A commentary upon the whole Old Testament, added to that of the same author upon the whole New Testament published many years before, to make a compleat work upon the whole Bible. Vols. 2-4. Wherein the divers translations and expositions, literall and mysticall, of all the most famous commentators both ancient and modern are propounded, examined, and judged of, for the more full satisfaction of the studious reader in all things, and many most genuine notions inserted for edification in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. A work, the like unto which hath never yet been published by any man, yet very necessary, nor only for students in divinity; but also for every Christian that loveth the knowledge of divine things, or humane, whereof this comment is also full. Consisting of IV parts. I Upon the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses. II Upon the historical part, from Joshua to Esther. III Upon Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Solomons Song. IV Upon all the prophets both great and small. By John Mayer, doctor of divinity.

CHAP. XXIII.

IOsiah hearing the Lords answer, immediately gathereth all the people of Iudah * 1.1 and Ierusalem, before the house of the Lord, both great and small, and having read the words of the book in their hearing, they entred into a covenant to keep these laws with all their heart, and not to sinne against them any more. Yea, as is added 2 Chron. 34. 33. he rested not in this, but removed all abhominations out of all Israel, and caused all in all parts to follow the Lord all his dayes. The godly king thought it necessarie, when the land was in so great danger, to binde himself and the people by oath, from going after idols any more, as being a course taken before by Asa, 2 Chron. 15. 12. and by Iehoiadah, ch. 23. 16. and by Hezekiah, ch. 29. 10. grounding doubtlesse upon that fact of Moses, after the giving of the law, who

caused the people to make a covenant, to keep the things therein contained, con∣firming * 1.2 it by sprinkling bloud upon them. For the tye of a covenant is so sacred, and so strongly binding, as that none but such as are desperately mad upon sinning, dare break it, because whoso breaketh it, dissolveth the bands of his souls mariage with God, and is actually divorced, and so excluded from all benefit of his protection from miseries here or hereafter.

Now Iosiah is said to have made this covenant with all his heart, and the people did out wardly all binde themselves also, but dissemblingly, as appeareth by Iere∣miah * 1.3 his complaint, that they turned not with all their heart, but fasly, or deceit∣fully; for which he saith, that rebellious Israel was justified before Iudah, because Iudah added to all her abominations hypocrisie, and therefore chap. 4. he biddeth them to breake up the fallow ground of their hearts and not to sowe amongst thomes; that is, having still an impious and perfidious heart. If it be demanded why Iosiah did thus now, seeing for his owne time he was by the promise of God secured, and afterwards the threatening was so peremptory, that there was no hope of preventing the judgements? Answ. When any promise is made, the faithfull know, that tacitly it is implyed, that they should with all diligence use all good meanes to obteine it, and when judgements are threatened, as against Ni∣neveh, they may be by true repentance averted. Wherefore Iosiah forbeareth not to doe his best to make sure the promise, and if it might be, to avert the judge∣ments threatened against the land.

And for this cause next unto the covenant he calleth to the keeping of a passe∣over in a most solemne and religious manner. v. 21. For although here from the * 1.4 4. v. hitherto the purging of the temple, &c. from all idolatrous pollution com∣meth betweene, yet, as hath been before shewed, it went before and followed not after the making of the covenant, and therefore of all that, it hath been already spoken. And 2 Chron. 35. 1. the keeping of this passeover is set forth immediately * 1.5 after the making of the covenant and that most amply, whereas here it is onely mentioned most briefly. But there is 1. mention made of the time, the fourteenth day of the first moneth. 2. Of the priests, that ministered about it. 3. Of the Le∣vites, that killed and fleaed the sacrifices. 4. Of the number of kids and lambes out of the flock given by the king, v. 7. 5. Of the number given by the princes of the Priests and Levites, v. 8, 9. 6. Of their boyling for all the people and for the priests and themselves, who were busied about sacrificing till night, v. 13, 14. 7. Of the Levites the musicians, who stood to play upon instruments of musick, v. 15. 8. Of the continuance of this solemnity, viz. seven dayes, v. 17. 9. This passeover is praised above all, that had beene kept, since Samuels time, v. 18. 10. It is said to have beene kept anno 18. of Iosiah his reigne, v. 19. that is, the same yeare, that the repairing of the temple was made. Yet here also this passeover is in like manner praised and before others preferred, that had been kept, since the dayes of the Iudges, and the time is also set down, viz anno 18. v. 22. 23.

But whereas 2 Chron. 35. 3. it is said, And he said to the Levites giving under∣standing * 1.6 to all Israel, sanctifying them to the Lord, put the holy arke in the house which Solomon built, &c. There is no burden for you to carry upon the shoulder now, serve the Lord your God and his people Israel.] It may be demanded, where the Arke now was, and whether out of this house, and when it was carryed out, be∣cause we never reade, that it was carryed out since the time that Solomon placed * 1.7 it there. Ierom saith, that it was carryed out by Ahaz, when he set up idolatry in the Lords house and set in the house of Shellum, the husband of Huldah the Pro∣phetesse, where it continued, till that Iosiah caused it at this time to be fetched away by the Levites into the Lords house, being the proper place thereof: and Cajetan, that the wicked kings of Iudah most probably remembering, what dammage was done to the Philistims, when the Arke stood by Dagon. their idol, * 1.8 durst not let it stand in the temple, when they worshipped idols there, but caused it to be carried out into some other place. And the kings sending to Huldah the prophetesse to consult with the Lord is thought by some to favour the relation of Ierom, that it stood in her husbands house. Lyra having recited that, which Ierom

hath, saith, that in an Hebrew Glosse it is said, that the Arke was not carried in A∣haz his time out of the temple, but when Manasseh set up an idol, he removed the Arke to another place in the temple, that he might make roome for that idol to be placed there, and so it was not brought at this time from any other house but from some other part of the temple to the most holy place, where most properly it ought to stand. But he excepteth against both these, against the first, because He∣zekiah reigning after Ahaz, who was so full of zeale, would not doubtlesse have suffered the Arke in any other place all the time of his reigne, and against the se∣cond, because the Levites might not come into the temple, but the priests onely, and therefore, if it had stood in any part of the temple out of the proper place, Iosiah would have spoken to them and not to the Levites to remove it in. And he resolveth, that it was carried out by Manasseh, and now at Iosiah his appointment brought by the Levites to the Temple, of whom the Priests receiving it, carryed it into the most holy place. But against this it may as well be excepted, because Manasseh was converted and lived many yeares after, in which time it is not to be conceived, but that if he had carryed out the Arke before, he would then have brought it in again. Wherefore, if it were now brought in, that conjecture seemeth the best to me, whereby it is held, that Amon the sonne of Manasseh, that was worse then his father, proceeded to this height of impiety to cause the Arke to be carryed out, and it having stood so till he was cut of and during the time of Iosiah his minority, and till he had found the booke of the Law, he now appointed it to be brought and set in its place, where it should rest; neither should the Levites, as in times past be troubled with carrying it upon their shoulders any more; so that they might the more freely attend upon their other ministration. But Iunius admits not of any such sense of the words, as may imply, that the Arke had been carryed * 1.9 out, and was now brought in againe: for he rendreth them thus. And he said to all Israel preparing the holy things of the Lord, put them before the Arke in this house, &c. Which reading although I approve not, (because I have before rendred them other wise verbatim according to the Hebrew text, neither can the words well beare it, seeing there is no word signifying preparing, or before the Arke, but plainly put the Arke in the house, and it is improper to say of the sacrifices, which must be meant by the holy things, if it be so rendred, put them in the house, sith they came no nearer then the court, (where the altar to sacrifice upon stood) yet I cannot but approve of that opinion, whereby it is held, that the Arke was not hitherto remo∣ved out of the house where it should stand, since the time that it was placed by So∣lomon, so that it needed not now any carrying in, as most expositours imagine, be∣cause the carrying it out in the most corrupt times is no where spoken of, where∣as if it had been, doubtlesse it should not have been passed over in silence, being an impiety so remarkable, and the manner of bringing it in with all solemnity (as was requisite,) would have followed, whereas nothing is said hereof a lastly, as Pellican * 1.10 hath it, the Prophets of those times most probably would have earnestly called for the restoring of it to the place, if it had been taken out, seeing no sacrificing could be acceptable, or seeking unto God, but before the Arke. But where as he hereup∣on inferreth a fault to be in this place through the negligence of the Scribes, it is by no meanes to be given way unto, as being of dangerous consequence, as I have sometimes said before. If it be demanded then, how could he bid them set it in the house, if it were never carryed out, but stood there already? I answer, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 set or put doth not onely signifie thus much, but also suffer or permit it, for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whereof it cometh, hath all these significations, wherefore if we render it, saffer the holy Ark in the house, the meaning will be nothing else, but as the next words imply, the Levites were since Solomons time exempt from this work of carrying the Ark upon their shoulders, seeing it was to stand fixedly in the most holy place, therefore as they might by reason hereof, he biddeth them now to at∣tend wholly upon the service of this pascall solemnity. For the first words of this verse the Vulgar Lat. hath, At whose instruction all Israel was sanctified: respect∣ing rather the sense, then the translating of the words: seeing they are therefore said to sanctifie them, because they made them understand how this was to be

done, and the truth is said to sanctifie, because when a man being instructed herein receiveth it, he is renewed unto holinesse thereby, * 1.11

Whereas v. 4. he biddeth them according to the divisions of their families made * 1.12 by David and Solomon, to prepare for the people, as was appointed by Moses; the meaning is, according to their divisions into severall families, 1 Chron. 26. they should kill the lambs for the passeover to be kept by all Israel, preparing for each fa∣mily a lamb, for so Moses appointed, Exod. 12. They did this indeed themselves by the first institution, every one in his own family, because they wanted a publike place to come unto; but now, there being a temple, this feast must be kept before it, and because in the publike place, to which all assembled together, the publike Mini∣sters must do this service for all, as is shewed v. 11, 12. that they did; and it is not to be doubted, but as Pellican hath it, that the Levites being present, taught * 1.13 them the right order and ceremonies to be observed in eating the passeover, that they might not erre hereabout, and how prepared, being sanctified from all un∣cleannesse, they ought to come unto it, see also for this vers. 6.

For the number of cattle given now to furnish this solemnitie, they were ex∣ceeding * 1.14 many, viz. of small cattle out of the flocks 30000 given by the King, and of greater out of the heard 3000, &c. and these are said to have been given to the people; the godly King, and Princes after his example, and the Princes of the Priests and Levites also, thus providing, that the passeover being no burthen to them, because their flocks were not hereby diminished, they might the more cheer∣fully keep it. And all these cattle thus given, were partly spent by severall families, according to the institution, and partly in eucharisticall sacrifices, a great part where∣of went every of these dayes to the offerers to feast and make merry withall. The bloud, which the priests are said here to have sprinkled, was upon the altar, as Le∣vit. 3. and whereas the Levites fleaed them, it was not because their office re∣quired it, but for necessitie in respect of the multitude of sacrifices, as before in He∣zekiah his time, chap. 29. 34. whereby it appears, that this ought to have been done by the priests, but now as need required, the levites holp them herein.

And they sod the Passeover, &c.] The vulgar Latin, they rosted it. And this in∣deed * 1.15 doth best agree with the ordinance of Moses, Exod. 12. 8. But the word here used, doth first and most properly signifie to sethe, for it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but as Pagninus noteth, it sometime signifieth to roste, and so it must be understood here, because the pasch raw or sodden is forbidden, Exod. 12. 8, 9. whereas this here is said to have been done, as was appointed by Moses. And the other holy things were sod∣den in pots, that is, the flesh of the sacrifices, for so it ought to be.

All Israel being provided for thus by the Levites, they finally provided for them∣selves * 1.16 and the priests, who ate the passeover last of all, because they had no leisure for sacrificing till night, and for the Levites, Musitians, and Porters, who kept them * 1.17 all this while to their stations, the musitians to sing and sound over the sacrifices, and the porters to keep the doors.

In concluding this history it is said, that such a passeover as this had not been kept * 1.18 since the dayes of Samuel, by any of the kings of Israel, 2 King. 23. 22. from the dayes of the Iudges, by any of the Kings of Israel or Iudah; both to the same effect, because Samuel was the last of the Iudges, but in Kings not onely the Kings of Is∣rael, but of Israel and Iudah are spoken of; because passeovers had been kept, not onely whilest all Israel was united under one king, but also after it was divided, by godly kings that reigned over Iudah in particular. Whereas the time is extended to the dayes of the Iudges, Lyra noteth, that no passeover is commemorated to have * 1.19 been kept in the time of the Iudges, but onely in the time of Ioshuah, Iosh. 5. 9. but that passeovers were kept from year to year, when they had godly Iudges or Kings, is not to be doubted, although not commemorated, sith it is not the manner of sacred historians to set down the solemn feasts, which were commonly kept of course, but when there was somewhat extraordinary in the keeping of them, as in the time of Hezekiah, and now in the time of Iosiah. For that in Hezekiah his dayes was extraordinary for the time, the second moneth, and the keeping of it seven and seven dayes, the congregating not onely of Iudah, but of the other

kingdome also to it, viz. many tribes thereof, and the great number of cattle then offered, viz. 1000 bullocks, and 7000 lesser cattle by the King, and 1000 bullocks, and 10000 lesser cattle by the Princes, and the most joyfull keeping of this feast, like the joy in Solomons dayes, 2 Chron. 30. 26. And this in Iosiah his time was yet more extraordinary, because it is said, none like unto it had been kept before, and therefore neither in the time of Hezekiah. But wherein did this exceed that? Answ. First in the time, this being kept the first moneth, as was primarily ap∣pointed that in the second through the necessitie of the time. Secondly, in the uni∣versality of the congregation gathered to this out of all Israel, for he brought them all to follow the Lord, ch. 34. 33. Whereas in Hezekiah his time, some onely are said to have come out of the tribes of the kingdome of Israel, to that passeover. Thirdly, in the sanctitie of all that came, for they were taught by the Levites first to do this; whereas at that were many out of the tribes of Israel eating in their un∣cleannesse, but Hezekiah prayed for them, and so it was forgiven. Fourthly, now were all the classes of the Levites employed, in preparing and killing even that, which was for the eating of all Israel; then they killed onely, and for the unclean only. Fiftly, the singers and players upon instruments, kept them to their stations all day, the Levites providing for them also, but then not, as we reade of. Sixtly, in the number of cattle given by the king to the keeping of this solemnitie 30000 small cattle, and 3000 oxen, whereas by Hezekiah, only 1000 and 7000 were given. But whereas Iosephus will have the preference to be in his keeping it more exact∣ly, * 1.20 according to the ordinances of Moses, he is not to be heard, because this were a derogation to David, Hezekiah, and other godly kings, as if they had not in so materiall a point of religion kept them to the rules prescribed, If any man shall wonder, why the keeping of the passeover was made so great account of, when as it consisted of nothing, but eating, and burning fat in the fire. It is to be understood, that the thankfulnesse to God for their deliverance out of Egypt expressed hereby, [Note.] was the thing in esteem, and faith in Iesus Christ, of whom this was a figure, and obedience to Gods will, when as other nations sacrificed to false gods, in abhor∣ring from that, and sacrificing aboundantly to the true God. And obedience, saith and thankesgivings, in solemne manner are still the duties most acceptable; so that there be no sparing of cost withall in contributing to the maintenance of that which tendeth to his praise, or charitie to his poor.

Although there was not such a Passeover as this, &c] The vulgar Latin, for there * 1.21 was not, &c. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here used, signifieth both for and although, but it agreeth bet∣ter with the words following, v. 26. Yet God turned not away from his wrath, &c. to render it with Iunius, although. For so it is, as if he had said, all the means that might be, were used by godly Iosiah, in keeping a most exact passeover, and pur∣ging the church from all pollutions, yet he turned not away, &c. And here is subjoy∣ned a recitall of things formerly done by him in reforming, v. 24. He took away the wizards, soothsayers, and images, &c. and v. 25. there was no king like him, &c. Shewing, that all this is to be understood as spoken together, that it might appear, how resolutely the Lord was bent to bring his judgements, whatsoever was now done tending to a pacification, and therfore that it agreeth best to render the word, although.

But how is it said, there was no King like unto him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, &c.] Whereas 2 King. 18. 5. the same is said of Hezekiah? In satis∣fying * 1.22 this doubt, enough hath been already said upon that place, the things being shewed, wherein Hezekiah did so, as that none other did like him, and the things on the other side, wherein Iosiah was without his peer.

Lastly, if it be demanded why it is said, that he was not turned from the fierce∣nesse * 1.23 of his wrath, to which he was provoked against Iudah by the provocations of Manasseh, notwithstanding? Pellican answereth, that Manasseh his sins did onely * 1.24 lye covered all the time of Iosiah, till by his wicked posteritie and the Iews, who now turned but feignedly from them, they were uncovered, and vengeance sent down therefore even to the making of all their ceremoniall worship, which they had so much abused, cease, so as that it was never perfectly restored again, but some

of the divine glory henceforth diffused amongst the Gentiles. Lyra saith, that the * 1.25 holinesse of Iosiah sufficed not to expiate the wickednesse of his predecessours. But all this satisfieth not the doubt, seeing Manasseh was a convert, and against true converts their sinnes are remembred no more. Hugo therefore expoundeth it thus, the provocations of Manasseh, wherein the people imitated him. The more full an∣swer is, the provocations of Manasseh are in speciall mentioned, not that they were not blotted out of Gods remembrance towards him, but because they were in the * 1.26 highest degree (no king of Iudah doing so vilely before) and renewed with the ••••king of the people by his sonne Amon, and God, who seeth into all hearts, saw that they were still in their hearts, although outwardly they conformed themselves to Iosiah his minde for the time, seeing both Ieremy complaineth of this, ch. 3. 9, 10. and their relapse immediately after Iosiah his death declared it. And because Ma∣nasseh began to advance iniquity to this height, they are still called his provocations, when as they were his now in name onely, but really theirs that feared not to act them over again after his severe chastisement and repentance. Sin, we see by this, [Note.] leaveth a scarre, although remitted, in the name of him that commits it, throughout all generations, as a personall foul sinne did also to David, who greatly repented himself thereof, that if we would have a good name like a precious ointment, we may abhor from all such sinning, and flee even the corrupting that cometh hereun∣to by any folly, as by dead flies, which are but little, to a boxe of precious ointment. * 1.27

In his dayes came Pharaoh Necho against the king of Assyria to the river Eu∣phrates] 2 Chron. 35. 20. He went up against Charchemish. Which was a city of Syria, or rather Assyria 400. miles off from Ierusalem standing neare the river of Euphrates. The Assyrian Monarchy now declining, the king of Egypt trusting to his great power went forth to make warre against him, and because he could not come thither without passing through the kingdome of Iudah in some part, Iosiah either, because he thought it not safe to suffer such great forces, to passe through his countrey, as fearing least under a colour of passing through they should endeavour the possessing of it, or because some amity had been sometime betwixt the kings of Iudah and Assyria; or he feared by his suffering of the Egyptian army to goe quietly through his kingdome, to incurre the Assyrians displeasure, as others thinke; but most improbably, seeing the friendship of king Ahaz with Assyria was long agoe broken off in the time of Hezekiah, and Josiah had no reason to fear any king in the world, having a promise of peace in his time to the end. It was therefore a suspition of treachery towards his land in Necho, that made him to goe out to oppose him, and an unwillingnesse to have the Assyrian subdued, lest the king of Babylon having no potent adversary neare to resist him, the effecting of that should be hastened, which had been threatened to Hezekiah, viz. the subduing of Ierusalem to that proud king. But whatsoever cause outwardly there may seeme to have been, this his going against Necho to fall by his sword was not without a divine providence secretly working, that he being taken out of the way roome might be made for Gods judgements for his sake hitherto withheld, to enter a∣mongst a rebellious and hypocriticall people, of whom many secretly practised a∣bominable idolatry even whilest Iosiah lived, as we may gather by the invectives of Ieremiah, chap. 5. 7, &c.

The place, to which Iosiah went against Necho is not here mentioned, nor what other passages were, before they met, betwixt him and Necho, but 2 Chron. 35. 22. * 1.28 It is said to be the valley of Megiddo, and that Necho sent first unto him to will him to forbeare, seeing his coming out was not against him, although he marched through the borders of his countrey, not without a command from God. So that it i•• to be conceived, that the king of Egypt hearing of Iosiah his preparation to resist him, sent an Herald unto him with this message, going on his journey in the meane season, till he came to Megiddo, where Iosiah encountered him and was slaine in the very beginning of the battell, as is intimated in saying, He slew him, when he saw him, v. 29. And in more words, 2 Chron. 35. 21, 22. The darters smote Iosiah, who had disguisedly thrust himselfe into the battell: then being carryed away in his charriot he died. Of Megiddo in the tribe of Manasseh, see Iosh. 17. 11.

The place, wherein he died, was Ierusalem, 44. miles from Megiddo, and he was greatly lamented by Iudah and Ierusalem, and Ieremiah who wrote his lamenta∣tions upon his death, and the miseries ensuing; and these lamentations they were taught commonly to sing both to put by the singing of other vaine songs, and that a * 1.29 daily remembrance being herein made of the vertues of Josiah, all might be mo∣ved to the love hereof; and this took so as that it continued a custome thus to doe to the time of the writing of this book, which serveth to commend unto us the singing of the like godly songs throughout all ages.

Iosiah being dead, Iehohaz his sonne was anointed king in his stead being twenty * 1.30 three yeares of age, &c. This anointing of a king, that was heire apparant to the crowne, was extraordinary and needed not to have been done, saith Iunius, but * 1.31 onely because the kingdome having been troubled by Pharaoh Necho, this was now used as a signe of putting it into his hands, as the right king to be by him de∣fended against the Egyptians and all others. But, as Wolphius noteth, they did un∣wisely * 1.32 herein so to neglect the victorer, whom they should rather have sought un∣to for peace and liberty to make them a new king: for this their fact could not but greatly provoke him, as the sequele sheweth, that it did, when returning from his warres against Ashur he came and took Iehohaz and carryed him away bound in chaines unto Egypt, where he died, having reigned before his captivity but three moneths, and made Eliachim his brother king in his stead, turning his name to Iehojakim, who is said to have been 25. yeares old, and therefore the elder bro∣ther to Iehohaz, and consequently the right heire to the crowne, but he being in∣juriously refused, the younger was set up, and it succeeded accordingly. For both he was put downe and came to misery, and the land had a mulct imposed upon it for this presumption, one hundred talents of silver, and a talent of gold, which, if we account to the talent as the Hebrews commonly do, 125. pound, amounteth to 12500. of silver, and of gold 2250.

This Iehohaz is other wise called Shallum, that is, a recompence, Ier. 22. 11. Or consummation, although Ierom applyeth it rather to Zedekiah in whom the judge∣ments threatned were consummated; but because Iehojakim is spoken of after this, and Zedekiah was after him, that cannot stand. The Hebrews by the name Shal∣lum understand all the sonnes of Iosiah, either Iehohaz, Iehoiakim, or Zedekiah, be∣cause they were all alike wicked and holpe towards the consummating of the judgements, but it is plainly spoken of one particular Iehoahaz, as who began by his wickednesse to make way for the fulnesse of Gods judgements to come after Iosiah his death. And his dying in Egypt is prophesied of, and that he should never returne into his owne land againe. The place where Necho took him, was Rib∣lah in the land of Hamath, eighty miles from Ierusalem in the tribe of Nephtali. Of Hamath, there see Iosh. 19. 35. it was the uttermost boundary of the land of Ca∣naan. But how it happened, that Iehoahaz came to Riblah to be bound there, some conjecture most probably, that Iehoiakim his elder brother went to Necho thither, as he returned from Ashur to complaine of the wrong that was done him, profer∣ing, if he would helpe him to the kingdome, to pay him a tribute, whereupon Ne∣cho sent for Iehoahaz, under a pretence of compounding the matter betwixt the two brothers, and when he came within his power, bound him, and made Iehoia∣kim king, imposing the money aforesaid upon the land. But that we might know the cause, why Iehoahaz enjoyed the kingdome so short a time, and came to such misery, and that it was not accidentall, it is said, that he did evil, as his wicked forefathers had done, viz. Ahaz, Manasseh and Amon. His mothers name is also set downe, Hamutal the daughter of Ieremiah, not of the Prophet, for he was of Anathoth, yet it is likely, that the Ieremiah of whom she came, was godly, see∣ing Iosiah would not otherwise have matched himselfe with her, and if so, he was a degenerating plant, and therefore the more worthy to be rooted up.

The brother of Iehoahaz set up by Necho, was at the first called Eliakim, but he changed his name to Iehojakim, which he did, that it might alwayes be remem∣bred * 1.33 that he was made king by him, the changing of names being a signe of their being obliged to those that changed them for some great benefit, as Nebuchadnez∣zar

changed also the name of Zedekiah, when he made him king; and it was usuall amongst the Romans, when a man endued a servant with freedome, to change his name. But the change now made was but small, for Eliakim signifieth, rising, and Iehojakim, the rising of the Lord, as Genebrard noteth out of the Hebrews, * 1.34 who, he saith, do use these two names promiscuously, which may well be, for that there is no more difference, but as betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying God, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, three of the four letters of the name Iehovah, the rest of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being common to them both. But although either way he had in his name the most holy, yet in truth there was in him nothing lesse, for he is said to have been wicked as his fa∣thers, and therefore in his dayes the judgements threatned from Babylon began to work, he not being suffered to sit in the seat of royall Majestie above eleven years, but he began immediately to exact the moneys ceased for Pharaoh, as Manahem had also done once before for Phul the king of Assyria. Of his wickednesse Ezekiel * 1.35 speaketh under the similitude of a lion devouring men, as he doth also of his bro∣ther that reigned before him: and Jeremiah taxeth him with covetousnesse, and * 1.36 ambition, and other vices. Whereas Ezekiel calleth them princes of Israel, it was because they reigned over Israel also in a great part, for so the gestes of Iosiah their father shew that they did.

Notes

• * 1.1

  V. 1, 2.
• * 1.2

  Exod. 24.
• * 1.3

  Jer. 3. 10.
• * 1.4

  V. 21.
• * 1.5

  2 Chron. 39. 1, 2.
• * 1.6

  V. 3.
• * 1.7

  Hieronym. in trad. Heb.
• * 1.8

  Cajetan.
• * 1.9

  Junius.
• * 1.10

  Pellican.
• * 1.11

  Job. 17. 17.
• * 1.12

  V. 4.
• * 1.13

  Pellican.
• * 1.14

  V. 7.
• * 1.15

  V. 13.
• * 1.16

  V. 14.
• * 1.17

  V. 15.
• * 1.18

  V. 18.
• * 1.19

  Lyra.
• * 1.20

  Josephus.
• * 1.21

  2 King. 13. 22.
• * 1.22

  V. 25.
• * 1.23

  V. 26.
• * 1.24

  Pellican.
• * 1.25

  Lyra.
• * 1.26

  Hugo Card.
• * 1.27

  Eccles. 10. 1. V. 29. H. B. Patr. travels.
• * 1.28

  2 Chron. 35. 21, 22.
• * 1.29

  25.
• * 1.30

  2 King. 23. 30.
• * 1.31

  Junius.
• * 1.32

  Wolphius.
• * 1.33

  V. 34.
• * 1.34

  Genebrard.
• * 1.35

  Ezech. 19. 5.
• * 1.36

  Jer. 22. 13.