unanswerable argument, viz. that in the roome of Ʋrim & Thummim, succeeded another kind of Oracle; which the Commentator of the Talmud Text, from the Sanhedrim, thus describeth. The voyce from heaven was not heard, but the Echo thereof, and therefore they cal∣led it Bath-col, the daughter of the voyce. This voyce shewed, what was to be done, or omitted, foretold future things, and revealed what was to be thought of things passed. Happy, most happy was that time, when that voyce was heard, saith Rabbi Salomon. Most of this I had from Balthazar Bambach, in the third of his foure most profitable Tractates. I hope, I shall be charitable enough, though I suspect this re∣flecting voyce, the jugling of the Priests, in the old Law; I am sure, Ben Syra, when hee tells of the voyce, that came from heaven to David; let Rhehoboam, and Ierobo∣am, divide the Kingdome; when David seeing the truth of Mephibosheths cause, did right him but by halves, and said, Thou, and Ziba divide the land, 2 Sam. 19.29. I am sure, I say, he doth not establish Bath-col, but speakes of an unreflected voyce, upon that peremptory injustice of David, who did rather, in part, uphold his owne errors, than right Mephibosheth; Thou, and Zibà divide the land; let Re∣hoboam and Ieroboam divide the Kingdome. To which let me adde, that the Pro∣phets also did, in a sort, supply the decay of the Breast-plate.

3. The Arke was not in the second Temple. So Genebrard, Lyra, Carthusian, Dorothous Martyr, cited by Ribera. By the Arke is meant, both the body of the

Arke it selfe, and the Pedestall, or Subpedaneall being a chariot on which the Che∣rubims stood, 1 Chron. 28.13. beside, and the Propitiatory, which was over the Arke; and the Cherubims, and the voyce of God which came from over the Propiti∣atorie. The Arke was not all of pure gold; the cover, or Propitiatory was all of pure gold, called by the 70. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, placamen, operculum, by the Vulgat, oraculum. Ribera thinkes it not improbable, for one to say, that it was a while kept in the se∣cond Temple, His onely ground is the second Booke of Macchabees. But himselfe saith, perhaps the controversie is sooner ended, if we remember, the same Ieremy foretold, that in the time of the New Testament, the Iewes should not remember the Arke, Ier. 3.16. In those dayes, they shall say no more the Arke of the Convenant of the Lord; neither shall it come to mind, neither shall they remember it, &c. But, by his leave, this ends the controversie little the sooner; for it might be in the second Temple, & yet not, in the time of the New Testament: Just, as Josephus said before of the Ʋrim, and Thum∣mim, if he said true. In secundo Templo (saith Gaspar Sanctius, on the place of Jeremy.) Arca Domini non fuit, in the second Temple, there was not the Arke of the Lord. Por∣chetus (part. 1. victoriae contra Hebraeos, cap. 4. fol. 19.) thus; In libro Talmud, qui dici∣tur [Ioma] dicitur, in Sanctuario secundo non fuit Arca; in the Booke of the Talmud, which is called [Ioma] it is written: In the second Temple, there was no Arke. And Tradition saith, that with it was taken away the pot of Manna, the Chris∣matory, or vessell of oyle; the rod of Aaron, with the Almonds, and Buds, the gol∣den Emrods, which the Philistims offered, 1 Sam. 6.17. With the golden Mice, ver. 18. and Coffer holding them. Comestor, said, that the Arke was carried in tri∣umph of Titus, and is now kept at Rome, in the Church of S. John of Lateran. Ri∣bera himselfe (on the fabricke of the Temple, 2.2.) saith, this is false, and dis∣proves it by Iosephus. Christopher Castrus (on Ieremy 3.) proveth, Satis, superque, very abundantly, that the Arke was not in the second Temple. Chrysost. oratione. 3.3. adversus Iudaeos denieth the heavenly fire, the Ʋrim, and Thummim, and the Oracle from the Propitiatory to be in the second Temple. Now the Propitiatory was a part of the Arke; and the Divine presence gave answers from the Oracle; and there∣fore, some needed not to make distinct things of the presence of God, in shining, or in a cloud; in the oracle of the Propitiatory, and in the Spirit of Prophesie; for, the divine Presence answering from the Propitiatory, was the Propheticall Spirit; and when the Arke, and propitiatory were not in the Temple restored, no more was the presence of God, or the Oracle, following from the Spirit of Prophecy. Ri∣bera made the Arke comprise these three last things.