{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_52639/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_52639","id":"gutenberg_52639","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52639","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Judaism -- Customs and practices -- Early works to 1800","Judaism -- Early works to 1800","Rites and ceremonies in the Bible -- Early works to 1800","Worship in the Bible -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s Note\n\nDon\u2019t expect standard (or even consistent!) spelling. Any apparent\nerrors are most probably exactly the way they were printed.\n\nMinor punctuation errors have been corrected without note. Ditto\ntypesetting errors: word spacing; lower for upper case; transposed,\nrepeated or missing letters; b/d, u/n etc. The original text used long\ns (\u017f), rendered here as regular s.\n\nThe printer\u2019s somewhat idiosyncratic application of italic type has\nbeen changed to more standard usage, e.g. _Moses_, not M_oses_; _Deut.\n16. 6._, not _Deut._ 16. 6; for consistency, all footnotes, poetry\nand biblical references have been italicised even if not so printed.\n\n^{superscripted text} is thus indicated, normal text within italic\npassages ~like this~.\n\nFootnote markers have sometimes been moved a few words left or right,\nin order to minimise interruption to the flow of the text and/or help\nto clarify which word is being referenced.\n\nGreek: Ligatures are expanded to individual letter glyphs. Accents have\nbeen corrected without note.\n\nHebrew: Misuse of normal/final letter forms has been corrected without\nnote.\n\nBeyond that, a number of changes are noted at the end.\n\n\n\n\n\n                           Moses and Aaron:\n\n                       CIVIL and ECCLESIASTICAL\n                                RITES,\n\n                Used by the ancient HEBREWS; observed,\n               and at large opened, for the clearing of\n                   many obscure TEXTS thorowout the\n                           whole SCRIPTURE.\n\n           Which Texts are now added to the end of the Book.\n\n                    Wherein likewise is shewed what\n                   Customs the HEBREWS borrowed from\n               Heathen people: And that many Heathenish\n             Customs, originally, have been unwarrantable\n                     imitations of the _HEBREWS_.\n\n                        _The Eleventh Edition._\n\n                       By _Thomas Godwyn_, B.D.\n\n                               _LONDON_,\n\n     Printed for _S. Griffin_, _R. Scot_, _T. Basset_, _J. Wright_\n                        and _R. Chiswel_, 1678.\n\n\n\n\n                                TO THE\n                           RIGHT HONOURABLE\n                               _WILLIAM_\n\n    Earle of _Pembrook_, Lord Chamberlain of His Majesties\n    Houshold, L. Warden of the Stanneries, Knight of the most Noble\n    Order of the Garter, one of His Majesties most Honourable Privy\n    Council, and Chancellor of the famous University of _Oxford_.\n\n                      _All Grace and Happiness._\n\nRight Honourable,\n\n_That many have no better acquaintance with Christ and his Apostles,\nis, because they are such strangers with ~Moses~ and ~Aaron~: Were\nCustomes antiquated thorowly known, many difficulties in Scripture\nwould appear Elegancies; and the places which now (through obscurity)\ndishearten the Reader, would then become sweet invitements to an\nunwearied assiduity in perusing those sacred Oracles. If my present\nlabour shall give such light to some obscure passages, that thereby\nGods people shall be drawn on with the greater delight, to the\nexercising themselves in reading of Holy Writ, it shall not repent\nme of my tedious travels in these Rites and Customes, of Generations\nlong since past; which whosoever undertaketh, shall find the way long\nand thorny, the path over-grown and hardly disernable; the Guides few\nto direct, and those speaking in strange Languages; and many apt to\ndiscourage him, because themselves are either lazy, and will not, or\nlame and cannot walk the same way. But now (through Gods assistance)\nbeing come to the end of my Journey, the discoveries made on the way,\nsuch as they are (and such some are, as not observed before) humbly\ncrave your Lordship\u2019s protection._\n\n    _From Kensington,\n     Feb. 21. 1624._\n\n                                          Your Honour\u2019s in all duty,\n                                                and service devoted,\n\n                                                        THO. GODWYN.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ARGUMENT OF EACH _BOOK_ and _CHAPTER_.\n\n\nThe first Book.\n\n_Of Persons._\n\nChap. 1. The form of their Common-wealth till Christ, and when the\nScepter departed.\n\n2. Publicans, their Office, who the chief.\n\n3. Prosolytes, who, how made.\n\n4. Kings, Why _Pilate_ clad _Christ_ in Purple; _Herod_ in white.\n\n5. High-Priests, Priests, Levites, Nethinims.\n\n6. Prophets, who, the Wise-man, Scribe, and Disputer, mentioned, _1\nCor. 1. 20._\n\n7. Title of Rabbi, when, how, to whom given.\n\n8. Nazarites and Rechabites.\n\n9. Assideans; difference between the Righteous and Good man, mentioned,\n_Rom. 5. 7._\n\n10. Pharisees, whence their name, when they began, what their Dogmata.\n\n11. Sadduces, whence their name, when they began, what their Dogmata.\n\n12. Essenes, whence their name, when they began, what their Dogmata.\n\n13. Gaulonit\u00e6, and Herodians, what they were.\n\n\nThe second Book.\n\n_Of Places._\n\nChap. 1. Their Temple, how forty six years a building. Why certain\nPsalms are entituled _Graduales_ Songs of degrees.\n\n2. Synagogues, Schools, Houses of Prayer; why their School preferred\nabove their Temple.\n\n3. Gates of Jerusalem.\n\n4. Groves and High-places.\n\n5. Cities of Refuge.\n\n\nThe third Book.\n\n_Of Daies, Times, and Feasts._\n\nChap. 1. Their daies, hours, weeks, years.\n\n2. Their manner of feasting, salutations, blessing, cup of blessing.\n\n3. Their Sabbath; a Sabbath-daies-journey, how much, and whence.\n\n4. Their Passeover, and feast of unleavened bread: How a soul cut off\nfrom Israel.\n\n5. Their Pentecost, what the second-first Sabbath was, _Luk. 6. 1._\n\n6. Their feast of Tabernacles, Hosanna, and Hosanna-Rabba.\n\n7. Their feast of Trumpets, their New-Moons, Translation of feasts.\n\n8. Their feast of Expiation: what meant by the filth of the world, and\nthe off-scouring of all things, _1 Cor. 4. 13._\n\n9. Their Sabbatical year.\n\n10. Their Jubilee, their use thereof.\n\n11. Their feast of Purim, and feast of Dedication.\n\n\nThe fourth Book.\n\n_Of their Idolatry._\n\nChap. 1. The beginnings of Idolatry.\n\n2. Moloch, Adram-Melech, Anam-Melech, Baal, the Tabernacle of Moloch,\n&c.\n\n3. Baal-Peor, Baal-Tsephon, Baal-Zebub, Baal-Berith, Bel and the Dragon.\n\n4. Dagon.\n\n5. The molten Calf.\n\n6. Astaroth, Ammonia, Juno, the Queen of Heaven, Diana of the Ephesians.\n\n7. Other Idol-gods mentioned in Scripture.\n\n8. Sorts of divine revelation, Urim and Thummim.\n\n9. Teraphim, what they were.\n\n10. Sorts of Divination forbidden.\n\n\nThe fifth Book.\n\n_Of their Consistories._\n\nChap. 1. Courts of Judgements, their Ecclesiastical Consistory.\n\n2. Sorts of Excommunication.\n\n3. Civil Consistories, what persons necessarily present, what meant by\nthe Magistrate, Judge, and Officer, _Luk. 12. 58._\n\n4. The number of their civil Courts, what meant by a Council,\nJudgement, fire of Gehenna, _Matth. 5._\n\n5. Manner of electing Judges.\n\n6. Ceremonies common in all capital Judgements: whence that phrase\ncame, his bloud be on us and our children.\n\n7. Their capital punishments what they were.\n\n8. Punishments not capital.\n\n9. Punishments borrowed from other Nations: whether S. _Paul_ fought\nwith the beasts at _Ephesus_.\n\n\nThe sixth Book.\n\n_Of Miscellaneous Rites._\n\nChap. 1. Circumcision; whence, the use of Godfathers in Baptism.\n\n2. First-fruits, first-lings, first-born.\n\n3. Sorts of Tithes, manner of paying them.\n\n4. Marriages and divorces, copies of their dowry bill, and bill of\ndivorce: what meant by power on the Womans head, _1 Cor. 11. 10._\n\n5. Burials, manner of embalming, manner of their Sepulchres, what meant\nby baptization of the dead, _1 Cor. 15. 9._\n\n6. Of their Oaths.\n\n7. Of their writing, their Masorites, and their work.\n\n8. Israels pitching of their tents, or of their camps.\n\n9. Their Measures.\n\n10. Their Coyns, first of brazen Coyns, silver Coyns, and gold Coyns.\n\n\n\n\nMoses and Aaron.\n\n\n\n\nThe first Book Treateth of Persons.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\n_Of the form of the ~Hebrewes~ Common-wealth until Christ his coming,\nand when the Scepter departed from them._\n\n\nThe form and state of Government hath been subject to change and\nvariation amongst all Nations, but especially amongst the _Jewes_,\nwhere these changes are observable.\n\nAt first, the _Fathers_ of their several Families, and their\n_First-born_ after them, exercised all kind of Government, both\n_Eclesiastical_ and _Civil_, being both _Kings_ and _Priests_, in their\nown houses. They had power over their own Families, to bless, curse,\ncast out of doors, disinherit, and to punish with death, as is apparent\nby these examples: of _Noah_ towards _Cham_, _Gen. 9. 25._ of _Abraham_\ntowards _Hagar_ and _Ismael_, _Gen. 21. 10._ of _Jacob_ towards\n_Simeon_ and _Levi, Gen. 49. 3._ and of _Judah_ towards _Thamar_, _Gen.\n38. 24._\n\nIn _Moses_ his days then did this prerogative of primo geniture cease:\nand as _Aaron_ and his posterity was invested with the right and title\nof _Priests_; so _Moses_, and after him _Joshua_, ruled all the people\nwith a kind of _Monarchical_ authority. For _Moses_ was among the\nrighteous as _King_, _Deut. 32. 5._\n\nAfter _Joshua_ succeeded _Judges_; their Officers were of absolute\nand independent authority, like unto _Kings_, when once they were\nelected. But there were long vacancies, and chasms commonly between the\ncessation of the one, and the election of the other: yea for the most\npart, the people never chose a _Judge_, but in time of great troubles,\nand imminent dangers; which being over-past, he retired to a private\nlife. After that _Gideon_ had delivered the people out of the hand of\nthe _Midianites_, he being offered the _Kingdom_, replyed, I will not\nreign over you, neither shall my Child reign over you, _Judg. 8. 23._\nThat of _Samuel_, that he judged _Israel_ all the days of his life,\n_1 Sam. 7. 15._ was[1] extraordinary. In this respect, their _Judges_\nsymbolize with the _Roman Dictators_. This state of Regiment continued\namongst them by the computation of S. _Augustine_[2], three hundred\ntwenty nine years. In these vacancies or distances of time between\n_Judge_ and _Judge_, the greater and weightier matters were determined\nby that great Court of the _Seventy_ called the _Senadrin_; in which\nrespect the form of Government may be thought _Aristocratical_. _Kings_\nsucceeded the _Judges_, and they continued from _Saul_ unto the\nCaptivity of _Babylon_, that is,[3] about 502 years.\n\n    [1] _Zepper lib. 3. leg. Mos. cap. 6._\n\n    [2] _Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 18 c. 22._\n\n    [3] _Zepper. leg. Mosaic. l. 3. c. 6._\n\nFrom the Captivity unto the coming of Christ, (which time is thought[4]\nto have been five hundred thirty six years) the state of the _Jewes_\nbecame very confused. Sometimes they were ruled by _Deputies_ and\n_Vicegerents_, who had not supream authority in themselves, but\nas it pleased the _Persian Monarchs_ to assigne them; they were\ntermed[5] \u200e\u200f\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Rasche galiuth_, \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9 _Heads of the\nCaptivity_. Of this sort was _Zorobabel_ and his successors, who\nare reckoned in the _Hebrew_ Chronicles[6] to be these, _Mesullam_,\n_Hananiah_, _Berachiah_, and _Hosadiah_. All which are thought to\nhave reigned under the _Persian Monarchy_, and to have been of the\nPosterity of _David_: as likewise the other succeeding ten chief\nGovernours after _Alexander_ the Great. In the last of these ten, the\ngovernment departed from the House of _David_, and was translated to\nthe _Macchabees_, who descended from the Tribe of _Levi_. They were\ncalled _Maccab\u00e6i_, from _Judas Maccabeus_,[7] and he had this name\n\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05db\u05d1\u05d0\u05d9\u200f\u200e _Macchab\u00e6us_, from the Capital Letters of this Motto, written\nin his Ensigne or banner, \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05d9 \u05db\u05de\u05d5\u05da \u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Quis sicut tu inter\nDeos, O Domine?_ Where the first letters are, _M_, _C_, _B_, _A_, _I_.\nAmong the _Maccabees_, soveraign authority continued until _Herod_\nthe _Askalonite_ his reign, at what time our Saviour Christ was born,\naccording to _Jacobs_ prophecy: The Scepter shall not depart from\n_Judah_, nor a _Law-giver_ from between his feet, untill _Shiloh_, that\nis, the[8] _Messias_ come, _Gen. 49. 10._\n\n    [4] _Vide Funcii Chronol._\n\n    [5] _Maimon. in Iad. lib. vit. tract. Sanedr. in c. 4. sect. 13._\n\n    [6] _Seder Olam minus._\n\n    [7] _Carion chron. lib. 2. p. 144._\n\n    [8] _Targum Uziel. eadem p\u00e6ne verba habet Targum Jerosolym._\n\nFor the right understanding of this Prophecy, We must note two things;\n1. The time when the Scepter was given to _Judah_: 2. When taken from\nhim. But first we must observe how these two words, _Judah_, and the\n_Scepter_, are distinguished.\n\nSome take _Judah_,\n\n    1. For the particular _Tribe of Judah_[9]: but this seemeth\n    flat contrary to Scripture, for many of the _Judges_ were of\n    other Tribes, and all the _Maccabees_ of the Tribe of _Levi_.\n\n    2. For the _Two Tribes_[10] which cleaved to _Rehoboam_;\n    because in that division of the People, these Two Tribes alone\n    were called _Jews_, and that from _Judah_, and that never\n    before this division.\n\n    3. For _all the whole body of Israel_[11], consisting of\n    Twelve Tribes; all which (in the judgment of these men) were\n    afterwards by the singular providence of God, called _Jews_\n    from _Judah_.\n\n    [9] _Origen. hom. 17. in Genes. Epiphan. contra Ebion\u00e6os, &c.\n    maxima Hebr\u00e6orum pars._\n\n    [10] _Cun\u00e6us de rep. Hebr. lib. 1. cap. 5. p. 81._\n\n    [11] _Euseb. demon. lib. 8. cap. 1. Montacut. in Analect. p.\n    72. Casaub. contra Baron. pag. 16._\n\nSome take _Scepter_,\n\n    1. For _legal power_[12], and soveraign authority, residing in\n    one man principally.\n\n    2. For the _form of government_[13], and face of a\n    Common-wealth, governed and ruled by its own laws, customes,\n    and rites: signifying as well the rule and authority of\n    _inferiour Magistrates_, yea of _Priests_ also, as of _Kings_\n    and _Princes_.\n\n    [12] _Patres plerique omnes._\n\n    [13] _Casaubon advers. Baron. p. 19. It. p. 23. Justinus Mart.\n    in Dialog. cum Tryphone. Cun\u00e6us lib. 1. de rep. Heb. c. 9. p.\n    82._\n\nFrom these different acceptions of these two words, flow four different\nacceptions of _Jacobs_ Prophecy.\n\nSome are of opinion[14], that the _Scepter_ taken in the second\nacception, began to be given to _Judah_, that is, to the _Two Tribes_\ncleaving to _Rehoboam_, at the time of that division of the People:\nand that their _Scepter_ was not taken from them until the destruction\nof _Jerusalem_; because, that after _Herods_ time until then, their\nLaws remained in force, their _Priesthood_ continued, and their\nCommon-wealth, though it were much defaced, yet not quite overthrown.\n\n    [14] _Cun\u00e6us lib. 1. de rep. Heb. cap. 11. pag. 96._\n\nSome are of opinion[15], that the _Scepter_ taken in the second\nacception, began to be given to _Judah_, that is, to the _Twelve\nTribes_, from the time of _Moses_; and that this _Scepter_ was not\ntaken from them until the Destruction of _Jerusalem_: not in _Herod_,\nbecause he was a _Jew_ (in that he was a _Proselyte_) for a _Jew_ is a\nname, say they, of _Profession_, not of _Countrey_ or _Nation_.\n\n    [15] _Joseph. Scal. ex quo Casaub. advers. Baron. p. 19. It. p. 39._\n\nSome are of opinion[16], that the _Scepter_ taken in the second\nacception, began to be given to _Judah_, that is to the _Twelve\nTribes_, from the time of _Moses_, and that it was taken from them in\n_Herods_ time: yet so, that in _Herods_ time, this was but begun, and\ninchoate, and at the destruction of _Jerusalem_ it was fulfilled and\nconsummate.\n\n    [16] _Montacut. in Analect. p. 74._\n\nSome are of opinion[17], that the _Scepter_ taken in the first\nacceptation, began to be given to _Judah_, that is to the _Twelve\nTribes_, from the time of _Moses_, and that it was taken from them\nfully in _Herods_ time. The former opinions make the coming of the\n_Messias_ to be a fore-runner of the departure of the _Scepter_:\nthis, makes the departure of the _Scepter_ to be a fore-runner or\ntoken of the _Messiah_ his coming, which I take to be the principal\nthing aimed at in the prophecy. This opinion, as it is more generally\nreceived than the others, so upon juster grounds. Now the _Scepter_ was\ndeparted and given to a _Proselyte_, never so before,[18] yea now also\nthe _Law-giver_ was departed from between _Judahs_ feet, and now the\n_Messiah_ born.\n\n    [17] _Augustin. contra Manich. lib. 12. cap. 47. Euseb. demonst. l. 8\nCarion. Chron. pag. 143._\n\n    [18] _P. Galatin. l. 4. cap. 6. p. 203. ex. Talmud. Jerusol._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\n_Of the Publicans._\n\n\nWee having seen the most remarkable changes in the Common-wealth of the\nHebrews; we will note the chief Observations concerning the persons\nthere inhabiting: and first concerning the _Publicans_, who were, in\nthe latter times, an heterogeneous Member of that Common-wealth. After\nthat the _Jews_ became Tributary to _Rome_, (which[19] was effected\nby _Pompey_ threescore years before the Birth of our Saviour) certain\nOffices were appointed by the Senate of _Rome_, unto whom it belonged,\nas well among the _Jews_ as in other Provinces, to collect, and gather\nup such custome-money or tribute, as was exacted by the Senate. Those\nthat gathered up these publique payments, were termed _Publicani_,\n_Publicans_; and by reason of their covetous exactions, they commonly\nwere hated by the People of the Provinces:[20] Every Province had his\nseveral _Societie_, or company of _Publicanes_: Every _Society_ his\ndistinct _Governour_: in which respect it is, that _Zacheus_ is called\nby the _Evangelists_, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 _princeps Publicanorum_, _the chief\nReceiver of the tribute_, or _chief Publican_, _Luke 12. 2._ And all\nthe Provincial Governours in these several Societies, had one chief[21]\n_Master_ residing at _Rome_, unto whom the other subordinate Governours\ngave up their accounts. These _Publicans_ were hated in all Provinces,\nbecause of their exactions; but chiefly in the Commonwealth of the\n_Jews_, because though it were chiefly maintained by the _Galileans_,\nyet it was generally inclined unto by the _Jews_, That tribute ought\nnot to be payed by them: this hatred is confirmed by that _Rabbinical_\nproverb,[22] _Take not a Wife out of that family wherein there is a\nPublican, for such are all Publicans_. Yea a faithful _Publican_ was\nso rare at _Rome_ it self, that one _Sabinus_ for his honest managing\nof that Office, in an honourable remembrance thereof, had certain\nimages erected with this superscription[23]; \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9, _For\nthe Faithful Publican_. And therefore no marvel, if in the Gospel,\n_Publicans_ and _sinners_ go hand in hand.\n\n    [19] _Joseph Locutus de Pompeio l. 1. de bello Jud. c. 5. p. 720._\n\n    [20] _Harum societatum frequens mentio facta est apud Ciceron.\n    in orat. pro. Sex. Ros. Mur\u00e6na, in Cn. Plancio._\n\n    [21] _Sigon. de Antiq. jure civium Rom. lib. 2. c. 4._\n\n    [22] _Is. Casaubon exercit. 13. 37._\n\n    [23] _Suet. in Flav. Vespas. cap. 1._\n\nIt is now generally received as a truth undoubted, that not only\n_Heathen_ people, but sometimes _Jews_ themselves became _Publicanes_.\n_Tertullian_ was of another opinion,[24] and thought that all the\n_Publicans_ were _Heathens_; but he hath been in that long since\nconfuted by _Jerome_[25], and reason it self perswadeth the contrary.\nFirst, _Matthew_ who was a _Publican_, was afterwards an _Apostle_, and\ntherefore unlikely to have been an Heathen. Secondly, _Zacheus_ his\nname was a pure _Hebrew_ name having no affinity with _Roman_ names.\nThirdly, the ground or principal argument on which _Tertullian_ built,\nwas meerly[26] erroneous.\n\n    [24] _Tertul. de pudic. c. 9._\n\n    [25] _Jeronym. epist. ad Damasum._\n\n    [26] _Fraudi fuit acutissimo P\u0153no Hebraic\u00e6 lingu\u00e6 ignoratio,\n    nusquam enim occurrit in fonte spurius ille textus, quo\n    Tertullianus potissimum nititur, non erit vectigal, pendens ex\n    filiis Israel. Deut. 23._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n_Israelites, Prosylites._\n\n\nThe whole Common-wealth of _Israel_ consisted of two sorts of men,\n_Hebrews_ and _Prosylites_; he that was born an _Hebrew_, either by\n_Fathers_ or _Mothers_ side, was an _Hebrew_; but he that was born so\nof both, was an _Hebrew of the Hebrews_; such a one was Saint _Paul_,\n_Phil. 3. 5._ He that was born a _Prosylite_ either by _Fathers_ or\n_Mothers_ side, was termed _Ben-gar_, the son of an _he-Prosylite_; or\n_Ben gara_, The son of a _she-prosylite_; but he that was by _Fathers_\nand _Mothers_ side a _Prosylite_, was termed[27] _Bagbag_, that is, the\nson of he and she _Prosylites_.\n\n    [27] _Magni quidam nominis Rabbi apud Jud\u00e6os fuit, quem ex\n    Paganismo ad Judaismum conversum \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05d2\u05d1\u05d2\u200f\u200e per sigla appellarunt. i.\n    filiis Proselyti, filius proselyt\u00e6, Pirk. Aboth. cap. 5._\n\nThe _Hebrews_ were of two sorts; some lived in _Palestina_, and used\nthe _Hebrew_ Text, these were called _Hebrews_ or _Jews_; others\nwere dispersed in divers places of _Greece_, they used the _Greek_\ntranslation, and thence were termed \u0388\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76[28] _Grecists_. S.\n_Luke_ mentioneth both. There arose a murmuring, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0388\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd of\nthe _Gr\u00e6cists_, towards the _Hebrews_, _Acts 6. 1._ Where note the\ndifference between \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, and \u0388\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76, the _Gr\u00e6cians_, and the\n_Gr\u00e6cists_. The _Gr\u00e6cians_ are used by Saint _Paul_, to signifie all\nthe _Heathen people_, and stand in opposition with _Hebrews_ in the\ngeneral acception, containing both _Gr\u00e6cists_, or dispersed _Hebrews_,\nand also those of _Palestina_: the _Gr\u00e6cists_ were both by birth and\nreligion _Hebrews_ standing in opposition with _Hebrews_; in the strict\nacception, taken for those of _Palestina_.\n\n    [28] _De Jud\u00e6is Gr\u00e6ciensib. vid. Scal. animad. Euseb. 124. 1. &\n    in Can. Isag. 278._\n\nThe whole body of _Israel_ was divided into twelve Tribes, and publique\nRecords were kept, wherein every ones Genealogy was registred, to\nmanifest unto what particular tribe he belonged. These records _Herod_\nburnt, hoping that in after ages he might be thought originally an\n_Israelite_, if those publike Monuments might not be produced against\nhim. Thus much _Eusebius_[29] plainly delivereth of him. I am of\nopinion, that another reason might be admitted; namely, That no\ndistinction either of Tribe or Family, might appear; but, all being\nunfounded, and amongst the rest _Davids_, (unto whose Family by a\npeculiar right this Scepter belonged) _Herod_ and his posterity might\nbe the better secured of the Kingdom.\n\n    [29] _Euseb. Eccles. hist. li. 1. cap. 8._\n\n_Prosylites_ were those Heathen people, who disclaiming _Paganism_,\nbecame Converts, and joyned themselves unto the Church of the _Jews_.\nThey were termed _Prosylites_ \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, from their coming\nand adjoyning unto the _Jews_. Concerning these _Prosylites_, we will\nconsider these three things. 1. The several kinds of _Prosylites_; 2.\nThe manner of making them; 3. In what account or respect they lived\namong the _Jews_.\n\nFirst, the kinds of _Prosylites_ were two; \u200e\u200f\u05d2\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e8\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Ger berith_,\n_Prosylitus f\u0153deris_, _A Prosylite of the Covenant_. He submitted\nhimself unto the Circumcision, and to the whole _Mosaical_\nP\u00e6dagogy.[30] The _Rabbies_ term such a one \u200e\u200f\u05d2\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u200f\u200e _Ger tsedeck_,\n_Proselytum justiti\u00e6_, _A Prosylite of righteousness_. Secondly,\n\u200e\u200f\u05d2\u05e8 \u05e9\u05e2\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Ger sahagnar_, _Proselytus port\u00e6_, _A Prosylite_, or _stranger\nwithin thy gates_, _Deut. 14. 21._ Of him also we read in the fourth\nCommandment. He was suffered to dwell amongst them; whence he is also\ncalled \u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u200f\u200e _Toschab_, _Incola_, an Inhabitant. He was not circumcised,\nneither did he conform himself to the _Mosaical_ rites, and\nordinances, only he was tyed to the obedience of those Commandments,\nwhich among the _Hebrew Doctors_ go under the name of _Noahs_ seven\nCommandments;[31] which they reckon thus: 1. Judgements or Punishments\nfor Malefactours. 2. Blessing the name of God; under this is contained\nthe keeping of the Sabbath. 3. Disclaiming of Idolatry. 4. Uncovering\nones nakedness. 5. Shedding of blood. 6. Robery. 7. Eating of any\nmember of a beast, taken from it alive. Of this sort, were _Naaman_ the\n_Syrian_, the _Eunuch_, _Cornelius_, and those of whom we read, That\nthere were dwelling at _Jerusalem_, _Jews_ _Men that feared God_[32] of\nevery Nation under Heaven, _Acts 2. 5._\n\n    [30] _Rabbi Solomon, Deut. 23. 14._\n\n    [31] _Sheindler in pentaglot. p. 1530._\n\n    [32] _\u1f0c\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2._\n\nSecondly, to the making of one to be a _Prosylite of the Covenant_\naccording to the difference of sex; and the difference of times the\nRites of initiation varied. To the making of[33] a _Male-Proselyte_, at\nfirst three things were required. 1. _Circumcision._[34] 2. _A kind of\npurification by water._ 3. _The blood of Oblation._ This _oblation_ was\ncommonly two Turtles or Pigeons. To the making of a _Woman Proselyte_,\nwere required only _purification by water_, and _Oblation_.[35] Now\nbecause the _Jews_ have neither Altar, nor Sacrifice, they say that\nfor the _Males Circumcision_, and _purification by water_ sufficeth;\nand for the _Females_, only _purification by water_.[36] In _Davids_\ntime, they say that many thousands of _Prosylites_ were joyned unto the\n_Church_ without _Circumcision_, by this _purification_.\n\n    [33] _Moses Kotsen. fol. 40. col. 2._\n\n    [34] _\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea \u05d3\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05df\u200f\u200e._\n\n    [35] _Drusius de trib. sect. 2. p. 102._\n\n    [36] _Moses \u00c6gyptius, in Assurebiah, Perek. 13. fol. 137. vide\n    Serarium trih\u00e6res, l. 2. c. 1._\n\nHence we may observe, that a kind of _Initiation by water_ was long in\nuse among the _Jews_, though it were not _Sacramental_ until Christ\nhis institution: yea therefore it may seem to have been used by them,\nbecause they expected it at the coming of the _Messias_, as appeareth\nby their coming unto _John_, questioning not so much his _Baptism_, as\nhis _Authority_, by what _authority_ he baptized: _Why baptizest thou\nthem, if thou be not that ~Christ~, nor ~Elias~, neither that Prophet?_\n_John 1. 25._\n\nThirdly, the respect born by the _Jews_ towards _Prosylites_, was\ncharitable;[37] they used no upbraiding terms towards them, saying\n_Remember thy former deeds_. Notwithstanding it was also provided,[38]\nNo _Prosylite_ should be eligible into the Court of their _Sanhedrim_;\nyea in their common commerce, they had an usual proverb, which\nadmonished them of wariness[39] _Vel ad decimam usq; generationem a\nProselytis cave_; Beware of Prosylites to the tenth generation.\n\n    [37] _P. Fag. Exod. 22. 21._\n\n    [38] _Moses \u00c6gypt. lib. ult. Iad. tract. Sanhedr. c. 2._\n\n    [39] _Casaub. advers. Baron. 27._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n_Of their Kings._\n\n\nWe shall read of three sorts of _Kings_ in the Old Testament.\n_Melchisedeck_ was King and _Priest_; _David_ _King_ and _Prophet_;\nothers simply _Kings_. _Melchisedeck_ was _King_ and _Priest_, _David_\n_King_ and _Prophet_. The concurrence of _Princely Sovereignty_, and\n_Holy Orders_, in the same man, intimates that supreme Authority\nshould alwayes be accompanied with care of Religion: In which respect\n_Joash_, when he was anointed _King_, received the Testimony, or\nBook of the Law, _2 King 11. 12._ Neither did these two meet only in\n_Melchisedeck_ & _David_, but the same man among the _Heathens_[40]\nwas oftentimes _King_ and _Priest_. And the _Trismegistus_ had his\nname _Ter maximus_,[41] because he was _Philosophus maximus, Sacerdos\nmaximus, & Rex maximus_. All Kings were not anointed, but onely those\nin whom succession was broken; and there the first of the family was\nanointed for his Successor, except in case of dissention, where there\nwas required a renewed unction, for the confirmation of his Authority.\nFor this reason it was, that _Solomon_ was anointed as well as _David_,\nbecause of the strife between him and _Adonijah_.\n\n    [40] _Rex Anius, Rex idem hominum, Ph\u0153bique Sacerdos. Virg.\n    \u00c6neid, lib. 3._\n\n    [41] _Alex. Neopolit. lib. 2. Cap. 6._\n\nFurthermore, _Saul_ and _Jehu_ were anointed \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05e4\u05da\u200f\u200e _Bepac_, with a\n_cruse_ of Oyl, to shew the short continuance of their Kingdoms.\n_David_ and _Solomon_ were anointed \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05e7\u05e8\u05df\u200f\u200e _Bekeren_, with an _horn_ of\nOyl; that is, in a _plentiful measure_, to shew the long continuance of\ntheir Kingdoms.\n\nAs Kings were distinguisht from the People by many Ensigns of Honour,\nby their Crown, their Scepter, their Throne, _&c._ so likewise were\nthey distinguished by their Apparel; that was the reason that _Ahab_\nentring into battel, changed his apparel, _1 Kings 22. 30._ Though\npurple and white colours were not appropriated unto _Kings_,[42] yet\nthese colours were in chief esteem, and principally used by them,[43]\nyea _Purple_ above others was affected by the _Emperours_ and Nobility\nof _Rome_; and _white_ by the Nobility of the Jews: whence the\n_Hebrews_ term their Noble men, and such as were of best rank \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e\n_Chorim_, _Albatos_, men _clad in white_; and on the contrary, men of\nmeaner rank, \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05e9\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Chaschucim_, _Sordidatos_, men _clad with a foul\ngarment_. Hence is that of Saint _James_; If there come a man with a\ngold ring, and in goody apparel \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u1fb7, in a _white garment_,\nand there come also a poor man, \u1f10\u03bd \u1fe5\u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb7 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b9, in a vile or _foul\nraiment_, _James 2. 2._ This may be the reason, why, when the _Jews_\naccused Christ of treason, _Pilate_ his Souldiers clad him in _purple,\natth. 27. 28._ and _Herod_ the _Tetrarch_ of _Galilee_ put on him a\n_white garment_, _Luke 23. 11._ both therein applying themselves to the\ncustoms of their own Country, and in derision clothing him as a _King_.\n\n    [42] _Valer. Max. lib. 1. cap. 6._\n\n    [43] _Alex. ab. Alex. lib. 1. cap. 20._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\n_The High-priest, Priests, Levites, and Nethinims._\n\n\nThere were three ranks and degrees of Ministers about the Temple;\n_Priests_, _Levites_, and _Nethinims_; they may be paralleld with\n_Ministers_, _Deacons_, and _Sub-Deacons_, in the Primitive Church:\nOver all these, the _High-priest_ was chief.\n\nIn _Aaron_ and his posterity was continued the succession of the\n_Priests_; the _High-Priesthood_ was tied to the line of his\nfirst-born; all the rest of his posterity were _Priests_, simply so\ncalled, or called _Priests of the second Order_, _2 Kings 23. 4._\n\nExcept _Aaron_, and those that issued from his loines, (in whom the\n_series_ of _Priests_ was continued) all the rest of _Levi_ his\nposterity were called _Levites_.\n\nBoth in the _High-priest_, and the _second_ or _Inferiour Priests_,\nthere are two things considerable. First, their _Consecration_.\nSecondly, their _Office_. In both these, somewhat they _differed_, in\nsomewhat they _agreed_.\n\nIn their _Consecration_ they differed. First,[44] The _High-priest_ was\n_anointed_: the materials of this Chrism or oyntment are prescribed,\n_Exod. 30. 23._ It was poured upon _Aarons_ head, _Levit. 8. 12._ It\nran down to his beard, and to the border of his garments, _Psalm. 133.\n2._ The _Second Priests_ were only _sprinkled_ with this oyle, mixed\nwith the blood of the Sacrifice, _Levit. 8. 30._ In this was typed\nout the unction of our _Saviour_, who was _anointed_ with the oyl of\nGladness above his Fellows, _Psal. 45. 8._ He was _anointed_ above his\nFellows, _Extensive_, and _Intensive_, _Extensive_, for though _Aaron_\nwas _anointed Priest_, _Saul_ anointed _King_, _Elisha_ anointed\n_Prophet_, _Melchisedeck_ _King_ and _Priest_, _Moses_ _Priest_ and\n_Prophet_, _David_ _King_ and _Prophet_; yet none save only _Christ_,\n_King_, _Priest_, and _Prophet_. _Intensive_, he was _anointed_, we\n_sprinkled_. He was _full_ of grace and truth, _John 1. 14._ And\nfrom his _fulness_ we received grace for grace, _ver. 16._ And all\nChristians, especially Ministers, are unto _God_ the sweet savour of\n_Christ_, _2 Cor. 2. 5._\n\n    [44] _Hinc Sacerdos summus in fonte legitur Sacerdos unctus,\n    Levit. 4. 5. Jonathan habet, Sacerdos magnus vel summus.\n    Desert\u00e8 Aben Esra, Sacerdos magnus ipse est Sacerdos unctus.\n    Lyranus adhuc clarius Sacerdos unctus est Sacerdos magnus, quia\n    inferiores Sacerdotes non ungebantur, &c._\n\nSecondly, they differed in their Garments, which were a necessary\nadjunct to their _Consecration_. The _High-Priest_ wore at the time of\nhis ordinary ministration in the _Sanctuary_, eight Garments, _Exodus\n28._ First, _Breeches of linnen_, put next upon his flesh. Secondly,\n_A Coat of fine linnen_ put over the breeches. Thirdly, _A girdle\nembroidered, of fine linnen, blew purple, & scarlet_, wherewith the\ncoat was girded. Fourthly, _A Robe all of Blew_, with seventy two\nbells of Gold, and as many Pomegranates of blew purple, and scarlet,\nupon the skirts thereof; this was put over the coat and girdle.\nFifthly, _An Ephod of gold and of blew purple, scarlet, and fine linnen\ncuriously wrought_; on the shoulders thereof were two fair _Beryl_\nStones, engraven with the names of the Twelve Tribes of _Israel_.\nThis _Ephod_ was put over the Robe, and girded thereto with a curious\ngirdle made of the same. Sixthly, _A Breast-plate wrought of gold,\nblew, purple, scarlet, and fine linnen_, which being a span square,\nwas fastened by gold chains and rings, upon the _Ephod_: herein were\nset _twelve_ several Stones, on which the names of the _twelve Tribes_\nwere engraven: Moreover, in this Breast-plate were the _Urim_ and the\n_Thummim_ placed. Seventhly, _A Miter of fine linnen, sixteen cubits\nlong, wrapped about his head_. Eighthly, _A plate of purple gold,\nor holy Crown two fingers broad_, whereon was engraven _Holiness to\nthe Lord_: this was tyed with a blew lace upon the fore-front of the\n_Miter_.\n\nThese eight Garments the _High-Priest_ used in his ordinary\nministration, and they are termed by the _Rabbies_, \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05d2\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4\u05d1\u200f\u200e, _Bigde\nZahab_, _Vestimenta aurea_, _Golden Vestments_, because of their\nrichness in comparison of other extraordinary Garments, which he wore\nonely once a year, when he entred into the _Holy of Holies_, upon the\nPropitiation day, _Lev. 15. 4. 23._ These latter are called \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05d2\u05d3\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d1\u05df\u200f\u200e\n_Bigde Laban_, _Vestimenta alba_, _White Garments_; there were in\nnumber four. 1. _A linnen breeches._ 2. _A linnen coat._ 3. _A linnen\ngirdle._ 4. _A linnen Miter_, _Levit. 16. 4._\n\nIn the time of the Second _Temple_,[45] because the _Chrism_ or holy\nOyl could not be found, therefore, as formerly in respect of his\n_unction_, the _High-Priest_ was called by the _Talmudists_,\n\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05ea\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05d7\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Mithrabe Mischa_, _Auctus unctione_, _The anointed_; so\nwhen the Oyl was lost in regard of his _Garments_, he was termed,\n\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05ea\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Mithrabe Begadim_, _Auctus Vestibus_, _The cloathed_.\nThose forementioned Garments[46] the _High-Priest_ might not wear\nabroad in the City, unless some urgent occasion compelled him, as\n_Simeon_ the _just_ did, when he went forth to meet _Alexander_ the\nGreat.\n\n    [45] _Cun\u00e6us lib. 2. de rep. Heb. cap. 7. pag. 222._\n\n    [46] _Moses Kotsensis. pr\u00e6cept. affir. 173. f. 212. col. 3._\n\nIn his apparel the threefold Office of our _Saviour Christ_ was\nshadowed: the _Crown_ signified his _Kingly_ Office; the _Urim_\nand _Thummim_, and likewise his _Bells_ and _Pomegranates_, his\n_Prophetical_ Office: by _Urim_ and _Thummim_, he answered as from\nan _Oracle_; by the _Bells_ was typed the sound of his Doctrine; by\nthe _Pomgranates_, the sweet savour of an Holy Life; the _Names_ of\nthe twelve _Tribes engraven_ on the _Ephod_, and the _Brest-plate_,\nsignified his _Priestly_ Office, presenting unto _God_ the whole\n_Church_, for which he maketh intercession. He knoweth his own sheep by\n_Name_, _John 10. 3._\n\nThe _inferiour Priests_ had onely four Garments, which they used in\ntheir ministration. 1. _A linnen breeches._ 2. _A linnen coat._ 3. _A\nlinnen Girdle._ 4. _A linnen bonnet_, _Exod. 28._\n\nThirdly they differed in their _marriage_. The _High-priest_ might\nnot marry a _Widow_, nor a _divorced Woman_, nor a _Harlot_, but a\n_Virgin_, _Levit. 21. 14._ From a _Widow_ he could not expect the\n_first love_: from a _divorced Woman_ he could not expect the _first,\nor just love_: from an _Harlot_, neither _first_, _just_, nor _only\nlove_: all which _Christ_ (whom the _High-Priest_ did herein represent)\nexpecteth from his _Church_. The other _Priests_ might lawfully marry a\n_Widow_, _Levit. 21. 7._\n\nThe _High-priest_, and the _Inferiour Priests_ agreed in their\n_consecration_ in these particulars. It was required first, that both\nshould be void of bodily blemish, _Levit. 21. 17._ Secondly, that both\nshould be presented unto the Lord at the door of the _Tabernacle_,\n_Exod. 29. 4._ Thirdly, that both should be washed with water, _Exod.\n29. 4._ Fourthly, that both should be consecrated by offering up\ncertain Sacrifices, _Exod. 29._ Fifthly, that both should have of the\nblood of the other Ram, put upon the tip of the right ear, the thumb\nof the right hand, and the great toe of the right-foot, _Exod. 29. 20._\n\nIn the time of their _Consecration_, certain pieces of the sacrifice\nwere put into the _Priests_ hand, _Exod. 29. 9._ The ceremony in the\n_Christian Church_, used by the _Bishop_ unto the _Minister_ in time of\n_Ordination_, _that the Bishop_ giveth the _Bible_ into the hands of\nthe _Minister_, doth much resemble this. And both may signifie, that no\nman taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of _God_, as\nwas _Aaron_, _Heb. 5. 4._ Hence _Consecration_ in the _Hebrew_ phrase\nis termed, _Filling of the hand_. And contrary to this did _Jeroboams\nPriests_, whosoever would, he _Filled his own hand_, _1 King. 13. 33._\nthat is, _He thrust himself into the Priesthood_.\n\nIn the discharge of their offices, the _High-Priest_ differed from the\nother _Priests_: First, because he onely, and that but once a year,\nentred into the _Holy of Holies_, _Exod. 16. 34._\n\nSecondly, the _High-Priest_ might not mourn for the death of his\nneerest kin, _Levit. 28. 10, 11._ The phrases used there to express\nmourning are two. First, _uncovering the Head_. Secondly, _Renting\nthe Cloaths_: Of both these somewhat is spoken in the Chapter of\n_Burial_; but concerning the latter it will not be amiss to note, that\nthe _Talmudists_ determine the matter thus; saying,[47] That it was\nlawful for the _High-Priest_ to tear the skirt, or neither part of his\nGarment, but from the bosom downward it was unlawful: which if it be\ntrue, then it doth not necessarily follow, that _Caiaphas_ did contrary\nto the law in renting his clothes, _Matth. 26. 65._ _The inferiour\nPriests_ might mourn for these six; _Father_, _Mother_, _Son_,\n_Daughter_, _Brother_, and _Sister, that had no Husband_. _Levit. 21.\n2._\n\n    [47] _Vide Cun\u00e6um de rep. Heb. lib. 2. cap. 3._\n\nIn the discharge of their Offices, the _High-Priest_, and other\n_Priests_ agreed in these Particulars: First, they both burnt incense\nand offered sacrifices, _1 Chron. 6. 49._ Secondly, they both sounded\nthe Trumpets, the use whereof was two-fold; sometimes to sound an\nalarm in the war, sometimes, to assemble the people and their Rulers,\n_Numb. 10._ Thirdly, they both slew the sacrifice, _2 Chron. 29. 22._\nFourthly, they both instructed the people, _Malac. 2. 7._ Fifthly, they\nboth judged of leprosie, _Levit. 13. 2._\n\nFor the more orderly performance of these offices, the _High-Priest_\nhad his Suffragan,[48] called \u200e\u200f\u05e1\u05d2\u05df\u200f\u200e _Sagan_, who in case of the\n_High-Priest_\u2019s pollution, performed his office. Of this sort was\n_Zephaniah_, _Jer. 52. 24._ And of this sort _Annas_ is thought to\nhave been, when _Caiaphas_ was _High-Priest_.[49] In this sense they\ninterpret _Annas_ and _Caiaphas_ to have been _High-Priests_ the same\nyear, _Luk. 3. 2._ The _High-Priest_ and his _Sagan_, resembled our\n_Bishop_ and his _Suffragan_: The _Patriarch_ of _Constantinople_ and\nhis _Primore_ termed _Protosyncellus_, and amongst the _Romans_, the\n_Centurion_ and his _Optio_: for the _Lieutenants_ in war, who in case\nof necessity supplyed the _Centurions_ place, were termed _Optiones_.\n\n    [48] _Elias Thisbit._\n\n    [49] _Casaub. adver. Baron. p. 242. It. Joseph. Scaliger in\n    Proleg. ad Eus._\n\nThat every one of the inferiour _Priests_ might equally serve in his\norder, King _David_ distributed the whole company of them into twenty\nfour ranks or courses, called \u1f10\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 _Turm\u00e6_, _vices_. _Nadab_\nand _Abihu_ being dead, there remained onely two sons to _Aaron_,\nnamely, _Eleazer_ and _Ithamar_; now as the succession of _Priests_\nwas preserved in these two families, so did _David_ at this time\naccording to the number of people in each family, make his division.\n_Eleazers_ family he divided into sixteen ranks, and _Ithamars_ into\neight: the division was by _Lot_; the first _Lot_ fell to _Jehoiarib_,\nthe second to _Jedaiah_, the third to _Hairim_, _&c._ _1 Chron. 24._\nEvery rank or course served weekly in the Temple by turn, and the ranks\nreceived their names from those who at that time were the heads of the\nseveral families, and ever after retained the same names. The chief of\nevery rank was called, _Summus Sacerdos istius Classis_: _The chief\nPriest of that rank_. Hence it is, that we read of many _High-Priests_\nassembled together, _Mark 14. 1._ Furthermore we are to note, that as\nthe weekly course fell out by lot, so did they by lot determine each\nparticular _Priests_ service; namely, who should burn incense, who\nslay the beasts, who lay them on the Altar, who dress the lamps, _&c._\n_Zacharias_ was of the _course of Abia_, _Luke 1. 5._ that is, of the\n_eighth course_, and his lot was to burn incense, _Luke 1. 9._\n\nThe office of the _Levites_ was to pitch, to take down, to bear up and\ndown the _Tabernacle_, and the vessels thereof. _Levi_ had three sons,\n_Gershon_, _Cohath_, and _Merari_: and accordingly the whole company\nof the _Levites_ were distinguisht into 3 orders, _Gershonites_,\n_Cohathites_, and _Merarites_. The _Gershonites_ charge was to carry\nthe coverings, and hangings of the _Tabernacle_. The chief things\nwithin the Sanctuary were committed to the _Cohathites_. The Wood-work,\nand the rest of the instruments were committed to the charge of the\n_Merarites_, _Num. 3._ This was the office of the _Levites_, in _Moses_\nhis time, whiles they were on their journey, in the Wilderness; but\nafterward when they were setled in the promised Land, then _David_\nchanged their office, appointing them, some to have the charge of the\nTreasures of the _Temple_, _1 Chron. 26. 20._ others to be Over-seers\nand _Judges_, others to be Porters, others Singers, _1 Chron. 23. 4._\nThe Singers in time of singing were clad in linnen Robes or Surplesses,\n_2 Chron. 5. 12._ The Singers were divided into twenty four _orders_ or\n_courses_, _1 Chron. 25. 8._ And the Porters into as many, _1 Chron.\n26._ that both might supply their turns weekly by lot, as the _Priests_\ndid. In _Moses_ time also, their _consecration_ began at the _five and\ntwentieth_ year of their age: In _Davids_ at the _twentieth_, _1 Chron.\n23. 24._ _Ezra 3. 8._ Here we may note the liberty granted unto the\nChurch in changing Ceremonies: the Office of the _Levites_ in _Davids_\ntime, was not the same as in _Moses_: and again, _Moses_ and _David_\nagreed not in the time of their _consecration_. Again in the Christian\nChurch we shall find in _Matthias_ his election, the use of _Lots_; not\nso in _Pauls_, or any other of the _Apostles_: In their meetings, use\nof an _holy-kiss_; and at the Lords Supper, use of their _Love-feasts_:\nboth now antiquated thoroughout Christendom.\n\nMoreover, there are certain _degrees_ observable among the _Levites_:\nFirst, their _Initiation_, when they were a month old, they were\n_Initiated_ and presented unto God, _Numb. 3. 15._ Secondly their\n_consecration_, they were _consecrated_ by imposition of hands, when\nthey were five and twenty years old, _Numb. 8. 24._ From thence for\nfive years following, they learned their Office. Those that imposed\nhands on them are said in the Text, _Numb. 8. 10._ to be the _sons\nof Israel_, _Ghazkuni_ interpreteth that place, the _First born of\nIsrael_. They were the Representive Church; and in allusion to this,\nthe Church of Christ is called the _Church of the First-born_, _Heb.\n12. 23._ At the same time the _Levites_ were _waved_ by the _Priests_,\nthat is, as the Greek reads it,[50] _Separated_, which word is used\nfor the _Ministers of Christ_,[51] _Separate me ~Barnabas~ and\n~Paul~_, _Act. 13. 2._ Thirdly, their _Ministration_, to carry up and\ndown the _Tabernacle_, and this was at the thirtieth year of their\nage, until the fiftieth, _Numb. 4. 3._ Lastly, their _vacation_, or\n_discharge_ from that laborious service of carrying the _Tabernacle_;\nnotwithstanding even then they were to serve in their charge, to encamp\nround about the Tent, to sing, and to beware that no stranger came into\nthe Temple,[52] and likewise to over-see and instruct younger _Levites_\nin the manner of _Bishops_. Unto these degrees the Apostle seemeth to\nhave respect: They that have ministred well, get themselves a good\n_degree_, _1 Tim. 3. 13._ The like kind of[53] _degrees_ are observable\namong the _Vestal Virgins_: they remained in their Nunnery thirty\n_years_. _Ten years_ they learned the Mysteries of their Profession;\n_Ten years_ they exercised them; and _Ten years_ they taught them\nothers. From this custome of _Imposing hands_ on the _Levites_ hath\nflow\u2019d the like custom, used by the _Apostles_ in conferring Orders,\n_Acts 6. 6._ _1 Tim. 5. 22._\n\n    [50] _\u1f08\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f00\u03b1\u03c1\u1f7c\u03bd._\n\n    [51] _\u1f08\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5._\n\n    [52] _Francisc. Jun. Analyt. Expos. Numb. 8._\n\n    [53] _Dionys. Halycarnass. lib. 2._\n\nObserve the difference of these three phrases, \u03a7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, the\n_imposition of hands_. \u03a7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, the _holding up of hands_, in token\nof _elivation_ or _ordination_, _Act. 14. 22._ And \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd,\n_A stretching forth of the hands_. Both the first gestures were used\nin _Ordination_, or _conferring Orders_. The first of all, namely,\n_imposition of hands_, was borrowed from the _Hebrews_. The second,\nnamely, the _holding up of hands_, was taken from the[54] _Athenians_,\nwho had two sorts of Magistrates, \u039a\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, _Magistrates chosen by\nlots_: and \u03a7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, _Magistrates chosen by holding up of hands_.\nThe third gesture of the hands, called \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, _A stretching\nforth of the hands_,[55] sometimes is termed \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, the\n_beckning with the hand_, a gesture used in craving silence; so _Paul_\nstretched forth the hand, and answered for himself, _Acts 26. 1._\n\n    [54] _\u00c6schines contra Ctesiphont._\n\n    [55] _Herodian, p. 45._\n\nThere were[56] another sort of holy persons termed \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05de\u05e2\u05de\u05d3\u200f\u200e _Ansche\nMagnamad_, _Viri stationarii_; the Law requiring, that whosoever\noffered either gift or sacrifice, he should present it unto the Lord\nwith his own hands, and _stand by_ during the time of his oblation.\nNow, because all _Israel_ could not _stand by_, for the narrowness\nof the Place, hence when an offering was made for all the people,\ncertain selected Persons, chosen for that purpose, supplied the stead\nof all the People. They were divided, as the _Priests_ and _Levites_,\ninto twenty four _ranks_ and _orders_, weekly to minister in the\n_Temple_, but the choice was not restrained to the _Tribe of Levi_,\nbut was indifferently made out of the _people_. Every _rank_ had one\n_fore-man_, chief above the rest, termed[57] _Stationum Princeps_, the\n_Fore-man of the Station_. The _Nethinims_ office was to be hewers\nof wood, and drawers of water for the house of _God_, they were not\n_Levites_, no nor _Israelites_, but _Gibeonites_, whom because of their\nfraudulent dealing, _Joshua_ made in this manner tributary, _Josh. 9.\n23._ They were afterward called _Nethinims_, _Ezra 2. 43._ from \u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05ea\u05df\u200f\u200e\n_Nathan_, which signifieth to _give_, because they were given to the\nservice of the _Temple_. Their Office was vile and base, as appeareth\nby that proverbial speech; From the hewer of thy wood, unto the drawer\nof thy water. _Deut. 29. 11._\n\n    [56] _Moses Kotsen. fol. 211. col. 4._\n\n    [57] _\u200e\u200f\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 \u05de\u05e2\u05de\u05d3\u200f\u200e_\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\n_Of the Prophets._\n\n\nThere are divers names given unto the Expositors of the Law; and\nalthough the Particular year or time when each name began, be not\nclearly evidenced by Monuments of _Antiquity_, yet in general we may\nconceive three distinct periods of time; in which the names altered.\nFirst from _Adam_ until _Moses_; Secondly, from _Moses_, till the\npeoples return from _Babylon_. Thirdly, from their _return_, until\nthe dayes of _Christ_, and after. In the first period, as _Adam_ was\n_Prophet_ and _Priest_ in his family, so afterward every _first-born_\nsupplyed these two offices together with the _princely_ office in\ntheir several families. That they ruled their families as _Kings_\nand instructed them as _Prophets_, is clear to any acquainted with\nScripture; the greatest doubt is, what sufficient proof there is for\ntheir _Priest-hood_, _Adams Priest-hood_, is gathered hence,[58]\nbecause that _Gen 4. 3._ and _4._ _Abel_ and _Cain_ are said to have\nbrought their sacrifices: to have brought them, namely, unto _Adam_,\nwho offered them unto God in their name. The _Priest-hood_ of the\n_first-born_ is gatherable hence, because the _Levites_ were appointed\nto the service of the Altar, instead of the first-born, and as the\n\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd or price of _redemption_, _Num. 3. 41._ In the second period,\nthough a _private Catechetical exposition_ of the Law belonged to the\n_Masters of Families_, yet the _publick Ministerial exposition_ thereof\nwas appropriated to _Priests_ and _Prophets_. In the third period,\nwhen Prophecy ceased, then the office of expounding Scripture was\nmore common, and instead of _Prophets_ came in a multitude of other\nExpositors; In general we may call them _teachers of Israel_, _Joh. 3.\n10._ We may distinguish them into three several sorts. 1. _Wisemen._\n2. _Scribes._ 3. _Disputers._ The _Apostle_ compriseth them all, _1\nCor. 1. 20._ Where is the _Wise_? Where is the _Scribe_? Where is the\n_Disputer_? Unto any of these, or whatsoever other _Doctor_ eminently\ngifted above others, the title _Rabbi_ was prefixed. First, of their\n_Prophets_. Secondly, their _Wisemen_. Thirdly, their _Scribes_.\nFourthly, their _Disputers_. Fifthly, their _Rabbies_.\n\n    [58] _Bertram. Polit. Jud. c. 2. p. 17._\n\nTo _prophesie_, or to be a Prophet, hath divers acceptions in\nScripture. First, it is taken for the _books_ and writings _of the\nProphets_. They have _Moses_ and the _Prophets_, _Luk. 16. 29._\nSecondly, for the whole Word of _God_: no Prophesie in the Scripture\nis of any private motion, _2 Pet. 1. 20._ Thirdly, those unto whom God\nvouchsafed familiarly to reveal himself, they are called _Prophets_:\n_Abraham_ was a _Prophet_, _Gen. 20. 7._ and _Miriam_ a _Prophetess_,\n_Exod. 50. 20._ Fourthly, ordinary Interpreters of the Word are called\n_Prophets_. He that receiveth a _Prophet_ in the name of a _Prophet_,\n_Mat. 10. 14._ Lastly, it is taken for those, who are enabled by Divine\nRevelation, to lay open hidden secrets, transcending all possibility\nof humane search. Hence it is that _Prophets_ in old time were called\n_Seers_, _1 Sam. 9. 9._ And their _Prophecy_ was termed a _vision_,\n_Esay. 1. 1._ because _God_ extroardinarily enlightned their minds with\nthe knowledge of these secrets.\n\nThere are three observable names applied to _prophecy_ in _Scripture_.\n1. _Verbum Domini_: 2. _Visio_: 3. _Onus_, _The Word of the Lord_:\n_Vision_: _A Burthen_. The first importeth the _Lord speaking_, or\nrevealing his secrets; the second implyeth the _Prophets attending_,\nor beholding them; the third being applyed onely to _Judgements_,\nsignifieth the _burthensomness_ of them on that people against whom\nthey came forth.\n\nFor the propagation of Learning, _Colledges_ and _Schools_ were in\ndivers places erected for the _Prophets_; their _Scholars_ were\ntermed[59] _Filii prophetarum_, _children of the Prophets_, _2 Kin. 6.\n1._ unto which phrase there is allusion, _Matt. 11. 19._ _Wisdom is\njustified of her children_: by reason of this Relation the _Prophet_\nsometimes is called a _Father_; _Elisha_ cryed out, My _Father_, my\n_Father_, _2 King. 2. 12._ The _Targum_[60] expoundeth that place,\n_Rabbi, Rabbi_; as much as to say, my _Master_, my _Master_: And in\ntruth the _Rabbies_ grew very ambitious of the name _Father_, which\nwas the reason of our Saviours speech, _Matth. 23. 6._ _Call no man\n~Father~ upon earth_.\n\n    [59] _Eodem sensu Gr\u00e6ci appellant artis medica candidatos\n    \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 Eras. Ep. dedicatoria Hilario pr\u00e6fix._\n\n    [60] _Targum. 2 Reg. 2. 12._\n\nThe _Scripture_[61] sometimes joyneth to the name of the _Prophet_, the\nname of his _Father_, as _Hosea the son of Beeri_, _Hos. 1. 1._ And\nsuch a one the _Hebrews_ confess to be both a _Prophet_, and the _son\nof a Prophet_. Sometimes it mentioneth the _Prophets_ name, but not the\n_Fathers_; such a one they confess to be a Prophet, but not the _son\nof a Prophet_: Sometimes it mentioneth with the _Prophet_, the name of\nthe _City_ where he prophesied, and then it followeth, that he was a\n_Prophet of that City_. When a Prophet is mentioned without the _name\nof the City_, then he is thought to be a _Prophet of Jerusalem_.\n\n    [61] _Kimchi in pr\u00e6fat. ad Hoscham._\n\n2. _Wisemen_: This title though in it self it be general and common to\nall _Doctors_, and _Teachers_ of the Law; yet for many years before our\nSaviours Incarnation,[62] it was either arrogated by the Pharisees, or\nelse by the ignorant multitude appropriated unto them, for an opinion\nof their extraordinary _wisdom_, in teaching of Traditions, which they\npreferred beyond the Law. Hence the Pharisees were called[63] _Masters\nof the Traditions_: And hence was that councel of _R. Eleezer_ to his\nScholars,[64] that they should forbid their children from the study\nof the _Bible_, and place them between the knees of their _wisemen_.\nLikewise[65] hence, when any of their _Doctors_ did read Lectures,\ntheir saying was, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9, _Our wisemen do teach\ntraditions_. The like ambition we shall find among the _Grecians_,\nall of them striving to be intituled \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76, _Wisemen_: and hence,\nwhensoever the chief of them had pleased the people in performance of\ntheir Orations, or any other publick business, they were honoured with\na _Grand_ \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2, that is, with a loud acclamation of \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2, \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2,\n_Well done_, or _wisely done_; until _Pythagoras_, in dislike of such\nswelling Titles, stiled himself _Philosophus_, _a Lover of wisdom_;\nwhich kind of modesty was afterward practised by the _Hebrew Doctors_;\nfor they in after times, to avoid the suspicion of arrogancy, refused\nthe name of \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Chacamim_, _Wisemen_,[66] and stiled themselves,\n\u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Discipuli sapientium_, _Learners of wisdom_.\n\n    [62] _Gorionid. lib. 4. cap. 20._\n\n    [63] _Drus. de trib. sect. 86._\n\n    [64] _Buxtorf. Recens. operis Talmud, p. 155._\n\n    [65] _Hieronym. ad Algasiam. qu\u00e6st. 10._\n\n    [66] _Elias Thisbit._\n\n3. _Scribes_: This name was given to two sorts of men, some meerly\n_Laicks_, others _Clergy-men_. The body of the _Laick Scribes_, were\nthose, to whom was committed the instruction of young children in\ntheir minority, especially to teach them to write; we may English them\nScriveners. This office was appropriated to the Tribe of _Simeon_. In\nthis sense we read not of _Scribes_ in the Scripture, although the\nground of their first institution hath been taken thence, namely,\nfrom those words which _Jacob_ used unto _Simeon_ and _Levi_; I will\ndivide them in _Jacob_, and scatter them in _Israel_, _Gen. 49. 7._\nSo that as _Levi_ had no portion, but lived dispersed among the other\nTribes, by the benefit of the Altar.[67] In like manner _Simeon_ had\nno portion in the judgement of the _Hebrews_, but lived scattered\namong the other tribes, getting their maintenance by teaching and\nschooling little children: Whether this office of teaching children was\nappropriated to them, I leave to the inquiry of others; certain I am\nthat the _Simeonites_ had their own inheritance by lot, _Josh. 19. 1._\nAnd the prophecy concerning their being scattered is thought to have\nbeen accomplished in this, that the inheritance of the _Simeonites_,\nwas taken out of the portion of the children of _Judah_, _Josh. 19.\n9._ Furthermore it is certain, that if not all Scriveners, yet those\npublick Notaries, who were imployed in drawing Deeds, and writing\nContracts (be they of what Tribe they will) they were called by the\nname of _Scribes_. Unto this there is allusion, _Psal. 45. 1._ My\ntongue is as the _pen_ of a swift _Writer_, or _ready Scribe_. Out of\nthe body of these I conceive certain choice men to have been elected\nfor publick imployments; some to attend the King, as his Secretaries,\ntermed, \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2, the Kings Scribes, _2 Kin. 12. 10._ Such\nwere _Sheia_, _2 Sam. 20. 25._ And _Shaphan_, _2 Kin. 22. 3._ Others\nto attend the publick Courts and Consistories: they much resembled our\n_Clarks of Assizes_, these were termed, \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6 the _Scribes of\nthe people_, _Mat. 2. 4._ _It._ _1. Mac. 5. 42._\n\n    [67] _Solom. Jarchi. Gen. 49. Vide Ambros. Tom. 4. cap. 2. &\n    Targum Hierosol._\n\nThe second sort of _Scribes_ belonged to the _Clergy_; they were\nExpositors of the Law, and thence are they called \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76, & \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u1f70\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, _Scribes of the Law_, _Esra. 7. 9._\n_Expounders of the Law_, _Luk. 7. 30._ and _Doctors of the Law_, _Luk.\n5. 17._ Their Office was to write, read, and expound the Law of _Moses_\nto the people. The name was a name of _Office_, not of _Sect_. Of this\nsort was _Esdras_, _Esra 7. 6._ who though he were a _Levite_, yet[68]\nothers there were of the Tribe of _Judah_, and, as it is thought, they\nmight indifferently be of any Tribe. The name was of the like esteem\namong the _Hebrews_ as the _Magi_ were among the _Chaldeans_; the\n_Quindecemviri_ among the _Romans_, for expounding _Sybilla\u2019s Oracles_:\nOr the _Canonists_ in the _Church of Rome_. The word \u200e\u200f\u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Sopherim_,\ntranslated _Scribes_ signifieth _Numberers_, or _Computers_, and is\napplyed to the _Masorites_, because they spent their time in reckoning,\nand numbring, not onely the verses, but the words also, and letters of\neach Book throughout the _Bible_; which, as it is an argument of their\nindustry,[69] so likewise of _Gods_ providence, in the preservation\nof his truth inviolable. As the _Wise men_ in their Preaching pressed\nTraditions; so the _Scribes_ clave to the written word, whence they\nwere termed[70] _Text-men_, or _Masters of the Text_. And to this\npurpose it is worth our observing, that whereas both the Scribes and\nthe Pharisees sought to fasten accusations upon our Saviour, _Mat. 9._\nThe Scribes accused him of blasphemy, _v. 3._ The Pharisees of eating\nwith Publicans and sinners, _v. 11._ The Scribes accusation was a\nbreach of the Law; the Pharisees a breach of Traditions.\n\n    [68] _Drus. de tribus sectis, l. 2. c. 12. ex Chald. Paraphast._\n\n    [69] _Augustin. in Psal. 40._\n\n    [70] _Drusius de trib. sectis l. 20. cap. 13._\n\n3. The _Disputer_.[71] He insisted upon _Allegories_, and searched\nout mystical interpretations of the Text. Hence himself was termed\n_Durschan_, and his exposition, or Homily, _Midrasch_; and their\nSchool, _Beth Hammidrasch_: They were counted the profoundest\nInterpreters, whence that of the _Psalmist_, _Psal. 84. 7._ _They go\nfrom strength to strength_, is interpreted,[72] _from their Temple to\ntheir Beth-Hammidrasch_, from an inferiour to an higher School. Hereby\nwe see the difference between those three sorts of Predicants mentioned\nby Saint _Paul_. The _Wise men_ were teachers of _Traditions_,\nthe _Scribes_ teachers of the _Text_ according to the literal\ninterpretation, and the _Disputers_ teachers of _Allegories_ and\n_Mysteries_; which fabulous expositions, because they breed questions\nand disputations \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, _1 Tim. 4._ Hence is it, that such\nan expositor is termed \u03c3\u03c5\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2, A _Disputer_. These three sorts of\nPreachers, which S. _Paul_ termeth, the _Wiseman_, the _Scribe_ and the\n_Disputer_, _1 Cor. 1. 20._ are by the _Hebrews_ named \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05db\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Ghacham_,\n\u200e\u200f\u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Sopher_, \u200e\u200f\u05d3\u05e8\u05e9\u05df\u200f\u200e _Darschan_.\n\n    [71] _Vide Thisbit. in \u200e\u200f\u05d3\u05e8\u05e9\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [72] _Targum, Ps. 84. 7._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\n_Of their Title Rabbi._\n\n\nAbout the time of our Saviour Christ his Nativity, Titles began to be\nmultiplied; and amongst the rest, these of _Rab_, _Ribbi_, _Rabbi_,\nand _Rabban_, were in especial use: they all are derived from \u200e\u200f\u05e8\u05d1\u05d1\u200f\u200e\n_Rabab_, signifying, _multiplicatus fuit_, and they sound as much as\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, that is, a _Master_, or _Doctor_ eminently gifted with\nvariety of Knowledge. Concerning these titles, they write thus,[73]\nthat _Rabbi_ is a more excellent title than _Rab_, and _Rabban_ more\nexcellent then _Rabbi_; and the simple name without any title, as\n_Haggai_, _Zachary_, _Malachy_, was more excellent than _Rabban_.\nAbout this time they used a set form of Discipline in their Schools.\nThe Scholar was termed \u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u200f\u200e, _Talmid_, a _Disciple_, in respect of\nhis Learning; \u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05d8\u05df\u200f\u200e _Katan_, a _Junior_, in respect of his minority;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Bachur_, that is, one _chosen_, or _elected_ in respect of his\n_election_, or _cooptation_, into the number of Disciples; After he\nhad proved a good Proficient, and was thought worthy of some degree,\nthen was he by imposition of hands made a _Graduate_ \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Chaber_, a\n_Companion_ to a _Rabbi_. This imposition of hands, they termed \u200e\u200f\u05e1\u05de\u05db\u05d4\u200f\u200e,\n_vel_ \u200e\u200f\u05e1\u05de\u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e, _Semicah_, or _Semicuth_, which Ceremony they observed\nin imitation of _Moses_ towards _Joshua_. The Lord said unto _Moses_,\nTake thou _Joshua_ the son of _Nun_, in whom is the Spirit, and _put\nthine hand upon him_, _Numb. 27. 18._ At which time he that imposed\nhands on him, used this form of words,[74] _I associate thee, and be\nthou associated_. After this when he was worthy to teach others, then\nwas he called _Rabbi_, and whereas in his minority, his own name\nbeing suppressed, he was called onely by his _Fathers name_, _the son\nof N._ When he was made _Graduate_ by _imposition of hands_, then\nwas he called by his _own name_, _N. the son of N._ And afterward\nwhen he was thought worthy to teach, then was the Title _Rabbi_\nprefixed, after this manner; _Rabbi N. the son of N._ For example,\n_Maimonides_; at first was termed onely _Ben Maimon_, the son of\n_Maimon_; after his degree, then was he called by his own name, added\nto his fathers, _Moses Ben Maimon_, _Moses the son of Maimon_: at\nlast being licenced to teach, then was he called \u200e\u200f\u05e8\u05de\u05d1\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Rambam_, which\nabbreviature consisting of Capital Letters, signifeth, _Rabbi Moses\nBen Maimon_, _Rabbi Moses the son of Maimon_. So _Rabbi Levi_, the son\nof _Gersom_, in his minority was called _the son of Gersom_, afterward\n_Levi the son of Gersom_ at last, \u200e\u200f\u05e8\u05dc\u05d1\u05d2\u200f\u200e _Ralbag_, _Rabbi Levi the son\nof Gersom_. This distinction of _Scholars_, _Companions_, & _Rabbies_,\nappeareth by that speech of an ancient _Rabbi_, saying,[75] _I learned\nmuch of my Rabbies, or Masters, more of my companions, most of all\nof my Scholars_. That every _Rabbi_ had Disciples, and that his own\nDisciples, and other well-wishers stiled him by the name of _Rabbi_, in\nthe dayes of our Saviour, needeth no proof. _Judas_ came to _Christ_\nand said, _God save thee Rabbi_, _Mat. 26. 49._ In like manner _Johns\nDisciples_ came and saluted _John_ by the name of _Rabbi_, _John 3.\n26._ and _Christ_ by the name of _Rabbi_, _John 1. 38._ But whether\nthere was such a formal imposition of hands then in use, I much doubt.\nThe manner of their meetings, when Disputations were had in their\nSynagogues, or other Schools, was thus.[76] The chief _Rabbies_ sate in\nreserved Chairs; these are those chief seats of the Synagogues, which\nthe Scribes and Pharises so affected, _Mat. 23. 6._ Their _Companions_\nsate upon Benches or lower Forms; their Scholars on the ground at the\nfeet of their Teachers. Saint _Paul_ was brought up at the feet of\n_Gamaliel_, _Act. 22. 2._ And _Mary_ sate at _Jesus feet_, and heard\nhis word, _Luk. 10. 39._ The positure of their body differed according\nto their degrees. The _Rabbi_ is described[77] to be \u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1\u200f\u200e _Joscheb_,\none that _sitteth_: the _Companion_, \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05d5\u05d8\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Muteth_, the word signifieth\na kind of leaning upon a bed or bench, ones head lying in the others\nbosome, in manner of the ancient sitting at table; and it was a\ndeportment of the body, inferiour to that of _sitting_: The Scholar was\ntermed[78] \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05ea\u05d0\u05d1\u05e7\u200f\u200e _Mithabek_, one that doth lie along in the dust, and\nthis was a token of the Scholars humility, thus humbling and subjecting\nhimself even to the feet of his Masters: This same custom it is\nthought,[79] Saint _Paul_ laboured to bring into the Christian Church,\n_1 Cor. 14._ Their Scholars were not all of equal capacity, whence they\nsaid,[80] some had _conditionem spongi\u00e6_, others _clepsydr\u00e6_, others\n_sacci f\u00e6cinacei_, and others _cribri_. Some resembled the _Sponge_,\nand suck\u2019d in all that they heard without judgment; others the\n_Hour-Glass_, they took in at one ear, and let out at the other; others\nthe _Winesack_, through which Wine is so drained from the dregs, that\nonly the dregs remain behind: Lastly, others the _Rying-sieve_, which\nin winnowing lets out the courser seed, and keepeth in the corn.\n\n    [73] _Aruch in voce \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d9\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [74] _\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e1\u05d5\u05de\u05da \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05da \u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05da\u200f\u200e Id est Scaligero interprete: Ego\n    tibi impono manum & manus tibi imposita esto. Trih\u00e6r. c. 5. p.\n    264. vide etiam Cun\u00e6um de Rep. Heb. cap. 12._\n\n    [75] _Vide P. Fagium in Scholiis suis ad cap. 4. Pirke Aboth._\n\n    [76] _Philo Jud. Quod omnis probus, p. 679._\n\n    [77] _Scaliger in Trih\u00e6res. cap. 5. Ex. c. 1. Beracoth._\n\n    [78] _Pirke Aboth. cap. 4._\n\n    [79] _Ambros. 1 Cor. 14._\n\n    [80] _Pirke Aboth. cap. 5._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\n_Of their Nazarites and Rechabites._\n\n\nThere are two sorts of _Votaries_ mentioned in the Old _Testament_;\n_Rechabites_, _Jerem. 35._ and _Nazarites_, _Numb. 6._ I find scarce\nany thing warrantable concerning these two, more than what the\nScripture delivereth in the fore-quoted places: therefore concerning\nthe matter of their Vows, I refer the Reader to the aforesaid Texts of\nScripture; here only we will note the distinction of _Nazarites_. The\nfirst are these _Votaries_, termed so from \u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05d6\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Nazar_, to separate,\nbecause they separated themselves from three things; _First_, from\nWine, and all things proceeding from the Vine. _Secondly_, from the\nRazor, because they suffered no Razor to come upon their head, but\nlet their hair grow all the dayes of their separation. _Thirdly_,\nfrom pollution by the dead: this separation again was twofold,\neither for a set number of days, or for a mans whole life; that they\ntermed _Nazir\u00e6atum dierum_, this, _Nazir\u00e6atum seculi_: of that sort\nwas _Paul_, and those four with him, _Acts 21. 24._ Of this sort\nwas _Sampson_ _Judges 13._ and _John Baptist_. The just number of\ndays, how long the former of these two separated themselves, is not\nexpressed in _Scripture_, but the _Hebrew Doctors_[81] determine them\nto be thirty, because it is said, _Num. 6. 5._ _Domino sanctus_, \u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4\u200f\u200e\n_erit_; which word (say they) containing thirty, expresseth the just\nnumber of days to be observed in this voluntary separation. The second\nsort of _Nazarites_, were so termed from \u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05e6\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Natsar_, from whence\ncometh _Natsareth_, or _Nazareth_, the name of a certain Village\nin _Galilee_; where Christ was conceived and brought up: Hence our\nSaviour himself was called a _Nazarene_, or _Nazarite_, _Mat. 2. 23._\nand those that embraced his Doctrine, _Nazarites_, _Acts 24. 5._\nAfterward certain _Hereticks_ sprung up, who as the _Samaritanes_\njoyned _Jewish ceremonies_ with _Heathenish_ Rites: so[82] they joyned\ntogether _Christ_ and _Moses_, the _Law_ and the _Gospel_; _Baptism_\nand _Circumcision_: of the beginning of these we shall read, _Acts 15.\n2._ Then came down certain from _Jud\u00e6a_, and the brethren, saying,\n_Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be\nsaved_. These Hereticks were called _Nazarites_, either of malice by\nthe _Jewes_, to bring the greater disgrace upon _Christian_ religion;\nor else because at first they were true, though weak _Nazarites_,\nthat is, _Christians_ mis-led by _Peters Judaizing_ at _Antioch_,\n_Gal. 2. 11._ And hence it is[83] that the _Church_ at _Antioch_, in\ndetestation of this new-bred heresie, fastened upon them by the name\nof _Nazarites_, forsook that name, and called themselves _Christians_,\n_Acts 11. 26._ _Symmachus_, that famous Interpreter of the _Old\nTestament_, was a strong Defender of this heresie, and[84] from him in\nafter times they were named _Symmachiani_. The _Jews_ had them in as\ngreat hatred as the _Samaritanes_; whereupon[85] three times every day,\nat _morning_, _noon-tide_, and _evening_, they closed their Prayers\nwith a solemn execration, _Maledic Domine Nazar\u00e6is_. Lastly, another\nsort of _Nazarites_ there were, so termed from \u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05d6\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Nazar_, signifying\nto _abolish_ or _cut off_;[86] because they did _abolish_ and _cut off_\nthe five books of _Moses_, rejecting them as not _Canonical_.\n\n    [81] _Sheindler, in Pentaglot._\n\n    [82] _Hieronym. Isai. 8. Idem refert Epiphanius. l. 1. Tom. 2.\n    h\u00e6r. 29._\n\n    [83] _Francisc. Jun. paral. lib. 1. 8._\n\n    [84] _August. l. 19. contra Faustum Manich\u00e6um. c. 4._\n\n    [85] _Epiphan. l. 1. Tom. 2. h\u00e6res. 29._\n\n    [86] _Epiphan. l. 1. Tom. 1. h\u00e6res. 18._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IX.\n\n_Of the Assideans._\n\n\nIt is much controverted, whether the _Assideans_ were _Pharisees_ or\n_Essenes_, or what they were. Were I worthy to deliver my opinion,\nor, as the _Hebrews_ Proverb is, To thrust in my head among the heads\nof those wise men; I conceive of the _Assideans_ thus: Before their\ncaptivity in _Babylon_, we shall find the word \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Chasidim_,\n(translated _Assid\u00e6i_, _Assideans_) to signifie the same as, \u200e\u200f\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e\n_Tsaddikim_, _Just_, or _good men_: both were used promiscuously,\nthe one for the other, and both stood in opposition to the \u200e\u200f\u05e8\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e\n_Reschagnim_, that is, _ungodly_ or _wicked men_. At this time the\nwhole body of the _Jews_ were distinguished into two sorts, _Chasidim_,\nand _Reschagnim_, _good_, and _bad_.\n\nAfter their captivity, the _Chasidim_ began to be distinguished from\nthe _Tsadikim_.[87] The _Tsadikim_ gave themselves to the study of the\nScripture. The _Chasidim_ studied how to _add unto the Scripture_.[88]\nSecondly, The _Tsadikim_ would conform to whatsoever the Law required.\nThe _Chasidim_ would be _holy above the Law_. Thus to the repairing\nof the Temple, the maintenance of sacrifices, the relief of the poor,\n_&c._ they would voluntarily add over and above, to that which the Law\nrequired of them. Whence it is noted, that those were _Chasidim_ who\nwould say, _What is mine, is thine; and what is thine, is thy own_:\nthose _Reschagnim_, which would say, _What is thine is mine; and what\nis mine, is my own_. And it is probable, that the middle sort mentioned\nin the same place, who would say, _what is mine, is mine; what is\nthine, is thine own_, were the very _Tsadikim_.\n\n    [87] _D. Kimchi. Psal. 103. 17._\n\n    [88] _Pirke Aboth. c. 5._\n\nAt this time the body of the _Jews_ were distinguished into three\nsorts, in respect of holiness. First, _Reschagnim_, \u1f00\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, _Wicked_\nand _ungodly men_. Secondly, _Tsadikim_, \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, _Just_ and _righteous\nmen_. Thirdly, _Chasidim_, who are sometimes translated \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, _Holy\nmen_, and that for the most part:[89] but sometimes also \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1f76,\n_Goodmen_: These of all others were best reputed, and beloved of the\npeople. The Apostle shewing the great love of Christ, dying for us,\namplifieth it by allusion unto this distinction of the people: Christ\ndied for the _ungodly_. Scarcely for a _righteous man_ will one die,\nyet peradventure for a _good man_ some would even dare to die, _Rom.\n5. 6, 7._ The gradation standeth thus; Some peradventure would die,\nfor one of the _Chasidim_, a _good man_: scarcely any, for one of\n_Tsadikim_, a _just_, or _righteous man_; for the _Reschagnim_, or\n_ungodly_, none would die: Yet Christ dyed for us _ungodly_, being\nsinners, and his enemies.\n\n    [89] _Assid\u00e6i, de quibus agitur 1 Machab. 7. 13. vocantur \u00e0\n    Josepho. lib. 12. cap. 16. \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2._\n\nNow as long as these Works of supererogation remained arbitrary, and\nindifferent, not required as necessary, though preferred before the\nsimple obedience to the Law; so long the heat of contention was not\ngreat enough to breed Sects and Heresies: But when once the Precepts\nand Rules of supererogation were digested into _Canons_, and urged with\nan opinion of necessity; then from the _Chasidim_ issued the brood of\n_Pharisees_;[90] and also from them (as it is probably thought) the\nHeresie of the _Essenes_, both obtruding unwritten Traditions upon the\nPeople, as simply necessary, and as a more perfect rule of sanctity\nthan the Scripture. At this time the _Tsadikim_ in heat of opposition\nrejected not only Traditions, but all Scripture, except only the five\nbooks of _Moses_; for which reason they were called _Karaim_. Some\nare of opinion,[91] they rejected only _traditions_, and embraced\nall the books of Scripture: Which opinion soever we follow; they had\ntheir name \u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e, _Karaim_, _Textuales_, _Scriptuarii_, i. _Text-men_,\nor _Scripture-readers_, because they adhered to Scripture alone,\nwithstanding and gain-saying _Traditions_ with all their might. And if\nwe follow the latter, then all this while the _Karaim_ were far from\nHeresie: but in process of time, when from _Sadock_, and _Baithus_,\nthese _Karaim_ learned to deny all future rewards for good works, or\npunishment for evil, or resurrection from the dead; now the _Karaim_\nbecame compleat _Sadduces_, and perfect _Hereticks_, taking their\ndenomination from their first Author _Sadok_. The time of each Heresies\nfirst beginning, shall be more exactly declared in their several\nChapters.\n\n    [90] _Joseph. Scalig. Trih\u00e6res. c. 22._\n\n    [91] _Joseph. Scalig. ib._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. X.\n\n_Of the Pharisees._\n\n\nThere are[92] three Opinions concerning the _Etymology_ of the name\n_Pharisee_. The first are those which derive it from \u200e\u200f\u05e4\u05e8\u05e9\u200f\u200e _Parash_,\n_Expandere_, _Explicare_; either from the enlarging and laying open\ntheir Phylacteries, or from their _open performance_ of good works\nin publick view of the People, as being ambitious of mans praise.\nSecondly, from \u200e\u200f\u05e4\u05e8\u05e9\u200f\u200e _Parasch_, _Exponere_, _Explanare_; because they\nwere of chief repute; and counted the profoundest _Doctors_ for the\n_exposition_ of the Law, so that they were termed[93] _Peruschim_,\n_quia_ _Poreschim_; _Pharisees_, because they were _Expounders_ of the\nLaw. Thirdly, others derive the name from the same Verb, but in the\nconjugation _Piel_, where it signifieth _dividere_, _separare_, to\n_separate_.[94] In this acception, by the _Greeks_ they were termed\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, we may _English_ them _Separatists_. Their _separation_ is\nconsiderable, partly in the particulars _unto which_, partly in those\n_from which_ they _separated_.\n\n    [92] _Quartam etymologiam (cujus fundus & autor putatur\n    Hieronymus, Pr\u00e6fat. in Amos) refellit Scriptura Hebraica; si\n    enim Pharis\u00e6us diceretur a verbo \u200e\u200f\u05e4\u05e8\u05e5\u200f\u200e Dividere, scriberentur\n    Pharis\u00e6i \u200e\u200f\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05e6\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e non \u200e\u200f\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e._\n\n    [93] _Gorionides. c. 22._\n\n    [94] _Suidas._\n\nFirst, They _separated themselves to the study of the Law_, in which\nrespect they might be called, \u1f00\u03c6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, _Separated\nunto the Law_. In allusion unto this, the _Apostle_ is thought[95]\nto have stiled himself, _Rom. 1. 11._ \u1f00\u03c6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n_Separated unto the Gospel_: when he was called from being a\n_Pharisee_, to be a _Preacher of the Gospel_; and now not _separated\nunto the Law_, but to the _Gospel_.\n\nSecondly, They _separated_ themselves, or at least pretended a[96]\n_separation to an extroardinary sanctity of life above other men_.\nGod, I thank thee, that I am _not as other men are_, Extortioners,\nUnjust, Adulterers _&c._ _Luke 18. 11._\n\n    [95] _Drusius de trib. sectis, l. 2. c. 2._\n\n    [96] _Suidas._\n\nThe particulars, _from which they separated themselves_, were these.\n\nFirst, _From commerce with other people_, as afterward will appear in\ntheir Traditions: whence they called the common people, by reason of\ntheir ignorance, \u200e\u200f\u05e2\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200f\u200e _populum terr\u00e6_, the _people of the earth_. In\nthe Gospel of Saint _John 7. 49._ they are called \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. _This people_\nwho knoweth not the Law are cursed.\n\nSecondly,[97] _From the apparel and habit of other men_: for they used\nparticular kinds of Habits, whereby they would be distinguished from\nthe vulgar. Hence proceeded that common speech, _Vestes populi terr\u00e6,\nconculcatio sunt Pharis\u00e6orum_.\n\n    [97] _R. David. Sophon. 1. 8._\n\nThirdly,[98] _From the customs and manners of the world_. This\nheresie of the _Pharisees_ seemeth to have had its first beginning in\n_Antigonus Soch\u00e6us_. He being a _Pharisee_, succeeded _Simon the Just_;\nwho was Coetanean with _Alexander_ the Great: he lived three hundred\nyears before the birth of Christ.\n\n    [98] _Thisbites._\n\nThe _Pharisees_ were[99] not tied to any particular Tribe or Family,\nbut indifferently they might be of any; S. _Paul_ was a _Benjaminite_;\n_Hyrcanus_ was a _Levite_.[100] Each Sect had its _Dogmata_, his proper\n_Aphorisms_, _Constitutions_, or _Canons_: so the _Pharisees_ had\ntheirs. My purpose is, both concerning these and the other Sects, to\nnote onely those _Canons_, or _Aphorisms_, wherein chiefly they were\nheretical, and one differing from the other.\n\n    [99] _Chrys. Mat. 15._\n\n    [100] _Flavius Jos. lib. 13. c. 18._\n\nFirst, The _Pharisees_[101] ascribed _some things_ to _Fate_, or\n_Destiny_, and _some things_ to mans _Free-will_.\n\n    [101] _Joseph. l. 13. c. 9._\n\nSecondly, They confessed that there were _Angels_, and _Spirits_, _Acts\n23. 8._\n\nThirdly, Concerning the resurrection of the dead, they acknowledged\nit, and taught[102] that the souls of evil men deceased, presently\ndeparted into everlasting punishiment; but the souls, they say, of good\nmen, passed by a kind of Pythagorean \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 into other good mens\nbodies. Hence it is thought[103] that the different opinions concerning\nour Saviour did arise; Some saying that he was _John Baptist_; others,\n_Elias_; others, _Jeremias_, _Matth. 16. 14._ As if Christ his body had\nbeen animated by the soul either of _John_, _Elias_, or _Jeremias_.\n\n    [102] _Joseph. de bello Judaic. l. 2. cap. 12._\n\n    [103] _Serar. Trih\u00e6res. l. 2 c. 3. It. Drus. in pr\u00e6ter._\n\nFourthly, They did stifly maintain the Traditions of their _Elders_.\nFor the better understanding what their _Traditions_ were, we must\nknow that the _Jews_ say the Law was _twofold_,[104] one committed\nto writing, which they called \u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05db\u05ea\u05d1\u200f\u200e _Thorah schebitchtah_, _The\nwritten Law_; the other delivered by tradition, termed by them,\n\u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Thorah begnal pe_. They say both were delivered by _God_\nunto _Moses_ upon Mount _Sanai_, the latter as an exposition of the\nformer, which _Moses_ afterward delivered by mouth to _Joshua_, _Joshua\nto the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, the Prophets to those of the\ngreat Synagogue_, from whom successively it descended to after-ages.\nThese Traditions were one of the chief Controversies between the\n_Pharisees_, and the _Sadduces_.[105] The _Pharisees_ said, _Let us\nmaintain the Law which our fore fathers have delivered into our hands,\nexpounded by the mouth of the wise men, who expounded it by tradition_.\nAnd lo, the _Sadduces_ said, _Let us not believe or hearken to any\ntradition or exposition, but unto the Law of ~Moses~ alone_. The\nTraditions which they chiefly urged, were these;\n\n    [104] _Moses Kotsen. in pr\u00e6f. lib. pr\u00e6cept._\n\n    [105] _Gorionides, c. 29._\n\n1. _They would not eat until they washed their hands_, Why do thy\nDisciples transgress the Tradition of the _Elders_? for they wash\nnot their hands when they eat bread, _Mat. 15. 2._ This washing is\nsaid to have been done \u03c0\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u1fc7 _Mar. 7. 3._ that is, _often_, as some\ntranslate the word, taking \u03c0\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u1fc7 in this place, to signifie the same as\n\u03c0\u03cd\u03ba\u03b1 in _Homer_, _frequenter_. Others translate the word _accurate_,\n_diligenter_, intimating the great care and diligence they used in\nwashing: with this the _Syriack_ Text[106] agreeth. Others[107] think\nthat there is, in the phrase, allusion unto that rite or manner of\nwashing in use among the _Jews_, termed by them \u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Netilath\niadaim_, the _lifting up of their hands_. The _Greek_ word \u03c0\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u1f74 is\nthought to express this rite, because in this kind of washing, _They\nused to joyn the tops of the fingers of each hand together with the\nthumb_, so that each hand did after a sort resemble \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd i. a\n_fist_. This Ceremony was thus performed: First, they washed their\nhands clean. Secondly, they composed them into the fore-mentioned form.\nThirdly, they lifted them up, so that the water ran down to the very\nelbows. Lastly, they let down their hands again, so that the water\nran from off their hands upon the earth.[108] And that there might be\nstore of water running up and down, they poured fresh water on them\nwhen they lifted up their hands, and poured water twice upon them\nwhen they hanged them down. Unto this kind of washing _Theophylact_\nseemeth to have reference, when he saith, that the _Pharisees_ did[109]\n_cubitaliter lavare_, _wash up to their elbows_. Lastly, others[110]\ninterpret \u03c0\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u1f74, to be the fist, or hand closed, & the manner of\nwashing thereby denoted to be _by rubbing one hand closed in the plain\nor hollow of the other_. All imply a diligent and accurate care in\nwashing: the ceremonious washing by lifting up the hands, and hanging\nthem down, best expresseth the superstition, which only was aimed at\nin the reproof, though all the sorts of washing, to the _Pharisee_ were\nsuperstitious, because they made it not a matter of outward _decency_\nand _civility_, but of _religion_, to eat with washt or unwasht hands,\nurging such a necessity hereof,[111] that in case a man may come to\nsome water, but not enough both to wash and to drink, he should rather\nchuse to wash than to drink, though he die with thirst. And it was\ndeemed amongst them as great a sin to eat with unwasht hands, as to\ncommit fornication. This Tradition of washing hands, though it were\nchiefly urged by the _Pharisees_, yet all the _Jews_ maintained it, as\nappeareth by the places quoted.\n\n    [106] _\u200e\u200f\u05db\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05d0\u05d9\u05ea\u200f\u200e \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u1fc6\u03c2. Luke 1. 39._\n\n    [107] _Joseph. Scalig. Trib\u00e6r. c. 7._\n\n    [108] _Munster. in Deut. 8._\n\n    [109] _Theophylact. in Marc. 7. 3._\n\n    [110] _Beza in majoribus suis annotationibus. Marc. 7. 3._\n\n    [111] _Drusius pr\u00e6terit. Mat. 15. in addend. & Buxtorf. synag.\n    Judaic. c. 6. p. 93. ex Talmud._\n\nWe may observe three sorts of washing of hands in use among the\n_Jews_. 1. _Pharisaical_ and _superstitious_, this was reproved.\n2. _Ordinary_, for outward _decency_; this was allowed. The third,\nin token of _innocency_; this was commanded by the _Elders_ of the\nneighbour-Cities, in case of murder, _Deut. 21. 6._ It was practised by\n_Pilate_, _Matth. 37. 24._ and alluded unto by _David_, I will _wash my\nhands in innocency_, so will I compass thine altar, _Psal. 26. 6._\n\n2. _When they came from the Market they washt_, _Mar. 7. 4._ The reason\nthereof was, because they there having to do with divers sorts of\npeople, unaware; they might be polluted. The word used by Saint _Mark_,\nis, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, _they baptized themselves_: implying the _washing of\ntheir whole body_. And it seemeth that those _Pharisees_ who were more\nzealous than others, did thus _wash_ themselves alwayes before dinner.\nThe _Pharisee_ marvelled that _Christ_ had not first washed himself\nbefore dinner, _Luke 11. 38._ Unto this kind of superstition St.\n_Peter_ is thought to have inclined, when he said, _Lord, not my feet\nonly, but also my hands, and my head_, _John 13. 9._ Thus finding his\nmodesty disliked, when he refused to have his feet wash\u2019d by his _Lord_\nand _Master_; now he leapeth into the other extream, as if he had said,\nNot _my feet only, but my whole body_. Hence proceeded that Sect of the\n_Hemerobaptist\u00e6_, i.e. _Daily baptists_, so called[112] because they\ndid _every day thus wash themselves_.\n\n    [112] _Epith. l. 2. Tom. 1. c. 17._\n\n3. _They wash\u2019d their cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables_,\n_Mark 7. 4._\n\n4. _They held it unlawful to eat with sinners_, _Mat. 9. 11._ yea, they\njudged it a kind of pollution to be touched by them, _Luke 7. 39._ If\nthis man were a _Prophet_, he would surely have known who, and what\nmanner of woman this is which toucheth him, for she is a sinner. Of\nsuch a people the _Prophet_ speaketh: They said, stand a part, come not\nnear to me, or (as the words may be rendred)[113] _Touch me not_, for I\nam holier than thou, _Esay. 65. 5._ The like practice was in use among\nthe _Samaritanes_,[114] who if they met any stranger, they cryed out,\n\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c8\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, _Ne attingas_, _Touch not_.\n\n    [113] _\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05dc \u05ea\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d9\u200f\u200e Ne attingas me._\n\n    [114] _Scalig. de emend. temp. lib. 7. Idem refert Epiphan.\n    lib. 1. Tom. 1. cap. 13._\n\n5. _They fasted twice in the week_, _Luke 18. 12._ Namely,[115]\n_Mundays_ and _Thursdays_. Because _Moses_ (as they say)[116] went up\ninto the Mount _Sinai_ on a _Thursday_, and came down on a _Munday_.\n\n    [115] _Theophylact. in Luke 18. 12. It. Epiph. h\u00e6r. 16._\n\n    [116] _Drusius in Luc. 18. 13._\n\n6. _They made broad their Phylacteries, and inlarged the borders\nof their garments_, _Matth. 23. 5._ Here three things are worthy\nour consideration. First, What these _Phylacteries_ were. Secondly,\nWhat was written in them. Thirdly, Whence they were so called.\n_Epiphanus_[117] interpreteth these _Phylacteries_ to be \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, _purple studs, or flourishes, woven in their garments_: as\nif _Epiphanius_ had conceived the _Pharisees_ garment to be like that\nwhich the _Roman Senators_ were wont to wear, termed, by reason of\nthose _broad-studs_ and _works_ woven in it, _Laticlavium_: but seeing\nthat these _Phylacteries_ were additaments and ornaments, whereof there\nwere[118] two sorts, the one tied to their _Fore-heads_, the other to\ntheir _Left-hands_; hence it followeth, that by these _Phylacteries_\ncould not be meant whole garments, or any embosments, or flourishings\nwoven in the cloth. Generally they are thought to be schedules or\nscroles of parchments, whereof, as I noted, there were two sorts;\n_Phylacteries for the Fore-head_, or _Frontlets_, reaching from one\nEar to the other, and tied behind with a thong; and _Phylacteries for\nthe hand_, fastned upon the Left-arm above the Elbow on the inside,\nthat it might be near the heart. Both these sorts were worn, not by\nthe _Pharisees_ only,[119] but by the _Sadduces_ also, but with this\ndifference; The _Pharisees_, haply for greater ostentation, wore their\n_Hand-Phylacteries above their Elbows_: the _Sadduces on the palms of\ntheir Hands_.[120] Nay, all the _Jews_ wore them, our _Saviour Christ_\nnot excepted. The command was general, _Exod. 13. 9._ It shall be for a\nsign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes.\nSo that it is not the wearing of them which our _Saviour_ condemned,\nbut the making of them broad, whereby they would appear more holy than\nothers.\n\n    [117] _Epiph. lib. 1. Tom. 1. cap. 15._\n\n    [118] _Moses Kot. pr\u00e6cept. affirm. 22._\n\n    [119] _Maimon. in Tephillim. c. 4. sect. 3._\n\n    [120] _Scal. Trih\u00e6res. p. 258._\n\nIn these Parchments they wrote[121] only the _Decalogue_, or Ten\nCommandments, in the opinion of _Chrysostome_ and _Hierome_: but\ngenerally, and upon better grounds, it is thought they wrote these four\nsections of the Law.\n\n    [121] _Chrysost. & Hieronym. in Mat. 23._\n\n    1. The first began, Sanctifie unto me all the firstborn, _&c._\n    _Exod. 13. 2._ to the end of the 10. _verse_.\n\n    2. The second began, And it shall be when the Lord shall bring\n    thee, _&c._ _Exod. 13. 11._ to the end of the 16. _verse_.\n\n    3. The third began, Hear O Israel, _Deut. 6. 4._ and continued\n    to the end of the ninth _verse_.\n\n    4. The fourth began, And it shall come to pass; if you shall\n    hearken diligently, &c. _Deut. 11. 13._ to the end of the one\n    and twentieth _verse_.\n\nThese four Sections written in scrols of Parchment, and folded up,\nthey fastned to their _fore-heads_ and their _left-arms_: those that\nwere for the _fore-head_, they wrote in four distinct pieces of\nparchment[122] especially, and if they wrote it in one piece; the\nlength of every Section ended in one column, and they did put them\ninto one skin, in which there was the proportion of four houses or\nreceptacles, and not into four skins: every receptacle was distinct by\nit self; and those that were for the hand, were written in one piece\nof Parchment principally, the four Sections in four columns; but if\nthey wrote them in four pieces, it was at length, and they put them in\na skin that had but one receptacle.[123] In time of persecution when\nthey could not openly wear these _Phylacteries_, then did they tye\nabout their hands a red thread, to put them in mind of the blood of the\nCovenant of the Law.\n\n    [122] _Moses Kotsen. fol. 104. col. 3._\n\n    [123] _Munster. de pr\u00e6cept. affirm._\n\nTouching the name _Moses_ calleth them \u200e\u200f\u05d8\u05d5\u05d8\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Totaphot_, which\nword hath almost as many _Etymologies_, as Interpreters; the most\nprobable in my opinion, is, that they should be so called _per\nAntiphrasin_, from \u200e\u200f\u05d8\u05d8\u05e3\u200f\u200e _Incedere_, _to go_ or _move_, because they\nwere _immoveable_: Hence the _Septuagint_ translate them, \u1f00\u03c3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\n_Immoveable ornaments_. The Rabbins call them _Tephillim_, _Prayer\nornaments_:[124] others call them _Pittacia_, & _Pittaciola_, from\n\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, which signifieth a piece or parcel of Cloth. In the\nGospel they are called \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, _Phylacteries_, from \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9, to\n_conserve_ or _keep_. First, because by the use of them, the _Law_ was\n_kept_ and _preserved_ in memory. Secondly, because the _Pharisees_\nsuperstitiously conceited, that by them, as by Amulets, Spells, and\nCharms, hanged about their necks themselves might be _preserved from\ndangers_. The word \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd signifieth a Spell; and _Hierome_\ntestifieth, that the _Pharisees_ had a such a conceit of these\nornaments: In which place he compareth the _Pharisees_ with certain\nsuperstitious women of his time, who carried up and down, upon the like\nground, _pervula evangelia, & crucis ligna_, short sentences out of\nthe Gospel, and the reliques of the Cross. The same superstition hath\nprevailed with many of latter times, who for the same purpose hang\nthe beginning of[125] Saint _John_\u2019s _Gospel_ about their necks. And\nin the year of our _Lord_ 692. certain Sorcerers were condemned for\nthe like kind of _Magick_, by the name of[126] \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, that is,\n_Phylacterians_.\n\n    [124] _Hieronym. in Mat. 23._\n\n    [125] _Scalig. Trib\u00e6r. cap. 70._\n\n    [126] _Concil. quini Sexti, Canon 61._\n\nThus much of their _Phylacteries_: In the same verse is reproved the\n_inlarging of their borders_.[127] That which we read borders in the\n_Gospel_, is called, _Num. 15. 38._ \u200e\u200f\u05e6\u05d9\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Tsitsith_, _Fringes_: and\n\u200e\u200f\u05d2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Gedelim_, _Deut. 22. 10._ which word we likewise translate in\nthat place, _Fringes_. They were in the fore-quoted places commanded,\nand our _Saviour Christ_ himself did wear them, _Luk. 8. 44._ The\nlatter Hebrew word signifieth a _large Fringe_, which agravateth the\nsuperstition of the _Pharisees_, in making their Fringes _larger_,\nwhen the Law had allowed them _large_. This literal exposition I take\nto be most agreeable with the _Text_, though to _inlarge_ in _Greek_\nand _Latine_[128] sometimes, signifieth to _boast, vaunt, or brag of\na thing_; and in this sense it may very well fit a _Pharisee_. The\nreason of this command was, to put them in mind of the Commandments,\n_Numb. 15._ And for the furtherance of this duty,[129] they used sharp\nthorns in in their Fringes, that by the often pricking of the Thorn,\nwhether they walked or sate still, they might be the more mindful of\nthe Commandments.\n\n    [127] _Vide D. Kimchi. Radic._\n\n    [128] _\u03a4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, apud Euripidem in Bacchis, valet,\n    Magnifice jactare, Efferre. Magnificare apud Varronem & Plinium\n    eadem significatione usurpatur, Theodor. Beza in Mat. 23._\n\n    [129] _Hieron. in Mat. 23._\n\nThere were[130] seven sorts of _Pharises_. 1. _Pharis\u00e6us Sichemita._ He\nturned _Pharisee_ for gain, as the _Sichemites_ suffered themselves to\nbe circumcised.\n\n    [130] _Talmud. tract. Suta. cap. 3._\n\n2. _Pharis\u00e6us truncatus_, so called, as if he had no feet, because he\nwould scarce lift them from the ground when he walked, to cause the\ngreater opinion of his meditation.\n\n3. _Pharis\u00e6us inpingens._ He would shut his eyes when he walked abroad,\nto avoid the sight of Women, in so much that he often dash\u2019d his head\nagainst the walls, that the blood gush\u2019d out.\n\n4. _Pharis\u00e6us, Quid debeo facere, & faciam illud._ He was wont to say,\n_What ought I to do? and I will do it._ Of this sort seemeth the man\nin the _Gospel_ to have been, who came unto _Christ_, saying, _Good\nMaster, what shall I do? &c._ and at last replyed, _All these I have\ndone from my youth upward_, _Luke 18._\n\n5. _Pharis\u00e6us mortarius_; so called because he wore a hat in manner of\na deep _Mortar_, such as they use to bray spice in, in so much that\nhe could not look upward, nor of either side; onely downward on the\nground, and forward or forthright.\n\n6. _Pharis\u00e6us ex amore_; Such a one as obeyed the Law for the Love of\nVertue.\n\n7. _Pharis\u00e6us ex timore_; Such a one obeyed the Law for fear of\npunishment. He that conformed for fear had respect chiefly to the\n_negative Commandements_; but he that conformed for love, especially\nrespected the _Affirmative_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XI.\n\n_Of the Sadduces._\n\n\nTo omit other _Etymologies_ of the name, there are two onely which have\nshew of probability. Some[131] derive it from _Sedec_, _Justitia_; as\nif they had been _Justitiaries_, such as would justifie themselves\nbefore _Gods_ Tribunal. There are[132] that derive it, and that\nupon more warrantable grounds, from _Sadoc_, the first Author of\nthe heresie; so that the _Sadduces_ were so called from _Sadoc_, as\nthe _Arrians_ from _Arrius_, the _Pelagians_ from _Pelagius_, the\n_Donatists_ from _Donatus_, &c.\n\n    [131] _Epiphan. l. 1. cap. 14._\n\n    [132] _\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a3\u03b1\u03b4\u1f7c\u03ba \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Theophylact._\n\nThis _Sadoc_ lived under _Antigonus Soch\u00e6us_, who succeeded _Simeon_\nthe _Just_. He was _Antigonus_ his scholar, and by him brought up\nin the Doctrine of the _Pharisees_, but afterwards fell from him,\nand broacht the heresie of the _Sadduces_; which heresie, because\nit had much affinity with that which the Heretique _Dositheus_\ntaught, hence are the _Sadduces_ said to[133] be a branch or skirt\nof the _Dositheans_, though in truth _Dositheus_ lived not till[134]\nafter _Christ_; and although these two heresies did agree in many\nthings; yet in a main point they differed.[135] _Dositheus_ believed\nthe Resurrection, the _Sadduces_ denyed it; and by consequence the\n_Dositheans_ believed all other points necessarily flowing from this.\n\n    [133] _Epiph. h\u00e6res. 14. It. Tertul. de pr\u00e6script. c. 5._\n\n    [134] _Origen. contra Celsum. l. 2._\n\n    [135] _Epiph. h\u00e6res. 13._\n\nThe occasion of this heresie was this.[136] When _Antigonus_ taught,\nthat we must not serve God as servants serve their Masters, for hope of\nreward, his scholars _Sadoc_ and _Baithus_ understood him, as if he had\nutterly denied all future rewards or recompence attending a godly life,\nand thence framed their heresie, denying the _resurrection, the world\nto come, Angels, Spirits, &c._\n\n    [136] _Aboth. cap. 1._\n\nTheir _Dogmata_, _Canons_, or _Constitutions_, were, 1. _They\nrejected[137] the Prophets, & all other Scripture save only the five\nbooks of Moses._ Therefore our _Saviour_ when he would confute their\nerrour, concerning the resurrection of the dead, he proves it not out\nof the _Prophets_, but out of _Exod. 3. 6._ _I am the God of Abraham,\nthe God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob_, _Mat. 22. 32._\n\n    [137] _Joseph. Antiq. lib. 13. c. 18._\n\n2. _They rejected[138] all traditions._ Whence, As they were called\n\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05df\u200f\u200e _Min\u00e6i_, i. _Heretiques_, in respect of the general opposition\nbetween them and _Pharisees_. First, because the _Pharisees_ were in\nrepute the only _Catholicks_. Secondly, because in their Doctrine,\nthe _Pharisees_ were much nearer the truth than the _Sadduces_: so in\nthis respect of this particular opposition, in the ones rejecting, the\nothers urging of traditions, the _Sadduces_ were termed[139] \u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e\n_Karaim_, _Biblers_, or _Scripturists_.\n\n    [138] _Elias de \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05e8\u05e7\u200f\u200e._\n\n    [139] _Drusius de trib. sect. c. 8. l. 3 p. 130._\n\n3. _They said there was no reward for good works, nor punishment for\nill, in the world to come._ Hence Saint _Paul_ perceiving that in the\n_Councel_ the one part were _Sadduces_, the other _Pharisees_, he cried\nout, _Of the hope of the reward expected, and of the resurrection of\nthe dead, I am called in question_, Act. 23. 6.\n\n4. _They denied the resurrection of the body_, Act. 22. 8. Matth. 22.\n23. Luke 20. 27.\n\n5. _They said the souls of men are annihilated[140] at their death._\n\n    [140] _Joseph. de bello Judaic. lib. 2. c. 12._\n\n6. _They denied Angels and spirits_, Act. 23. 8.\n\n7. _They wholly denied[141] Fate or Destiny, and ascribed all to mans\nFree-will._\n\n    [141] _Joseph. l. 13. c. 9._\n\nThe _Samaritanes_ and the _Sadduces_ are of near affinity: but yet they\ndiffer. First[142] The _Samaritanes sacrificed_ at the Temple built\nupon Mount _Gerizim_, but the _Sadduces_ sacrificed at _Jerusalem_.\nSecondly, The _Samaritanes_ allowed no commerce with the _Jews_, _John\n4. 9._ yea, the mutual hatred between the _Samaritans_ and the _Jews_\nwas so great, that it was not lawful for the _Jews_ to eat or drink\nwith the _Samaritans_. How is it that thou being a _Jew_, askest drink\nof me which am a woman of _Samaria_, _Joh. 4. 9._ Nay, whereas liberty\nwas granted unto all Nations of the earth to become _Proselites_ to the\n_Jewes_, so did the _Jews_ hate the _Samaritanes_, that they would not\nsuffer a _Samaritan_ to be a _Prosylite_. This appeareth by that solemn\n_Excommunication_,[143] termed _Excommunicatio in secreto nominis\ntetragrammati_: the form thereof: as it was applyed (say they) by\n_Ezra_ and _Nehemiah_ unto the _Samaritanes_, was thus, _They assembled\nthe whole Congregation into the Temple of the Lord, and they brought\n300 Priests, ~and~ 300 Trumpets, ~and~ 300 books of the Law, and as\nmany boys, and they sounded their Trumpets and the Levites singing\ncursed the Samaritanes by all the sorts of Excommunication, in the\nmystery of the name ~Jehovah~, and in the Decalogue, & with the curse\nof the superiour house of judgement, and likewise with the curse of the\ninferiour house of judgement, that no Israelite should eat the bread of\na Samaritane, (whence they say, he which eateth of a Samaritans bread\nis as he who eateth swines flesh) and let no Samaritane be a Prosylite\nin Israel, and that they should have no part in the resurrection of the\ndead_. _R. Gersom_[144] forbade the breaking open of the Letters, under\nthe penalty of this _Excommunication_. This proveth what formerly was\nsaid; namely, that between the _Jews_ and the _Samaritanes_ there was\nno commerce; but the _Sadduces_ familiarly conversed with the other\n_Jews_, even with the _Pharisees_ themselves; yea, both sat together in\nthe same _Council_, _Acts 23. 6._ Now the _Samaritanes_ and _Sadduces_\nagree. 1. _In the rejection of all the others traditions._ 2. _In\nthe rejection of all other Scriptures, save only the five Books of\n~Moses~._ 3. _In the denial of the Resurrection, and the consequences,\nas future punishments, and rewards according to mens works._ But the\n_Samaritanes_ held that there were _Angels_, which the _Sadduces_\ndenied. For the proof of these agreements and disagreements between\nthem, read _Epiphanius, h\u00e6res. 9. & 14._\n\n    [142] _Epiphan. Tom. 1. l. 1. h\u00e6res. 14._\n\n    [143] _Drusius de trib. sect. l. 2. cap 11. ex Ilmedenu._\n\n    [144] _Buxtorf. Epist. Heb. p. 59._\n\nTouching the _Samaritanes_, there are three degrees of alteration in\ntheir Religion observable. First, the strange Nations, transplanted by\n_Salmanesar_ into _Samaria_, when _Israel_ was carried away captive\ninto _Assyria_, worshipped every one the _God of their own Countries_,\n_2 King. 17._ Secondly, when they saw they were devoured by Lyons,\nbecause they feared not the Lord, the _King_ of _Assyria_ sent one of\nthe _Priests_ which was taken captive, to instruct them in the true\nworship of _God_: which manner of worship though they received, yet\nthey would not lay aside their former Idolatry, but made a mixture of\nReligions, worshipping the living _God_, and their own dumb _Idols_.\nThirdly, _Manasses_, brother to _Jaddus_ the _High priest_, in\n_Jerusalem_, being married to _Sanballat_, the _Horonite_\u2019s Daughter,\nby reason of _Nehemiah_\u2019s charge of putting away their strange Wives,\nbeing driven to that exigent, that he must either put away his Wife,\nor forgo the hope of the _Priest-hood_; by _Sanballat_\u2019s means he\nobtained leave from _Alexander_ the Great, to build a _Temple_[145]\nupon Mount _Gariazim_, one of the highest Mountains in _Samaria_,\nwhither many other Apostated _Jews_ fled, together with _Manasses_\nbeing made their _High-Priest_; and now the Sect of the _Samaritanes_\n(between whom and the _Jews_ there was such hatred) began, now all\nthose fore-mentioned errors were maintained: And of this Hill it\nis, that the woman of _Samaria_ speaketh _John 4. 20._ Our Fathers\nworshipped in this _Mountain_, _&c._\n\n    [145] _Joseph. Antiq. lib. 11. cap 8._\n\nBy comparing the _Dogmata_ of the _Pharisees_, with these of the\n_Sadduces_, we may perceive a manifest opposition between them; yet\nboth these joyned against _Christ_, _Mark 12._\n\nThis heresie, though it were the greatest amongst the _Jews_,\nyet was it imbraced and maintained by some of the _High Priests_\nthemselves:[146] _Joannes Hyrcanus_ was a _Sadducee_, so were his sons,\n_Aristobulus_ and _Alexander_,[147] and likewise _Ananus_ the younger;\nso that _Moses_ Chair was not amongst them exempted from error; no nor\nheresie.\n\n    [146] _Gorionides, cap. 29._\n\n    [147] _Euseb. hist. l. 2. c. 23. Ex Joseph. Antiq. lib. 20. cap. 8._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XII.\n\n_Of the Essenes._\n\n\nThe _Etymologies_ of the names _Ess\u00e6i_, or _Esseni_, i.e. _Essenes_,\nare divers, that which I prefer is from the _Syriake_ \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05e1\u05d0\u200f\u200e _Asa_,\nsignifying \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd to heal, or cure Diseases. Hence[148] are the men\nso often termed, \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 and the women amongst them, \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2,\nthat is, _Physicians_. For though they gave themselves chiefly to the\nstudy of the _Bible_ yet withal they studied _Physick_.\n\n    [148] _Joseph. de bello Judaic. lib. 2. c. 12. p. 786._\n\nOf these _Essenes_ there were two sorts, some _Theoricks_, giving\nthemselves wholly to _speculation_; others _Practicks_, laborious\nand painful in the daily exercise of those _handy-crafts_, in which\nthey were most skilful. Of the latter, _Philo_ treateth in his book\nentituled, _Quod omnis vir probus_: Of the former, in the book\nfollowing, entituled, _De vita contemplativa_.\n\nTheir _Dogmata_, their _Ordinance_, or _Constitutions_, did symbolize\nin many things with _Pythagoras_ his, where they do agree. Therefore my\npurpose is, first to name _Pythagoras_ his; and then to proceed on with\nthe _Essenes_. They follow thus.\n\nThe[149] _Pythagoreans professed a communion of goods_: _So the\nEssenes_.[150] _they had one common purse or stock_, none richer, none\npoorer than other; out of this common treasury, every one supplyed\nhis own wants without leave, and administred to the necessities of\nothers: only they might not relieve any of their kindred without leave\nfrom their Overseers. They did not buy or sell among themselves, but\neach supplyed the others want, by a kind of commutative bartring: yea,\nliberty was granted to take one from another what they wanted, without\nexchange. They performed Offices of service mutually one to another;\nfor mastership and service cannot stand with communion of goods:\nand servants are commonly injurious to the state of their Masters,\naccording to that saying of _R. Gamaliel_,[151] _He that multiplyeth\nservants, multiplieth thieves_. When they travelled, besides weapons\nfor defence, they took nothing with them, for in whatsoever City or\nVillage they came, they repaired to the Fraternity of the _Essenes_,\nand were there entertained as members of the same. And if we do\nattentively read _Josephus_, we may observe that the _Essenes_ of every\nCity joyned themselves into one _common Fraternity_ or _Colledge_.\nEvery Colledge had two sorts of Officers: _First_, _Treasurers_, who\nlooked to the common stock, provided their diet, appointed each his\ntask, and other publick necessaries. Secondly, _Others, who entertained\ntheir strangers_.\n\n    [149] _Aul. Gell. l. 1. c. 10. It. Laer. in Pythag. \u039a\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\n    \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9._\n\n    [150] _Joseph. lib. 18. cap. 2._\n\n    [151] _\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d2\u05d6\u05dc\u200f\u200e Marbe gnabadim. Marbe gezel, Pirke\n    Aboth. cap. 1._\n\n2. _The Pythagoreans shunned pleasures._[152] _So did the\nEssenes_:[153] to this belongeth their avoiding of oyl, which, if any\ntouched unawares, they wiped it off presently.\n\n    [152] _Justin. lib. 20._\n\n    [153] _Joseph. de bello Judaic. lib. 2. c. 12._\n\n3. _The Pythagoreans garments were white_:[154] _So were the Essenes\nwhite also_,[155] modest, not costly: when once they put on a suit,\nthey never changed it till it was torn, or worn out.\n\n    [154] _Suid. It. \u00c6lian. de varia hist. l. 18. cap. 32._\n\n    [155] _Joseph. de bello Judaic. lib. 2. cap. 12._\n\n4. _The Pythagoreans forbade Oaths._[156] _So did the Essenes_;[157]\nthey thought him a noted lyar, who could not be believed without an\noath.\n\n    [156] _Laert. in vita Pythagor\u00e6._\n\n    [157] _Philo Jud\u00e6us._\n\n5. _The Pythagoreans had their Elders in singular respect._[158] _So\nhad the Essenes._[159] _The body, or whole company of the Essenes_,\nwere distinguisht \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 into four _ranks_, or _orders_,\naccording to their Seniority; and if haply any of the superior ranks\nhad touched any of the inferior, he thought himself polluted, as if he\nhad touched an _Heathen_.\n\n    [158] _Suidas. It. Laertius._\n\n    [159] _Joseph. de bello Judaic. lib. 2. cap. 12._\n\n6. _The Pythagoreans drank water._[160] _So did the Essenes only\nwater_,[161] wholly abstaining from wine.\n\n    [160] _Suidas._\n\n    [161] _Philo de vita contemplativa._\n\n7. _The Pythagoreans used \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 inanimate Sacrifices._[162]\n_So did the Essenes_:[163] they sent _gifts_ to the Temple, and did\nnot sacrifice, but preferred the use of their _holy water_ before\n_sacrifice_, for which reason the other _Jews_ forbad them all access\nunto the Temple.\n\n    [162] _Laertius in vita Pythag._\n\n    [163] _Joseph. Antiq. lib. 18. cap. 2._\n\n8. _The Pythagoreans ascribed all things to fate or destiny._[164] _So\ndid the Essenes._[165] In this _Aphorism_ all three Sects differed\neach from other. The _Pharisees_ ascribed some things to _Fate_, and\nother things to _Mans Free-will_. The _Essenes_ ascribed all to _Fate_,\nnothing to _mans free will_. The _Sadduces_ wholly deny _Fate_, and\nascribed all things to the _free will of man_.\n\n    [164] _Suidas._\n\n    [165] _Joseph. Antiq. lib. 13. cap. 9._\n\n9. _The Pythagoreans the first five years were not permitted to\nspeak in the School_:[166] but were initiated _per quinquennale\nsilentium_,[167] and not until then suffered to come into the presence\nof, or sight of _Pythagoras_. To this may be referred the _Essenes\nsilence at Table_ straightly observed, so that _Decem simul sedentibus,\nnemo loquitur invitis novem_; _Drusius_[168] renders it, that ten of\nthem sitting together, none of them spake without leave obtained of\nthe nine. When any did speak, it was not their custome to interrupt\nhim with words, but by nods of the head, or beckenings, or holding\ntheir finger, or shaking their heads, and other such like dumb signs\nand gestures, to signifie their doubtings, disliking, or approving the\nmatter in hand. And to the time of silence amongst the _Pythagoreans_,\nthat it must be for five years, may be referred the initiation of the\n_Essenes_; for amongst them none were presently admitted into their\n_society_, with full liberty, but they under went four years of tryal\nand probation. The first year they received _Dolabellum,[169] Perizoma,\n& vestem albam_, a _spadle_, with which they digged a convenient place\nto ease Nature; a _pair of breeches_, which they used in bathing or\nwashing themselves; a _white garment_, which especially that Sect\naffected. At this time they had their commons allowed them, but\nwithout, not in the common dining Hall. The second year they admitted\nthem to the _participation of holy matters_, and instructed them in\nthe use of them. Two years after they admitted them in _full manner_,\nmaking them of their _Corporation_, after they had received an Oath,\ntruly to observe all the Rules and Ordinances of the _Essenes_. If any\nbrake his oath, an hundred of them being assembled together, expelled\nhim, upon which expulsion commonly followed death within a short time;\nfor none having once entred this Order, might receive alms or any meat\nfrom other; and themselves would feed such a one, only with distastful\nherbs, which wasted his body, and brought it very low: sometimes they\nwould re-admit such a one being brought near unto death; but commonly\nthey suffered him to die in that misery.\n\n    [166] _Quinquennale hoc silentium \u00e2 Pythagora auditoribus suis\n    indictum vocabant \u1f10\u03c7\u03b5\u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u00e0 cohibendo sermone._\n\n    [167] _Laertius in Pythagor._\n\n    [168] _Drusius de trib. sect. l. 4._\n\n    [169] _Joseph. de bello Judaico lib. 2. cap. 12._\n\n10. _The Essenes worshipped toward the Sun rising._[170]\n\n    [170] _Philo item Joseph._\n\n11. _The Essenes bound themselves in their oath, to preserve the names\nof Angels_:[171] The phrase implyeth a kind of worshipping of them.\n\n    [171] _Joseph. de bello Judaic. lib. 2. cap. 12._\n\n12. _They were above all others strict in the observation of the\nSabbath day_;[172] on it they would dress no meat, kindle no fire,\nremove no Vessels out of their place; no, nor ease Nature, Yea, they\nobserved[173] _\u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2, every seventh week, a solemn\nPentecost; seven Pentecosts, every year_.\n\n    [172] _Joseph. ib._\n\n    [173] _Philo de vita contemplat._\n\n13. _They abstained from marriage_, not that they disliked marriage in\nit self, or intended an end or period to procreation: but partly, in\nwariness of womens intemperance; partly, because they were perswaded\nthat no woman would continue faithful to one man. This avoiding of\nmarriage is not to be understood generally of all the _Essenes_, for\nthey disagreed among themselves in this point. Some were of the\nopinion before noted: others married for propagation. _Nihilominus\nautem cum tanta ipsi moderatione conveniunt, ut per triennium explorent\nvaletudinem f\u0153minarum; & si constanti purgatione apparuerint idone\u00e6\npartui, ita eas in matrimonia asciscunt. Nemo tamen cum pr\u00e6gnante\nconcumbit, ut ostendant, qu\u00f2d nuptias non voluptatis, sed liberorum\ncausa inierint._ Thus the latter sort preserved their Sect by the\nprocreation of children: the former sort preserved it by a kind of\nadoption of other mens children, counting them as near Kinsmen, and\ntutoring them in the Rules of Discipline, as _Josephus_ witnesseth.\n_Pliny_[174] addeth also, that many other of the _Jews_, when they\nbegan to be struck in years, voluntarily joyned themselves unto\nthem, being moved thereunto, either because of the variable state\nand troubles of the world, or upon consideration of their own former\nlicentious courses, as if they would by this means exercise a kind of\npenance upon themselves.\n\n    [174] _Plin. hist. l. 5. cap. 17._\n\nConcerning the beginning of this Sect, from whom, or when it began,\nit is hard to determine. Some[175] make them as ancient as the\n_Rechabites_, and the _Rechabites_ to have differed only in the\naddition of some rules and ordinances from the _Kenites_, mentioned\n_Judg. 1. 16._ And thus by consequence the _Essenes_ were as ancient,\nas the _Israelites_ departure out of _Egypt_: for _Jethro_, _Moses_\nfather-in-law, as appeareth by the Text, was a _Kenite_: but neither\nof these seemeth probable. For the _Kenites_ are not mentioned in\nScripture, as a _distinct order_ or _sect of people_, but as a\n_distinct family_, _kindred_, or _Nation_, _Numb. 24. 21._ Secondly,\nthe _Rechabites_, they neither did build houses, but dwelt in Tents;\nneither did they deal in husbandry, they sowed no seed, nor planted\nVineyards, nor had any, _Jer. 55. 7._ The _Essenes_, on the contrary,\nthey dwelt not in tents, but in houses;[176] and they imployed\nthemselves especially in husbandry. One of the _Hebrew Doctors_[177]\nsaith, that the _Essenes_ were _Nazarites_: but that cannot be, because\nthe Law enjoyned the _Nazarites_, when the time of the Consecration\nwas out, to present themselves at the door of the _Tabernacle_ or\n_Temple_, _Num. 6._ Now the _Essenes_ had no access to the _Temple_.\nWhen therefore, or from what Author this Sect took its beginning, is\nuncertain. The first that I find mentioned by the name of an _Essene_,\nwas one _Judas_,[178] who lived in the time of _Aristobulus_ the Son\nof _Joannes Hyrcanus_, before our _Saviours_ Birth about one hundred\nyears: Howsoever the Sect was of greater antiquity;[179] for all\nthree, _Pharisees_, _Sadduces_, and _Essenes_, were in _Jonathan_\u2019s\ntime, the brother of _Judeas Macchabeus_, who was fifty years before\n_Aristobulus_. Certain it is, that this Sect continued until the daies\nof our _Saviour_, and after; for _Philo_ and _Josephus_ speaks of\nthem as living in their times. What might be the reason then, that\nthere is no mention of them in the _New Testament_? I answer; First,\nThe number of them seemeth not to have been great, in _Philo_ and\n_Josephus_ his time,[180] about four thousand, which being dispersed\nin many Cities, made the Faction weak: and haply in _Jerusalem_ when\nour _Savior_ lived, they were either few or none. Secondly, if we\nobserve histories we shall find them peaceable and quiet, not opposing\nany, and therefore not so liable to reproof as the _Pharisees_ and\n_Sadduces_, who opposed each other, and both joyned against _Christ_.\nThirdly, why might they not as well be passed over in silence in the\n_New Testament_, (especially containing themselves quietly without\ncontradiction of others) as the _Rechabites_ in the _Old Testament_,\nof whom there is mention only once, and that obliquely, although their\nOrder continued about three hundred years before this testimony was\ngiven of them by the Prophet _Jeremy_; for between _Jehu_ (with whom\n_Jonadab_ was Coetanean) and _Zedekiah_, Chronologers observe the\ndistance of many years. Lastly, though the name _Essenes_ be not found\nin Scripture,[181] yet we shall find in S. _Paul_\u2019s Epistles many\nthings reproved, which were taught in the School of the _Essenes_.\nOf this nature was that advice given unto _Timothy_, _1 Tim. 5. 23._\n_Drink no longer water, but use a little wine_. Again, _1 Tim. 4.\n3._ _Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats is a\nDoctrine of Devils_; but especially _Coloss. 2._ in many passages the\n_Apostle_ seemeth directly to point at them, _Let no man condemn you in\nmeat and drink_, _v. 16._ _Let no man bear rule over you, by humbleness\nof mind, and worshipping of Angels_, _vers. 18._ \u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5;\n_Why are ye subject to Ordinances?_ _ver. 20._ The _Apostle_ useth\nthe word \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, which was applyed by the _Essenes_ to denote their\n_Ordinances_, _Aphorisms_, or _Constitutions_. In the verse following\nhe gives an instance of some particulars, _Touch not, taste not, handle\nnot_, _vers. 21._ Now the Junior company of _Essenes_ might not _touch_\ntheir Seniors. And in their diet, their taste was limited to bread,\nsalt, water, and hyssop. And these ordinances they undertook, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 saith _Philo_, for the _love of wisdom_: but the Apostle\nconcludeth, _vers. 23._ That these things had only, \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, a\nshew of _wisdom_. And whereas _Philo_ termeth the Religion of the\n_Essenes_, by the name of \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, which word signifieth _religious\nworship_, the _Apostle_ termeth in the same verse, \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd,\n_Voluntary-religion_, or _will-worship_: yea, where he termeth their\nDoctrine \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, a kind of _Philosophy_ received from\ntheir Fore-fathers by Tradition, Saint _Paul_ biddeth them beware of\n_Philosophy_, _vers. 8._\n\n    [175] _Serarius Trih\u00e6res. l. 3. cap. 5._\n\n    [176] _Joseph. Antiq. lib. 18. c. 7._\n\n    [177] _Scalig. in Trih\u00e6r. cap. 23._\n\n    [178] _Joseph. l. 13. c. 19._\n\n    [179] _Joseph. l. 13. c. 9._\n\n    [180] _Philo. lib. quod omnis probus, p. 678._\n\n    [181] _Vide Chemnit. exem. conc. Trident. part. quart. pag. 120._\n\nWe formerly observed two sorts of _Essenes_; _Practicks_ and\n_Theoricks_: both agreed in their _Aphorisms_, or _Ordinances_; but in\ncertain circumstances they differed.\n\n1. The _Practicks_ dwelt in the Cities; The _Theoricks_ shunned the\nCities, and dwelt in Gardens, and solitary Villages.\n\n2. The _Practicks_ spent the day in manual Crafts, keeping of Sheep,\nlooking to Bees, tilling of Ground, _&c._ they were \u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bd\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n_Artificers_. The _Theoricks_ spent the day in meditation, and prayers,\nwhence they were by a kind of excellency, by _Philo_ termed, \u1f31\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n_Supplicantes_.\n\n3. The _Practicks_ had every day their dinner and supper allowed them;\nthe _Theoricks_ only their supper.\n\nThe _Practicks_ had for their Commons every one his dish of\nWater-gruel, and bread; The _Theoricks_ only bread, and salt: if any\nwere of a more delicate palate then other, to him it was permitted to\neat Hyssop; their drink for both, was common water.\n\nSome are of Opinion, that these _Theoricks_ were _Christian Monks_; but\nthe countary appeareth, for these reasons:\n\n1. In that whole Book of _Philo_, concerning the _Theoricks_, there is\nno mention either of _Christ_, or _Christians_, of the _Evangelists_,\nor _Apostles_.\n\n2. The _Theoricks_, in that Book of _Philo_\u2019s, are not any new Sect of\nlate beginning, as the _Christians_ at that time were, as is clearly\nevidenced by _Philo_ his own words. First, In calling the Doctrine\nof the _Essenes_ \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, _A philosophy derived unto them\nby tradition from their fore-fathers_. Secondly, in saying, _Habent\npriscorum commentarios, qui hujus sect\u00e6 autores_, &c.\n\n3. The inscription of that Book, is not only \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 but\nalso \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f31\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. Now _Philo_[182] elsewhere calleth the whole Nation\nof the _Jews_, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f31\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, which argueth, that those _Theoricks_\nwere _Jews_, not _Christians_.\n\n    [182] _Philo in Prin. lib. de legat. Caium._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIII.\n\n_Of the Gaulonit\u00e6, and the Herodians._\n\n\nOther Factions there were among the _Jews_, which are improperly\ntermed Sects. Of these there were principally two. First, _Gaulonit\u00e6_.\nSecondly, _Herodiani_. The _Gaulonit\u00e6_ had their names from\none _Judas_, who sometimes[183] was called _Judas Gaulonites_,\nsometimes[184] _Judas Galil\u00e6us_, of whom _Gamaliel_ speaketh, _Acts\n5. 37._ _After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the daies of the\ntribute._ The tribute here spoken of, was that made by _Cyrenius_,\nsometimes called _Quirinius_: the name in _Greek_ is one and the same,\nbut differently read by Expositors. This _Cyrenius_ was sent from\n_Rome_ by _Augustus_, into _Syria_, and from thence came into _Jud\u00e6a_,\nwhere _Coponius_ was _President_, and there he raised this Tax; which\ntaxation is unadvisedly by some confounded with that mentioned,\n_Luke 2. 1._ Both were raised under _Augustus_, but they differed.\nFirst, this was only of _Syria_ and _Jud\u00e6a_; that in Saint _Luke_ was\nuniversal, of the whole world. Secondly, this was, when _Archelaus_,\n_Herods_ son, was banished into _Vienna_, having reigned nine years;\nthat, under _Herod_ the Great: Whence there is an observable Emphasis,\nin that Saint _Luke_ saith, it was the _first_ taxing, having reference\nunto this _second_.\n\n    [183] _Joseph. Antiq. lib. 8. cap. 21._\n\n    [184] _Jos. l. 18, c. 21._\n\nThe occasion[185] of this Faction was thus: When _Cyrenius_ levied this\nTax, and seized upon _Archelaus_, _Herod_\u2019s sons goods; then arose this\n_Judas_ opposing this Tribute; and telling the people, that Tribute was\na manifest token of servitude, and that they ought to call none _Lord_,\nbut only him who was _Lord of Lords_, the God of heaven and earth.\nWhence those that adhered unto him were called _Gaulonit\u00e6_; they were\nalso called _Galileans_.[186] It was their blood that _Pilate_ mixed\nwith their sacrifices, _Luk. 13. 1._ For _Pilate_ had not authority\nover the Nation of the _Galileans_. The reason of this mixture is\nthought[187] to be, because the _Galileans_ forbad sacrifices to be\noffered for the _Roman Empire_, or for the safety of the _Emperour_;\nwhereupon, _Pilate_ being incensed with anger, slew them whilst they\nwere sacrificing.[188] To this faction belonged those murderers, termed\n\u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76, mentioned, _Acts 21. 18._\n\n    [185] _Joseph. loco superius citato._\n\n    [186] _Oecumenius. Act. 5. 37. Theophylact. Luc. 13. 1._\n\n    [187] _Theophylact. in Luc. 13._\n\n    [188] _Joseph. l. 7. de bello Judaic. cap. 28. p. 985._\n\nConcerning the _Herodians_, those that number them among _Hereticks_,\nmake the heresie to consist in two things: First, in that they took\n_Herod_ the Great for the promised _Messias_; because in his Reign,\nhe being a stranger, the _Scepter_ was departed from _Judah_; which\nwas the promised time of the _Messiah_ his coming. Secondly, they\nhonoured him with superstitious solemnities annually performed upon his\nBirth-days. Of _Herod_ his Birth-day the _Poet_ speaketh,\n\n    _---- ---- ---- Cum_\n    _Herodis venere dies, unctaque fenestra,_\n    _Disposit\u00e6 pinguem nebulam vomuere lucern\u00e6,_\n    _Portantes violas, rubrumque amplexa catinum,_\n    _Cauda natat thynni, tumet alta fidelia vino._\n\n                                   _Pers. Sat. 1._\n\nNow whether this latter may be referred to _Herod_ the Great, I much\ndoubt; because I find not any Author among the Ancients to speak of\n_Herod_ the Great his Birth-day: It was another _Herod_, _Tetrarch\nof Galilee_, otherwise called _Antipas_, whose Birth-day we read\ncelebrated, _Mark 6. 21._ The former point, that the _Herodians_\nreceived _Herod_ as their _Messiah_, though it hath many grave\nAuthors[189] avouching it, yet others[190] justly question the truth\nthereof; for if the _Herodians_ were _Jews_ (as most think) how then\ncould they imagine, that _Herod_, a stranger, could be the _Messiah_,\nseeing that it was so commonly preached by the _Prophets_, and known\nunto the People, that the _Messiah_, must be a _Jew_ born, of the Tribe\nof _Judah_, and of the house of _David_?\n\n    [189] _Epiph. h\u00e6res. 10. & Theophyl. Mat. 22. 16. & alii plures._\n\n    [190] _Hieron. Mat. 22. 17._\n\nOthers say,[191] that the _Herodians_ were certain flatterers in\n_Herod_ his Court, varying and changing many points of their Religion\nwith _Herod_ their King.\n\n    [191] _Theodor. Beza, Mat. 22. 16._\n\nTo omit many other conjectures utterly improbable, I incline to Saint\n_Hierom_, whose Opinion is,[192] that the _Herodians_ were those who\nstood stifly for tribute to be paid to _C\u00e6sar_. It concerned _Herod_,\nwho at first received his Crown from _C\u00e6sar_, to further _C\u00e6sar_\u2019s\ntribute, not only in way of thankfulness, but also in way of policy,\nto prevent a possible deposing or desceptring; for it was in _C\u00e6sar_\u2019s\npower to take away the Crown again when pleased him. Now, in respect\nthat _Herod_ saught to kill _Christ_, and the _Herodians_ with the\n_Pharisees_ took counsel against him; unto this our _Saviour_ might\nhave reference, saying, _Mar. 8. 15._ _Beware of the leaven of the\nPharisees, and of the leaven of ~Herod~._ Viz. _Of their contagious\nDoctrine, and fox-like subtleties._\n\n    [192] _Hieron. Mat. 22. 17._\n\n\n\n\nTHE SECOND BOOK TREATETH OF PLACES.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\n_Their Temple._\n\n\nWhen the _Israelites_ came out of _\u00c6gypt_, _Moses_ was commanded\nto build a _Tabernacle_ for the place of _Gods_ publick worship.\nAfterward, when they were settled in the promised Land, then _Solomon_\nwas commanded to build a _Temple_.\n\nThese two shadowed the difference between the _Jews Synagogue_, and the\n_Christian Church_. The _Tabernacle_ was moveable, and but for a time:\nThe _Temple_ fixed, and permanent: the state of the _Jews_ vanishing,\nto continue in their generations; the state of _Christians_ durable,\nto continue unto the worlds end. More principally it shadowed forth\nthe state of the _Church Militant_ here on earth, and _triumphant_\nin heaven: Unto both the _Prophet David_ alludeth; _Lord, Who shall\nsojourn in thy Tabernacle? who shall rest in thine holy Mountain?_\n_Psal. 15. 1._\n\nThere were in the same tract of ground three hills, _Sion_, _Moria_,\nand Mount _Calvary_. On _Sion_ was the City and Castle of _David_;\non _Moria_ was the _Temple_, and on Mount _Calvary_ _Christ_ was\ncrucified. But[193] all these three were generally called by the\nname of _Sion_; whence it is, that though the _Temple_ were built on\n_Moria_, yet the Scripture speaketh of it commonly, as if it were upon\nMount _Sion_.\n\n    [193] _Genebrard in Chron. lib. 1. Anno mundi 3146._\n\nIn their _Temple_ there are these three things considerable: First, the\n_Sanctum Sanctorum_, the _Holy of Holies_; answerable to our _Quire_\nin the _Cathedral Churches_. Secondly, the _Sanctum_, the _Sanctuary_;\nanswerable to the _Body_ of the _Church_. Thirdly, the _Atrium_, the\n_Court_; answerable to the _Church-yard_.\n\nIn the _Holy of Holies_ there were the Golden Censer, and the _Ark_ of\nthe _Testament_, _Heb. 9. 4._\n\nIn[194] the _Ark_ there were three things: First, the _pot of Manna_;\nsecondly, _Aaron_\u2019s _rod that budded_; thirdly, the _Tables of the\nTestament_, _Heb. 9. 4._ Thus they were in _Moses_ his time; but\nafterwards in the days of _Solomon_, onely the Tables of the Law were\nfound in the _Ark_, _1 King. 8. 9._\n\n    [194] _Sunt qui illud \u1f10\u03bd \u1f97 apud Apostolum, Heb. 9. 4. referunt\n    ad \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd ut dicunt in Tabernaculo secundo, quod appellent\n    Sanctum Sanctorum, fuisse urnam mann\u00e6 & virgam Aaronis, tabulam\n    f\u00e6deris videl. urnam, & virgam ante arcam: (ita Moses Kotsensis\n    210. 1.) tabulam autem in Arca._\n\nThe cover of this _Ark_ was called \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, the _Propitiatory_, or\n_Mercy-seat_, because it _covered_ and hid the Law, that it appeared\nnot before God to plead against man. It was a type of _Christ_, who\nlikewise is termed \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, our _Propitiation_, _Rom. 3. 25._ and\n\u1f35\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, _a Propitiatory_, _John 2. 2._ At each end of the _Mercy-seat_\nstood a golden _Cherub_, each _Cherub_ stretched forth his wings; and\nfrom between them, as from an _Oracle_, God gave his answer, _Exod.\n25. 22._ Hence it is, that the _Lord_ is said to sit between the\n_Cherubims_, _Ps. 99. 1._ The positure of the _Cherubims_ was such,\nthat their faces were each towards the other, but both looking down\ntowards the _Mercy-seat_; they fitly shadowed out the people of the\n_Jews_ and _Christians_, both looking toward each other, but both\nexpecting salvation in _Christ_ only.\n\nIn the _Sanctuary_, there was the _Incense-altar_ in the middle, and\nthe Table, with the twelve Loaves of Shew-bread on it on the one side,\nand the Candlestick on the other. The incense-altar was a type of our\nprayers, _Psal. 141. 2._ And that this altar must be once every year\nsprinkled with the blood of the Sacrifice by the _High-priest_, _Exod.\n30. 10._ It teacheth that our very prayers, except they be purified\nby the blood of _Christ_ they are unavailable before _God_. The\ntwelve loaves were a type of the twelve _Tribes_, and the Candlestick\na type of the Word of God. In them all, we may see the necessity of\nboth Ordinances required, _Prayer_ and _Preaching_, if we would be\npresented acceptable unto the _Lord_: The _Candlestick_ was a type of\n_Preaching_; _Incense_, of _Prayer_.\n\nIn _Moses_ his _Tabernacle_ there was but one _Table_, and one\n_Candlestick_: In _Solomon_\u2019s _Temple_ there were ten _Tables_, and\nten _Candlesticks_; as likewise in the _Court_ of the _Tabernacle_,\nthere was but one brazen Laver, in the _Court_ of the _Temple_ there\nwere ten, and another great Vessel wherein the _Priests_ washed: in\nthe _Tabernacle_ there were but _two silver Trumpets_; in the _Temple_\nthere were an _hundred and twenty Priests sounding Trumpets_.\n\nThe _Courts_ of the _Temple_ at the first were but two, _Atrium\nSacerdotum_, the _Priests Court_; and _Atrium populi_, the _Peoples\nCourt_.\n\nIn the _Priests Court_ were the brazen Altar for Sacrifices, and the\nLaver for the washing, both of the _Priests_ and the _Sacrifices_. The\n_Laver_, and the _Altar_ scituated in the same Court, signified the\nsame as the _water_ and _blood_ issued out of _Christ_\u2019s side; namely,\nthe necessary concurrence of these two Graces in all that shall be\nsaved, _sanctification_, _justification_; _sanctification_ intimated by\nthe _Laver_ and _blood_: _justification_ by the _Altar_ and _blood_.\n\nThe Court for the _Priests_, and the Court for the _people_ were\nseparated[195] each from other; by a wall of three Cubits high.\n\n    [195] _Joseph. l. 8. c. 13._\n\nThe Court for the _people_ was sometimes called the _outward Court_,\nsometimes the _Temple_, sometimes _Solomon_\u2019s _Porch_, because it\nwas built about with Porches, into which the people retired in rainy\nweather: It had _Solomon_\u2019s name, either to continue his memory, or\nbecause the Porches had some resemblance of that Porch which _Solomon_\nbuilt before the _Temple_, _1 King. 6. 3._ _Jesus walked in the Temple,\nin ~Solomon~\u2019s Porch_, _John 10. 23._ _All the people ran unto the\nPorch which was called ~Solomon~\u2019s_, _Acts 3. 11._ That is, this\n_outward Court_.\n\nIn the midst of the _peoples Court_, _Solomon_ made a brazen Scaffold\nfor the _King_, _2 Chron. 6. 13._\n\nThis _Court of the people_ went round about the _Temple_, and though\nit was one entire Court in the days of _Solomon_, yet afterward it was\ndivided by a low wall, so that the men stood in the inward part of it,\nand the women in the outward. This division is thought to have been\nmade in _Jehosaphat_\u2019s time, of whom we read, that he stood in the\nHouse of the _Lord_, before the _new Court_, _2 Chron. 20. 5._ that is,\nbefore the _Womens Court_.\n\nThere was an ascent of fifteen steps or stairs between the _womens\nCourt_ and the _mens_,[196] upon these steps the _Levites_ sung those\nfifteen Psalms immediately following the one hundredth nineteenth,\nupon each step one Psalm, whence those Psalms are entituled, _Psalmi\ngraduales_, _Songs of degrees_.\n\n    [196] _R. David Kimchi. Psal. 120._\n\nIn the _Womens Court_ stood their _Treasuries_, or _Alms-box_, as\nappeareth by the poor Widows casting her two Mites into it, _Luk. 21.\n1._ In _Hebrew_ it is termed \u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05df\u200f\u200e _Korban_, the _Chest of Oblation_;\nthe word signifieth barely, an _Oblation_, or _Offering_, and\naccordingly S. _Luk. 21. 4._ saith, they all of their superfluities\ncast _into the offerings_; that is into, the _Korban_, or _Chest of\nofferings_. In Greek it is termed \u03b3\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd whence cometh the\nLatine word, _Gazophylacium_, a _Treasury_. That set up by _Jehoiada_,\n_2 King. 12. 19._ seemeth to have been different from this, and to have\nbeen extraordinary, only for the repairing of the _Temple_; for that\nstood beside the _Altar_ in the _Priests Court_; and the _Priests_, not\nthe parties that brought the gifts, put it into the _Chest_. Sometimes\nthe whole _Court_ was termed _Gazophylacium_, a _Treasury_. These words\nspeak _Jesus_ in the _Treasury_, _John 8. 20._ It is worth our noting,\nthat the _Hebrew_ word \u200e\u200f\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Tsedaka_, signifying _Alms_, signifieth\nproperly _Justice_; and thereby is intimated, that the matter of our\nalms should be goods justly gotten: And to this purpose they called\ntheir _Alms-box_ \u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05d5\u05e4\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Kupha-Sehel-Tsedaka_, the _Chest of\nJustice_; and upon their _Alms-box_ they wrote[197] this abreviature\n\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u200f\u200e, _A gift in secret pacifieth anger_, _Prov. 21. 14._\n\n    [197] _Buxtorf. de abbrev. in \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u200f\u200e_\n\nIn _Herod_\u2019s _Temple_ there were[198] four _Porches_; the meaning is,\nfour _Courts_, one for the _Priests_, another for _men_, another for\n_women_, and a fourth _for such as were unclean by legal pollutions,\nand strangers_. This outmost _Court_ for the unclean and strangers, was\nseparated from the _womens Court_, with a stone wall of three Cubits\nhigh, which wall was adorned with certain pillars of equal distance,\nbearing this Inscription:[199] _Let no stranger enter into the holy\nplace_.\n\n    [198] _Iosep. l. 2. contra Apion. 1066._\n\n    [199] _\u039c\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. In locum\n    sanctum transire alienigena non debet. Joseph. de bel. Jud.\n    lib. 6. c. 6._\n\nThe _Temple_ at _Jerusalem_ was thrice built. First, by _Solomon_:\nSecondly, by _Zorobabel_: Thirdly, by _Herod_. The first was built in\nseven years, _1 King. 6. 37._ The second in forty six years: It was\nbegun in the second year of King _Cyrus_, _Ezra 3. 8._ It was finished\nin the ninth year of _Darius Hystaspis_.[200] The years rise thus;\n\n    _Cyrus reigned_                                    30 }\n    _Cambyses_                                         08 } Years.\n    _It was finished in the year of Darius Hystaspis_  09 }\n\nOne year deducted from _Cyrus_ his Reign, there remains 46.\n\n    [200] _Joseph. Antiq. lib. 11. c. 4._\n\n_Herod_\u2019s _Temple_ was finished in eight years.[201] It is greatly\nquestioned among _Divines_, of which _Temple_ that speech of the _Jews_\nis to be understood, _John 2. 20._ _Forty and six years was this Temple\nin building_. Many interpret it of the second _Temple_, saying, that\n_Herod_ did only repair that, not build a new: but these disagree among\nthemselves in the computation; and the Scripture speaketh peremptorily,\nthat the house was finished in the sixth year of the Reign of King\n_Darius_, _Ezra 6. 15._ and _Josephus_ speaketh of _Herod_\u2019s _building\na new Temple, plucking down the old_.[202] It seemeth therefore\nmore probable, that the speech is to be understood of _Herod_\u2019s\n_Temple_, which, though it were but eight years in building, yet, at\nthat time, when this speech was used, it had stood precisely _forty\nsix years_,[203] for so many years there are precisely between the\neighteenth year of _Herod_\u2019s Reign, (at which time the _Temple_ begun\nto be built) and the year of _Christ his baptisme_, when it is thought\nthat this was spoken; all which time the _Temple_ was more and more\nadorned, beautified, and perfected, in which respect it may be said to\nbe so long building.\n\n    [201] _Ioseph. Antiq. lib. 15 cap. ult._\n\n    [202] _Vide Hospini. de Orig. Templ. c. 3._\n\n    [203] _Vide supputationem Funccianam. an. 3747._\n\nThe ancient men are said to weep, when they beheld the second, because\nthe glory thereof was far short of _Solomon_\u2019s, _Ez. 3. 12._ It was\ninferiour to _Solomon_\u2019s _Temple_: First, in respect of the building,\nbecause it was lower and meaner.[204] Secondly, in respect of the\nVessels, being now of brass, which before were of pure gold. Thirdly,\nin respect of five things, lost and wanting in the second _Temple_,\nall which were in the first. First, there was wanting the _Ark of\nGod_.[205] Secondly, _Urim and Thummim_; _God_ gave no answer by these\ntwo, as in former times. Thirdly, _Fire_, which in the second _Temple_\nnever descended from heaven to consume their burnt offerings, as it\ndid in the first. Fourthly, the _Glory of God_ appearing between the\n_Cherubims_, this they termed \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05db\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Schecina_, the _habitation_,\nor _dwelling of God_, and hereunto the _Apostle_ alludeth, _In him\ndwelleth the Fulness of the Godhead bodily_, _Coloss. 2. 9._ _Bodily_;\nthat is, not in Clouds and Ceremonies, as between the _Cherubims_, but\n_essentially_. Lastly, the _Holy Ghost_; namely, enabling them for\nthe gift of _Prophecy_; for between _Malachy_ and _John the Baptist_,\nthere stood up no _Prophet_, but only they were instructed _per filiam\nvocis_, which they termed \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05ea \u05e7\u05d5\u05dc\u200f\u200e _Bath Kol_, an _Eccho from heaven_;\nand this was the reason why those Disciples, _Act. 19. 2._ said, _We\nhave not so much as heard whether there be an Holy Ghost_.\n\n    [204] _Hospinian. ex Talmudistis, de Orig. Templ. c. 3._\n\n    [205] _D. Kimchi in Hagg. 1. 8. Eadem scribit Rabbi Solomon ibid._\n\nHere it may be demanded, How that of the _Prophet Haggai_ is true;\n_The glory of this last house shall be greater then the first_, _Hag.\n2. 10._ I answer, _Herod_\u2019s _Temple_ which was built in the place of\nthis, was of statelier building than _Solomon_\u2019s, and it was of greater\nglory, because of _Christ_ his Preaching in it.\n\n_Herod_\u2019s _Temple_ was afterwards so set on fire by _Titus_ his\nsouldiers,[206] that it could not be quenched by the industry of man:\nat the same time[207] the _Temple_ at _Delphos_, being in chief request\namong the Heathen people, was utterly overthrown by earth-quakes and\nthunder-bolts from Heaven, and neither of them could ever since be\nrepaired. The concurrence of which two Miracles evidently sheweth,\nthat the time was then come, that God would put an end both to _Jewish\nCeremonies_, and _Heathenish Idolatry_; that the Kingdom of his son\nmight be the better established.\n\n    [206] _Genebrard. Chro. l. 2. anno Christi 69._\n\n    [207] _Theodoret. l. 3. c. 11. Sozomenus, l. 5. c. 19. 20, 21._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\n_Their Synagogues, Schools, and Houses of Prayer._\n\n\nThe word _Synagogue_ is from the Greek, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9 to _gather-together_;\nand it is applyed to all things whereof there may be a _collection_, as\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f74 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _copia lactis_, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f74 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf; _collectio qu\u00e6\nsunt ad bellum necessaria_. God standeth in _Synagoga Deorum_, _the\nAssembly of Judges_: but _Synagogues_ are commonly taken for houses\ndedicated to the worship of God, wherein it was lawful to _pray_,\n_preach_, and _dispute_, but _not to sacrifice_. In _Hebrew_ it was\ncalled, \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05db\u05e0\u05e1\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Beth Hacneseth_, the _House of Assembly_. The\n_Temple at Jerusalem_ was the _Cathedral Church_; the _Synagogues_, as\npetty _Parish Churches_ belonging thereunto.\n\nConcerning the time when _Synagogues_ began, it is hard to determine.\nIt is probable that they began when the Tribes were settled in the\npromised Land. The _Temple_ being then too far distant from those which\ndwelt in remote places, it is likely that they repaired unto certain\n_Synagogues_ instead of the _Temple_. That they were in _David_\u2019s time\nappeareth; _They have burnt all the Synagogues of God in the land_,\n_Psal. 74. 8._ And _Moses_ of old time had in every City, them that\npreached him, being read in the _Synagogues_ every Sabbath day, _Act.\n15. 21._\n\nIn _Jerusalem_ there were[208] four hundred eighty _Synagogues_,\nbesides the _Temple_; partly for _Jews_, partly for _strangers_: one\nfor strangers was called the _Synagogue of the Libertines_, _Act. 6.\n9._ Whence it had that name, whether from the _Roman Libertines_, such\nas had served for their freedom, being opposite to the _Ingenui_,\nthose that were free-born; (for many of those _Libertines_ became\n_Proselites_, and had their _Synagogues_[209]) or whether it were from\n_Lubar_,[210] signifying an _high-place_; (for as their _Temple_,\nso their _Synagogues_ and _Schools_ were built on _hills_ and\n_high-places_) because it is said, _Prov. 1. 21._ _Wisdome calleth in\nhigh-places_: I leave to the judgment of the Reader.\n\n    [208] _Sigonius de rep. Hebr. l. 2. cap. 8._\n\n    [209] _Philo in legat. ad Caium._\n\nOut of _Jerusalem_, in other Cities and Provinces, were many\n_Synagogues_: there were _Synagogues_ in _Galilee_, _Mat. 4. 23._\n_Synagogues_ in _Damascus_, _Acts 9. 2._ _Synagogues_ at _Salamis_,\n_Act. 13. 5._ _Synagogues_ at _Antiochia_, _Acts 13. 14._ Yea, their\ntradition is that[211] _Wheresoever ten men of ~Israel~ were, there\nought to be built a Synagogue_.\n\n    [210] _Vide Tremel. Acts 6. 9._\n\n    [211] _Maimon. in Tephilla. c. 11. Sect. 1._\n\nTheir _Synagogues_ had[212] many Inscriptions; _over the gate_ was\nwritten that of the _Psal. 118. 20._ _This is the gate of the Lord, the\nrighteous shall enter into it._ In the _walls_, these and the like\nsentences; _Remember thy Creator, & enter into the house of the Lord\nthy God in humility_. And _prayer without attention is like a body is\nlike a body without a soul_. And _silence is commendable in time of\nprayer_.\n\n    [212] _Buxtorf. de abbreviatur. pag. 23. 81. 174._\n\nAs the _Courts_ of the people before the _Temple_ were distinguished\nby a wall into two rooms, the one for men, the other for women: so in\nthe _Synagogues_, the women were separated from the men,[213] by a\npartition of Lattice, or wire-work.\n\n    [213] _Talmud in tract. Suta cap. ult. vi. Buxtorf. Synag. c.\n    9. p. 240._\n\nIn the _Synagogues_ the Scribes ordinarily taught, but not only they,\nfor _Christ_ himself taught in them, _&c._ He that gave liberty to\npreach there, was termed \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ce\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. _The Ruler of the Synagogue._\nThere was also a _Minister_ who gave the book unto the _Preacher_,\nand received it again, after the Text had been read. _Christ closed\nthe book, and gave it again unto the Minister_, _Luke 4. 20._ This\nis probably he, whom they called \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d7 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Sheliach Tsibbur_, the\n_Minister_ or _Clerk_ of the _Synagogue_.\n\nTheir _Schools_ were different from their _Synagogues_. _Paul_ having\ndisputed for the space of three months in the _Synagogue_, because\ndivers believed not, but spake evil of that way, he departed from them,\nand separated his Disciples, disputing daily in the _School_ of one\n_Tyrannus_; _Act. 19. 8, 9, 10._\n\nTheir School sometimes is called \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Beth_, an _house_, simply, as\nappeareth by that saying;[214] _Octodecim res de quibus contentio fuit\ninter domum Sammai, & domum Hillel, ne Elias quidem abolere posset_.\nThose 18 matters controverted between the _house_ of _Sammai_, and\nthe _house_ of _Hillel_, _Elias_ himself could not decide; that is,\nbetween their two _Schools_. Sometime it is called \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05d3\u05e8\u05e9\u200f\u200e _Beth\nHammidrasch_, an house of subtle and acute exposition. Here points\nwere more exactly and punctually discussed, than in the _Synagogue_, or\n_Temple_; whence they held it a profounder place for exposition, than\nthe Temple: To this purpose tend those sayings,[215] _They might turn\na Synagogue into a School, but not a School into a Synagogue, for the\nsanctity of a School is beyond the sanctity of a Synagogue_. And that\ngroweth from _Vertue to vertue_, _Psa. 84. 7._ they interpret[216] a\nkind of _promotion_, or _degree_, in removing _from their Temple to\ntheir School_. In their _Temple_, their Sermons were, as it were, _Ad\npopulum_; in their Schools, _Ad Clerum_.\n\n    [214] _Drusius de tribus sect. l. 2. c. 10._\n\n    [215] _Maimon. Tephilla. c. 11. Sect. 14._\n\n    [216] _Paraphrast. Chal. in hunc locum._\n\nAs they had _Synagogues_, so likewise _Schools_, in every City and\nProvince; and these were built also upon hills. There is mention of the\nhill _Moreb_, _Judg. 7. 1._ that is, _the hill of the Teacher_.\n\nThe _Masters_ when they taught their Scholars, were said to _give_:\n_Give unto the wise, and he will be wiser_, _Prov. 9. 9._\n\nThe _Scholars_ when they learned any thing, were said to _receive it_:\n_Hear my Son, and receive my words_, _Prov. 4. 10._ Hence is that of\nthe Apostle: _This is a true saying, and by all means worthy to be\nreceived_, _1 Tim. 1. 15._ that is, _learned_. The like phrase of\nspeech are in use among the _Latines_.[217]\n\n    [217] _Da, si grave non est. Hor. l. 2. Satyr. 8. Sed tamen\n    iste Deus qui sit, da Tytere nobis Virg. Bucol. Accipe nunc\n    Danaum insidias. Virg. \u00c6neid l. 2._\n\nWhether their _Oratories_ or places of prayer called _Proseuch\u00e6_, were\ndifferent places from their _Schools_, or _Synagogues_, I have not\nyet learned. That some of these were without the City, that proveth\nnothing, for so might _Synagogues_ and _Schools_ too. _Epiphanius_\ntreateth of those _Oratories_,[218] but there he speaketh not one word\nto shew the lawfulness of civil businesses to be done in them: could\nthat be proved, a difference would easily be shewn. Some say[219] they\nwere _Synagogues_, others[220] _Schools_. Of this _house of prayer_,\nmention is made, _Acts 16. 13._ in which S. _Paul_ sate down and spake\nunto the woman: which gesture intimateth rather preaching than praying:\ntrue, all gesture was in use for prayer; standing, kneeling, sitting:\n_Abraham stood before the Lord_, _Gen. 18. 22._ that is, _he prayed_.\n_The Publican stood afar off and prayed_, _Luke 18. 13._ Whence by way\nof Proverb they say,[221] _Sine stationibus non subsisteret mundus_;\nWere it not for standing, the World could not stand, _Stephen kneeled_,\n_Acts 7. 60._ _David_ sate before the _Lord_, and said, _2 Sam. 7. 18._\nYet _sitting_, when the _speech_ is to the _people_, not to the _Lord_,\nimplieth _preaching_, not _prayer_. It is probable, that as at the\ngate of the _Temple_, so at the gate of these _Oratories_, the poorer\nsort of people assembled to expect alms: Whence some use the word[222]\n_Proseucha_, to signifie an _Hospital_.\n\n    [218] _Epiphan. Tom. 2. l. 3. c. 80._\n\n    [219] _Beza. Act. 16. 13._\n\n    [220] _Philo Jud. de vita Mosis, p. 530._\n\n    [221] _R. Juda. in lib. Musar. vide Drus. pr\u00e6s. Matth. 6. 5._\n\n    [222] _Qua te qu\u00e6ro Proseucha? Juven. Sat. 3._\n\nThe[223] _Talmudists_ taxed the peoples negligence in prayer, saying\nthey used three sorts of _Amen_, and all faulty. _A faint Amen_, when\nthey prayed without fervency. _A hasty Amen_, when they said _Amen_,\nbefore the prayer was done. _A lazy Amen_, when they pronounced it at\nlength, as if they were asleep, dividing the word _A-men_. The first\nthey termed \u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05de\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Jethoma_, _pupillum_. The second \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05d8\u05d5\u05e4\u05d4\u200f\u200e\n_Chetupah_, _Surreptitium_. The third, \u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05d8\u05d5\u05e2\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Ketugna_, _Sectile_,\n_quasi in duas partes sectum per oscitantiam_.\n\n    [223] _Caninius de locis N. Testam. cap. 5. p. 38._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n_Of the Gates of Jerusalem._\n\n\nThe gates of the whole circuit of the[224] wall about _Jerusalem_\nwere nine: The _Sheep-gate_, _Neh. 3. 1._ This was near the _Temple_,\nand thorow it were led the _Sheep_ which were to be sacrificed,\nbeing washed in the Pool _Bethsada_ near the gate: _The Fish-gate_\n_Nehem. 3. 3._ before this _Judas_ is thought to have hanged himself.\nSome[225] think that these two Gates, and likewise the _Horse gate_,\n_Nehem. 3. 28._ were so called, because they were in manner of three\nseveral _Market places_, and at the one Gate, _Sheep_, at the other,\n_Fish_, and at the third, _Horses_ were sold. The _Old gate_ was so\ncalled, because it was supposed to have remained from the time of\nthe _Jebusites_, and not to have been destroyed by the _Assyrians_;\nit was near _Calvary_, and without this Gate _Christ_ was crucified.\nConcerning the other Gates little is spoken.\n\n    [224] _Scheindler pentaglot._\n\n    [225] _Stukius conviv. l. 2. c. 11._\n\nTouching the Gates of the _Temple_, there were[226] two of principal\nnote, both built by _Solomon_, the one for those that were new married,\nthe other for mourners and excommunicate persons. The mourners\nwere distinguished from the excommunicate persons, by having their\nlips covered with a skirt of their garment; none entered that gate\nwith their lip uncovered, but such as were excommunicate. Now the\n_Israelites_ which one the _Sabbath_ days sate between those Gates\nsaid unto the _new married_: _He, whose Name dwelleth in this house,\nglad thee with children_. Unto the mourner, _He, which dwelleth in\nthis house, glad and comfort thee_. Unto the excommunicate, _He, which\ndwelleth in this house, move thy heart to harken to the words of thy\nfellows_.\n\n    [226] _R. Juda in l. Musar. vid. Dru. pr\u00e6terit. Joan. 9. 22._\n\nAmong the _Jews_, the gates were places of chiefest _strength_, so that\nthey being taken or defended, the whole City was taken, or defended:\nand they were chief places of _Jurisdiction_, for in them _Judges_\nwere wont to sit, and to decide controversies. Hence proceeded those\nphrases: _The gates of Hell shall not prevail against thee_, &c. And,\n_Thy seed shall possess the gates of his Enemies_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n_Of their Groves, and high Places._\n\n\nThe ancient _Heathens_ did not only not build _Temples_,[227] but they\nheld it utterly unlawful so to do. The reason of this might be, because\nthey thought no _Temple_ spacious enough for the _Sun_, which was their\nchief God. Hence came that saying,[228] _Mundus universus est Templum\nSolis_; _The whole world is a Temple for the Sun_. Moreover, they\nthought it unfit to straiten, and confine the supposed Infiniteness of\ntheir fancied _Deities_ within walls; and therefore when after-times\nhad brought in the use of _Temples_, yet their _God Terminus_, and\ndivers others of their _Gods_ were worshipped in _Temples_ open roofed,\nwhich were therefore called \u1f55\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1. This I take to be the reason why\nthey made choice of _Hills_ and _Mountains_, as the convenientest\nplaces for their Idols. These _consecrated Hills_, are those _high\nplaces_ which the _Scripture_ so often forbids. Afterwards, as the\nnumber of their _Gods_ encreased; so the number of their _consecrated\nhills_ was multiplied, from which their _Gods_ and _Goddesses_ took\ntheir names; as _Mercurius Cyllenius_, _Venus Erycina_, _Jupiter\nCapitolinus_. At length to beautifie these _holy hills_, the places of\ntheir idolatrous worship they beset them with trees, and hence came\nthe _consecration of Groves, and Woods_, from which their Idols many\ntimes were named.[229] At last some choice and select Trees began to\nbe _consecrated_.[230] Those _French Magi_, termed _Dryad\u00e6_, worshipped\nthe _Oak_, in _Greek_ termed \u0394\u03c1\u1fe6\u03c2, and thence had their names. The\n_Etrurians_ worshipped an _Holm-tree_; and[231] amongst the _Celt\u00e6_, a\n_tall Oak_ was the very Idol or Image of _Jupiter_.\n\n    [227] _Hospin. de Ori. Templ. pag. 1._\n\n    [228] _Alex ab Alex. lib. 2. cap. 2._\n\n    [229] _Populus Alcid\u00e6 gratissima, vitis Iaccho. Formos\u00e6 myrtus\n    Veneri, sua Laurea Ph\u0153bo Virg. Eclog. 7._\n\n    [230] _Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 16. c. 44._\n\n    [231] _Maximus Tyrius, Ser. 38. fol. 225. edit. Steph._\n\nAmong the _Israelites_, the Idolatry began under the Judges, _Othniel_\nand _Ehud_, _Judg. 3. 7._ and at the last it became so common in\n_Israel_, that they had peculiar _Priests_, whom they termed _Prophets\nof the Grove_, _1 King. 18. 19._ and _Idols_ of the _Grove_; that is,\n_peculiar Idols_, unto whom their _Groves_ were _consecrated_, _2 King.\n21. 7._ _2 Chron. 15. 16._ As Christians in the consecration of their\n_Churches_, make special choice of some peculiar Saints, by whose name\nthey call them, as Saint _Peter\u2019s Church_, S. _Paul_\u2019s, S. _Andrews_,\n&c. So they consecrated their _Groves_ unto particular _Idols_; whence\nin prophane Authors we read of _Diana Nemorensis_, _Diana Arduenna_,\n_Albunea Dea_; all receiving their names from the _Groves_ in which\nthey were worshipped: yea, the _Idol_ it self is sometimes called by\nthe name of a _Grove_: _~Josiah~ brought out the Grove from the House\nof the Lord_, _2 King. 23. 6._ It is probable, that in this Idol was\npourtraited the form and similitude of a _Grove_, and thence it was\ncalled a _Grove_, as those silver similitudes of _Diana_\u2019s _Temple_\nmade by _Demetrius_, were termed _Temples of Diana_, _Acts 19. 24._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\n_The Cities of Refuge._\n\n\nThese places of _Refuge_, appointed by God, differed from those of\n_Hercules_, and _Romulus_, and other _Heathens_; because God allowed\nsafety only to those, who were guiltless in respect of their intention:\nbut the others were common Sanctuaries, as well for the guilty as the\nguiltless. If any man did fortuitously or by chance kill another man,\nin such a case liberty was granted unto the offender to fly; at first,\nunto the _Altar_ for refuge, as is implied by that text of Scripture,\n_If any man come presumptuously unto his Neighbour, to slay him with\nguile, thou shalt take him from mine Altar_, _Exod. 21. 14._ Yea,\nwe may conjecture this custome of refuge to have continued in force\nalways, by the practice of _Joab_, _1 King. 2. 28._ Notwithstanding,\nlest the Altar might be too far distant from the place where the fact\nmight be committed, it is probable that therefore God ordained certain\n_Asyla_, or _Cities of Refuge_, which for the same reason are thought\nto have been[232] equally distant one from the other in _Canaan_:\nThe Cities were in number six; _Bezer_ of the _Reubenites_ Country,\n_Ramoth_ of _Gilead_, in the _Gadites_, and _Golan_ in _Bashan_, of the\n_Manassites_: these three _Moses_ separated beyond _Jordan_, _Deut.\n4. 41, 43._ The other three, appointed by _Joshua_ in the Land of\n_Canaan_, were _Cadesh_ in _Galilee_ in Mount _Naphthali_; _Schechem_\nin _Ephraim_, and _Kiratharba_ (which is _Hebron_) in the Mountain of\n_Judah_, _Josh. 20. 7._ There are other Cities of like nature: _God_\npromised the _Israelites_, upon condition of their obedience, after\ntheir Coasts were inlarged; but it seemeth that disobedience hindred\nthe accomplishment thereof, for the Scripture mentioneth not the\nfulfilling of it.\n\n    [232] _Rab. Salom. Iarchi. Deut. 19._\n\nConcerning these Cities, the _Hebrews_ note from these words,\n_Thou shalt prepare the way_, _Deut. 9. 3._ That the _Senate_, or\n_Magistrate_ in _Israel_, were bound to prepare the ways to the _Cities\nof Refuge_, and[233] to make them fit, and broad, and to remove out\nof them all stumbling-blocks and obstacles: and they suffered not any\nHill or Dale to be in the way, nor water-streams, but they made a\nBridge over it, that nothing might hinder him that fled thither. And\nthe breadth of the way to the _Cities of Refuge_, was not less than\ntwo and thirty Cubits, and at the partitions of the ways, they set up\nin writing, _Refuge, Refuge_: that the man-slayer might know and turn\nthitherward. On the fifteenth of the moneth _Adar_, or _February_,\nevery year the _Magistrates_ sent messengers to prepare the ways.\n\n    [233] _Maimon. in Rotsach. cap. 8. sect. 5._\n\nFurthermore it was provided, that two or three wise men should be\nimployed, to perswade the _Avenger of blood_, if haply he did pursue\nthe man-slayer on the way, that he should offer no violence, until the\nCause were heard and examined. The manner of examination was thus; The\nConsistory or Bench of _Justices_, who lived in that quarter where the\nmurder was committed,[234] placed the party being brought back from\nthe _City of Refuge_, in the Court, or Judgment-Hall, and diligently\nenquired and examined the cause, who if he were found guilty of\nvoluntary murder, then was he punished with death, but if otherwise\nthe Fact were found casual, then did they safely conduct the party\nback again to the _City of Refuge_, where he enjoyed his liberty, not\nonly within the walls of the City, but within certain Territories and\nbounds of the City, being confined to such and such limits, until the\ndeath of the _High Priest_, that was in those days, at what time it\nwas lawful for the offender to return and come into his own City, and\nunto his own house, even unto the City from whence he fled, _Josh. 20.\n6._ By this means the offender, though he was not punished with death,\nyet he lived for the time a kind of exile, for his own humiliation,\nand for the abatement of his wrath, who was the _avenger of blood_.\nThe _Areopagit\u00e6_[235] had a proceeding against mans slaughter not much\nunlike, punishing the offender \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7, with a _years banishment_:\nWhy the time of this exilement was limited to the death of the _High\nPriest_ at that time, is not agreed upon by Expositors. But it is most\nprobably thought, that the offender was therefore confined within that\nCity as within a Prison, during the _High Priest_\u2019s life,[236] because\nthe offence did most directly strike against him, as being amongst men,\n\u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, _Ac princeps sanctitatis_, _The chief God on earth_.\n\n    [234] _Paul. Fag. Num. 35. 6._\n\n    [235] _Masius in Jos. cap. 20._\n\n    [236] _Masius ibid._\n\n\n\n\nTHE THIRD BOOK TREATETH OF DAIES and TIMES.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\n_Days, Hours, Weeks, and Years._\n\n\nBefore we treat of their Feasts, it will be needful, by way of Preface,\nto understand somewhat concerning the divisions of their _Days_,\n_Hours_, _Weeks_, &c.\n\nTheir _Day_ was two-fold; _Natural_, containing _day_ and _night_, and\nconsisting of 24 hours; or _Artificial_, beginning at _Sun-rising_ and\nending at _Sun-set_. Of this is that, _Are there not twelve hours in\nthe day?_ _John 11. 9._\n\nThe _Natural day_ was again two-fold: _Civil_, _a working-day_,\nwhich was destined for civil businesses and works: this began at\n_Sun-rising_, and held till the next _Sun-rising_, _Mat. 28. 1._ or\n_Sacred_, a Festival or Holy-day, destined for holy exercises: this\nbegan at _Sun-set_, and continued till the next _Sun-set_.\n\nTheir night was divided into four _quarters_, or _greater hours_,\ntermed four _Watches_, each _Watch_ containing three _lesser hours_.\nThe first they called _Caput vigiliarum_, the beginning of the watches,\n_Lam. 2. 19._ the second was the middle watch, _Judg. 7. 19._ not so\ntermed, because there were only three _watches_, as _Drusius_[237]\nwould perswade, but because it dured till _midnight_. The _third\nwatch_, began at _midnight_, and held till three of the clock in the\nmorning. If he come in the _second_, or _third watch_, _Luk. 12. 38._\nThe _last_, called the _morning watch_, _Exod. 14. 24._ began at three\nof the clock, and ended at six in the morning. In the _fourth watch_ of\nthe night, _Jesus_ went out unto them, _Mat. 14. 25._ These _Watches_\nalso were called by other names, according to that part of the night\nwhich closed each watch. The _first_ was termed \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72, the _even_.\nThe _second_, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd _Midnight_. The _third_ \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1,\n_Cock-crowing_. The _fourth_ \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u1fd2, the _Dawning_. _Ye know not when\nthe Master of the house will come, at Even, or at Midnight, or at\nCock-crowing, or at the Dawning_, _Mark 13. 35._\n\n    [237] _Drus. Judic. 7. 19._\n\nThe day was likewise divided into four _quarters_, as appeareth by the\nParable of the Labourers hired into the Vineyard, _Mat. 20._ The _first\nquarter_ began at six of the clock in the morning, and held till nine.\nThe _second quarter_ ended at twelve of the clock. The _third quarter_\nat three in the after-noon. The _fourth quarter_ at six of the night.\nThe first _quarter_ was called the _third hour_, _vers. 3._ The second\n_quarter_, the _sixth hour_, _vers. 5._ The third _quarter_, the _ninth\nhour_, _vers. 5._ The last _quarter_, the _eleventh hour_, _vers. 6._\n\nWhere note, that the three first quarters had their names from the\nhour of the day, which closed the quarter (for they began their count\nof their lesser hours, from six a clock in the morning, and our 6,\n7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. was their 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,\n8, 9, 10, 11, 12.) only the last was called the _eleventh hour_, by\nour _Saviour Christ_; whereas among the common people, it either was\ncalled, or should have been called, by proportion with the rest, the\n_twelfth hour_; to intimate unto us, that though _God_ in his mercy\naccept _labourers_ into his Vineyard _eleven hours_ of the day, yet he\nseldome calleth any of the _twelfth_; for that is rather an hour to\ndischarge servants, than to admit new.\n\nSome Expositors finding mention of the dawning of the day, in this\nParable, _vers. 1._[238] They reckon the 4 _quarters_ of the day after\nthis manner. _Hora prima_, _Hora tertia_, _Hora sexta_, _Hora nona_.\nWhere first they err, in taking the _dawning_ of the day for the _first\nhour_ of the day; for \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u1f76 the _dawning_, signifieth the _last quarter\nof the night_, called the _Morning watch_. Secondly, they err in making\nthe _last quarter of the day_ to be the _ninth hour_, for what then\nshall become of the _eleventh hour_, mentioned in the same Parable?\n\n    [238] _Erat autem primus ternarius \u00e0 prima usq; ad tertiam, &\n    dicebatur prima hora, secundus erat \u00e0 tertia, usq; ad sextam\n    & dicebatur hora tertia, tertius erat \u00e0 sexta usq; ad nonam,\n    & dicebatur sexta; quartus \u00e0 nona usq; ad ultimam qu\u00e6 erat\n    duodecima, & dicebatur nona. Refellit hanc opinionem Toletus,\n    receptam licet \u00e0 multis recensionem (ut ipse ait) quoniam de\n    undecima cujus meminit parabola, altum apud hos silentium.\n    Jure vapulant \u00e0 te, Tolete, qui excludunt undecimam constanter\n    tamen asserenda est contra te quadripartita diei divisio, in\n    hoc potissimum illorum error consistit, quod horam primam\n    faciunt, non inveniunt; horam undecimam inveniunt excludunt\n    tamen, nihil \u00e0 mente Evangelistarum magis alienum, quam ut \u1f41\n    \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03b9\u1f74 verteretur hora prima diei, qu\u00e6 in illorum scriptis sonat\n    quartam noctis vigiliam. Vid. Tolet. in Joan. cap. 19. Annot.\n    8._\n\nBy this division of the day into these four _quarters_, or _greater\nhours_, the _Evangelists_ are reconciled touching our _Saviour_\u2019s\nPassion. He was crucified at the third hour, _Mark 15. 25._ S. _John_\nintimateth his examination before _Pilate_, to have been _Hora quasi\nsexta_, _about the sixth hour_, _John 19. 14._ In the first place,\nunderstand by his crucifying, not _his hanging on the Cross_, which was\nnot till the _sixth hour_, _Luk. 23. 44._ nor his _expiration_, which\nwas not till the _ninth hour_, _Mar. 15. 34._ but his _examination_\nunder _Pilate_, at which time the people cried out, _Crucifie him,\nCrucifie him_; and then the third and sixth hour will easily be\nreconciled, for these two hours immediately following one another, what\nwas done on the third hour, might truly be said to be done about the\nsixth.\n\nLastly, This sheweth that the hours among the _Jews_ were of two sorts;\nsome lesser, of which the day contained twelve: others _greater_, of\nwhich the day contained four, as hath been above shewn: the lesser\nare termed _hours of the day_, _Are there not twelve hours of the\nday?_ _John 11. 9._ The greater, some term _hours of the Temple_, or\n_hours of prayer_. _Peter_ and _John_ went up into the _Temple_, at\nthe _ninth hour of prayer_, _Acts 3. 1._ But in truth there are but\nthree hours of prayer, the _third_, the _sixth_, and the _ninth_.[239]\nThe _third_ instituted by _Abraham_, the _sixth_ by _Isaac_, and the\n_ninth_ by _Jacob_. The _third hour_ the _Holy Gost_ descended upon\nthe _Apostles_, _Acts 2. 15._ About the _sixth_ _Peter_ went up to the\nhouse-top to pray, _Acts 10. 9._ At the _ninth_, _Peter_ and _John_\nwent into the _Temple_, _Acts 3. 1._\n\n    [239] _Drusius in pr\u00e6terit. Act. 3. 1. Non fuisse ultra tres\n    horas precationis in die apud Jud\u00e6os, clare testatur David\n    Kimchi._\n\nFrom these greater hours of the day and night, the _Canonical\nhours_,[240] in use in the _Roman Church_, had their beginning; each\n_Canonical_ hour containeth three lesser hours, so that in the whole\nnight and day there are eight _Canonical hours_. At six of the clock in\nthe evening began the first, and that is termed _Hora vespertina_; or\n_vespertinum_ simply, (_officium_ being understood) their _Vespertine_.\nAt nine of the clock at night began the second, and that is termed\n_Completorium_, their _Completory_. At midnight began the third,\n_Nocturnum_, their _Nocturn_. At three of the clock in the morning,\nbegan their _Matutinum_, their _Matines_. The Canonical hours for their\nday-service were named, _Hora prima_, _tertia_, _sexta_, _nona_. Their\nfirst hour began from six of the clock in the morning, and held till\nnine: the third from nine till twelve, the sixth from twelve till\nthree, the ninth from three till six at night.\n\n    [240] _Vide Bellarm. de bonis oper. in part. 1. cap. 10._\n\nThe Dial in use among the ancient _Jews_, differed from that in use\namong us: theirs were a kind of stairs; the time of the day was\ndistinguished, _not by lines_, but by _steps_, or _degrees_; the shade\nof the Sun every half hour moved forward to a new _degree_. In the\nDial of _Ahaz_, the _Sun_ went back \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Magnoloth_, _degrees_, or\n_steps_, not _lines_, _Isai. 38. 8._\n\nTheir weeks were two-fold; the one was _ordinary_ consisting of _seven\ndaies_, the other _extraordinary_ and _Prophetical_, consisting of\n_seven years_. _Dan. 9. 24._ The first is termed _Hebdomas diaria_, _a\nweek of daies_; the second, _Hebdomas annalis_, _a week of years_.\n\nThe _Hebrews_ at first measured their moneths according to the course\nof the _Sun_, whence they are called _Menses solares_; and then every\nmoneth consisted of thirty daies. The waters prevailed from the\nseventeenth day of the second moneth, _Gen. 17. 13._ unto the seventh\nday of the seven moneth, _Gen. 8. 4._ that is, full five moneths. If we\nwill number the daies, they were an hundred and fifty, _Gen. 7. 24._\nWhereby it appeareth, that every moneth contained full thirty daies.\nAfter the _Israelites_ departure out of _Egypt_, then they measured\ntheir moneths by the course of the Moon; they are termed _Menses\nLunares_: they contained either thirty daies, and then they were called\n_Menses pleni_, _full moneths_: or twenty nine daies, and then they\nwere called _Menses cavi_, _Deficient Moneths_.\n\nThe _Sun_ exceedeth the _Moon_ in her course eleven daies, hence[241]\nevery third or second year, one month was inserted. Now because the\ntwelfth moneth in the _Hebrew Kalender_ was called _Adar_, hence when a\nmonth was inserted, the last was called _Ve-adar_,the second _Adar_.\n\n    [241] _Vide Kalendarium Hebraicum Munsteri pag. 62._\n\nBefore their captivity in _Babylon_, they counted their moneths without\nany name, according to the number. The _First, Second, Third moneth,\n&c._ After their return from _Babylon_, they called them by these names:\n\n    1. _Nisan_; it was also called              |   | 1 { March.\n    \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d1\u200f\u200e _Abib_, which signifieth              |   |   { April.\n    an _ear of Corn_. in this month             |   |\n    Barley began to be _eared_.                 |   |\n                                                |   |\n    2. _Iiar_, it was also called               | T | 2 { April.\n    \u200e\u200f\u05d6\u05d9\u05d5\u200f\u200e which signifieth _beauty_:             | h |   { May.\n    then the Trees began to be                  | e |\n    _beautified_ with Buds and                  | y |\n    Blossoms.                                   |   |\n                                                | a |\n    3. _Sivan._                                 | n | 3 { May.\n                                                | s |   { June.\n                                                | w |\n    4. _Thamuz._                                | e | 4 { June.\n                                                | r |   { July.\n                                                | e |\n    5. _Ab._                                    | d | 5 { July.\n                                                |   |   { August.\n                                                |   |\n    6. _Elul._                                  | t | 6 { August.\n                                                | o |   { September.\n                                                |   |\n    7. _Tisri_, otherwise called                | p | 7 { September.\n    _Ethanim_.                                  | a |   { October.\n                                                | r |\n    8. _Marchesuan_, it was called              | t | 8 { October.\n    _Bull_.                                     |   |   { November.\n                                                | o |\n    9. _Chisleu._                               | f | 9 { November.\n                                                |   |   { December.\n                                                |   |\n    10. _Tebeth._                               |   | 10 { December.\n                                                |   |    { January.\n                                                |   |\n    11. _Shebeth._                              |   | 11 { January.\n                                                |   |    { February.\n                                                |   |\n    12. _Adar._                                 |   | 12 { February.\n        _Ve-adar._                              |   |    { March.\n\nBefore their coming out of _Egypt_, they began their year in the moneth\nof _Tisri_,[242] and thus they continued it always after, for civil\naffairs, for their date of buying, selling, their _Sabbatical years_,\nyears of _Jubile_, _&c._ After their coming out of _Egypt_, they\nbegan their year in the moneth _Nisan_, and so continued it for the\ncomputation of their greatest Feasts.\n\n    [242] _\u1f18\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 \u0394\u1f76\u1ff3 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3\n    \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n    \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. \u039c\u03c9\u03c5\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039d\u03b9\u03c3\u1f70\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, \u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u03b1\n    \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd. Joseph. Antiq. l. 1. c. 4.\n    Mendose ponitur \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 pro \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u1f70\u03bd qui mensis erat olim\n    secundus apud Hebr\u00e6os, sicut et Dius apud Macedones._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\n_Of their Feasts._\n\n\nBefore we descend to their particular _Feasts_; First we will see\ntheir manner of Feasting in general. Their ordinary meals, as they\nwere not many in a day, so neither were they costly. They were called\n_Arucoth_,[243] which word signifieth properly, such fare as Travellers\nand Way-faring men use on their journeys. The word is used, _Jer. 40.\n5._ _So the chief Steward gave him victuals, and a reward, and let him\ngo._ Likewise, _Pro. 15. 17._ _Better is a dinner of green herbs where\nlove is_. The extroardinary and more liberal kind of entertainment,\nby way of Feasting, was commonly called _Mischte_,[244] from their\nliberal drinking at such meetings. There was also another kind of\nfeasting, wherein they made merry together, eating the remainders of\ntheir Sacrifices; this they termed _Chag_.[245] From this custom of\nhaving a feast at the end of their Sacrifices, the _Christians_ of\nthe _Primitive Church_ instituted their _Love-feasts_ to succeed the\n_Lords Supper_:[246] In both these greater and more solemn _Feasts_,\nthere were some Ceremonies used by them, as _preparatory to the Feast_,\nothers in their giving thanks, others in _their gesture at Table_.\n\n    [243] _ab \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05e8\u05d7 \u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e Iter facere, significat viaticum._\n\n    [244] _\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e9\u05ea\u05d4\u200f\u200e Convivium, compotatio dicitur \u00e0 potendo sive\n    bibendo, ut Gr\u00e6c\u00e8 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, ab altera ejus parte._\n\n    [245] _\u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05d2\u200f\u200e, Festum, celebris solemnitas \u00e0 radice \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05d2\u05d2\u200f\u200e, Festum\n    celebravit._\n\n    [246] _Chrysostom. 1 Cor. 11. Hoc autem pr\u00e6cipio._\n\nThe _Ceremonies preparatory_ were principally these three: 1.\n_Salutations._ 2. _Washing the feet of the guests._ 3. _Pouring Oyl on\nthem._\n\nTheir _Salutations_ were testified either _by words_, or some _humble\ngesture of the body_. By _words_, and then these were the usual forms;\n_The Lord be with you_: or _The Lord bless you_, _Ruth. 2. 4._ From the\nlast of these, _blessing_ is often taken in Scripture for _saluting_.\nIf thou _meet_ any,[247] _bless_ him not, or if any _bless_ thee,\nanswer him not again, saith _Elisha_ to _Gehazi_, _2 King. 4. 29._ The\nsense is, as our _English_ renders it, _Salute him not_. Sometimes\nthey said, _Peace be unto thee_; _peace be upon thee_, _Go in peace_,\nand such like: _When ye come into an house salute the same; and if the\nhouse be worthy, let your peace come upon it, but if it be not worthy,\nlet your peace return to you_, _Matth. 10. 12, 13._ By _gesture_;\ntheir _salutations_ were signified sometimes by _prostrating the whole\nbody_; sometimes by _kissing the feet_, _Luke 7. 38._ commonly by an\n_ordinary kiss_.[248] _Moses_ went out to meet his father-in-law, and\ndid obeysance, and _kissed him_, _Exod. 18. 7._ Moreover, _Joseph\nkissed_ all his Brethren, and wept upon them, _Gen. 45. 15._ This Saint\n_Paul_ calleth an _holy kiss_, _1 Cor. 16. 20._ S. _Peter_, a _kiss of\ncharity_, _1 Pet. 5. 14._ _Tertullian_[249] calleth it _Osculum pacis_,\n_A kiss of peace_. These were _kisses_ which a _Cato_ might give, and\na _Vestal_ receive: Of this sort the _Jews_ had three kinds;[250] _A\nkiss of salutation_,[251] which hath been specified by some of those\nformer instances. _A kiss of valediction_:[252] Wherefore hast thou not\nsuffered me to kiss my sons and my daughters, _Gen. 31. 28._ _A kiss of\nhomage_;[253] the word signifieth a _kiss of state_ or _dignity_, but\nit was to testifie their _homage_, and acknowledgment of their _Kings_\nSoveraignty. Then _Samuel_ took a Vial of Oyl, and poured it upon\n_Saul_\u2019s head, and _kissed_ him, _1 Sam. 10. 1._ And unto this they\nrefer that in the second _Psalm_, _Kiss the son, least he be angry_.\nThese _salutions_, howsoever they were such as were used mutually,\nsometimes in their meetings abroad upon the way, yet were they such, as\nwere used also in their entertainment, as clearly appeareth by many of\nthose fore quoted examples.\n\n    [247] _Tertul. lib. 6. advers. Marcion._\n\n    [248] _Xenophon. de institut. Cyr. lib. 1. pag. 17. It. lib. 5.\n    pag. 113._\n\n    [249] _Tertul. de orat. cap. 14._\n\n    [250] _Vide Drusium ad difficiliora loca, Exod. c. 12._\n\n    [251] _\u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea \u05e4\u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e Neshikoth pharukim, Oscula propinquorum._\n\n    [252] _\u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea \u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e Neshikoth parusoth, Oscula separationis._\n\n    [253] _\u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u200f\u200e Neshikoth gedola, Oscula magnitudinis._\n\nThe second _Ceremony preparatory_ was _washing their feet_.[254] And\nthe man brought the men into _Joseph_\u2019s house, and gave them water, and\nthey did _wash their feet_, _Gen. 43. 34._ This office was commonly\nperformed by servants, and the meanest of the family, as appeareth by\nour _Saviour Christ_, who to leave an example of humility behind him,\n_washed his Disciples feet_, _Joh. 13. 5._ And _Abigail_, when _David_\ntook her to wife, said Behold, let thine hand-maid be a servant to\n_wash the feet_ of the servants of my _Lord_, _1 Sam. 25. 41._ For this\npurpose they had certain Vessels in readiness for such imployments:\nthat which our _Saviour_ used, we translate a _Basin_, _John 13. 5._ He\npoured out water into a _Basin_. The word \u03bd\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 there used signifieth\nin general a _Washpot_, and is there used for that which in strict\npropriety of speeches, the _Grecians_ termed \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, (_i._) _A\nWashpot for our feet_; Some may here make the question, whence this\nwater was poured? I see no inconvenience, if we say, that there were\nusually in their Dining-rooms greater vessels, from which they poured\nout into lesser, according as they needed; of which sort it is not\nimprobably thought[255] that those Water-pots were mentioned, _John 2.\n6._ There were set there _six Water-pots_ of stone, after the manner\nof the _purifying_ of the _Jews_. By _purifying_ there, understand\nthis complemental _washing_ of which we treat: Now if we consider\nthe washing of their hands, usual and commendable in it self, though\nsuperstitiously abused by _Scribes_ and _Pharisees_, and the washing\nof their feet, before and after meal, (for our _Saviour_ washed his\nDisciples feet after supper) which second washing, the _Hebrews_ say\nit was in use only at the _Passover_, there must needs be use of grate\nstore of water in their greater Feasts; and therefore no marvel, if\nmany and capacious vessels stood in readiness. Farther, we are to\nnote, that as the office was servile and base, so the vessel: which\nobservation giveth light to that, _Psal. 60. 8._ _Moab is my wash pot_;\nthat is, the _Moabites_ shall be basely subject unto me, as the pot in\nwhich _I wash my feet_.\n\n    [254] _Lotio pedum ante discubitum non solum Jud\u00e6is, sed &\n    gentibus ipsis erat usitata. Locus hic tuus est, hic occumbe,\n    ferte aquam pedibus. Plautus. Pers._\n\n    [255] _Stukius. lib. conviv._\n\nThe third _Ceremony preparatory_, was _pouring out of oyl_. A woman\nin the City brought an Alabaster box of oyntment, and stood at his\nfeet behind him weeping, and begun to wash his _feet with tears_, and\ndid wipe them with the _hairs of her head_, and kissed his feet, and\n_anointed them with the ointment_, _Luk. 7. 37, 38._ It was also poured\n_upon the head_, whence in the same place, _Christ_ challengeth the\n_Pharisee_ which entertained him, _Mine head with oyl thou didst not\nanoint_, _vers. 46._ _Psal. 23. 5._ _Thou anointest mine head with oyl._\n\nAfter these _ceremonies of preparation_ had been performed, than they\nproceeded to _giving thanks_. The _Master of the house_ sitting down\ntogether with his Guests, took _a cup full of wine_ in his right hand,\nand therewith begun his _consecration_, after this manner;[256]\n_Blessed be thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, which createst\nthe fruit of the Vine._ Having said thus, he first lightly tasted\nof the Wine, and from him it pass\u2019d round the Table. This grace of\nthanksgiving, they call[257] _Bircath haiaiin_, _the blessing of the\ncup_. With this _Christ_ himself seemeth to have begun his supper; _He\ntook the cup and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it among\nyour selves, for I say unto you I will not drink of the fruit of the\nVine, until the Kingdom of God shall come_, _Luk. 22. 17, 18._ After\n_the blessing of the cup, the Master of the house took the bread_,\nwhich they did _Scindere_, but not _Abscindere_, lightly cut for the\neasier breaking thereof, but not cut in sunder; and holding this in\nboth his hands, he _consecrated_ it, with these words; _Blessed be\nthou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, which bringest forth bread\nout of the earth_. This _consecration of bread_ they termed,[258]\n_Bircath halechem_. After the _consecration_, he _brake the bread_,\nwhence the _master of the house_, or he who performed these blessings\nin his stead, was termed[259] _Habotsagn_, (_i._ _the breaker_:) the\nbread being broken, he distributed to every one that sat at the table\na morsel, which being done, then they began to feed upon the other\ndishes that were provided. This Rite of blessing both the Cup and the\nBread, they observed only in their solemn Festivales; otherwise they\nconsecrated the Bread alone, and not the Cup. In their Feast time,\nthey seasoned their meat with good conference, such as might either\nyield matter of instruction, or exercise their wits; which practice\nwas also observed in their _Christian love feasts_.[260] Of the first\nsort, was that Parable proposed by our blessed _Saviour_ at a Feast,\n_Luk. 14. 7._ Of the second, was _Sampson_\u2019s Riddle, which he proposed\nunto his Companions, _Judg. 14. 12._ At the end of the Feast, they\nagain gave thanks, which was performed in this manner, either by the\n_Master_ of the _house_ himself, or by some guest, if there were any of\nbetter note at the table: He taking a cup of Wine in both his hands,\nbegan thus: _Let us bless him who hath fed us with his own, and of\nwhose goodness we live_: Then all the guests answered; _Blessed be\nhe of whose meat we have eaten, and of whose goodness we live_. This\n_grace_ they called[261] _Bircath Hamazon_. And this is thought[262]\nto be the Cup wherewith Christ after Supper commended the Mystery of\nhis Blood to his Disciples: After this he which began the Thanksgiving\nproceedeth, _Blessed be he, and blessed be his name_, &c. annexing a\nlonger prayer, in which he gave thanks: First, for their present food.\nSecondly, for their deliverance from the _Egyptian_ servitude. Thirdly,\nfor the Covenant of Circumcision. Fourthly, for the Law given by the\nMinistry of _Moses_. Then he prayed, that _God_ would have mercy: 1. On\nhis people _Israel_. 2. On his own City _Jerusalem_. 3. On _Sion_ the\nTabernacle of his Glory. 4. On the _Kingdom_ of the House of _David_\nhis Anointed. 5. That he would send _Elias_ the Prophet. Lastly, That\nhe would make them worthy of the daies of the _Messiah_, and of the\nlife of the world to come.\n\n    [256] _\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 \u05e4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d2\u05e4\u05df\u200f\u200e Benedictus\n    sis tu Domine Deus noster rex mundi, qui creas fructum vitis._\n\n    [257] _\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05d9\u05df\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [258] _\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea \u05d4\u05dc\u05d7\u05dd\u200f\u200e Benedictionem panis Drusius in N. T. part.\n    altera p. 78._\n\n    [259] _\u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05d1\u05d5\u05e6\u05e2\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [260] _Non tam c\u0153nam c\u0153nant quam disciplinam Tertul. Apolog. c.\n    39._\n\n    [261] _\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05d5\u05df\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [262] _Vid. P. Fag. in pr\u00e6c. Hebr._\n\nThis prayer being ended, then all the Guests which sate at the Table,\nwith a soft and low voice, said unto themselves in this manner, _Fear\nthe Lord all ye his holy ones, because there is no penury to those\nthat fear him: The young Lyons do want and suffer hunger, but those\nthat seek the Lord want no good thing_. Afterward, he which began the\nthanksgiving, _blessing the cup_ in the same form of words as he used\nat the first sitting down saying; _Blessed be thou, O Lord God, the\nKing of the world, which createst the fruit of the Vine_: and therewith\nhe drank a little of the Wine, and so the cup passed round the table.\nThus they began and ended their Feast, with the _blessing of a cup_:\nthis cup they termed \u200e\u200f\u05db\u05d5\u05e1 \u05d4\u05dc\u05dc\u200f\u200e _Cos hillel_, _Poculum_ \u1f51\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, _A\ncup of thanksgiving_; and _both these cups_ are mentioned by Saint\n_Luke_; and, which is worth our observation, the word of _Consecration_\nwhereby it was instituted, as part of the Blessed Sacrament in the\n_New Testament_, were added only to the last cup. _This cup is the New\nTestament in my blood, which it is shed for you._ After all this, they\nsung[263] Hymns and Psalms, which also was practised by our blessed\nSaviour, _Mark 14. 26._ So that howsoever he used not any superstitions\neither then practised, or since added by after _Jewes_, (as the\ndrinking of four cups of wine,[264] or the breaking of the bread with\nall ten fingers,[265] in allusion to the ten Commandments, &c.) yet in\nthe beginning, and ending, we see his practice suitable with theirs.\nIf any desire a larger discourse of these Blessings, noted out of the\n_Rabbines_, let him read _P. Fagius_[266] his Comment on _Deut. 8. 10._\nFrom whom I have borrowed a great part of what herein I have delivered.\nIf any shall here object, that I seem to make the _blessed Sacrament_\nof our Lords Body and Blood, a _Jewish Ceremony_; I answer, no: For\nas a kind of initiatory purification by water, was used before by the\n_Jews_ of old, and no _Proselite_ was admitted into the _Church_ of the\n_Jews_, without this purification: yet it was no more a _Sacrament_ to\nthem, than _Circumcision_ was to _Turks_ and _Saracens_. Thus, neither\nwas breaking the bread _Sacramental_ to the _Jew_, but then it became\na _Sacrament_, when _Christ_ said of it; This is my body. This cup is\nthe _New Testament_ in my blood, _&c._ _Luke 22. 19._ The _Jews_ could\nnot say, The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of\nthe Blood of Christ? _1 Corinthians 10. 16._\n\n    [263] _Scalig. de emend. Temp. lib. 6. p. 273._\n\n    [264] _Moses Kotsensis fol. 118. col. 1._\n\n    [265] _Sebastian Munster. Mat. 26._\n\n    [266] _It. pr\u00e6c. Hebr. per Fagium editas._\n\nThe last thing considerable in their Feasts, is their _gesture_. In\nthe days of our _Saviour_ it is apparent,[267] that the gesture of\nthe _Jews_ was such as the _Romans_ used. The table being placed in\nthe middest, round about the table were certain beds, sometimes two,\nsometimes three, sometimes more, according to the number of the guests;\nupon these they lay down in manner as followeth. Each bed contained\nthree persons, sometimes four, seldom or never more. If one lay upon\nthe bed, then he rested the upper part of his body upon the left\nelbow, the lower part lying at length upon the bed: but if many lay\non the bed, then the uppermost did lie at the beds head, laying his\nfeet behind the second\u2019s back: in like manner the third or fourth did\nlye, each resting his head in the others bosom. Thus _John_ leaned on\n_Jesus bosom_, _John 13. 23._ This first is an argument of _special\nlove_ towards him whom the _Master of the house_ shall take into\nhis own _bosome_, John, _he was the beloved Disciple_. Secondly, an\nargument of _parity_, amongst others, resting in one anothers bosom.\n_Many shall come from the East and West; and shall sit down with\nAbraham, and Isaac, and Jacob_, _Mat. 8. 11._ And where shall they\nsit? In _Abraham_\u2019s _bosom_, _Luke 16. 22._ that is, they shall all\nsit at the same table, be partakers of the same glory. Thus _Christ_,\nhe was in the _bosom of his Father_, _John 1. 18._, that is, in the\n_Apostles_ phrase, _He thought it no robbery to be equal with his\nFather_. Their tables were perfectly circular, or round, whence their\nmanner of sitting was termed[268] _Mesibah_, _a sitting round_; and\ntheir phrase of inviting their guests to sit down, was, _Sit round_:\nWe will not sit round until he come hither, _1 Sam. 16. 11._ Again,\nThy children shall be as Olive-plants _round_ about thy table, _Psal.\n128. 3._ This custom of lying along upon a _bed_, when they took\ntheir meat, was also in use in _Ezekiel_\u2019s time; Thou satest upon a\nstately _bed_, and a table prepared before it, _Ezek. 23. 41._ And[269]\nwhether this were the custome of the ancient _Hebrews_, I leave to be\ndiscussed by others. But unto this also doth _Amos_ allude; They laid\nthemselves down upon cloaths laid to pledge by every Altar, _Amos 2.\n8._ that is, the _garments_[270] taken to pledge they use in stead of\n_beds_, when at their Altars they eat things sacrificed to Idols: Yea,\nthe plucking off their shooes when they went to table, implieth this\ncustom of lying at the Table, to have been very ancient. The plucking\noff their shooes seemeth to have been generally received, when they\nwere in _Egypt_; for this cause is it that they had a strict charge in\neating the _Passover_, to have their shooes on their feet, for greater\nexpedition. The reason why they usually pluckt them off, was, for the\nclean keeping of their Beds on which they lay. Here, seeing the rule\nof observing the _Passover_ requireth, that it should be eaten with\ntheir shooes on their feet, which argueth rather _standing_ than _lying\nupon a bed_: it may be demanded, Whether _Christ transgressed_ not\nagainst the first Institution thereof, in the manner of his sitting at\nthe table? _Tremelius_ answereth thus; and, in my mind, fully:[271]\nWe must know, saith he, that _Exod. 12._ it was commanded, after what\nmanner they, ready to depart out of _Egypt_, should eat the _Passover_\nat that time; for the necessity of that time so required, namely, an\nhasty eating thereof; but afterward, in the Law, where it is commanded\nthat this Ceremony of the _Paschal_ should be renewed every year, those\nwords are not added. Wherefore all the _Hebrew Doctors_, both ancient\nand modern, do teach with one joynt consent, that the Commandment of\n_sprinkling the door-posts with blood_, of _having on their shooes_, of\n_girding their loyns_, of _taking staves in their hands_, and _eating\nthe Lamb in hast_; did not extend it self to the generations following,\nbut only to have concerned that very night, wherein they departed out\nof _Egypt_:[272] Yea, it was an ancient tradition amongst them, that\nwhen they did in after-times eat the _Passover_, they would sit down,\nor lean upon a bed, as our _Saviour_ and his Disciples did, in token of\ntheir deliverance obtained.\n\n    [267] _Voces quibus usi sunt Evangelist\u00e6 sonant accubitum\n    non sessionem, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, Luk. 22. \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9; Mat. 26.\n    \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, Luc. 14. \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, Mat. 14._\n\n    [268] _\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e1\u05d1\u05d4\u200f\u200e Discubitus, cujus radix est \u200e\u200f\u05e1\u05d1\u05d1\u200f\u200e circumivit,\n    Ambivit._\n\n    [269] _Philo. Jud. p. 383._\n\n    [270] _Vetustissimus mos erat, super lanatis pellibus\n    discumbere. Qui poterat pelles addere dives erat. Ovid._\n\n    [271] _Tremel. in Mat. 26. 20._\n\n    [272] _Talmud. tract. de Paschate vid. Tremel. loco superius\n    citato._\n\nThe parties that gave entertainment at their _Feasts_ were two:[273] 1.\nThe _Master of the house_. 2. The _Master of the Feast_; they differed\nthus: The _Master of the house_ was termed \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Baal habeth_,\n\u1f40\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, _Pater familias_. The _Master of the Feast_ was termed\n\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05de\u05e9\u05ea\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Baal mischte_, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, _Triclinii Pr\u00e6fectus_. The\n_Master of the Feast_ was the chief servant, attending the _Master of\nthe house_ in time of the Feast. Others[274] add a third sort, whom\nthey would have to be _Pr\u00e6fecti morum_, in Greek they were termed\n\u1f40\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Their Office was thought to have been the inspection of the\nGuests, that none should disorder themselves by drinking too much;\nwhence they were called \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 _the eyes of the Feast_. Such kind\nof Officers were in use in _Ahasuerosh_ his Court, _Esth. 1. 8._ and\nlikewise among the _Athenians_;[275] but whether any such belonged unto\nthe _Jews_ is justly doubted.\n\n    [273] _Vid. Casaubon exercit. p. 278._\n\n    [274] _Gaudentius Brixianus. vid. Casaubon. ibid._\n\n    [275] _Athen\u00e6us, l. 10._\n\nThe ancient _Jews_, they were both Hospital, ready to entertain, and\nalso liberal in their entertainment: Their Hospitality is commended\nthroughout the Scripture, though now it be grown out of use among them,\nas appeareth by that Proverbial speech concerning the entertainment of\na friend:[276] _That the first day he is Oreach, a guest_: _the second\nToreach, a burden_: _the third Barach, a runnagate_. Their liberality\nappeared by remembring the poor at their Feasts, by sending them\nportions. Send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared, _Neh.\n8. 10._ This[277] was afterwards practised by Heathens, who in their\nsolemn Feasts did not onely entertain their Guests for the present,\nbut did also allow them certain junkets to carry away with them. These\nthey termed \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1: and likewise, unto their friends who were absent\nthey sent portions, which they termed \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2. This observation giveth\nlight to that _Canon_ in the _Laodicean Counsel_, which forbiddeth the\n_Christians_ in their love feasts, \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, to _send portions_, the\nreason of which prohibition, I conceive to be three-fold. First, that\n_Christians_ might not symbolize with _Heathen_ people. Secondly, That\nnone presuming that their portions should be sent them, might absent\nthemselves. Thirdly, that those present (especially the poorer sort, as\nit often falleth out) might not be injured, by having the best of their\nprovision sent away in such portions.\n\n    [276] _\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u200f\u200e Hospes \u200e\u200f\u05d8\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u200f\u200e Onus \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u200f\u200e Profugus Buxtorf.\n    Synag. cap. 32. p. 493._\n\n    [277] _Moris erat veteribus in conviviis \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 mittere\n    absentibus amicis. Theophrastus cap. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Idem\n    testatur Plut. in Agesilao. \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n    \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd. Eundem morem Jud\u00e6is in usu fuisse testantur\n    sacr\u00e6 liter\u00e6 Nehem. 8. 10. \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2._\n\nHere we may note, for conclusion, that as the time of their supper was\ntowards the evening, and then they gave greatest entertainment; So the\ntime of their dinner was about the sixth hour of the day; that is, as\nwe count, about Noon. Kill meat and make ready, for the men shall eat\nwith me at _Noon, en. 43. 16._ _~Peter~ went up upon the house to pray\nabout the sixth hour; than waxed he and hungred, and would have eaten,\nbut whiles they made something ready, he fell into a trance_, Acts 10.\n9, 10.\n\nMoreover we may here note the difference between those _three cups_\nmentioned in Scripture, \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, _1 Cor. 10. 19._ The\n_cup of blessing_, and this is applied to those several cups used\nin their solemn Feasts, because of those blessings or thanksgiving\nannexed. Secondly, \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, _Jer. 16. 7._ The _cup\nof consolation_; this was so called, because it was sent by special\nfriends in time of mourning, as intending by this drinking to put away\nsorrow and grief from the mourner. Thirdly, \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, _Psal.\n116. 13._ _The cup of salvation_: this was used commonly after their\n_Peace-offerings_, which were vowed in way of thankfulness for benefits\nobtained. Whence the _Seventy Elders_ commonly translate _a Peace\noffering_, \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, _A sacrifice of salvation_, or _salvation it self_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n_Of their Sabbath._\n\n\nThe word \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Schabbath_, from whence our _English_ word _Sabbath_ is\nderived, signifieth _Rest_, and is applied to all _solemn Festivals_.\n_They polluted my Sabbaths_, _Ezek. 20. 21._ that is, my _Feasts_.\nSometimes it is applyed to the _whole week_, _Jejuno bis in Sabbato_,\n_I fast twice in the week_. Sometimes, and that most frequently, it\nis used for that 7th day which God had set apart for his own service.\nThis last was holy, either by a simple holiness which belonged to it,\nas was the seventh day; or else by a double holiness occasioned by\nsome solemn Feast upon the same day, and then it was called, _Sabbatum\nmagnum_, _a great Sabbath_, _John 19. 36._ For on that _Sabbath day_ of\nwhich S. _John_ speaketh, the _Feast of the Passover_ hapned that year.\n\nThe week days are termed by the _Hebrew_, \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Cholim_, _prophane\ndays_; by the Greek \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76, _working days_: but when they speak of\nthem altogether, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u1f7a \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, _the space of time between two\nSabbaths_.[278] This was the time upon which the _Gentiles_ desired\nto hear _Paul_ _Act. 13. 42._ In respect of the different degrees\nof holiness on days, the _Sabbath-day_ is not unfitly compared to a\n_Queen_, or rather to those whom they termed _Primary wives_; other\n_Feast days_ to _Concubines_, or _half wives_; _working-days_, to\n_hand-maids_.\n\n    [278] _Scalig. de emend. Temp. l. 6 p. 261. Item Beza in hunc\n    locum._\n\nThe _Sabbaths_ began at[279] six a clock the night before: this\nthe _Grecians_ called \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 the _Hebrew_[280] _Biath\nhaschabbath_, the _enterance of the Sabbath_.\n\n    [279] _Scalig. de emend. Temp. l. 6. p. 269._\n\n    [280] _\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u200f\u200e_\n\nThe _preparation_ to the _Sabbath_ begun at[281] three of the clock in\nthe afternoon; the _Hebrews_ called this \u200e\u200f\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Gnereb haschabbath_,\nthe _Sabbath eve_. By the ancient _Fathers_ it was called[282] _c\u0153na\npura_; the phrase is borrowed from _Pagans_, whose Religion taught them\nin their Sacrifices to certain of their _Gods_ and _Goddesses_, to\nprepare themselves by a strict kind of holiness; at which time of their\npreparation they did pertake of a certain Supper, which as it consisted\nof choice meats, such as those _Heathens_ deemed more holy than others:\nso it was eat with the observation of _Holy Rites_ and _Ceremonies_:\nHence they themselves were said at this time of their preparation to be\nin _In casto_, and their preparatory Supper termed, _C\u0153na pura_. Thus\nwe see the reason why the _Fathers_ called the _Sabbath-eve_, _C\u0153nam\npuram_. By the _Evangelists_ it was called \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u1f74, _A preparation_,\n_Mark 15. 42._ For distinction sake, we may call that fore-time of the\nday \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u1f74, _A fore-preparation_. For the whole day was a kind of\npreparation, as will appear by the particulars then forbidden. First\non this day they might go no more than three _Parsas_; now a _Parsa_\ncontained so much ground as an ordinary man might go ten of them in\na day. Secondly, Judges might not then sit in Judgment upon life and\ndeath, as is shewn in the Chapter of Translation of Feasts.[283]\nThirdly, all sorts of Artificers were forbidden to work, only three\nexcepted, _shoomakers_, _Taylors_, and _Scribes_; the two former for\nrepairing of apparel, the other for fitting themselves by study to\nexpound the Law the next day, and these were permitted but half the\npreparation time to work.\n\n    [281] _Joseph. Antiq. l. 16. c. 10._\n\n    [282] _In ritibus Paganorum c\u0153na pura appellabatur; c\u0153na illis\n    apponi solita, qui in casto erant quod Gr\u00e6ci dicunt \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n    vel \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. Isaac Casaubon, Exercit. 16, p. 662._\n\n    [283] _Casaubon. Exercit. 16. p. 479. ex Michlol. Kimchi._\n\nThe best and wealthiest of them,[284] even those that had many\nservants, did with their own hands further the _preparation_; so that\nsometimes the Masters themselves would chop herbs, sweep the house,\ncleave wood, kindle the fire, and such like.\n\n    [284] _Buxtorf. Synagog. Jud. cap. 10. ex Talmud._\n\nIn old time[285] they proclamed the _Preparation_ with noise of\nTrumpets, or Horns; but now the modern _Jews_ proclaim it by the\n_Sexton_, or some under Officer of the Church, whom they call \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d7 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u200f\u200e\n_Scheliach tsibbur_, The _Messenger of the Congregation_.\n\n    [285] _Buxtorf Synagog. Judaic. ibid._\n\nConcerning the sanctification of the _Sabbath_ day it self, in\ncorrupter times some things the _Jews_ added over and above that\nwhich God commanded. In other things they took liberty where _God_\ngranted none. In the first they were _superstitious_, in the second\n_sacrilegious_.\n\nThey took liberty: There were two thousand Cubits between the _Ark_\nand the _Camp_, when they marched; _Josh. 3. 4._ and in probability the\nsame proportion was observed when they rested: this distance of ground\nsome interpret to be one mile, some two; some measuring it according\nto a lesser, others according to a longer Cubit, which they term a\n_Geometrical Cubit_: But all agree in this, that these two thousand\ncubits was a _Sabbath_ days journey, though none, as I know, have\nobserved the reason why it was so called, which I take to be this:\nOn the _Sabbath_ day they were all to repair to the place of _God_\u2019s\npublike worship, which was two thousand cubits distant from those\nwho camped nearest: Hence follow four Propositions. First, That two\nthousand Cubits any where, by proportion, might be called a _Sabbath\ndayes journy_. Secondly, That to those who dwelt in the Camps more\nremote from the _Ark_, a _Sabbath daies journy_ was more than two\nthousand Cubits. Thirdly, That it is now lawful on the _Sabbath day_,\nto joyn with the Congregation in the place of _God_\u2019s publick worship,\nthough remote. Fourthly, That it was unlawful for the _Jews_ hereupon\nto take liberty to walk idlely whither they would, if it were not more\nthen two thousand Cubits, pretending it to be but a _Sabbath daies\njourney_.\n\nThey added unto that which God commanded, 1. God said, _Remember to\nkeep holy a seventh day_: in which words, _God_ sanctified one day\nto be _Sabbatum_,[286] they added _Sabbatulum_, so they termed that\nadditament of time which they annexed to the _Sabbath_. This addition\nof time was _two-fold_: some began the _Sabbath_ sooner than others;\nthis was done by the _Jews_ dwelling at _Tiberias_, because they\ndwelling in a Valley, the Sun appeared not to them so soon as it did\nto others. Some again continued the _Sabbath_ longer than others: this\nwas done by those dwelling at _Tsepphore_, a City placed upon the top\nof a Mountain, so that the Sun shined longer to them, than it did to\nothers. Thus both of these did _Addere de profano ad sacrum_; add\nsomewhat of the working day, immediately going before, or immediately\nfollowing after: none diminished of the _Sabbath_. Hence[287] _R. Jose\nwished that his portion might be with those that began the Sabbath,\nwith those of ~Tiberias~, and ended with those of ~Tsepphore~_.\n\n    [286] _Hospinian. de Orig. fest. c. 3._\n\n    [287] _Buxtorf. Comment. Masoret. cap. 4, ex Musar._\n\n2. God said, _To morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord,\nbake that ye will bake, and seethe that ye will seethe_, _Exod. 16.\n23._ This Command was proper to the time of _Manna_:[288] the reason\nis there alledged, why they should prepare that day for the morrow,\nbecause upon the _Sabbath_ day they should not find it in the field.\nThe _Jews_ extend this Command to all Ages; and therefore they dressed\nno meat this day: this haply was the reason, that the _Heathen_ people\nthought they fasted[289] on the _Sabbath_, though I deny not but this\nerror might be occasioned in part from that phrase, _Jejuno bis in\nSabbato_.\n\n    [288] _Jun. & Tremel. in Exod. 16._\n\n    [289] _Sueton. August. c. 76 de jejun. Sabbat. Vid. Martial. l.\n    4. Epig. 4._\n\n3. God said, _Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on\nthe Sabbath day_, _Exod. 35. 3._ This commandment was only concerning\nfire for the furtherance of the work of the _Tabernacle_,[290] for\ntherefore is the _Sabbath_ mentioned in that _Chapter_, to shew, that\nthe work of the _Tabernacle_ ought to give place to the _Sabbath_. The\n_Jews_ hence gather, that it is unlawful to kindle any fire at all on\nthis day.\n\n    [290] _Vatablus in hunc locum Item. Trem. & Junius._\n\n4. God said, _In it thou shalt do no manner of work_. This the _Jews_\nunderstood without any manner of exception.[291] Hence they held it\nunlawful, to _roast an apple, to tuck an herb, to clime a tree,\nto kill or catch a flea_. Hence they thought it unlawful to defend\nthemselves, being assaulted by their enemies on the _Sabbath_ day:\nBy this means, twice they became a prey unto the enemy.[292] First,\nunto _Antiochus_; whereupon _Mattathias_ made a Decree, that it should\nbe lawful upon the _Sabbath_ to resist their enemies; which Decree\nagain they understanding strictly, as if it did only give leave to\nresist,[293] when they were actually assaulted, and not by any labour\nthat day to prevent the enemies raising of Rams, settling of Engines,\nunderminings, _&c._ they became a prey, the second time, to _Pompey_.\nFor the right understanding therefore of this Command, we are to know,\nthat three sorts of servile works were allowed.\n\n    [291] _Hospinian. de Orig. fest. c. de Sabbato._\n\n    [292] _Joseph. l. 12. cap. 8._\n\n    [293] _Joseph. l. 14: cap. 8._\n\n1. _Works of Charity_: _God_, that allowed them to lead their Oxe and\nAss to water on the _Sabbath_, _Luke 13._ to make their lives more\ncomfortable, much more allowed man liberty to dress convenient food for\nhimself and his Family, that they might the more comfortably perform\nholy duties. _Christ_ healed on the _Sabbath_, therefore, visiting the\nsick, and the use of the _Physitian_, was both then and now lawful.\n\n2. _Works tending directly to Gods Worship_: not only killing of\nsacrifices, and circumcising of children on that day was allowed; but\nthe _Priests_ might lawfully blow their Trumpets and Horns on the\n_Sabbath_ day; for the assembling of the people, _Numb. 20. 2._ And\nthe people might warrantably go from their Houses to the place of Gods\npublick worship. By proportion it is now warrantable for _Christians_,\nto ring bells to assemble the people together on the Lords day; to take\njourneys, to joyn with the publick Congregation, or Preach the Word. Of\nthese we may say, though they are in their own natures bodily labors,\nyet the _Temple_ which was sanctified did change the nature of them,\nand make them holy, _Mat. 23. 17._ Or as the _Jews_ say concerning the\noverthrow of _Jericho_, which according to their writings fell on the\n_Sabbath day_:[294] _He which commanded the Sabbath to be sanctified,\ncommanded it also to be prophaned_.\n\n    [294] _\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d7\u05dc\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u200f\u200e R. D. Kimchi in Josh. 6._\n\n3. _Works of absolute necessity_, as the defending ones self against\nhis enemy, and others of like nature: concerning which the _Jews_\nhave a saying,[295] _Peril of life drives away the Sabbath_. And the\n_Christians_ with a little change of a more common Proverb, say,\n_Necessitas non habet ferias_; _Necessity hath no Holy days_.\n\n    [295] _\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e1\u05db\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d3\u05d5\u05d7\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u200f\u200e_\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n_Of their Passover, and their Feasts of Unleavened Bread._\n\n\nSome of the _Fathers_ have derived[296] the word _Paschal_, from\na Greek Verb, signifying to suffer, because the _sufferings_ and\n_Passion_ of our _Saviour_; are celebrated about that time. This\nOpinion _Augustine_ justly confuteth,[297] for the word is originally\nan _Hebrew_ word, signifying to _pass by_, _to leap_, or _pass over_.\nThe _Etymology_ is _God_\u2019s own. It is the sacrifice of the _Lord_\u2019s\n_Passover_, which _passed over, &c._ _Exod. 12. 27._\n\n    [296] _Tertul. advers. Judaic. c. 10 It. Ambros. lib. de\n    Myster. Pasch. cap. 1._\n\n    [297] _Aug. in titul. Psal. 68._\n\nThe word _Passover_ in Scripture hath three acceptions. First, it\nis taken for that yearly solemnity which was celebrated upon the\nfourteenth day of _Nisan_,[298] otherwise called _Abib_; you may call\nit the _Passover of the Lamb_, because on that day toward the evening,\nthe _Israelites_ were commanded according to their Families to roast\na _Lamb_, and eat it in their private houses. Secondly, it signifieth\nthat yearly Festivity which was celebrated on the fifteenth of _Nisan_:\nit may be called the _Passover_ of _sheep and Bullocks_, _Deut. 16. 2._\nOtherwise we may call it the _Feast of the Passover_; as the fourteenth\nof _Nisan_ was called simply the _Passover_. In the fourteenth day of\nthe first moneth, is the _Passover of the Lord_, and in the fifteenth\nday of this moneth is the _Feast_, _Num. 28. 16, 17._ Toward this\nFeast we are to understand that _Josiah_ gave unto the people such a\nmultitude of Sheep, Lambs, Kids, and Bullocks. Thirdly, it is taken for\nthe whole solemnity, beginning the Fourteenth of _Nisan_, and ending\nthe one and twentieth of the same moneth. Now the _Feast of unleavened\nbread drew nigh, which is called the Passover_, _Luk. 22. 1._ So that\nin this acception is contained the _Feast of unleavened bread_ also,\nnotwithstanding, in proper speaking, the _Feast of unleavened bread_\nwas a distinct _Feast_ from the _Passover_.\n\n    [298] _E Theologia non pauci omnia qu\u00e6 ad 14. noctem pertinent\n    15. attribuunt quem errorem hauserunt ex turbidis Rabbinorum\n    lacunis qui hodie eundem errorem errant, teste Scaliger. de\n    emend. Temp. l. 6 p. 270._\n\nFirst, the _Passover_ was to be kept on the _fourteenth day of the\nfirst month, at even_. This was their second Sacrament, in which\nalthough they were enjoyned to eat unleavened bread with the Lamb,\nyet the _Feast of the unleavened bread_ began not till the morrow\nfollowing, being the _fifteenth day of the same moneth_, and lasted\nseven daies of which only the first and last were holy Convocations,\nwherein they might do no servile work, _Levit. 23. 5, 6, 7, 8._\n\nSecondly, the _Passover_, in the age following its first institution,\nmight not be killed and eaten in any other place, save only where\nthe _Lord_ did choose to place his name, which afterward was at\n_Jerusalem_: but the _feast of unleavened bread_, the _Hebrews_\nthought themselves bound to keep in every place wheresoever they dwelt,\nif they could not be at _Jerusalem_: and _eating of it_, they say,[299]\n_depended not upon the eating of the Passover, but it was a commandment\nby it self_.\n\n    [299] _\u200e\u200f\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9 \u05dc\u05ea \u05d6\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05df \u05d4\u05e4\u05e1\u05d7 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d4\u200f\u200e Maimon.\n    de fermento & Azymo c. 6. sect. 1._\n\nThe _Rites_ and _Ceremonies_ observed by the _Jews_ in the eating\nof this Sacrament, their _Paschal Lamb_, agreed with those general\nCeremonies used in their solemn Feasts. They _blessed the cup_, and\n_blessed the bread_, and _divided_ amongst the guests, and _washed the\nfeet_ of those that sate at the table, as is shewn in the Chapter of\n_Feasts_. The particulars in which it differed from other Feasts, are\ndelivered in those interrogatories, or questions proposed in way of\n_Catechism_, by some child, at the time of eating their _Passover_,\nor rather in the answer made unto the child by him that blessed the\ntable. The question was thus: What meaneth this service? The form of\nthe answer was,[300] How different is this night from all other nights,\nfor all other nights we wash but once, in this twice (thus _Christ_\nwhen supper was ended washed his Disciples feet.) In all other nights\nwe eat either leavened or unleavened bread, in this only unleavened: In\nother nights we eat any sort of herbs, in this night bitter herbs: In\nall other nights we eat and drink either sitting or lying, but in this\nwe lye along. Then he proceeded to declare, that the _Passover_ was\nin respect that the _Lord passed over_ the houses of their Fathers in\n_Egypt_. Secondly, He held up the bitter herbs in his hand, and said;\nThese bitter herbs which we eat, are in respect that the _Egyptians_\nmade the lives of our _Fathers bitter in \u00c6gypt_. Thirdly, he held up\nthe unleavened bread in his hand, and said, This unleavened bread\nwhich we eat, it is in respect that the dough of our Fathers had not\ntime to be leavened, when the Lord appeared unto them, and redeemed\nthem out of the hand of the enemy. This kind of _Catechising_ they\nsay, is commanded, _Exod. 12. 26._ They called it \u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Haggada_, (i.)\n_Annunciatio_, the _declaration_ or _shewing forth_ of the _Passover_.\nHence the _Apostle_ borroweth this phrase; _As often as ye shall eat\nthis bread, and drink this cup, ye shall declare, ~or~ shew forth, the\nLord\u2019s death_, _1 Cor. 11. 26._\n\n    [300] _Scalig. de emend. Temp. l. 5. p. 270._\n\nConcerning this Lamb they are charged thus: _Upon the tenth of ~Abib~\nevery one shall take a Lamb for an house, a male of the first year,\nwithout blemish, and this be kept until the fourteenth day of the\nsame month_, _Exod. 12. 3. &c._ The _Lamb_, it was either of _Sheep_\nor _Goats_. For an _house_, the whole body of the _Israelites_, was\ndivided into twelve _Tribes_, the _Tribes_ into _Families_, the\n_Families_ into _Houses_: if the _House_ were too few for the eating\nof the _Lamb_, then the next Neighbour joyned with them in the eating\nthereof. The whole Company was termed \u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, in the same sense\nS. _Mark_ useth \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, and \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u1f76, _Mark_ the sixth. All these\nwords signifie a _society_, or _company of guests_, _so many as can\nsit at the same table_: the latter word properly signifieth, _a bed\nin a Garden_; and thus in the _Gospel_, the whole multitude sitting\non the grass, seem to be compared unto a _Garden_; and their several\n_societies_ or _companies_, unto so many _beds in the Garden_. The\nnumber of _Communicants_ in this _Paschal society_ was never less\nthan ten, nor more than twenty.[301] It followeth in the Text, _A\nmale_, to note the masculine and peerless vertue of our _Saviour_,\nwhom it did typically shew forth. _Of the first year_;[302] which\nphrase they interpret thus, That the lamb, after it was eight daies\nold and forward, was allowable to be offered for the _Passover_,\nbut not before; because it is said, _When a bullock, or a sheep, or\na goat is brought forth, then it shall be seven daies under the dam,\nand from the eighth day, and thenceforth, it shall be accepted for an\noffering made by fire unto the Lord_, _Levit. 22. 27._ And the reason\nof this Law, some of the _Hebrews_ have thought to be,[303] because\nin their Opinion nothing in the world was absolutely perfect, until\na _Sabbath_ had past over it. Moreover if it were an hour elder then\na year, it was unlawful, because it is said, _A male of the first\nyear, without blemish_, as well to admonish the _Israelites_ of their\nown personal integrity, as to signifie the absolute perfection of\nhim who was in truth the _Lamb of God_. And this he kept till the\n_fourteenth day of the same month_. The _Rabbines_ affirm[304] four\ncauses of this: _First_, because otherwise through the multitude of\nbusinesses, at the time of their departure, they might forget the\n_Paschal Lamb_. _Secondly_, that in this four daies space they might\nhave the more certain knowledge of the Lamb\u2019s perfection. _Thirdly_,\nthat by beholding the Lamb so long before their eyes, they might have\nthe better occasion, in that space, both to recount with themselves\n_Gods_ mercy in their deliverance from _\u00c6gypt_, and also to instruct\nand _Catechise_ their children in that point: for which respect it\nwas a received Tradition amongst the _Jews_, that during the space of\nthese four daies, their Lamb was tyed to their bed-posts. _Lastly_,\nthat in this time of preparation, they might throughly sit and address\nthemselves for the Oblation.\n\n    [301] _Ioseph. de bello Jud. l. 7 c. 17._\n\n    [302] _Hebraice \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05df \u05e9\u05e0\u05d4\u200f\u200e Filium anni. Sunt qui distinguunt inter\n    Filium anni & Filium anni sui, filium anni interpretantur,\n    qui annum unum agit, nec minor, nec major. Filium vero anni\n    sui, qui est in anno primo, licet eum nondum absolverit. Sed\n    Aben Esra negat absque Cabala posse sciri quis sit filius anni\n    sui, nam fieri potest, inquit, ut sit Vau addititium sive\n    paragogicum, quale in \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u200f\u200e & similibus._\n\n    [303] _Vid. Munster ad Levit. 22._\n\n    [304] _Hospinian. de Orig. fest. cap. 5._\n\nThe time when the _Paschal Lamb_ was to be slain, was at the _Evening_,\n_Exod. 12. 6._ Or, as the Original reads, _between the two evenings_.\nHere _Divines_ move the question, what part of the day should be\nunderstood by this phrase. Some distinguish the _two evenings_\nthus,[305] That there was _Vespera Solis_, the _evening of the Sun_;\nnamely, when the body of the Sun setteth: and _Vespera luminis_,\n_the evening of the light_, when the beams and shining of the _Sun_\nis also gone from off the earth; The space or interim between these\n_two Evenings_, is thought to be one hour, and the third part of an\nhour; in which space of time, they say, the _Paschal Lamb_ was slain.\nOthers[306] admit a greater latitude, and distinguish thus: There is\nsay they, _Vespera declinationis_, the _Evening of the Sun declining_;\nand _Vespera occasus_, the _Evening of the Sun setting_; and their\nmeaning is, that their _Passover_ was offered in this intermediate\ntime, between noon and night. This latter answer seemeth most agreeable\nto the truth. First because by this speech we must understand a\nlatitude of time wherein might be offered not only the _Passover_,\nbut the _daily Evening Sacrifice_ also, for even that likewise was\ncommanded, _Inter duas Vesperas_, _between the two evenings_, _Num. 28.\n4._ Now this might be offered in the former part of the after-noon.\nThe manner of their sacrificing, in regard of this time, we find\nthus registred,[307] if we count the hours according to our usual\ncomputations: the _daily sacrifice of the evening Lamb_ was usually\n_slain_ between _two_ and _three_, it was _offered_ between _three_\nand _four_: upon the _Passover Eve_ it was slain between _one_ and\n_two_, it was _offered_ about half an hour before _three_; but if their\n_Passover Eve_ hapned to be the same with their _Sabbath Eve_, then the\ndaily _Evening Sacrifice_ was _slain_ between _twelve_ and _one_, it\nwas offered half an hour before _two_; and afterward the _Passover_.\nSecondly, this agreeth with the Oblation of the true _Paschal Lamb_;\nfor, as the time of his crucifying began in the third hour of the day,\nwith the _daily morning sacrifice_, _Mark 15. 25._ so it ended at\nthe ninth hour, _Mark 15. 34._ which was the time of their ordinary\n_evening sacrifice_: but upon their _Passover Eve_, it was the time\nwhen their _Paschal Lamb was slain_.\n\n    [305] _Aben Ezra, Exod. 12._\n\n    [306] _R. David. in Radic. Hoc etiam colligi potest ex Pirk.\n    Aboth. c. 5._\n\n    [307] _Talmud. tract. de paschate. c. 1. in initio._\n\nFurthermore, the _Lamb was to be eaten with bitter herbs_: the reason\nof this command is, that thereby they might be moved to thankfulness\ntowards _God_, for their deliverance from the _Egyptian bondage_, in\nwhich their lives were made bitter unto them, _Ex. 1. 14._\n\nThese _bitter herbs_ they dipt in a certain sauce thick like Mustard,\ncalled _Charoseth_,[308] which thick sauce (say they)[309] was a\nmemorial of the _day_ wherein they _wrought_ in _Egypt_. This is\nthought of some[310] to be that wherein _Christ_ diped the sop which\nhe gave to _Judas_. Of this sauce the _Hebrews_ write thus;[311] they\nused to dip the _unleavened bread_ in that sauce _Charoseth_, and to\neat; then they dipt the bitter herbs in the _Charoseth_, and did eat\nthem. It was made[312] of the Palm-tree branches, or of dry Figs, or of\nRaisins, which they stamped and put Vinegar thereto, and seasoned it,\nand made it like Clay; and brought it unto the Table in the night of\nthe _Passover_.\n\n    [308] _\u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05e8\u05d5\u05e1\u05ea\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [309] _Moses Kotsensis, fol. 118_\n\n    [310] _Scalig. de emend. temp. l. 6. p. 272._\n\n    [311] _Maim. de fermento. c. 8. sect. 7._\n\n    [312] _Maimon. in \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05de\u05e5 \u05d5\u05de\u05e6\u05d4\u200f\u200e c. 7. sect, 11._\n\nThe other seven daies following the fourteenth of _Nisan_, were in\nstrictness of speech a distinct Feast, as is above-shewed; namely, _the\nFeast of unleavened bread_ because in that space of time, no _leavened\nbread_ ought to be found in their houses;[313] their degrees[314] of\n_preparation to this feast_ are _four_. 1. _Expurgatio fermenti_,\n_the cleansing of_ all their _houshold stuff_ and _vessels_, unto\nwhich _leaven_ might haply cleave; and this was done two or three\ndaies before the _Passover_. 2. _Inquisitio fermenti_, the _searching\nafter leaven_ throughout all the rooms of their houses, even to the\nMouse-holes: this they did with a waxen Candle, and as _Buxtorfus_\nnoteth, upon the night before the _Passover_: and _Scaliger_ delivereth\nit in other words to the same purpose, namely,[315] that this search\nwas made, _Ineunte quarta decima, usque ad quartam horam post ortum\nsolis_. _At the beginning of the fourteenth day, until the fourth hour\nafter the rising of the Sun._ Now, the beginning of the fourteenth\nday was the night going before; for the _Jews_, in the computation of\ntheir Holy-daies, counted their day from even to even. 3. There was\n_Exterminatio_, or _Conflagratio fermenti_, _A burning of the leaven_;\nand this was done from the fourth to the sixth hour, about dinner-time;\nat which time followed the last degree, which _Scaliger_ hath ommitted,\nnamely, _Execratio fermenti_, the _cursing of the leaven_, in this\nform:[316] _Let all that leaven, or whatsoever leavened thing is in my\npower, whether it were seen of me, or not seen, whether cleansed by me,\nor not cleansed; let all that be scattered, destroyed, and accounted as\nthe dust of the earth_.\n\n    [313] _Huius moris vestigia qu\u00e6dam sunt reperta in Roman.\n    Flamine Diali. A. Gell. noct. Attic. lib. 10. c. 15._\n\n    [314] _Buxtorf. Synag. Judaic. c. 12. p. 317._\n\n    [315] _Scalig. de emend. Temp. in prolegom._\n\n    [316] _Buxtorf. Synag. c. 12. p. 325._\n\nIn case any did eat leavened bread those seven daies, the penalty was,\nthat such a _soul_ should be _cut off from Israel_, _Exod. 12. 15._\nWhich penalty hath amongst Expositors a three-fold interpretation.[317]\nSome understand thereby such a man to be _cut off from his heavenly\ninheritance_: others, that _God_ would _cut off such from the living\nby an untimely death_: others, that he should _die without children_,\nleaving no posterity behind him: To this purpose their Proverb is,[318]\n_A man childless is lifeless_.\n\n    [317] _Vid. P. Fag. in Exod. 12._\n\n    [318] _Vid. P. Fag. ibid._\n\nOf these three, the first is most probable in this place, though\nthe same Text may admit the second interpretation in other places\nof Scripture, as is declared in the Chapter of Circumcision.\nNotwithstanding here let the judicious Reader determine, whether these\nwords do not imply, besides the secret actions of God touching the soul\nof such a Delinquent, a direction unto the Church how to deal with\nparties thus offending by censuring them with Excommunication, which\nkind of censure elsewhere the Scripture calleth, _A casting out of the\nSynagogue_, _John 16. 2._ A speech much like this, _A cutting off from\nIsrael_.\n\nThree things may be here demanded. First, who killed the _Paschal\nLamb_? Secondly, where it was killed? Thirdly, where it was eaten?\nFirst, it was killed by the _Priests_, _2 Chron. 35. 6._ Secondly,\nit was killed after the first time in the _Court of the Temple_, the\nplace which _God_ had chosen. _Deut. 16. 6._ Thirdly, the owner of\nthe Lamb took it of the _Priest_, and did eat it in his own house\nat _Jerusalem_, _Christ with his disciples kept the Passover in an\nupper-chamber at Jerusalem_.[319]\n\n    [319] _Maimon. in Korban Pesach c. 1. sec. 6._\n\nIt may further be demanded, whether the Passover consisted of two\nsuppers, one immediately succeeding the other? Some affirm it, and\ntheir reasons are these: First, say they, the _Passover_ was eaten\n_standing_, but _Christ_ used another gesture. This argument of all\nother is the weakest, for _Christ_ used the gesture of lying on his\nbody, as well in the eating of the _Passover_, as at the consecration\nof the _Sacrament_, and the _Jews_, generally after the first\ninstitution, in all their _Passovers_, used rather this posture of\ntheir body, than the other of standing, in token of rest and security,\nas appeareth in the _Chapter of Feasts_. Secondly, they say, the\n_Paschal Lamb_ was wont to be rosted; but in the last _Passover_ which\nour _Saviour_ celebrated, there was _Jus cui intingebatur panis_,\n_Broth into which he dipped the bread_. This reason is as weak as the\nformer, because though there was a command to eat the _Paschal Lamb\nrosted_; yet there was no prohibition to joyn their ordinary supper\nwith the eating thereof, and that might admit broth: but, as it is\nshewn above, the matter into which the sop was dipped, was thought to\nbe the sauce _Charoseth_. Thirdly, they urge _John 13. 2._ That the\nfirst supper was done, when _Christ_ arose and washed his Disciples\nfeet, and after that he gave _Judas_ the sop, which must argue a\nsecond sitting down. This foretelling his _Disciples_, that one of\nthem should betray him, is likewise by Saint _Luke_ recited after the\nconsecration of the _Sacrament_. This is the strongest argument, and\nyet not of sufficient validity, because by a kind of _Prolepsis_, or\nanticipation of time, it is not unusual, in the Scripture, to relate\nthat first, which according to the truth of the History, should be\nlast. Thus _John 11._ mention is made of _Mary_ which anointed the\n_Lord_, yet her anointing of him followeth in the next _Chapter_. And\nthis same History of betraying _Christ_, Saint _Matthew_, and Saint\n_Mark_ recite it before the consecration of the _Sacrament_. Whence\nthe _Jews_ have a Proverb,[320] _Non esse prius aut posterius in\nscriptura_; That _first_ and _last_, must not be strictly urged in\nScripture. Together with these answers, consider how improbable it\nis, that ten persons (for sometimes they were so few) should eat a\nsecond supper, after they had eaten _A Lamb of the first year_, which\nmight be an year old. It is evident also by that of _Barabbas_, that\nit was a received custom on the _Passover_, to let loose and enlarge\none Prisoner or other. Concerning the reason hereof, the conjecture\nis three-fold, Some think this custom to have been used in memory of\n_Jonathan_ the son of _Saul_, when the people rescued him from the\nhands of his Father. Others say that the reason hereof was, that the\nFeast might be celebrated with the greater joy and gladness. Others\nmore probably think, it was done in remembrance of their deliverance\nfrom the _Egyptian bondage_.\n\n    [320] _\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d5\u05e7\u05d3\u05dd \u05d5\u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05d7\u05e8 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\u200f\u200e Salom. Iarchi. in Gen. 6. 3._\n\nAgain, here is to be observed, that the _Jews_, speaking of their\n_Passover_, did sometimes speak according to their _civil computation_,\nwherein they measured their days from _Sun-rising_ to _Sun-rising_:\nsometimes according to their _sacred computation_, which was from\n_Sun-set_ to _Sun-set_. This serveth for the reconciliation of that,\n_Numb. 12. 18._ which seemeth to make the fourteenth day of the first\nmonth, the first day of unleavened bread. And _Josephus_[321] telleth\nus that they numbered _eight days_ for that Feast. In like manner the\nDisciples are said to come unto _Christ_ the _first day of unleavened\nbread_, saying unto him, _Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to\neat the Passover?_ _Mat. 26. 17._ as if the _first day of unleavened\nbread_, were before the _Passover_. All these are true according to the\ncomputation of their _civil days_, though according to the computation\nof their _Holy-days_, the _feast of unleavened bread_ began the\nfifteenth day, and continued seven days only, and the _Passover_ was\nbefore the _feast of unleavend bread_.\n\n    [321] _Joseph. Antiq. l. 2. c. 5. p. 65._\n\nIn the last place we must know, that there was permitted a _second\nPassover_ to those who could not be partakers of the _first_, by reason\neither of their uncleanness by a dead body, or of their far distance\nfrom the place where it was to be offered. This was to be observed in\nthe second month, the fourteenth day thereof, according to all the\nOrdinances of the first _Passover_, _Numb. 9._ Touching that permission\nof a _second Passover_, to those that were in a journey _far off_: the\n_Hebrew_ of this word _far off_, hath extraordinary pricks over it,\nfor special consideration. Hereby the Lord might intimate, that we\nGentiles which were unclean, even dead in trespasses and sins, and _far\noff_, _Ephes. 2. 13._ should be made _nigh_ by the blood of _Christ_,\nand so partakers of him, the _second Passover_. Of this legal Ordinance\nthe _Hebrews_ say,[322] What is this journey _far off_? fifteen miles\nwithout the walls of _Jerusalem_, who so is distant from _Jerusalem_,\non the fourteenth day of the first month, fifteen miles or more, when\nthe Sun riseth, Lo, this is a journey _far off_; if less than this,\nit is not a journey _far off_, for he may come to _Jerusalem_ by\nafter midday, though he go on foot, easily. The Agreement between the\n_Paschal Lamb_ and _Christ_ standeth thus,\n\n    [322] _Maimon. in Korban. Pesach c. 5. sect. 8, 9._\n\n_Christ is our Passover_, _1 Cor. 5._\n\n    The Paschal Lamb was,           Christ was,\n\n     1  One of the flock.            1  _Perfect man_, _John 1._\n     2  Without blemish.             2  _Without sin._\n     3  To be sacrificed and         3  _Suffered and died._\n        roasted.\n     4  His bones were not           4  _They brake not his legs_,\n        broken.                         _John 19. 33._\n     5  About the Evening.           5  _In the end of the world_,\n                                        _Heb. 9. 26._\n     6  Their door-posts were        6  _The Blood of Christ purgeth\n        to be sprinkled with            our consciences._\n        the blood.\n     7  That the punishing           7  _That sin and death might\n        Angel might pass over           not prevail against us._\n        them.\n     8  It was eaten in their        8  _He is applied by Faith._\n        several families.\n     9  The whole Lamb.              9  _According to all the Articles\n                                        of the Creed._\n    10  Without Leaven.             10  _Without Hypocrisie_,\n                                        _1 Cor. 5._\n    11  With bitter herbs.          11  _With patience under the\n                                        Cross._\n    12  In haste, and in the        12  _With an earnest and\n        manner of Travellers.           longing expectation of life\n                                        eternal._\n    13  Only by the Circumcised.    13  _Only by the faithful_,\n                                        _1 Cor. 11._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\n_Of their Pentecost_\n\n\nThis Feast was called \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74, _the Pentecost_; which word\nsignifieth the _fiftieth day_, because it was observed upon the\n_fiftieth day after the second of the Passover_, which was the\n_sixteenth of Nisan_. Here in the first place we must note, that the\nfourteenth of _Nisan_ was \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1, the _Passover_; the _fifteenth_\n\u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1, the _Feast of the Passover_: or \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1,[323]\nthe _first of the Passover_: the sixteenth was \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1, the\n_second of the Passover_; or _the morrow after the Passover_, _Levit.\n23. 11._ which is all one, as if it had been said, the _morrow after\nthe feast of the Passover_; for in those feasts which consisted in many\ndaies, the _first_ and the _last_ were termed _Sabbaths_. Now these\nfifty daies were in truth the appointed time of their Harvest, their\nHarvest, being bounded as it were, with two remarkable daies, the one\nbeing the _beginning_, the other the _end_ thereof: the _beginning_\nwas \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 the _second of the Passover_; the _end_ was\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74, the _fiftieth day after_, called the _Pentecost_. Upon\nthe \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, then they offered[324] a _sheaf of the same fruits of\ntheir harvest_, _Levit. 23. 10._ Upon the _Pentecost_, then they\noffered two _wave loavs_, _Levit. 23. 17._ the _sheaf_ being an\nOblation offered in the name of the whole Congregation, whereby all\nthe after-fruits throughout the Land were sanctified,[325] it being\nfrom thence afterward lawful, and not before, to reap the Corn, the\n_two loavs_ being not only an _Eucharistical Oblation_, but also a\ntoken of the Harvest finished and ended. In the second place we are to\nknow, that they did count these fifty daies by numbring the _Weeks_\nfrom the \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, whence it was called a _Feast of weeks_. The manner\nhow they counted the _weeks_, was, according to the number of the\n_Sabbaths_ following the \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1. Thus the first _Sabbath_ following\nthey called \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd: the second, \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd: the\nthird \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, _&c._ So that[326] all the _Weeks_ and _Sabbaths_,\nduring the time of the _Pentecost_; as the _first_, _second_, _third_,\nand _fourth_, _&c._ took their denomination from \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, which\nobservation giveth light to that of S. _Luke_, _Luke 16. 1._ where\nthere is mention of a _Sabbath_ termed \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, that is, the\n_second first Sabbath_, and by it is meant the _Sabbath next after the\nsixteenth of Nisan_, which was the \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1. Seeing that these _fifty\ndaies_ did measure out the time of their Harvest, it will not be amiss\nto observe the difference betwixt their Harvest and ours, which chiefly\nconsisted in their anticipation of time; for both the _Canaanites_ and\nthe _\u00c6gyptians_ began their Harvest about the first of _April_,[327] it\nwas quite finished in _May_.\n\n    [323] _Seniores appellabant hunc diem, \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n    Lev. 23. 11._\n\n    [324] _Scalig. de emend. temp. l. 6._\n\n    [325] _\u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n    Joseph. Antiq. l. 3. c. 10._\n\n    [326] _Scalig. lib. 6. de emend. temp. p. 260._\n\n    [327] _Plin. l. 18. cap. 18. Illud ipsum confirmat Leo Afr.\n    testis \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 Descript. Afr. lib. 8. c. 4._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\n_The Feast of Tabernacles_\n\n\nThe _Greek_ word used to express this Festivity, properly signifieth\nthe _making of Tabernacles_:[328] the _Hebrew_ word, a _Feast of\nTabernacles_.[329] The reason of both is, because all the time of\nthis _Feast_, which was full seven daies, (from the fifteenth of\n_Tisri_, untill the one and twentieth thereof) the people remained in\n_Tabernacles_ and _Booths_ made of Boughs, in manner of Arbors and\nBowers; yet so, that the first day of those seven, and the last, were\nafter a more special manner to be observed as _holy Convocations_.\n\n    [328] _Jansen. Concord. cap. 73. Item Tollet. in Joan. 7.\n    \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1, non \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1._\n\n    [329] _\u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05d2 \u05d4\u05e1\u05db\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e Chag hasuccoth._\n\nConcerning these Booths, the _Jews_ write thus:[330] They ought to be\nmade in the open Air, not within doors, nor under the shelter of a\nTree; they ought not to be covered with cloaths, nor to be made too\nclose with the thickness of the Boughs, but with such holes that the\nSun and the Stars might be seen thorow them, and the rain likewise\ndescend thorow them. In these they ought to dwell those seven days,\nas in their houses; they ought to furnish them with houshold-stuff\nto ly under them, and sleep under them; only in rainy weather, then\nthey had liberty to eat and sleep in their houses, untill the rain was\nover-past. Feeble persons also, which could not endure the smell of the\nearth, were permited to stay at home. In _Nehemiah_\u2019s time they made\ntheir Booths, some upon the roof of their houses (for their houses were\nmade flat above) _Deut. 22. 8._ Some in their Courts, some in their\nstreets, _Nehem. 8. 15._\n\n    [330] _Munster Levit. 23._\n\n_Plutarch_ making mention of this Festivity, saith,[331] that these\n_Booths_ were made principally of Ivy boughs: but the Scripture\nreckoneth up _four distinct kinds_, _Levit. 23. 40._ which are thought\nto be, 1. _The Cittern tree._ 2. _The Palm-tree._ 3. _The Myrtle\ntree._ 4. _The willow of the brook._ The _Rabbins_ teach,[332] that\nevery man brought every morning his burden of the boughs of these four\nTrees, otherwise he fasted that day. And this burden they termed[333]\n_Hosanna_: in allusion unto this the people cutting down branches from\nthe Trees, and strewing them in the way when our _Saviour_ did ride\ninto _Jerusalem_, cried, saying, _Hosanna_ to the _Son of David_, _Mat.\n21. 9._ _Plutarch_ scoffing the _Jews_, compares this Feast with that\ndrunken Festival in the honour of _Bacchus_, in which the _Bacchides_\nran up and down with certain Javelings in their hands, wrapped about\nwith Ivy, called \u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 and in this respect he termeth this feast of\nthe _Jews_ \u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd _A bearing about of these Thyrsi_. That feast\nwhich the _Athenians_ term \u0395\u1f30\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7, was not much unlike.\n\n    [331] _Plutarch. Sympos. 4. Problem. 5._\n\n    [332] _P. Fag. Levit. 23._\n\n    [333] _Elias Thisbit._\n\nMoreover on the next day after this feast, they compassed the\nAltar[334] _seven times_ with Palm-boughs in their hands, in the\nremembrance of the overthrow of _Jericho_: for which reason, or else\nbecause that Palm branches were the chief in the bundle, it was called\n_Dies Palmarum_, _Palm Feast_.\n\n    [334] _Hospinian. de Orig. fest. cap. 7. It. Munst. in\n    Calendar. p. 150._\n\nConcerning the reason of this Feast; some are of opinion, that it was\ninstituted in memory of that protection which the Lord vouchsafed the\n_Israelites_ by the Cloud, when they travelled thorow the Wilderness,\nunder the shadow of which they travelled, as under a _safe Booth_ or\n_Tent_. _Onkelos_ in his _Chaldee Paraphrase_, seemeth to incline to\nthis opinion. Where the _Hebrew_ readeth; _That your posterity may\nknow, that I have made the children of Israel to dwell in Booths_,\n_Lev. 23. 43._ The _Chaldee_ rendereth it, _That your posterity may\nknow that I have made the children of Israel to dwell in the shadow\nof Clouds_.[335] Others think[336] it was instituted as a solemn\nthanksgiving unto _God_ for their Vintage, which was gathered in at\nthat time of the year; thence it is that they conceive those Psalms\nof _David_, which are entituled \u200e\u200f\u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d2\u05ea\u05d9\u05ea\u200f\u200e _pro torcularibus_, to have\nbeen composed for this feast. Others speak more probably, who assign\nthe cause to be in memory of their Fore-fathers _dwelling in Tents and\nTabernacles_; the Text is clear, _Levit. 23. 43._\n\n    [335] _\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05de\u05d8\u05dc\u05ea \u05e2\u05e0\u05e0\u05d9\u05df\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [336] _Theophylact. John 5._\n\nThe Sacrifices which were offered these seven daies, are prescribed:\n_Numb. 29._ from the thirteenth verse to the thirty fourth, where we\nshall read every day the like Sacrifice, but only with this difference,\nthat upon the first day they offered _thirteen_ young bullocks, upon\nthe second _twelve_, upon the third _eleven_, and so forward, ever\ndiminishing the number by one. The reason of which diminution, the\n_Jews_ deliver to be this:[337] the whole number of bullocks to be\noffered at this solemnity was _seventy_, according to the Languages of\nthe _seventy Nations_, (for whom, as they teach, these sacrifices were\nperformed) signifying thereby, that there should be a diminution of\nthose Nations, until all things were brought under the government of\nthe _Messias_ who was the expectation and Hope of the _Gentiles_.\n\n    [337] _Hospinian. de Orig. hujus fest._\n\nThe two and twentieth of the month _Tisri_, was in truth a distinct\nfeast, as appeareth, _Neh. 8. 18._ but yet because this immediately\nfollowed the Feast of _Tabernacles_, it hath been always counted the\nlast day of that Feast. And not only the _boughs_, but the _days_ of\nthis whole _feast of Tabernacles_ were termed[338] _Hosannoth_, from\nthe usual acclamations of the people, whiles they carried _Boughs_ up\nand down. And this eighth day was called _Hosanna Rabba_, the _great\nHosanna_, or the _great day of the feast_. _John 7. 37._ Upon this\nday[339] they did read the last Section of the Law, and likewise began\nthe first, least they might otherwise seem more joyful in ending their\nSections, than willing to begin them. Upon this day also,[340] by the\nInstitution of the Prophet _Hagg\u00e6us_ and _Zachary_, and such like\n_Prophetical_ men, they did with great solemnity and joy, bring great\nstore of water from the River _Shiloah_ to the Temple, where it being\ndelivered unto the _Priests_, it was poured upon the Altar, together\nwith Wine, and all the people sung that of the _Prophet_ _Esay. 12.\n13._ _With joy shall ye draw water out of the Wells of salvation_. Our\nSaviour is thought to have alluded unto this, in that speech which he\nused on this very day, _John 7. 38._ _He that believeth in me, out of\nhis belly shall flow rivers of waters of life._\n\n    [338] _Talmud. tract. de fest. Tabernaculorum, cap. \u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05dc\u05d5\u05dc\u200f\u200e Vid.\n    Tremel. John 7. 37._\n\n    [339] _Buxtorf. in abbreviatur. p. 253._\n\n    [340] _Tremel. Joh. 7. 37. ex Talmud._\n\nIt is worth our noting also, that whereas God commanded the Observation\nof this Feast on the fifteenth of the seventh month _Tisri_;\n_Jeroboam_, that he might work in the people a forgetfulness of the\ntrue Worship of God, appointed[341] the celebration of a Feast in the\neighth month, on the fifteenth day thereof, which is thought to be this\nvery feast of _Tabernacles_.\n\n    [341] _Hospinian. de Orig. hujus fest. p. 24._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\n_Of the Feast of Trumpets, and their New Moons._\n\n\nFor the understanding of the time when this Feast was to be observed,\nwe must note, the month _Tisri_ was the _seventh month_, according\nto their _sacred Computation_; and therefore it is commanded to be\ncelebrated the first day of the _seventh month_, _Levit. 23. 24._ But\naccording to their _Civil Computation_ it was their _first month_, so\nthat this Feast may be termed their _New-years-day_.\n\nThe first day of every month had its solemnities. First, when they\nrepaired to the _Prophets_ for the hearing of the word, as on other\n_Sabbaths_. Wherefore wilt thou go to him to day? It is neither _New\nMoon_, nor _Sabbath day_, _2 Kings 4. 23._ Secondly, It was then\nunlawful to buy and sell: When will the _New Moon_ be gone, that we may\nsell corn? _Amos 8. 4._ Thirdly, They had then special sacrifices over\nand above their daily sacrifices.\n\nNotwithstanding, this feast of _Trumpets_ differed from other _New\nMoons_. First, in respect of their sacrifices; in their _ordinary\nNew Moons_ they offered (besides the daily sacrifice) _two Bullocks,\none Ram, seven Lambs, for burnt-offerings_; with their meat and\ndrink-offering, and a _Goat for a sin-offering_, _Num. 28. 11, 15._\nBut at this _New-Moon_, which was the beginning of their year, they\noffered all the aforesaid sacrifices, and over and besides them, _one\nBullock, one Ram, and seven Lambs, for burnt-offerings_, and a _Goat\nfor a sin-offering, umb. 29. 1, 6._ Secondly, in _Other New Moons_\nthey blowed no _Trumpets_: In _this_ they blowed[342] from the _Sun\nrising till night_: whence we learn what _New Moon_ it is that _David_\nspeaketh of, _Psal. 81. 3._ _Blow the Trumpet in the New Moon, in the\ntime appointed, at our feast day._\n\n    [342] _Sheindler, in voce \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05e4\u05e8\u200f\u200e_\n\nThe reason in general of this blowing, and great _noise of Trumpets_, I\ntake to have been, to make their _New-years-day_ the more remarkable,\nbecause from it all their deeds and contracts bore date, and their\n_Sabbatical years_ and _Jubilees_ were counted thence: But why it\nshould be made remarkable by the sound of _Trumpets_, or _Cornets_,\nthere are three conjectures.\n\n_First_, the _Hebrews_ think[343] it was done in memory of _Isaac_ his\ndeliverance, and that they did therefore sound _Rams horns_, because\na _Ram_ was sacrificed instead of him. _Secondly_, _Basil_[344] is of\nopinion, that the people were hereby put in mind of that day, wherein\nthey received the Law in Mount _Sinai_ with _blowing of Trumpets_.\n_Thirdly_, others think it was to put them in rememberance of the\n_Resurrection_, which shall be with the _sound of Trumpets_; _He shall\nsend his Angels with a great sound of a Trumpet_, _Mat. 24. 31._\n\n    [343] _P. Fag. Levit. 23._\n\n    [344] _Basil. in Psal. 80._\n\nThere are three things considerable in _New Moons_.[345] _First_,\n\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, the _conjunction of the Moon with the Sun_. _Secondly_,\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2, the _waxing of the Moon_. _Thirdly_, \u03c3\u03c7\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f72\u03c2, the\n_prime of the Moon_. In the first it was _quite dark_; in the second it\n_did open it self to receive the Sun-beams_: In the last it did appear,\n_corniculata_, _horned_.\n\n    [345] _Scalig. de emend. temp. pag. 26. It. p. 105._\n\nBecause in all these three degrees of the change, there was a kind of\nmutual participation both of the _Old and New Moon_: Hence the _Jews_\nobserve two daies,[346] namely, the _last of every moneth_, and the\n_first day of the next following_. Now because the _thirtieth_ was the\nlast in their longest months; Hence _Horace_ calleth these _last days_,\n_Tricesima Sabbata_: The _first days_ they termed, _Neomenias_, _new\nMoons_.\n\n    [346] _Hospin. de Orig. fest. c. 4. p. 15. Eadem ratio tenet\n    etiam in illis mensibus qui constant 29. diebus._\n\nFor certain reasons the _Jews_ used a kind of change, or _translation_\nof daies; which _translation_, though it were of use in other months\nalso, yet the greatest care was had in translating the beginning of\ntheir year, or their first day in their month _Tisri_; and he that\nshall diligently calculate these changes, shall find, that all other\ntranslations depended on this first.\n\n_Translation of daies_ was threefold.[347] _First_, _Lunary_:\n_Secondly_, _Politik_: _Thirdly_, _Mixt_.\n\n    [347] _Scalig. de emend. temp. l. 2. p. 85._\n\nThe reason of _Lunary translation_, was, that they might not observe\nthe Feast of the _New Moon_, until the old were quite over-past. For\nthe understanding of this, note these three rules.\n\nFirst, The _Hebrews_ counted their Holy-daies from night to night,\nbeginning at six of the clock; so that from six of the clock the first\nnight, till the next noon, were just eighteen hours.\n\nSecondly, Always before the _New Moon_, there is a _conjunction_\nbetween the _Sun_ and the _Moon_; during this _conjunction_ she is\ncalled _Luna silens_, by reason of her darkness, and all this time\nthere is a participation of the _New Moon_.\n\nThirdly, When the conjunction was over past before noon-tide, namely,\nin any of those first 18 hours, then the _New Moon_ was celebrated the\nsame day.[348] But if it continued but one minute after twelve of the\nclock at noon, then the feast was _translated_ to the day following,\nbecause otherwise they should begin their Holy-day in the time of the\nold Moon. And this translation they noted with this abbreviation \u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05d4\u200f\u200e,\nthat is, 18, because of those eighteen hours which occasioned it.\n\n    [348] _Munster. Calend. Heb. p. 46._\n\nThe reason of _Politick translation_, was, that two _Sabbaths_, or\nfeast-days might not immediately follow each other: because say\nthey,[349] it was unlawful those two daies to dress meat, or bury the\ndead; and it was likewise inconvenient to keep meat dressed, or the\ndead unburied two daies. Yet here two exceptions must be remembred,\nwhen the meeting of two Sabbaths could not be avoided.\n\n    [349] _Munst. Calend. p. 139._\n\nFirst, When the _Passover_, or the fifteenth day of _Nisan_, fell on\n_Saturday_; for then the _Pentecost_ must needs fall on _Sunday_.\n\nSecondly, When the _Passover_ fell on _Sunday_; for then their\n_Passover_ immediately followed their _weekly Sabbath_.\n\nThe first Author of this _Politick translation_ was a certain chief\nman amongst them, named _Eleazar_;[350] three hundred and fifty years\nbefore _Christ_ his _Nativity_.\n\n    [350] _Hospinian. de Orig. fest. p. 6._\n\nThe several species or kinds of _Politick translation_, were five. The\nfirst, \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u200f\u200e _Adu_. The second, \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05d3\u05d5\u200f\u200e _Badu_. The third, \u200e\u200f\u05d2\u05d4\u05d6\u200f\u200e\n_Gahaz_. The fourth, \u200e\u200f\u05d6\u05d1\u05d3\u200f\u200e _Zabad_. The fifth, \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d2\u05d5\u200f\u200e _Agu_. For\nthe understanding of these abbreviatures, we must know, that in these\nmade words the letters only stand for numbers, and are applied to the\nseven daies of the week, thus \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u200f\u200e 1. _Sunday_. \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u200f\u200e 2. _Munday_.\n\u200e\u200f\u05d2\u200f\u200e 3. _Tuesday_. \u200e\u200f\u05d3\u200f\u200e 4. _Wednesday_. \u200e\u200f\u05d4\u200f\u200e 5. _Thursday_. \u200e\u200f\u05d5\u200f\u200e 6.\n_Friday_. \u200e\u200f\u05d6\u200f\u200e 7. _Saturday_: which was the _Jews Sabbath_.\n\nTheir rules touching _Politick translation_, stood thus.[351] First,\nthat neither their _New-years-day_, which was the first of the month\n_Tisri_, neither their _Feast of Tabernacles_, which was the fifteenth\nday of the same month, should be celebrated on _Adu_, that is on\n_Sunday_, or _Wednesday_, or _Friday_. Not on _Sunday_, or _Friday_,\nbecause then the _weekly Sabbath_ must needs concur with it, either\ngoing immediately before, or following after: not on _Wednesday_,\nbecause then the _Feast of expiation_, which is the tenth of that\nmonth, would fall on _Friday_ the day going immediately before their\n_weekly Sabbath_. This instance is only concerning the first of\n_Tisri_, which is called the _Feast of Trumpets_: but it holdeth also,\nby way of consequence, in the _fifteenth day_, which is the _Feast of\nTabernacles_, because the fifteenth must always necessarily be of the\nsame day of the week that the first is. Therefore if the first be not\n_Adu_, the fifteenth cannot be _Adu_.\n\n    [351] _Adu._\n\nThe second rule was,[352] that the _Passover_ should not be observed on\n_Badu_; that is on _Munday_, _Wednesday_, or _Friday_.\n\n    [352] _Badu._\n\nThe third rule is,[353] that _Pentecost_ was not observed on _Gahaz_;\nthat is, on _Tuesday_, _Thursday_, or _Saturday_.\n\n    [353] _Gahaz._\n\nThe fourth rule is,[354] that the _Feast of Purim_, or _casting lots_,\nwas not observed on _Zabad_, that is, on _Munday_, _Wednesday_, or\n_Saturday_.\n\n    [354] _Zabad._\n\nThe fifth rule is,[355] that the _Feast of expiation_ was not observed\non _Agu_; that is, on _Sunday_, _Tuesday_, or _Friday_.\n\n    [355] _Agu._\n\n_Mixt translation_ is, when both the _Lunary_ and the _Politick_ meet\nin the changing of daies. And the _translation_ occasioned by this\nmixture or meeting of both these two, is twofold. First, _Simple_. And\nsecondly, _Double_.\n\n_Simple translation_ is, when the Feast is translated to the next day\nfollowing. For examples sake, If the _Moon_ changed after noon-tide on\n_Sunday_, here the _Feast_ must be translated, for two reasons: the\nfirst is _Lunary_, because the point of the change was after _eighteen\nhours_; the second, _Politick_, because the rule _Adu_ forbids _Sunday_\nto be kept: notwithstanding, in as much as the very next day, namely\n_Munday_, was observed; I term this translation _simple_. Of this sort\nwas that translation which they called _Batu takphat_.\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05d8\u05d5 \u05ea\u05e7\u05e4\u05d8\u200f\u200e _Batu Takphat_,[356] is a word invented for help of\nmemory; each letter is a numeral, and may be thus resolved, \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u200f\u200e 2. \u200e\u200f\u05d8\u05d5\u200f\u200e\n15. \u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05e7\u05e4\u05d8\u200f\u200e 589. The meaning is, that in the year following _Annum\nEmbolym\u00e6um_ (wherein one whole month was ingrafted) if the point of\nthe change happened upon the second day of the week, that is, _Munday_\nnot before the fifteenth hour, and the 589 moment, the Feast of the\n_New Moon_ was _translated unto Tuesday_. How both the _Lunary_ and\n_Politick_ translation work in this change, read _Scaliger, de emend.\ntemp. lib. 2. pag. 87_.\n\n    [356] _Batu takphat._\n\n_Double Translation_, is, when the Feast is translated not to the next,\nbut to some further day: as if the first day of the month _Tisri_\nshould happen upon _Saturday_; here, if the Moon hath not overpast her\nconjunction before the afternoon, _Lunary translation_ removeth this\n_Feast_ till _Sunday_, because of \u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05d7\u200f\u200e, that is, the _eighteen hours_:\n_Politick translation_ removeth it till _Munday_, as appeareth by the\nrule _Adu_, forbidding _Sunday_; of this sort is _Gatrad_.\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d2\u05d8\u05e8\u05d3\u200f\u200e _Gatrad_, is a made word, each letter is a numeral, and it may\nbe thus resolved, \u200e\u200f\u05d2\u200f\u200e 3. \u200e\u200f\u05d8\u200f\u200e 9. \u200e\u200f\u05e8\u05d3\u200f\u200e 204. The meaning thereof is\nthus: In their common year (when a whole month is not inserted) if the\npoint of the change happen upon the _third day_ of the week, that is,\n_Tuesday_, not before the ninth hour, and the 204 moment of an hour,\nthen the _New Moon_ shall be translated to _Thursday_.\n\nNote in the last place, that 1080 _moments_ make an _hour_.[357]\n\n    [357] _Munst. Calend. pag. 45._\n\nThe _Feast of Tabernacles_ was observed in the month _Tisri_, and\ntherefore that could not be observed the morrow after the _Sabbath_,\nas appeareth by the rule _Adu_. The _Passover_ was observed in the\nmonth _Nisan_, and therefore that might be observed the morrow after\nthe _Sabbath_, as appeareth by the rule _Badu_. If any ask the reason\nwhy the _Passover_ might be observed the next day after the _Sabbath_,\nseeing the _Feast of Tabernacles_ might not? I take it to be thus;\nAll the _after translations_ depended upon the _first translation_ of\nthe _first New Moon in Tisri_; but that could not be so changed, as\nto prevent all concurrence of two _Feasts_; and thus to have their\n_Passover_ sometimes to follow their _Sabbath_, they thought the most\nconvenientest ordering of the year, because though not all meetings of\ntwo _Sabbaths_, yet most were hereby prevented.\n\nThis tract of translation of Feasts, it serveth partly to open the\ncustoms of the _Jews_: partly to give light for the understanding\nof that great dispute among _Divines_, whether our _Saviour_ did\nanticipate the _Passover_. The _Greek Church_ holds,[358] that he kept\na _Passover_ by himself with his _Disciples_, on the thirteenth day of\nthe month, when _unleavened bread_ was not yet to be used; and thence\nthey do both use and urge a necessity[359] of _leavened bread in the\nLords supper_: But this opinion we reject. First, because it accordeth\nnot with the truth of _Evangelical History_. Secondly, because it\nplainly maketh _Christ_ to be a transgressor, not a fulfiller of the\nLaw. Others say,[360] that because that year their _Passover_ fell\non _Friday_, hence the feast was translated unto _Saturday_ by the\nrule _Badu_. Their inference is that _Christ_ kept the fourteenth day\nof the month, which was _Friday_, and the _Jews_ kept _Saturday_. He\nkept Gods Command, they the _tradition of the Elders_. Lastly, others\nmore probably hold,[361] that both _Christ_ and the _Jews_ did eat\nthe _Passover_ the same day and hour; namely, on _Friday_, or the\nfourteenth day of the month, if we count the beginning of _Friday_\naccording to the manner of the _Jews_, from six a clock at night on\n_Thursday_. _Friday_ morning he was judged, and crucified; and in the\nafternoon, about three of the clock, when the _preparation of the\nSabbath_ began, he was buried; _There laid they Jesus, because of the\nJews preparation_, _John 19. 24._\n\n    [358] _Epiph. l. 2. Tom. 1. c. 51. p. 147._\n\n    [359] _Usum fermentati panis in c\u0153na Dominica Ecclesia Romana\n    olim non damnavit. Casaubon. exercit. 16. p. 65._\n\n    [360] _Munster. in Mat. cap. 26._\n\n    [361] _Joseph. Scalig. de emend. temp. lib. 6. p. 266._\n\nFor reconciling the _Evangelists_ in this point, we must note these\nparticulars, which are more at large proved in the _Chapter of the\nPassover_. 1. The _fourteenth_ day of the month, on which the _Paschal\nLamb_ was eaten, was called the first day of _unleavened bread_; the\nFeast of _unleavened bread_ drew near, which is called the _Passover_,\n_Luke 22. 1._\n\nThe _fourteenth_ day was not holy, but the _fifteenth_ was. In the\n_fourteenth_ day of the first month is the _Passover_ of the _Lord_,\nand in the _fifteenth_ day of this month is the Feast, _Numb. 28. 16,\n17._ Some of them thought, because _Judas_ had the bag, that _Jesus_\nhad said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the\nFeast, _John 13. 29._\n\nThe _Sheep and Bullocks_ offered upon this day, are called the\n_Passover_, _Deut. 16. 2._ And of this we are to understand S. _John_,\n_Joh. 18. 28._ They themselves went not into the common Hall, lest they\nshould be defiled, but that they might eat the _Passover_. So that\nthis eating of the _Passover_ is not understood of the _Paschal Lamb_.\nBut some may question, How they should have been defiled by entring\ninto the common Hall? The answer is,[362] that upon _Holy-day-eves_,\nwhich they termed _days of preparation_, they held it unlawful for\ntheir _Judges to sit on life and death_. Hence it is that they brought\n_Jesus to Pilate_ the _Roman Deputy_. _Secondly_, they withdrew\nthemselves out of the common Hall. _Thirdly_, for this reason they\nsaid, _It is not lawful for us to put any man to death_, _Joh. 18.\n31._ that is, upon this, or such like day;[363] for though their high\nCourt of _Sanedrim_ were put down at this time, yet all power in cases\nof life and death was not taken from them, as is implied in the words\nfollowing; It was that the word of _Jesus_ might be fulfilled, which\nhe spake signifying what death he should die, _ver. 32._ Which text\nintimateth, that that unlawfulness was urged by the special providence\nof God, that he might be crucified, being judged by _Pilat_: for if the\n_Jews_ had judged, they used no such kind of death towards Malefactors.\nAgain, _Stephen_ was condemned by them to be stoned, _Act. 7._ And they\ncomplained before _Felix_, that when they were about to proceed against\n_Paul_ according to their own Law, the chief Captain _Lysias_ with\nviolence took him out of their hands, _Acts 24._ Which argueth, that\nall power in causes capital was not taken from them: But of this see\nthe _Chapter, Of their capital punishments_.\n\n    [362] _\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u200f\u200e Moses\n    ben Maimon. li. ult. Iad. c. Sanedrin. Sect. 11._\n\n    [363] _August. tract. 114. In Ioann. ita hunc locum exponunt\n    etiam Cyrill. lib. 12. in Ioan. c. 6. Chrys. hom. 12. in Joan.\n    Beda in c. 18. Joan._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\n_The Feast of Expiation._\n\n\nUpon the tenth day of the month _Tisri_, answering to _September_ with\nus, the _Feast of Expiation_ was commanded to be celebrated, _Levit.\n13._ It was called the _Feast of Expiation_, because the _High-priest_\ndid then confess unto _God_ both his own sins, and the sins of the\npeople: and by the performance of certain Rites and Ceremonies expiate\nthem, and make an attonement unto _God_ for them.\n\nThe _Ceremonies_ at this time to be performed, concerned either the\n_People_ and the _Priest_, or the _Priest alone_. Those which concerned\nthe _People and the Priest_, consisted in the afflicting of their souls\nby _fasting_. Whence this Feast was also called[364] _Dies Jejunii_,\n_the Fasting Day_, _Jer. 36. 6._ Which serveth for the understanding\nof that, _Act. 27. 9._ _Sailing was now dangerous, because the Feast\nwas already past_; that is, the _Feast of Expiation_ was now past, and\nWinter was at hand.\n\n    [364] _Joseph. de bel. Jud. pag. 43._\n\nThose _Ceremonies_ which concerned the _Priest alone_, were two: First,\nthen the _High-priest_ entred into the _Holiest of Holies_, which\nwas peculiar unto this day. Secondly, he being about to sacrifice\nfor himself and his house, he took unto him a _young Bullock for\na sin-offering, and a Ram for a burnt offering_, putting on his\nPriestly Robes: After he had washed himself in water; he took of\nthe Congregation _two He-goats for a sin-offering, and a Ram for a\nburnt offering_. The _two He-goats_ he presented before the _Lord_ at\nthe door of the _Tabernacle_, casting lots which of them should be\nsacrificed, which let _scape alive_. This last was termed[365] the\n_scape Goat_, because the other being slain, this was sent alive into\nthe Wilderness. The Greek Interpreters call this Goat \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd,\n_Malorum depulsorem_, _A defender from evils_; which name the Heathens\napplied to their _Tutelar Gods_. They intimated, that when the _scape\nGoat_ carried away the sins of the people into the Wilderness, he\nlikewise carried away all those _evils_ which belonged unto those sins.\nAnd for the securing the people in this point, the _Lord_ commanded\nthe _High priest_ to confess in the name of all the people, and to\ndisburden the sins of the whole Congregation upon the head of the\n_scape Goat_. The form of _Confession_, according to the relation of\nthe _Hebrew Doctors_, was this:[366] _O Lord, thy People, the House\nof Israel, they have sinned, they have done wickedly, they have\ntransgressed before thee; I beseech thee now, O Lord, pardon the sins,\niniquities, and transgressions, with which the People, the House of\nIsrael have sinned, done wickedly, and transgressed before thee, as it\nis written in the Law of thy servant_ Moses: _that in that day he shall\nmake Attonement for you, that he might cleanse you, and that you might\nbe clean from all your iniquities before the Lord._\n\n    [365] _\u200e\u200f\u05e2\u05d6\u05d0\u05d6\u05dc\u200f\u200e Gnaz azl. ex \u200e\u200f\u05e2\u05d6\u200f\u200e Gnez. capra & \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d6\u05dc\u200f\u200e\n    Azal, abiit R. D. Kimchi in Radic._\n\n    [366] _P. Fag. Lev. 16._\n\nThe _modern Jews_ now (because there can be no proper sacrifice, the\n_Temple_ of _Jerusalem_ being destroy\u00e8d) the men they take a _white\nCock_ on this day, the women a _Hen_.[367] This _Cock_ they swing\nthree times about the _Priests_ head, saying, _Gallus Gallinaceus hic\ncommutatio erit pro me_: that is, _This Cock shall be a propitiation\nfor me_. After that they kill the _Cock_; acknowledging themselves\nworthy of death; and then they cast the intrals upon the top of the\nhouse, that some Raven or Crow might carry both them, and together\nwith them, their sins into the Wilderness. And least they might seem\nto be mad without reason, they assign the cause why they make choice\nof a _Cock_, at this time, to be this: This word[368] _Gebher_ in the\nHoly Language signifieth a Man, in their _Talmud_ it signifieth a Cock.\nNow, say they, the Justice of _God_ requires, that as _Gebher_ sinned,\nso _Gebher_ should make satisfaction. From this _Feast of Expiation_\nit is probable, that the _Grecians_ used a yearly _Expiation_ of\ntheir Cities, which was performed on this manner: Certain condemned\npersons were brought forth with Garlands upon their heads, in manner of\nsacrifices, these they would tumble from some steep place into the Sea,\noffering them up to _Neptune_, using this form of words,[369] \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6, _Sis pro nobis peripsema_: As if he had said, _Be thou a\nReconciliation or Propitiation for us_. The like kind of Expiation was\nused among them in time of any Pestilence, or contagious infection;\nfor removal of such diseases, they then sacrificed certain men unto\ntheir _Gods_, such men they termed \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1.[370] These two words are\nused by the _Apostle_, _1 Cor. 4. 13._ and they are translated _filth\nand off-scouring_: We are made as the _filth of the World, and as the\noff-scouring of all things_. The words signifie properly the _filth or\ndirt scraped off mens shooes_, or from the _pavement of the ground_:\nBut in _Bud\u00e6us_ his opinion,[371] the _Apostle_ had allusion unto those\nkinds of Expiations in use amongst the _Heathens_. As if he had said,\nWe are as despicable and as odious in the sight of the people, as much\nloaded with the revilings and cursings of the multitude, as those\ncondemned persons, who were offered up by way of publick Expiation.\n\n    [367] _Buxtorf. Synagog. cap. 20._\n\n    [368] _\u200e\u200f\u05d2\u05d1\u05e8\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [369] _Suidas in voce \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1._\n\n    [370] _\u039a\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f24\n    \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, Vetus Scholiast. in\n    Aristophan. Plut. pag. 48._\n\n    [371] _Bud\u00e6us annot. reliq. in Pandect. De p\u0153nis, p. 334._\n\nNow, seeing at this Feast principally the _High-Priest_ was a _Type of\nChrist_, it will not be amiss to note the agreement between the _Type_\nand the _Truth_.\n\n       Aaron.                          Christ.\n\n    1. The _High-priest_ went      1. _Christ_ our _High-Priest_\n       into the _Holiest of all_,     went into the _Holy place_,\n       _Levit. 16. 3._                namely, the Heavens,\n                                      _Heb. 9. 12._\n\n    2. He went once a year,        2. He entered once, _Heb.\n       _Exod. 30. 10._                9. 12._\n\n    3. He with the blood of        3. He by his own blood,\n       Goats and Calves,              _Heb. 9. 12._\n       _Heb. 9. 12._\n\n    4. He alone, _Heb. 9._         4. He alone hath trodden\n                                      the Wine-press, _Isay.\n                                      63. 3._\n\n    5. He, clothed with his        5. He, ordained and sealed\n       Priestly Robes, _Levit.        to this Office, by his\n       16. 4._                        Father from all Eternity.\n\n    6. He took two Goats,          6. He took _two natures_:\n       _Levit. 16._                   the _impassibility of his\n                                      God-head_ was shadowed\n                                      by the _Scape goat_: his\n                                      _sufferings in his Manhood_,\n                                      by the _Goat that\n                                      was sacrificed_, _Theod. Qu.\n                                      12._ in Lev.\n\n    7. The _Goat_ did bear the     7. _Christ_ was made sin\n       Peoples iniquities.            for us, _2 Cor. 5. 22._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IX.\n\n_The Sabbatical year, or Seventh years rest_\n\n\nAs every seventh day was a _Sabbath day_, so every seventh year was\na _Sabbatical year_, _Levit. 25._ And as the _Sabbath day_ signified\nthat they themselves were the _Lords_, and therefore they abstained\nfrom their own work to do the _Lords_: So the _Sabbatical year_ was to\nsignifie, that both they and their land was the _Lords_.\n\nThe observation of this Feast consisted chiefly in two things. First,\nin the not tilling or manuring of their ground, whence it was called\n_Scabath Haarets_,[372] the _Sabbaths of the Land_, _Levit. 25. 6._\nSecondly, in the Creditors discharging their debtors, and releasing\ntheir debts, and thence it was called _Shemita laihova_,[373] _The\nLords release_, _Deut. 15. 2._\n\n    [372] _\u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [373] _\u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200f\u200e_\n\nSeeing they were that year forbid to till their ground, here a question\nmight be made; what they should eat in the time of this intermission?\n\nAnsw. _I will command my blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it\nshall bring forth fruit for three years_, _Levit. 25. 20, 21._ saith\nthe Lord.\n\nSeeing every seventh year, debts, according to Gods Command were to be\nremitted, some might demand whether this might not much endamage their\nEstates if they did lend? or harden their hearts not to lend?\n\n_Answ._ It could not endamage their Estates, for it is a most\ninfallible _Maxime_: _No man is a loser by serving God_. Whence\nthe _Hebrews_ themselves interpret this to be rather _Mandatum\nprobationis_, _A command of tryal_, such as _Abrahams_ offering up\nof _Isaac_ was, which _God_ commanded, not intending that he should\nbe sacrificed, but that _Abrahams_ love might be tryed; rather than\n_Mandatum obedienti\u00e6_, _A command of obedience_. To this purpose\nspeaketh _Aben Ezra_, interpreting these words, _Save when there shall\nbe no poor among you_. _Deut. 15. 4._ That is, saith he,[374] as if the\n_Lord_ had said, _Know that that which I have commanded thee, that thou\nshouldest not exact of thy Brother, will be needless. If all Israel,\nor the greater part obey the voice of God, then there shall be no poor\namongst you, to whom it shall be needful for thee to lend; yea, all of\nyou shall be able to lend to many Nations._\n\n    [374] _Aben Ezra. Deut. 15. 4._\n\nThe reasons why this Feast was instituted, are thought to be: First,\nto teach the people to depend upon _Gods_ providence by faith; for\nthough the owner of the field might gather, even on that year, for\nthe maintenance of himself and his family, _Levit. 25. 6._ yet he was\nneither to sow his field, thereby to make his Harvest the greater; nor\nto hedge his field, or lock up his Corn-yard, thereby to enjoy the\npropriety, but to let all be common, and every mans hand equal in every\nplace. Secondly, they were hereby put in mind of that happy estate\nwhich _Adam_ enjoyed in his Innocency, when the earth brought forth her\nencrease without manuring. Lastly, it shadowed forth that _everlasting\nSabbath_ which we expect in the Heavens. And some conjecture[375] this\nto be the ground of _Rabbi Elias_ his opinion,[376] that the _world\nshould continue for six thousand years, but the seventh thousand should\nbe the ~great~ Sabbatical year_. The six thousand years answered the\nsix working daies of the week, the seventh answered our Sabbath,\naccording to that, A thousand years are but as one day with the Lord,\n_2 Pet. 3. 8._ _Elias_ his words are these; _Six thousand years the\nworld shall be, and again it shall be destroyed: Two thousand shall\nbe void, two thousand under the Law, and two thousand under the\nMessias._[377] The substance of this Prophecy, howsoever we reject it\nas too curious, yet seeing that a _Jew_ spake it, it may serve to prove\nagainst them: First, That the _Messias_ is already come: Secondly, That\n_Moses_ his Law ceased at his coming.\n\n    [375] _Vid. Hospin. de Orig. hujus festi._\n\n    [376] _Talmud. in Sanedrin. c. Hiel._\n\n    [377] _\u200e\u200f\u05d1 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05d7\u05d5\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d1 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7\u200f\u200e Duo millia\n    inanitatis, duo millia dierum Messi\u00e6, Talmud. in Sanedrin. c.\n    Halec._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. X.\n\n_Of their Jubilee._\n\n\nThis is the last Festival which _God_ commanded the _Jews_, it was\ncelebrated every _fiftieth year_. It is commanded, _Lev. 25. 8._ Thou\nshalt number seven _Sabbaths_ of years unto thee, _&c._ The _English_\nword _Jubilee_ is derived from the _Hebrew_ \u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05d5\u05d1\u05dc\u200f\u200e _Jobel_, signifying a\n_Ram_; it signifieth a _Rams horn_. Seven _Priests_ shall bear before\nthe _Ark_ seven _Trumpets of Rams horns_, _Josh. 6. 4._ Where the\nword _Jobelim_ is used, and is expounded by the _Chaldee Paraphrast_,\n_Rams-horns_. _Marbachius_ is of opinion, that this year was called\ntheir _Jubilee_, from _Jubal_,[378] the first inventer of musical\ninstruments, of whom we read, _Gen. 4. 21._ _Jubal was the Father of\nall such as handle the Harp and Organ_. Other Authors deliver other\nreasons of the name, but it is most probable that this year was termed\nthe year of _Jubilee_ from _Jobelim_, the _Rams-horns_ then sounded.\nThere were five main uses of this Feast.\n\n    [378] _Marbach. in Levit. 25._\n\nFirst, for the general release of Servants. Secondly, for the restoring\nof Lands and Tenements unto their first Owners, who formerly sold them.\nThirdly, hereby a true distinction of their Tribes was preserved,\nbecause Lands returned unto their Owners in their proper Tribe, and\nServants to their own _Families_. Fourthly, some are of opinion,[379]\nthat as the _Grecians_ did compute their times by the number of\n_Olympiads_, the _Romans_ by their _Lustra_, the _Christians_ by\ntheir _Indictions_: So the _Jews_ by their _Jubilees_. Lastly, it did\nmystically shadow forth that spiritual _Jubilee_, which _Christians_\nenjoy under _Christ_, by whose blood we have not only a re-entry into\nthe _Kingdom of Heaven_, which we had formerly forfeited by our sins\n(and this was haply signified by the _Israelites_ re-entry upon their\nLands formerly sold) but also the _sound of the Gospel_, which was in\nthis Feast typed out unto us by the _noise of the Trumpets_, is gone\nthorowout the world. And thus the _Lord God hath blown the Trumpet_,\nas _Zacharies_ phrase is, _Zach. 9. 14._ But neither this release\nof servants, nor restoring of Lands, was until the tenth day of the\nfirst month _Tisri_,[380] at which time it was proclaimed by the sound\nof Trumpets, or Rams horns; the nine first daies of this month the\nServants feasted and made merry, and wore Garlands, in token of their\nliberty approaching.\n\n    [379] _Hospinian. de Orig. fest. c. 9._\n\n    [380] _Moses \u00c6gyptius in Halacha Schemit. Veiobel, c. 10._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XI.\n\n_The Feast of Purim, and the Feast of Consecration or Dedication._\n\n\n_Pur_ is a _Persian_ word, and signifieth a Lot, whence this _Feast\nof Lots_ is called _Purim_, i.e. \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, _A Lottery_: It began on\nthe fourteenth of _Adar_, and continued till the end of the fifteenth,\n_Esth. 9. 21._ It was instituted by _Mordecai_, in remembrance of the\n_Jews_ delivery from _Haman_, before whom lots were cast day by day,\nand month by month, for the destruction of them. In these two daies\nthey read the History of _Hester_ in their _Synagogues_; and as often\nas they hear mention of _Haman_, they do with their fists and hammers\nbeat upon the benches and boards, as if they did knock upon _Hamans_\nhead.[381]\n\n    [381] _Hospin. de fest. fol. 33. ex Antonio Margarita in. l. de\n    ceremoniis Jud\u00e6orum._\n\nThe Feast of _Dedication_, termed in the _New Testament_, \u1f18\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1[382]\na Feast wherein something is renewed; because those things only are\nreputed consecrated, which are separated from their common use, and\ndedicated to some new and holy use. We shall read of many _things\nconsecrated_ in the _Old Testament_; the _Tabernacles_, the _Temple_,\n_Priests_, _Altars_, _Vessels_ and _Garments_: but there was no\nanniversary or yearly solemnity appointed to be observed in remembrance\nof their _Consecration_. The _Consecration_ therefore which we now\nspeak of, being a yearly Festival, was the _Consecration of the altar\nappointed by Judas Maccab\u00e6us_ to be observed from year to year, for the\nspace of eight days, from the five and twentieth of the month _Cisleu_,\nwhich answereth in part to our _December_, _1 Macchab. 4. 59._ Of this\nSaint _John_ speaketh; and as he mentioneth our _Saviours_ presence\nthere, so he intimateth the time to be about _December_. _It was at\nJerusalem the feast of the Dedication, and it was winter_, _John 10.\n22. &c._\n\n    [382] _\u1f18\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f23\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f76, Suidas._\n\nThe reason of this Feast was in remembrance of that great mercy which\nGod shewed unto his people, in delivering them from the tyranny of\n_Antiochus_, and the _Idolatry_ which he had forced upon them, setting\nup the _Idol of Jupiter_ in the _Temple of God_, and abolishing the\ntrue worship of _God_.\n\nThese two _Feasts_ are of _humane institution_, and others might be\nadded unto them; but little is to be added, or nothing at all, to that\nwhich is delivered concerning them, in the places of Scripture where\nthey are mentioned.\n\n\n\n\nTHE FOURTH BOOK\n\nOF THEIR IDOLATRY.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\n_The beginnings of Idolatry._\n\n\nThe Infiniteness of _Gods_ Majesty far transcendeth the capacity of\ncreated Natures; and if we consult not with _Gods_ own _Oracles_,\nthough the sense of a _Deity_ may be imprinted even in an _Atheists_\nheart, yet so far shall he be from all right understanding of _God_,\nthat he will adore the _creature_ instead of the _Creator_: and when\nhe hath multiplied the number of his _gods_, according to the number\nof the Stars in heaven, and creeping things on earth; yet still his\nheart will be doubtful, whether he hath worshipped the true _God_,\nnay whether the true God be not utterly unknown. For this reason the\nMarriners in _Jonahs_ ship cried every man unto his _God_, _Jonah\n1. 5._ Every man to his _own God_; and lest they might all mistake\nthe _true God_, they awaken _Jonah_ to call upon _his God_. This\nuncertainty[383] attending _Idolatry_, caused the _Heathens_ to\nclose their Petitions with that general, _Dii de\u00e6que omnes_.[384]\nThe _Arabians_ perceiving the insufficiency of their _known Gods_,\ndedicated their _Altars_, _Ignoto Deo_, _To the unknown God_. At\n_Athens_, Saint _Paul_ found an Altar with the same inscription, _Acts\n17. 23._ Hence other Neighbour-Countries were wont to swear[385] _by\nhim that was unknown at Athens_. From this doubt and distrust among the\n_Athenians_, what _God_ was, and who he was, sprang another uncertainty\namongst them, as dangerous as the other, dividing and sharing that\nundividable Unity of the _Godhead_, between I know not what Compeers\nand Equals, so that they had other Altars mentioning a plurality of\ngods:[386] the inscription being \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, _the Altar of the\nunknown Gods_, yea, the compleat and entire inscription of that Altar\nwhich Saint _Paul_ saw, is thought to have been thus,[387] _To the gods\nof ~Asia~, ~Europe~, and ~Africa~; to the unknown and strange, God_.\nWhich observation implieth their practice to have symbolized with other\n_Heathens_ in that forementioned closure; _Dii De\u00e6que omnes_, _O all\nye Gods and Godesses, help_. This distrust I think to be the chief\nreason why they worshipped the _unknown God_; though I deny not but the\nAltars might bear this Title, to conceal the name of their _Tutelar\nGod_, unto whose protection they had committed themselves: because the\n_Heathen_ people generally conceited,[388] that if the _gods_ name,\nto whom they dedicated a City, were known, then the Enemies might\nby some magical incantation or charm, call him forth, and cause him\nto foresake the City: For the better preventing of which manner of\nevocations, the _Tyrians_, the _Lacedemonians_, and other Nations[389]\nfettered and chained their _gods_, that they might not depart. Again,\nit might be done in imitation of the _Jews_, who about the time of our\n_Saviour_ his Incarnation, held it unlawful to pronounce that Essential\nName of God, _Jehovah_, and instead thereof would read _Adonai_. The\noccasion of this concealment of the name _Jehovah_, I take to have\nbeen originally, to prevent the blaspheming of that holy Name among\nthe _Heathens_, who had learned from that name to denominate their\n_Idols_, _Jove_ \u1f38\u03b1\u1f7c _Iaoth_, \u1f38\u03b1\u03ce\u03b9\u03b1, _&c._[390] Hence afterward the\nforbearing the Name became superstitious, and so far prevailed, that\nthey corrupted the Text for the defence thereof, _Ex. 3. 15._ This\nis my name \u200e\u200f\u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd\u200f\u200e _legnolam_, _for ever_: they read \u200e\u200f\u05dc\u05e2\u05dc\u05dd\u200f\u200e _legnalem_,\n_to be concealed_.[391] Though I deny not but that name was always\nin some sense ineffable: namely, as _Pliny_ saith,[392] the names of\nthe _African_ people and Towns were ineffable, that is, such as other\nLanguages could not express without circumlocutions.\n\n    [383] _Serv. in Georgic. lib. 1._\n\n    [384] _Gyrald. Syntagm. 17._\n\n    [385] _\u039d\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. Lucian in Philopatride._\n\n    [386] _Pausanias in Atticis._\n\n    [387] _\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b7\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039b\u03b9\u03b2\u03cd\u03b7\u03c2, \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n    \u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3. Theophyl. in Act. Apost. 17. 23. It. Hieron. Tit. 1. 12._\n\n    [388] _Alex. ab. Alex. lib. 6. cap. 4. Tyraquel. in illum\n    locum._\n\n    [389] _Macrob. Saturn. l. 3. c. 9._\n\n    [390] _Vid. Macrob. Satur. l. 1. c. 18. It. Iren\u00e6um, lib. 2.\n    cap. ult. Item, Origen. contra Celsum. l. 6. fol. 76. col. 3._\n\n    [391] _Vid. P. Galatin. lib. 2. c. 10._\n\n    [392] _Plin. in Proem. lib. 5. Hist. Natur._\n\nAs those forementioned _Idolatrous_ names were nothing else but so\nmany depravations of the name _Jehovah_: so the Original of many other\nensuing kinds of _Idolatry_ proceeded at first from a misconstruction\nof Scripture. They have learned by Tradition, that the Sun, Moon, and\nStars, had a kind of Lordship and rule over day and night, times and\nseasons: Hence the superstitious ignorance of those people Deified\nthose lights of Heaven, and worshipped them as _gods_. Afterward\ncorruption prevailing, their _Apotheosis_, or _god-making Ceremonies_,\nwere extended to sublunary creatures, partly as _Symbola_, or\nrepresentative signs of those greater and more glorious lights; for\nthis reason the _Chaldeans_ worship _fire_: \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u200f\u200e, and _Ur_, of the\n_Chaldeans_, mentioned, _Gen. 11._ which signifieth _fire_ or light,\nis thought to be the very _god_ of the _Chaldeans_, though in that\nplace the name _Ur_ be applyed to some chief City, from the name of\nthe Idol. Yea, the _god of_ Nahor, _Gen. 31. 53._ is thought to be no\nother; partly, also the inferiour creatures were canonized for _gods_,\nin way of thankfulness for the benefits received from them, for which\nreason the _Sea_, the _Winds_, the _Air_, the _Earth_, and _fruits_\nof the earth, _became deified_. At last, _well deserving men_; nay,\n_Crocodiles_, _Serpents_, _Rats_, _Cats_, _Dogs_, _Garlick_, and\n_Onions_, were reputed _gods_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\n_Of ~Moloch~, ~Adram-Melech~, ~Anam-Melech~, ~Baal~, The Tabernacle of\n~Molech~, ~Chiun~, ~Rempham~, Horses consecrated to the Sun, ~Thamuz~._\n\n\nOf the _Idol Moloch_ we read in divers places of Scripture, _1 King.\n11._ _2 King. 23. 10._ _Leviticus 18. 21._ He is sometimes called\n_Moloch_, sometimes _Molech_, sometimes _Milcom_. He was the _reputed\ngod_, not only of the _Ammonites_, but of the _Moabites_ also.[393] He\nhad his name from \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05dc\u05da\u200f\u200e _Melac_, signifying to rule or reign. The Seventy\n_Elders_ translate him, \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, a _Prince_, or _King_. Such\n_King-Idols_ were _Adram-melech_, and _Anam-melech_, the _gods_ of\n_Shephervaim_, unto whom that people burnt their Children in fire.\n\n    [393] _Lorin. in Act. 7. ex Oecumen._\n\nI take _Moloch_ and _Baal_ to be one and the same _Idol_, they were\nboth names of supremacy and rule, \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u200f\u200e _Baal_ signifieth a _Lord_ or\n_Master_. And \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05dc\u05da\u200f\u200e _Moloch_, a _King_ or _Prince_. They had both the\nsame manner of sacrifice, they burnt their Sons for burnt-offerings\nunto _Baal_ likewise, _Jer. 19. 5._ yea, they built the high places of\n_Baal_, which are in the Valley of _Benhinnom_, to cause their Sons and\ntheir Daughters to pass thorow the fire unto _Moloch_, _Jer. 32. 35._\nIn which Text the place of sacrifice is noted to be one and the same,\ncommon to both Idols, and _Moloch_ put into the end of the verse, to\nexplain _Baal_ in the beginning thereof.\n\nSome think them to be different, because the _Planet Jupiter_ was\nworshipped under the name of _Baal_;[394] but the _Planet Saturn_ is\nprobably thought to have been worshipped under the name of _Moloch_. If\nwe diligently observe Histories, we shall find such a _confusion of the\nPlanets_, that the _Sun_, as it was sometimes called _Baal_, sometimes\n_Moloch_: so it was sometimes called _Jupiter_,[395] sometimes\n_Saturn_;[396] and concerning _Baal_ this is evident: Hence _Jupiter_\nwas called by the _Ph\u0153nicians_, _Baal-samen_, which name is derived\nfrom the _Hebrew_, and soundeth as much as _Jupiter Olympicus_, _the\nLord of Heaven_. For _Baal_ signifieth _Lord_, and _Shamaim_, _Heaven_.\nAnd what is this _Lord of Heaven_ in the theology of the _Heathens_,\nother than the _Sun_? who may as well be stiled the _King of Heaven_,\nas the _Moon_ _the Queen_. Yea, _Sanchoniatho_, as _Eusebius_ in the\nforequoted place relates him, taketh all these three for one, namely,\nthe _Sun_, _Jupiter_, and _Baal-samen_.\n\n    [394] _August. super Judic. q. 10. Vide sis Eusebium de pr\u00e6par.\n    lib. 1. cap. 7._\n\n    [395] _Plato apud. Macrob. Satur. l. 1. c. 23. ubi mendos\u00e8\n    citatur \u00e8 Tim\u00e6o Platonis, quod est in Ph\u00e6dro._\n\n    [396] _Assyrios Saturnum (quem & Solem dicunt) Junonemq;\n    coluisse constat. Servius in Eneid. 1._\n\nConcerning _Saturn_, it is apparent that the _Sun_ was worshipped\nunder his name: But I find some Expositers to interpret _Moloch_ to be\n_Mercury_,[397] others _Mars_:[398] these are but few, and the grounds\nweak. It is therefore more generally and more probably thought that\nhe was _Saturn_, because as to _Moloch_, so to _Saturn_, the _Heathen_\npeople did sacrifice their _Sons_ and _Daughters_.[399] Secondly,\n_Saturns_ Image differed not much from _Moloch_\u2019s. Of _Saturns_ thus\nwe read,[400] _It was made of brass, wonderfull for its greatness,\nwhose hands reaching towards the earth, were so hollow (ready to clasp)\nthat the youths which were compelled to come unto him, did fall as it\nwere into a mighty ditch full of fire._ You shall read in a manner the\nsame description of _Moloch_. _Jalkut_ commenting on _Jeremy_, writeth\nthus:[401] _Though all other houses of Idolatry were in Jerusalem, yet\n~Moloch~ was without Jerusalem, in a place apart. How was he made? He\nwas an Image of brass; he had seven Chappels, and he was placed before\nthem, having the face of a Bullock, and hands spread abroad, like a man\nthat openeth his hands to receive somewhat from another: and they set\nit on fire within, for it was hollow: and every man severally entred,\naccording to his offering. After what manner? Whosoever offered a\nFowl went into the first Chappel; he that offered a Sheep, into the\nsecond; a Lamb, into the third; a Calf, into the fourth; a Bullock,\ninto the fifth; an Ox, into the sixth; and whosoever offered his Son,\ninto the seventh._ Thus _Moloch_ and _Saturn_ agree: _First_, in\ntheir sacrifice: _Secondly_, in the form of their Images. Now these\n_seven chappels_ built for _Moloch_, may well resemble those _seven\ngates_[402] with which the _Persians_ honored the _Sun_; and as the\n_seven gates_ did, so might the _seven chappels_ mystically express\nthe _seven Planets_, whereof the _Sun_ was _Moloch_, i. _the King and\nPrince_. When they sacrificed their sons unto this _Idol_, they did\nbeat upon _Tabrets_ and _Drums_, that the cry of the Child might not\nbe heard by the Father. Thereupon was the place called \u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05e4\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Tophet_,\nfrom \u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05e3\u200f\u200e signifying a _Drum_, as likewise from the cry of the Children,\nit was called _Gehenna_, \u200e\u200f\u05d2\u05d9\u05d0\u200f\u200e signifying a valley, and \u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05d4\u05dd\u200f\u200e\nroaring or crying. Some may make the question, whether that the phrase,\n_The fire of Gehenna_, _Matth. 5. 22._ had its original from this fire,\nwherewith the children were burnt unto _Moloch_? I answer, that in this\nphrase there was not respect only unto this fire, though by the bitter\ncries and ejulations of poor infants, the restless torments in Hell\nmight be shadowed, yet the perpetuity and everlastingness of hellish\npains I take to be signified herein by allusion unto that other fire,\nkept continually burning for the consuming of dead carkasses, and\nthe filth brought out of _Jerusalem_.[403] For _Gehenna_ was reputed\na contemptible place without the City, in the which they burnt, by\nmeans of a fire continually preserved there, the carkasses, filth and\ngarbidge of the City. The _Cabalists_[404] treating of _Gehenna_,\nin this metaphorical sense, as it is applied to the pains of hell,\ndo distinguish of it, saying, That there is _Gehenna superiour_;\nand _inferiour_, by the first they understand _bodily torments\ninflicted upon the bodies of sinners in this world_: by the second\nthey understand the _pains of the soul in the world to come_. They\nsay likewise[405] that there are _Septem Gehenn\u00e6 mansiones_, _Seven\ndegrees or mansion places in Gehenna_. 1. _Infernus._ 2. _Perditio._ 3.\n_Profundum._ 4. _Taciturnitas._ 5. _Umbra mortis._ 6. _Terra inferior._\n7. _Terra sitiens._ Of these _seven receptacles_, he that will mispend\nhis time may read according to the quotation.\n\n    [397] _\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05dc\u05da\u200f\u200e Molech dici volunt quasi \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da\u200f\u200e Malach, (~i.~)\n    Angelus, Nuncius. Proind\u00e8 interpretantur Molech Mercurium\n    Deorum nuncium._\n\n    [398] _R. Levi. Lev. 18. 21._\n\n    [399] _Macrob. Saturn. l. 1. c. 7._\n\n    [400] _Euseb. de pr\u00e6par. l. 4. c. 7._\n\n    [401] _Jalkut. Jer. 7. fol. 97. Colum. 1._\n\n    [402] _Orig. contra Celsum. l. 6. f. 75. col. 4. It. Gyrald. in\n    Deorum Syntag. 7. p. 223._\n\n    [403] _D. Kimchi. Psal. 27. 13._\n\n    [404] _Capnio de Cabala p. 644._\n\n    [405] _P. Galatinus l. 12. c. 6._\n\nIt is much controversed among Expositors, whether the children in this\nsacrifice _were burnt in the fire_ or only _initiated and consecrated\nto ~Moloch~, passing in the middest of two fires in sign of their\nconsecration_? It is probable, that both were in use. _First_, the\nScripture speaketh of both. _Secondly_, the _Hebrew Doctors_ shew the\nmanner of both. That they were _burnt_, _Jalkut_ expressly teacheth,\nand with him others accord,[406] saying, _That Molech is the name of\nan Image; and the wise men of blessed memory interpret Molech to be an\nuniversal name, denoting any whom they made to rule over them: And it\nis agreed upon, that this is the abomination of the Sons of Ammon, and\nthis phrase, to cause to pass thorow, is as much as, to burn._ Others\nsay,[407] _This Idols name was Molech, and this was his worship: That\nhe (namely, the Father) delivered his son unto the Priests, and they\nmade two great fires; and they made his son pass on his feet between\nboth these fires._\n\n    [406] _Aben Ezra. Lev. 18, 21._\n\n    [407] _Rabbi Solomon. Lev. 18. 21._\n\nNotwithstanding, we must not think that there were no other oblations\nunto _Molech_, besides sacrificing of children: For what use then\nserved those other six Chappels? No: I take this oblation of\nchildren not to have been forced on them by any superstitious law,\nor tradition, binding them thereunto; but to have been reputed a\nwork more meritorious, because it was meerly voluntary. This I note,\nbecause otherwise there were an apparent difference between _Baal_\nand _Moloch_. For the _Baalites_ offered unto their fancied Deity a\nBullock, in that contention between them and _Eliah_, _1 Kings 18._\nBullocks, and Calves, and Lambs, were their ordinary sacrifices, the\nsacrificing of their children, _extraordinary_. Yet their ordinary\nsacrifices, were not always altogether void of mans blood, but\nsometimes the _Priests_ would lance and cut their own flesh: which\ncustome, whence it had its original, I find not: only we find the like\nto have been practised by the _Heathenish Priests_ in their sacrifices\nto _Bellona_: _Tertullian_[408] toucheth it, but _Lactantius_[409]\ntreating of _Bellona_ and her _Priests_, speaketh more clearly, saying,\n_They sacrificed not with any other mans blood, but with their own;\ntheir shoulders being lanced, and with both hands brandishing naked\nswords, they run and leaped up and down like mad men_. Who would not\ntake these _Bellonites_ to be the very _Baalites_, spoken of, _1 Kings\n18._ _They leapt upon the Altar which was made ---- and cut themselves\nas their manner was, with knives and lances, till the blood gushed out\nupon them._\n\n    [408] _Ter. Apol. c. 9._\n\n    [409] _Lactant. c. 40._\n\nThat the opinion of pleasing _God_ by sacrificing their children\nsprang from _Abraham_\u2019s offering of _Isaac_, seemeth very probable,\nand is intimated by _R. Solomon_, who bringeth in _God_ speaking\nconcerning _Moloch_ after this manner: _I never commanded that they\nshould offer up their sons for an oblation, and I never spake it unto\nany of my Prophets:[410] and when I spake to_ Abraham _to sacrifice\nhis son, it entred not into my heart that he should sacrifice him,\nbut to make known his righteousness_, Yea _Porphyry_[411] treating of\n_Saturn_, (who seemeth to have been this very _Moloch_) saith, that\nthe _Ph\u0153nicians_ called him _Israel_, and that he had by _Anobreth_\none only son called _Jeud_ in the _Ph\u0153nician_ language, (no doubt from\nthe _Hebrew_ _Jechid_, signifying an _only begotten_, and applied to\n_Isaac_, _Gen. 22. 2._) which he offered upon an _Altar_ purposely\nprepared. Who seeth not the History of _Abraham_ and _Sarah_ under the\nnames of _Israel_ and _Anobreth_? and the immolation of _Isaac_ under\nthe name of _Jeud_? and the original of this Son-sacrificing Divinity,\nto have been the unwarrantable imitation of _Abraham_?\n\n    [410] _Solomon Iarchi Jer. 7. 31._\n\n    [411] _Euseb. pr\u00e6par. Evang. l. 1. c. 7, p. 17._\n\nBut what! Was the _Sun_ worshipped _Idolatrously_, no otherwise? Yes,\nexcept I am deceived, we find another manner of worship described\nby _Amos_, _Chap. 5. 26._ _But ye have born the Tabernacle of your\nMoloch_, and _Chiun_ your Images, the _star of your God_, which ye\nmade to your selves. This translation I prefer before others. First,\nbecause the _Hebrew_ word[412] signifieth a _Tabernacle_. Secondly, it\nis rendred the Tabernacle of _Moloch_, not _Siccuth_ your King, by the\n_Seventy_. Thirdly, it is so repeated by Saint _Stephen_[413] _Act. 7.\n43._ _Ye took up the Tabernacle of Moloch_, and the _star of your God\nRemphan_, figures which ye made to worship them.\n\n    [412] _\u200e\u200f\u05d5\u05e0\u05e9\u05d0\u05ea\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea \u05e1\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05db\u05dd\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [413] _\u039a\u03b1\u03af \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039c\u03bf\u03bb\u1f78\u03c7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n    \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1fe5\u03b1\u03b9\u03c6\u1f70\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2._\n\nThree things are to be enquired for the understanding of this\nparrallel. First, what the _bearing or taking up of this Tabernacle\nis_. Secondly, what Idol was pointed out by these names of _Chiun_ and\n_Remphan_. Thirdly, what is meant by the _star of this God_.\n\n_The taking up of this Tabernacle_ denoteth their worship which they\nexhibited unto their Idol, by carrying him up and down in _Tabernacles_\nand _Pageants_, after a solemn manner of procession: By the _Romans_\nthis solemnity was termed _pompa_, and the _Tent_ or _Pageant_ in which\nthe Idol was carried, _Thensa_, according to that, _Thensa Deorum\nvehiculum_. This kind of Idolatry may seem to have had its original\namong the _Heathens_ from an unwarrantable imitation of _Moses_\u2019s\n_Tabernacle_, which was nothing else but a _portable Temple_[414] to\nbe carried from place to place, as need required. For it cannot be\ndenied, but that many superstitions were derived unto the _Heathens_\nfrom the true worship of _God_, which he himself had prescribed unto\nhis people. Thus, as _God_ had his _Tabernacle_, _Priests_, _Altars_,\nand _Sacrifices_, so the _devil_ had his _Tabernacles_, _Priests_,\n_Altars_ and _Sacrifices_. As _God_ had his _Fire ever burning upon\nthe Altar_, so had the _devil_ his _fire preserved burning by those\nVestal Votaries_. As _God_ had his _Propitiatory_ or Mercy seat:[415]\nso had the _devil_ his _Sacros tripodas_, his _Oracles_, from which\nhe would speak unto them that served him. This solemn procession was\nperformed by the _Romans_ in the honour of the _Sun_.[416] It was\nperformed by the _Israelites_ in honour of their _Moloch_, who formerly\nwas interpreted, the _Sun_. To add unto the pomp and state of this\nsolemnity, both the _Romans_ and the _Israelites_ caused _great Horses_\nand _Chariots_ to be led up and down. _Horses_ were consecrated to the\n_Sun_ by the _Romans_, and their _Cirque place_ was sometimes called\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd, and \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, an _Horse-race_.[417] And that _Chariots_\nwas commonly used in those pompous shewes is evident.[418] Concerning\nthe people of _Judah_, doth not the like practice plainly appear? _2\nKings 23._ _Josiah_ did put down the _Horses_ given to the _Sun_, and\nthe _Chariots of the Sun_. This kind of Idolatrous worshipping the\n_Sun_ seemeth to have had its beginning from the _Persians_, who also\naccounted _Horses_ holy to the _Sun_:[419] And the _Persian King_, when\nhe would shew himself in great state, caused an exceeding great _Horse_\nto be led up and down, the which was called _Equus solis_.\n\n    [414] _\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd. Joseph. Ant._\n\n    [415] _Lev. 6. 3._\n\n    [416] _Solis honore novi grati spectacula Circi. Antiqui dixere\n    Patres Corrip. Afric. l. 1. num. 17. vi. Dempst._\n\n    [417] _Alex. ab Alex. lib. 3. cap. 12._\n\n    [418] _Hic illius arma, Hic currus fuit. Virgil, \u00c6neid. 1._\n\n    [419] _C\u0153l. Rhodig. antiq. l. 8. c. 2._\n\nThe second inquiry is, What _Idol_ was meant by _Chiun_ and _Remphan_,\notherwise in ancient Copies called _Repham_. Not to trouble the Reader\nwith the various interpretations of _Expositors_, much less with the\nbold adventures of others in correcting the text: by _Chiun_ we are\nto understand _Hercules_, who in the _Egyptian_ language was called\n_Chon_: by _Repham_ we are to understand the same _Hercules_, for\n\u200e\u200f\u05e8\u05e4\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Rephaim_, in the holy tongue signifieth _Gyant_: By _Hercules_\nwe may understand the Planet of the _Sun_: There are _Etymologists_\nthat derive _Hercules_ his name from the _Hebrew_ \u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05d0\u05d9\u05e8 \u05db\u05dc\u200f\u200e, _Heircol_,\n_illuminavit omnia_: the _Greek Etymology_,[420] holds correspondency\nwith the _Hebrew_ and both signifie that universal light which\nfloweth from the _Sun_ as water from a fountain. Add hereunto, that\n_Porphyry_[421] interpreteth _Hercules his twelve labours_, so often\nmentioned by the _Poets_, to be nothing else but the _twelve signs\nof the Zodiack_, thorow which the _Sun_ passeth yearly. But some\nmay question, whether the name of _Hercules_ was ever known to the\n_Jews_? It is probable the name was; for _Hercules_ was the _god_ of\nthe _Tyrians_, from whom the _Jews_ learned much _Idolatry_, as being\ntheir near Neighbours: Yea, it is apparent, that in the time of the\n_Maccabees_ the name was commonly known unto them: for _Jason_ the\n_High-Priest_ sent three hundred drachmes of silver to the sacrifice of\n_Hercules_, _2 Mac. 4. 19._\n\n    [420] _Heracles quid aliud est quam \u1f27\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 (~i.~) aeris\n    gloria: qu\u00e6 porro alia est aeris nisi solis illuminatio?\n    Macrob. Satur. l. 1. c. 20._\n\n    [421] _Euseb. de pr\u00e6p. l. 3. c. 4. p. 71._\n\n_Thirdly_, it followeth that we should enquire, what this _star of\nRemphan_ was, it is probably thought[422] that it was a certain\n_star painted in the forehead of Molech_; Neither was it unusual\nfor the Heathen people to paint their _Idols_ with such _Symbolica\nAdditamenta_. _Julius C\u00e6sar_ his Image had a _star_ depicted on the\n_crown of his head_.[423]\n\n    [422] _Oecumenius. Act. 7. 43._\n\n    [423] _Sueton. in Jul. c. 88. It. Plin. hist. l. 2. c. 25.\n    Horat. l. 1. Od. 12._\n\nThe _Sun_ was also worshipped by the house of _Judah_, under the name\n_Tamuz_; for _Tamuz_, saith _Hierom_,[424] was _Adonis_, and _Adonis_\ngenerally interpreted the _Sun_,[425] from the _Hebrew_ _Adon_,\nsignifying _Dominus_, the same as _Baal_, or _Moloch_ formerly did,\nnamely, the _Lord_ or _Prince_ of the _Planets_. The month which we\ncall _June_, was by the _Hebrews_ called _Tamuz_; and the entrance of\nthe _Sun_ into the sign _Cancer_ was, in the _Jews Astronomy_, termed\n_Tekuphu Tamuz_, the _revolution_ of _Tamuz_. Concerning _Adonis_\nwhom sometime ancient Authors called _Osiris_; there are two things\nremarkable, \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2, the _death or loss of Adonis_ and \u03b5\u1f55\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, the\n_finding of him again_. As there was great lamentation[426] at his\nloss, especially amongst the Women;[427] so was there great joy at his\n_finding_. By the death or _loss of Adonis_, we are to understand the\ndeparture of the _Sun_; by his _finding again_, we are to understand\nhis return. Now he seemeth to depart twice in the year: First, when\nhe is in the _Tropick of Cancer_, in the farthest degree Northward.\nSecondly, when he is in the _Tropick of Capricorn_, in the farthest\ndegree Southward: answerable unto these two departures, which may be\ntermed \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76, _disparitions_, or _losses of the Sun_, there are two\nreturns immediately succeeding, which may be termed likewise \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2,\nthe _findings_ or new appearings of the _Sun_. Hence we may note,\nthat though the _Egyptians_ celebrated their _Adonia_ in the moneth\nof _November_, when the _Sun_ began to be farthest _Southward_; and\nthe house of _Judah_ theirs, in the month of _June_, when the _Sun_\nwas farthest _Northward_, yet both were for the same reasons, and in\nsubstance they agreed. And of this the Prophet _Ezekiel_ is thought to\nhave spoken, _Ezek. 8. 14._ _There sate women weeping for ~Tamuz~._\n\n    [424] _Hieron. comment. 3 in Ezek._\n\n    [425] _Pier. Hierogl. l. 9. p. 68._\n\n    [426] _Nunquamq; satis qu\u00e6situs Osiris. Semper enim perdunt,\n    semper & inveniunt. Lucan._\n\n    [427] _Plutarch. in Alcibiade._\n\nThese solemnities were chiefly observed, between the _Byblienses_ and\nthe _Alexandrini_, the manner was thus:[428] When the _Byblienses_\nsolemnized the death or loss of _Adonis_, at that time the\n_Alexandrini_ wrote a letter, this letter was inclosed in an _Ark of\nBulrushes_, therein they signified, that _Adonis_, whom they lamented,\nwas found again, this Ark, being after the performance of certain rites\nand ceremonies, committed to the Sea, forthwith it was carried by the\nstream to _Biblus_; upon the receit whereof, the lamentation of the\nWomen was turned into joy. Others say,[429] that this lamentation\nwas performed over an Image in the night season, and when they had\nsufficiently lamented, a Candle was brought into the room (which\nCeremony might mystically signifie the return of the Sun) then the\nPriest with a soft voice muttered this form of words[430] _Trust ye in\nGod, for out of pains salvation is come unto us._ There are likewise\nof the _Jews_ that say[431] their _Tamuz_ was an Image whose eyes they\nfilled with Lead, which Lead being molten by the means of fire under\nit, the Image it self seemed to weep.\n\n    [428] _Procopius in Isaiam. ad c. 18. It. Cyrillus l. 2. Tom.\n    2. in Isaiam._\n\n    [429] _Julius Maternus Firmicus. l. de errore profan. Religion._\n\n    [430] _\u0398\u03b1\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7, \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1.\n    Firmicus ibid._\n\n    [431] _\u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05e1\u05d9\u05e8 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05e6\u05dc\u05dd \u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d7 \u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e9 \u05de\u05ea\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5\u200f\u200e R. Dav.\n    Kimchi. radic._\n\nThere are that think[432] the _Prophet_ alludeth unto those letters\ninclosed in those fore-mentioned _Bull-rush Arks_, _Isa. 18. 2._ When\nhe speaketh of Ambassadors sent by the Sea even in _Vessels of Reeds_\nupon the waters. But I rather approve the literal sense, for by reason\nof the Shelves and dangerous Rocks in the River _Nilus_, it was not\nunusual for men to sail in Hulks, and _Vessels made of a kind of great\nBull-rush_, which by the _Egyptian_s was termed _Papyrus_ and these\nkind of Ships _Papyrace\u00e6 naves_.[433]\n\n    [432] _Procop. in Isai. 18._\n\n    [433] _Plin. Hist. lib. 6. cap. 22._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n_Of Baal-Peor, Baal-Tsephon, Baal-Zebub, Baal-Berith, Bell and the\nDragon._\n\n\nWhom the _Hebrews_ called _Baal_, the _Babylonians_ called _Bell_; and\nalthough the _Planet of the Sun_ only at first might be worshipped\nunder that name, yet at last it became a common name to many other\nIdols, according to that, _There are many Gods, many Baalims or Lords_,\n_1 Cor. 8. 5._ As the same Idol _Jupiter_ had different names, and\ndifferent Rites of worship, occasioned sometimes from the different\nplaces, as _Jupiter Olympius_, from the Hill _Olympus_; _Jupiter\nCapitolinus_, from the _Capitol hill_; _Jupiter Latialis_, from that\npart of _Italy_ which is called _Latium_. Sometimes from the different\nbenefits which he was supposed to bestow on men, as _Jupiter Pluvius_\nbecause he gave _Rain_; _Jupiter Lucetius_, because he gave _Light_;\n_Jupiter Altitonans_, from _thundring_; So _Baal_ had his distinctive\nTitles, and different Rites of worship, sometimes occasioned by the\nplace, as _Baal-Peor_, _Numb. 25. 3._ sometimes from the benefit\nobtained, as _Baal-Tsephon_, _Exod. 14. 1._ and _Baal-Zebub_, _2 King.\n1. 2._ sometimes for some other reason, as _Baal-Berith_, _Judg. 8. 33._\n\n_Baal-Peor_ is thought[434] to be that _Priapus_, that obscene _Idol_,\nso famous in prophane Authors. He was called _Peor_, from the Hill\n_Peor_, mentioned, _Numb. 23. 28._ as likewise his Temple wherein he\nwas worshipped, standing upon the same Hill, was called _Beth-Peor_,\n_Deut. 3. 29._ He was worshipped by the _Moabites_ and _Midianites_:\nthe _Idol Chemish_, _Jer. 48. 7._ is thought to be the same,[435] and\nI take it to be applied to _Baal Peor_, by way of contempt, as if one\nshould say, their _blind god_, according to that in the Psalm, _They\nhave eyes and see not_. For the first letter[436] _Caph_, signifieth\n_quasi_; and \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05d5\u05e9\u200f\u200e _Musch Palpare_, to _grope_ or _feel about, in manner\nof blind men_.\n\n    [434] _Hieronym. ad Hos. c. 9. Idem. prodidit Isidor. Orig. l. 8._\n\n    [435] _Hieron. in Isai. l. 5. c. 15._\n\n    [436] _Philo Jud. lib. 2. Allegor. p. 79._\n\n_Baal-Tsephon_ is thought by the _Hebrews_,[437] to have been an\n_Idol_ made by the _\u00c6gytian Magicians_, and placed in the Wilderness,\nto observe and stop the _Israelites_ in their departure from _\u00c6gypt_;\nwhence it was termed \u200e\u200f\u05e6\u05e4\u05df\u200f\u200e _Tsephon_, from \u200e\u200f\u05e6\u05e4\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Tsapha_,\nsignifying to _watch_, & observe in manner of a _watchman_: because\nwe may call him _Baal speculator_, as, among the _Romans_; because\n_Jupiter_ stayed the _Romans_ when they were flying, he was called\n_Jupiter stator_.[438]\n\n    [437] _P. Fag. Exod. 14. 1._\n\n    [438] _Rosin. lib. 2. antiq. Rom. cap. 5._\n\n_Baal-Zebub_, soundeth as much as the _Lord of the Flies_, or a\n_Master fly_,[439] which hath power and authority over the rest, in\nwhich respect the _Prince of the Devils_ in the _Gospel_ is termed\n_Beel-Zebub_, \u200e\u200f\u05d6\u05d1\u05d5\u05d1\u200f\u200e _Zebub_ signifieth a _Fly_. This _Idol_ was\nworshipped by the _Cyrenians_,[440] but principally by the _Ekronites_,\nbecause whensoever they sacrificed unto him, the swarms of _flies_\nwhich at that time molested the Country, died. But it is certain, that\nthis was not the alone reason, for they were wont to repair to him,\nas to an Oracle, _2 King. 1. 2._ We may call him _Jupiter muscarius_,\nor _Hercules muscarius_:[441] for the Inhabitants of the City _Elis_\nsacrificed to _Jupiter_ under the name \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03cd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, (_i._) _A driver\naway of flies_: and the _Romans_ to _Hercules_, under the same name.\nSome _Greek Copies_ in the _Gospel_ read \u0392\u03b5\u03b5\u03bb\u03b6\u03b5\u03b2\u03bf\u1f7a\u03bb, _Beelzebul_:\nwhich change is interpreted to be, for to shew the greater contempt of\nthe _Idol_, as if they should say _Jupiter stercoreus_, \u200e\u200f\u05d6\u05d1\u05dc\u200f\u200e _Zebel_\nsignifieth _stercus_, and _Beel_, or _Baal_, signifieth _Dominus_.\n\n    [439] _\u0396\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f08\u03ba\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd. Gregor. Nazianz. orat. 2.\n    contr. Julian. p. 102._\n\n    [440] _Plin. l. 10. c. 28._\n\n    [441] _Clemens Alexand. in protrep._\n\n_Baal-berith_ was the _Idol_ of the _Shechemites_; of his Temple we\nread, _Judges 9. 4._ \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Berith_ signifieth a _Covenant_; so that\n_Baal-berith_ may be translated _Jupiter f\u0153deratus_,[442] _The God\nunto whom they bound themselves by Covenant_. Concerning _Bel_ and\nthe _Dragon_, little is spoken, besides what we read in that off the\n_Apocrypha_, where the History is described.\n\n    [442] _\u1f1c\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03ac\u03b1\u03bb \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n    \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd. Septuagint. interp. Jud. 8. 33._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n_Of Dagon._\n\n\nThe _Hebrew Doctors_ say[443] this Idol _Dagon was made from the Navel\ndownward in form of a Fish, but from the Navel upward in form of a\nMan_. This they collect from _1 Sam. 5. 4._ The _two palms of his hands\nwere cut off upon the threshold_. And furthermore they say, The Idol\n_Dagon_ had his name from the _Hebrew_ \u200e\u200f\u05d3\u05d2\u200f\u200e _Dag_, signifying in the\nHoly Language, a _fish_, according to which description we may English\nhim, the _Philistians Neptune_, or _Triton_.[444] Others derive the\nname from \u200e\u200f\u05d3\u05d2\u05df\u200f\u200e _Dagon_, signifying _Corn_: and they say,[445] that he\nfirst invented the use of the _Plow_, and _Corn_; whence they translate\nhim _Jupiter aratrius_. In this respect we call him the _Philistians\nSaturn_, because Antiquity[446] makes _Saturn_ the _first Inventer\nof Husbandry_, and therefore paints him with an _Hook_ or _Sithe_ in\nhis hand, as being the fittest _Hieroglyphick_ for _Husbandry_. Both\nopinions have their Authors, and no sufficient proof hath been produced\nto overthrow either. Yea, they are not wanting among the _Jews_\nthemselves, that say,[447] this Image of _Dagon was made in the form of\na man_. Notwithstanding _Scaliger_ his conjecture is not improbable,\nthat those who interpret _Dagon_, _Jupiter aratrius_, or \u1f08\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2,\nmight mistake and read \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u200f\u200e _Shadai_, signifying _Ager_, _A field_, for\n\u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u200f\u200e _Shaddai_ being the very Name of God, signifying _Omnipotens_,\n_Almighty_.\n\n    [443] _R. Dav. 1 Sa. 5._\n\n    [444] _Triton non absimilem habuisse figuram fingitur; Frons\n    hominem pr\u00e6fert, in piscem desinit alvus, Pier. Hierogl. lib.\n    1. p. 28._\n\n    [445] _Phylo Byblius apud Euseb. de pr\u00e6par. lib. 1. c. 7._\n\n    [446] _Pier. Hierogl. l. 32. p. 228. Id. lib. 56._\n\n    [447] _R. Levi. 1 Sam. 5._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\n_Of the molten Calf._\n\n\nThe History of the _Molten Calf_ is at large set down, _Exod. 32._,\nwhere we read, that by reason of _Moses_ his long absence, the people\ndesired of _Aaron_, _gods_ to be made; whereupon _Aaron_ made for them\nthe _molten Calf_. The reason why they worshipped _God_ rather in\nthe similitude of a _Calf_, than of any other Creature, is generally\nby _Expositors_ conceived to be from the corruptions learned among\nthe _Egyptians_, who worshipped their Idol _Apis_,[448] otherwise\ncalled _Serapis_,[449] in a living _Oxe_, and otherwise in an Image\nmade in the form and similitude of an _Oxe_, with a bushel on his\nhead. This _Oxe_ was remarkable for certain notes and marks, whereby\nit was differenced from all others. It was _black bodied_, it had\na _white fore-head_, and _white spot behind_, and a _knot_ under\nhis tongue: for the more curious fashioning and pollishing of these\nmarks in the _molten Calf_, _Aaron_ may seem to have made use of his\n_graving tool_.[450] The _Egyptians_ repaired unto this _Oxe_ for\nthe resolution of matters doubtful, as to an _Oracle_,[451] and the\nmanner of consulting with him, was thus. The party that repaired unto\nhim, tendred a bottle of Hay, or Grass; which if he received, then\nit betokened a good and happy event; if otherwise he refused it,\nthen it did portend some evil to come. _Thus they turned their glory\ninto an Oxe that eateth grass_, _Psalm 106. 20._ The _Hebrew_ word\nin the _Psalm_, translated an _Oxe_, is, _Shar_;[452] which I note,\nbecause in my opinion, it giveth light to one of the names by which\nthis _Idol_ was denoted. Sometimes it was called _Apis_, from the\n_Hebrew_ word _Ap_,[453] signifying a _face_: sometimes _Serapis quasi\nShor-apis_, which is nothing else but _Bovis caput_, an _Ox-head_;\nthe very name used by the _Fathers_[454] to express this _Idolatry_.\nIt is commonly known that this _Idolatry_ was derived to _Israel_\nfrom the _Egyptians_; but whence the _Egyptians_ first learned it few\nhave taught. They do not conjecture amiss, who interpret the first\nInstitution hereof to have been in the memory of _Joseph_, who by his\nprovidence relieved both _Egypt_, and other Neighbour Countries, in the\nseven years of famine. Besides the testimony of no slight Authors,[455]\nthere are strong inducements to perswade it. _First_, both the years\nof plenty and famine were foresignified by the apparition of _Oxen_.\n_Secondly_, what fitter Emblem, (if it had not afterward proved an\n_Idol_) to continue the remembrance of a _Joseph_, (by whose alone\ncare and industry, corn and victual was provided in an extream famine)\nthan an _Ox_, the true and lively Hieroglyphick of an industrious\nHusbandman? _Thirdly_, in this _Suidas_ agreeth with others, that\n_this Ox was pourtrayed with a bushel on his head_, though others do\nmore clearly express the reason of this portraiture, namely, because\nof the great quantity of Corn measured out by _Joseph_ in that extream\ndearth. Concerning the sin of the _Israelites_ in making this _Calf_ or\n_Ox_, the modern _Jews_ do transfer the fault upon certain _Prosylite\nEgyptians_ who came forth with them: and they say, that when _Aaron_\ncast their Jewels into the fire, these _Egyptians_, contrary to his\nexpectation, by their Art _Magick_ produceth a Calf, to which purpose\nthey urge _Aarons_ own words, _Exod. 32. 34._ I did cast the Gold into\nthe fire, and _thereof came this Calf_, as if his art or will went\nnot with the making thereof, but _of it self it made it self_. But\nthis answer of his sheweth rather, how vain the wit of man is in the\nexcuse of sin; and as his ingraving instrument writes down _Aaron_\u2019s\nsins; so the confession of others, more ingenuous _Jews_ proclaims the\n_Israelites_, saying,[456] that _No punishment befalleth thee ~Israel~,\nin which there is not an ounce of this Calf_. I conclude this with the\nanalogy between the _Egyptian Apis_, and the _molten Calf_: and this\nconsisteth in three things. _First_, As there were some _special marks\nin the Egyptians Ox_; so is it probable that _Aaron_ with his ingraving\nTool made the like. _Secondly_, As the _Egyptians_ in honor of their\n_Ox_ celebrated a _solemn Feast_, with much singing and mirth.[457]\nSo the _Israelites_ proclaimed a feast in honor of their _Calf_: _The\npeople sate down to eat and drink, and rose up to play_. _Thirdly_, As\nthe _Egyptians Ox_ was at last drowned in the River, so _Moses_ burnt\nthe _molten Calf_, and beat it to powder, and cast it upon the face\nof the water, _Exod. 32. 10._ _Deut. 9. 21._ _Jeroboam_ afterward,\nthough upon other inducements, committed the same sin; he thought in\nhis heart, that if the people go up to _Jerusalem_, and do sacrifice in\nthe _house of the Lord_, they would revolt from him, and return to the\nKing of _Judah_: whereupon he set up _two Calves of gold_, the one in\n_Bethel_, the other in _Dan_; saying unto the people, It is too much\nfor you to go up to _Jerusalem_, _1 King. 12. 28._\n\n    [448] _Plin. Nat. hist. l. 1. c. 46. Herod. l. 1. Setin. c. 35.\n    aut aliorum distinctione 45._\n\n    [449] _Alex. Genial. dier. l. 6. cap. 2._\n\n    [450] _\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05d7\u05e8\u05d8\u200f\u200e stylo sculptorio_\n\n    [451] _Plin. Hist. lib. 8. c. 46. It. Alex. Genial. dier. l. 6.\n    c. 2._\n\n    [452] _\u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05e8\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [453] _Vultus facies \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05e3\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [454] _Cyprian. de bono patient. p. 318. vid. etiam August. p.\n    73. It. Tertul. adv. Jud. cap. 1._\n\n    [455] _Suidas in \u0396\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2. Ruffinus lib. 2. hist. Eccles. cap.\n    23. Pier. Hierog. lib. 3. p. 25._\n\n    [456] _\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05da \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05e2\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e0\u05e7\u05d9\u05d0 \u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d4\u05e2\u05d2\u05dc\u200f\u200e Moses\n    Gerund, vid. Munst. Exod. 32._\n\n    [457] _Suid. in voce \u1f0c\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\n_Of ~Astaroth~, ~Ammonia~, ~Juno~, the Queen of Heaven, ~Diana~ of the\n~Ephesians~._\n\n\nAs the _Sun_ was worshipped under many names, so likewise the _Moon_.\n_Astaroth_ was the _Idol_ chiefly of the _Zidonians_, _1 King. 11.\n5._ _2 King. 23. 13._ she had her _Temple_, called the house of\n_Astaroth_, in which the _Philistims_ hanged up _Saul_\u2019s Armor[458]\nafter his death, _1 Sam. 31. 10._ That the _Moon_ was worshipped under\nthese names needs not proof;[459] only some say,[460] that _Astarte_\nwas _Juno_: and why may we not say, that _Juno_ was often used to\nexpress the _Moon_? Both the _Moon_ and _Juno_ are often called by the\nname of _Urania_.[461] And as the _Moon_ in respect of her light is\ncalled _Urania_; so in regard of the lesser lights in the heaven, she\nis called _Astroarche_ that is, the _Queen of the Planets_;[462] or\nas _Horace_ speaketh of the _Moon_, _Siderum Regina_, the _Queen of\nthe Stars_: Or lastly, as _Virgil_ speaketh of _Juno_; _Divum incedo\nregina_, the _Queen of the Gods_. It seemeth very probable, that this\nis that _Queen of Heaven_, of which the _Prophet_ speaketh, _Jer. 7.\n18._ _Jer. 44. 17._ Again, unto whom may we imagine those ancient\nHeathens to have performed that solemn worship, which they did on the\n_Calends_, or first day of every month (was it not to the _Moon_?) And\nyet notwithstanding it is ascribed to _Juno_ whence she is called _Juno\nCalendaris_.[463] Lastly, As _Jupiter Ammon_ was no other than the\n_Sun_,[464] and worshipped him in form of a _Ram_; so for ought I see,\nthe _Moon_ might be called _Juno Ammonia_, and worshipped in the form\nof a _sheep_.[465] Sure I am, that the _Hebrew Doctors_[466] describe\nthe Images of _Astaroth_, to have been made in the form of _sheep_; and\nthe word _Astaroth_, in the Original, signifieth a _flock of sheep_,\nand the _Moon_ might as well be called _Ammonia_, as the _Sun_ _Ammon_,\nboth being so called from their _heat_, which in the Holy Tongue is\ncalled _Hammah_,[467] and from thence likewise those Images (of which\nwe read, _Levit. 26. 30._ _Isa. 17. 8._ _Isa. 27. 9._) are called\n_Hammianim_,[468] because they were certain Idols placed upon the house\ntop, and so alwayes exposed to the _Sun_. Furthermore, as _Jupiter\nAmmon_ was painted with _horns_,[469] so likewise was the _Moon_:[470]\nwhy they should be thus painted, many reasons might be produced, but\nchiefly three; the _first_ peculiar to the _Sun_, the other common both\nto _Sun_ and _Moon_. First, the _Sun_ was painted with _Rams horns_,\nbecause with the Astronomers the sign _Aries_ in the _Zodiack_ is\nthe beginning of the year.[471] Secondly, because as the strength of\n_horned beasts_ consists in their _horns_, so the virtue and influence\nof the _Sun_ and _Moon_ is derived into sublunary creatures by their\nbeams. Thirdly, because the light of the _Sun_ and _Moon_ makes the\nreflection _cornute_, or _horn-like_. When _Moses_ came down from\nGod, _Aaron_ and the people saw that his face shined, _Exod. 34._ the\n_Latine_ reads it, _Facies ejus erat cornuta_: and hence it is, that\n_Moses_ is painted with _horns_, which some of the _Rabbines_ have\ninterpreted[472] _horns of magnificence_. The errour grew from the\ndoubtful signification of the _Hebrew_ word signifying _splendor_ or\n_brightness_ and also _horns_.\n\n    [458] _Horum Anathematum oblationem primo didicerunt ab\n    Israelitis, Num. 7. 1 Sam. 21._\n\n    [459] _\u1f08\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03ad\u03c9 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. Astarten lunam\n    esse opinor. Lucian. de dea Syria._\n\n    [460] _August. super. Judic. qu\u00e6st. 16._\n\n    [461] _Astarte Urania idem omnino valet apud Ph\u0153nicas, quod\n    Juno Lucina apud Latinos. Deducitur, Urania ab Hebr\u00e6o \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u200f\u200e Nun\n    in fine adjecto aut per se solum, aut cum Jod quod passim fit\n    Syris, quasi \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u05df\u200f\u200e vel \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u05e0\u05d9\u200f\u200e in f\u0153minino vero \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0\u200f\u200e (~i.~)\n    Lucidus & Lucida, aut Lucinus & Lucina. Et hinc Gr\u00e6ci suum\n    \u1f40\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd mutuati sunt._\n\n    [462] _\u0391\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7 dicitur, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd ab imperio\n    quod in astra exercet. vid. Herodian. l. 5._\n\n    [463] _Macrob. Sat. l. 1. c. 15._\n\n    [464] _Macrob. Sat. l. 1. c. 21._\n\n    [465] _C\u0153l. Rhodig. l. 18. c. 58._\n\n    [466] _D. Kimchi. 1 Sam. 31. 10. It. Jud. 2. 13._\n\n    [467] _\u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05de\u05d4\u200f\u200e Calor. Sol._\n\n    [468] _R. Solomon in Levit. 26. 30._\n\n    [469] _\u2026 stat corniger illis Jupiter. Lucan, l. 9. v. 514._\n\n    [470] _Syderum regina bicornis, audi, Luna, puellas. Horat.\n    car. s\u00e6cular._\n\n    [471] _Pier. hierogl. l. 10._\n\n    [472] _\u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05e8\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u200f\u200e cornua magnificenti\u00e6, R. Solom. porro\n    Hebraicum \u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05e8\u05df\u200f\u200e (unde \u039a\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 & cornu emanarunt) significat in\n    morem cornuum splendorem radiosq; emittere._\n\nThe _Moon_ was also worshipped under the name of _Diana_,[473] who\nalthough she were worshipped thorowout all _Asia_, yet she was had\nin principal esteem among the _Ephesians_, whence arose that cry,\n_Great is Diana of the Ephesians_, _Act. 19. 28._ Her greatness among\nthe _Ephesians_ appeareth partly by her _Temple_; which in one place\n_Pliny_ saith[474] was two hundred and twenty years abuilding, but\nelsewhere[475] he saith 400 years: partly from the great gain procured\nunto the Silver-smiths in making and selling _silver Temples of Diana_.\n_Act. 19. 24._ It is much disputed what those _silver Temples_ were;\nsome think them to be _little houses_, or _shrines_ (such as were for\ntheir smallness portable) in form representing the _Temple of Diana_,\nand within having the Image of _Diana_ inclosed, and in this sense\n\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 is sometimes used, to signifie _closets_ or _shrines wherein\nImages were kept_: Others think, certain coyns or pieces of money\nto be called by the name of _Diana_\u2019s _Temple_, from the similitude\nof _Diana_\u2019s _Temple_ engraven or stamped upon those coyns: as in\n_England_ we call some pieces of gold the _George_, others the _Angel_,\nothers the _Thistle_, from the impression which they bear. The like\ncustom of naming coyns from their Sculpture or impression was not\nunusual among the Ancients;[476] neither were such coyns unusual on\nwhich the _Temple of Diana_ was engraven, and these capital letters\nadded, DIAN. EPHE. _Theodorus Beza_ in his major Annotations upon the\n_Acts_, reporteth that he hath seen two of these himself.\n\n    [473] _Macrob. Saturn. l. 1. c. 15._\n\n    [474] _Plin. l. 36. 14._\n\n    [475] _Plin. l. 16. 40._\n\n    [476] _Simili prorsus ratione Atheniensium nummos\n    quosdam, boves: eorundem Atheniensium alios quosdam \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n    (~i.~) puellas, alios Corinthiorum \u03c0\u03ce\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 pullos: alios\n    Peloponnesiorum \u03c7\u03b5\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 testudines; alios Romanorum naves\n    vocabant._\n\nWe read[477] of another kind of Idolatrous Worship towards the _Moon_,\nto have been that men sacrificed to her in womans apparel, and women in\nmens apparel, because they thought the _Moon_ to be both _male_ and\n_female_, whence the _Moon_ is called by old Authors as well _Lunus_\nas _Luna_: And _Venus_, whom _Philocorus_ affirms to be the _Moon_, is\ntermed _Deus Venus_, as well as _Dea Venus_. Some have thought[478]\nthat God had respect unto this kind of _Idolatry_, _Deut. 22. 5._ Where\nmen are forbidden to wear womens apparel, _& \u00e8 contra_; but it is more\ngenerally, and upon better grounds thought, that the promiscuous use\nof apparel (whereby the distinction of sex is taken away) is there\nforbidden.\n\n    [477] _Macrob. Saturn. l. 3. c. 8. Non absimilem idololatriam\n    in cultu Veneris prodidit Julius Firmicus de errore profan.\n    religion. c. 4._\n\n    [478] _Maimonid. in more Nebochim part. 3. cap. 38._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\n_Of other Gods mentioned in Scripture._\n\n\nThe _Sun_ and _Moon_, which are the greater lights in the Heaven,\nI take to have been the chiefest Idols worshipped by the _Heathen_\npeople. Notwithstanding, their blind devotion deified also the other\n_Planets_, and that numberless number of lesser lights, called in\nScripture, _Militia C\u0153li_, The Host of Heaven, whose several natures,\nproperties and influences, are not distinctly known. In like manner\nthere is an _Host of Idols_ mentioned in Holy Writ, of whom little\nor nothing is spoken to the purpose by Authors, more than their very\nnames. Of this nature are those _Chambers of Imagery_, wherein all\nforms of creeping things were pourtrayed on the walls, _Ezek. 8._ It\nmay be termed their _Pantheon_.\n\nIn those Colonies which the _King_ of _Ashur_ transplanted into\n_Samaria_, every one worshipped the _god_ of his own Nation. The men\nof _Babel_ made _Succoth Benoth_, the men of _Cuth_ made _Nergal_, the\nmen of _Hamath_ made _Ashima_, the _Avims_ made _Nibhaz_ and _Tartak_;\nthe _Sepharvaims_ burnt their Children in the fire to _Adram-melech_,\nand _Anammelch_ the _gods of Sepharvaim_, _2 King. 17. 30, 31._ The\n_Hebrew Doctors_ say,[479] that _Succoth Benoth_ was the picture of an\n_Hen with her Chicken_: _Nergal_ they interpret _Gallum Sylvestrem_,\n_Asima_ a Goat, _Nibhaz_ a Dog, _Tartak_ an Ass, _Adrammelech_ a Mule,\n_Anammelech_ an Horse: that such brute beasts should be worshipped\nas _gods_, may seem ridiculous; but the like to have been practised\namong the _Heathens_, profane Authors abundantly testifie. The _Cock_\nwas worshipped as a _god_ among the _Syrians_,[480] A _Goat_ by the\n_Mendesii_;[481] A _Dog_ by others:[482] Yea, they have adopted\ninto the number of their _gods_ &c. _Oxen, Lyons, Eagles, Wolves,\nCrocodiles, Cats, Rats_,[483] Nay, they have digged their _gods_ out\nof their gardens, _Garlick, Leeks, Onions, &c._[484] To these may be\nadded _Nisroch_, which was the _god_ of the _Assyrians_, and, as it\nseemeth, had his _Temple_ at _Nineve_, _2 King. 19. ult._ and _Esay.\n37. ult._ Secondly, \u200e\u200f\u05e8\u05de\u05d5\u05df\u200f\u200e _Rimmon_, the word signifieth a _Pomegranate_.\nConcerning this Idol it is much controverted, whether _Naaman_ sinned\nnot in saying, _The Lord be merciful unto thy servant, that when my\nMaster goeth into the house of Rimmon_, &c. _2 King. 5. 18._ Read the\nwords in the _Pr\u00e6ter tense_ (when my _Master_ went into the house of\n_Rimmon_) the sense appears to be a pardon craved for sins past, not\nafterward to be committed. The same word \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u200f\u200e _Bebbo_, _in going_,\nis put to express the time past, in the titles of the _Psalms 52._\nand _Psalm 54._ Thirdly, _Nebo_ otherwise called _Nabo_, an Idol\nof the _Assyrians_, _Jer. 48. 1._ He had his name from _Prophecy_,\n\u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u200f\u200e _Nahbi_, signifying a _Prophet_, he seemeth not much to differ\nfrom \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, or \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, so often mentioned in _Homer_,\n_Diodorus Siculus_[485] maketh them both one, and we may render\n_Nebo_, the _Assyrians Ammon_, or _Jupiter Vaticinus_, the _god of\ntheir Oracles_.\n\n    [479] _R. Jarchi. 2 King. 17. R. David non dissentit._\n\n    [480] _Lucian l. 16. de Syr. Dea._\n\n    [481] _Herodotus in Euterp._\n\n    [482] _Cic. de legib. l. 1. vid. Tiraquel. in Alex._\n\n    [483] _Neopol. l. 6. c. 26._\n\n    [484] _Porrum & cepe, nefas violare & frangere morsu. O sanctas\n    gentes quibus h\u00e6c nascuntur in hortis Numina. Juvenal. satyr.\n    25._\n\n    [485] _Diod. Sicul. l. 5. c. 27._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\n_The several manners of Divine Revelation._\n\n\nAs _Idolatry_ originally sprang from mistaking of Scripture; so\nWitch-craft and Sorcery, (which holdeth near affinity with _Idolatry_)\nseemeth to have had its first beginning from an imitation of _Gods\nOracles_. _God spake in divers manners_, _Heb. 1. 1._ _By dreams, by\nUrim, by Prophets_, _1 Sam. 28. 6, 7._ when the Lord would by none of\nthese answer King _Saul_, then he sought to a Witch. To these might be\nadded _Gods_ speaking from between the _Cherubims_, his answering by\n_Visions_, _Angels_, and _Voices_: but the chief manners of revealing\nhimself, observed by the _Hebrew_ Writers, are four, which they\nterm[486] _four degrees of Prophecy_, or _Divine Revelation_: somewhat\ntherefore being spoken of these, I purpose to explain the several sorts\nof unlawful divinations mentioned in Scripture.\n\n    [486] _P. Fagius in Exod. 28._\n\nThe first _degree_ was \u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Nebuah_, _Prophecy_. This was when _God_\nby certain visions and apparitions revealed his Will.\n\nThe second was \u200e\u200f\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9\u200f\u200e _Ruach Hacodesch_, _The inspiration of the Holy\nGhost_, whereby the party was inabled without Visions or Apparitions,\nto prophesie: some shewing the difference between those two add,[487]\nthat the gift of Prophecy did cast a man into a trance or extasie, all\nhis senses being taken from him; but the inspiration of the Holy Ghost\nwas without any such extasie, or abolition of the senses, as appeareth\nin _Job, David, Daniel_. Both these degrees, as likewise _Urim_ and\n_Thummim_ ceased in the second Temple, whence their ancient _Doctors_\nsay, [488] that after the _latter Prophets Haggai_, _Zachary_, and\n_Malachy_ were dead, the _Holy Ghost went up or departed from_ Israel.\nHowbeit, they had the use of a _voice_ or _eccho_ from _Heaven_. In\nwhich speech we are not to understand that the _Holy Ghost_ wrought\nnot at all upon the creatures, or that it wrought not then in the\nsanctification of men, as in former times, but that this _extraordinary\nenabling men to prophesie by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost_, then\nceased; and in this sense the _Holy Ghost was said to have departed\nfrom ~Israel~._ Unto this common received opinion, that passage might\nhave reference, _Acts 19._ _We have not so much as heard whether there\nhath been an Holy Ghost or no._ That they did not doubt the distinction\nof persons, appeareth clear, if that be true which some have\nnoted,[489] that the ancient _Jews_ before _Christ_ were so catechised\nin that point, that they observed the _Mystery of the Trinity_ in the\nname \u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Jehovah_, for though the name consisted of four letters in\nnumber, whence it was called \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd _Quadriliterum_, yet there\nwere but _three sorts of Letters in the name_: \u200e\u200f\u05d9\u200f\u200e _Jod_ signified the\n_Father_, who was the beginning of all things: \u200e\u200f\u05d5\u200f\u200e _Vau_ is a conjunction\ncopulative, and denoted the _third person in Trinity_, which proceedeth\nfrom the _Father_ and the _Son_, \u200e\u200f\u05d4\u200f\u200e _He_ signifieth the _Son of God_.\nThe _Rabbines_ have a saying, that God made all things, _in litera \u200e\u200f\u05d4\u200f\u200e\nHe_. They may allude to this, that he made all things by his Word: he\nsaid, Let there be thus and thus, and it was so: but they may also\nallude to the _second person in Trinity_. And furthermore, they note\nthat \u200e\u200f\u05d4\u200f\u200e _He_, is doubled in this name, to demonstrate both Natures of\nour blessed Saviour.\n\n    [487] _D. Kimchi. Pr\u00e6fat. in Psal._\n\n    [488] _Talmud. in Sanhedrin, c. 1._\n\n    [489] _P. Fagius in Exod. 28._\n\nThe _third degree_, was _Urim_ and _Thummim_. _Urim_ signifieth\nlight, and _Thummim_ perfection. That they were two ornaments in the\n_High-priests brest-plate_, is generally agreed upon: but what manner\nof ornaments, or how they gave answer, is hard to resolve. Some[490]\nthink them to be the four rows of stones in the brest-plate, the\n_splendour and brightness_ of which foreshewed victory; and by the\nrule of contraries, we may gather, that the _darkness of the stones_\nnot shining presaged evil. Others[491] say it was the name _Jehovah_\nput in the doubling of the brest-plate, for that was double _Exod.\n28. 16._ Others[492] declare the manner of consulting with _Urim_ and\n_Thummim_ thus: First, they say[493] that only the _King_, or else the\n_Father of the Consistory_ had power to consult, or to propose the\nmatter unto the _Priest_, and the _Priest_ only had power to resolve.\n_Secondly_, that the matter proposed must not be trivial, but of moment\nand great difficulty. _Thirdly_, that this holy writing, termed _Urim_\nand _Thummim_, consisted of all the _Tribes names_, and likewise of\nthe _Patriarchs_, _Abraham_, _Isaac_ and _Jacob_; so that no letter of\nthe _Alphabet_ was wanting. The question being proposed, some say that\nthe letters which gave the answer were \u200e\u200f\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e (_i._) _they did arise_\nand _eminently appear above the others_. An example they take from _2\nSam. 2. 1._ When _David_ asked the Lord, Shall I go up into any of the\nCities of _Judah_? the Lord answered, \u200e\u200f\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Gnaleh_, _go up_. Here, say\nthey, \u200e\u200f\u05e2\u200f\u200e appeared out of the name of \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d9\u05df\u200f\u200e _Schimeon_, \u200e\u200f\u05dc\u200f\u200e\nout of the name of \u200e\u200f\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u200f\u200e _Levi_, \u200e\u200f\u05d4\u200f\u200e out of the name of \u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4\u200f\u200e\n_Jehudah_. Others say, that the letters which represented the Oracle\nwere \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e6\u05d8\u05d3\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e (_i._) that they did after a strange manner _joyn\nthemselves into perfect syllables_ and entire words, and made the\nanswer compleat. Many other opinions might be reckoned up, but he spoke\nbest, who ingenuously confessed that he knew not what _Urim_ and\n_Thummim_ was.[494]\n\n    [490] _Joseph. Antiq. l. 3. c. 9._\n\n    [491] _R. Solom. quemadmodum refert D. Kimchi in radic._\n\n    [492] _Talmud. in Jonah c. 6. vid. P. Fagium in Exod. 28._\n\n    [493] _Abbeth din._\n\n    [494] _R. David in Radic._\n\nThe fourth degree was \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05ea \u05e7\u05d5\u05dc\u200f\u200e _Bath Kol_, _filia vocis_, _the Daughter\nof a Voice_, or an _Eccho_; by it is meant a _voice from heaven\ndeclaring the will of God_; it took place in the _second Temple_, when\nthe three former degrees of Prophecy ceased: it gave testimony of our\nSaviour; Lo, a _voice from heaven_, saying, _This is my beloved Son in\nwhom I am well pleased_ _Mat. 3. 17._ It was in truth the _Prologue_,\n_Preface_, or _type of that true voice of the Father_, that _eternal\nword which revealed his Fathers will unto mankind_.\n\nThese were the extraordinary means by which _God_ revealed himself to\nhis people of old: ordinarily, he revealed himself by his written word.\nNotwithstanding the _Hebrews_ say, that the Law, even from the first\ntime of its delivery unto _Moses_, was twofold: the one committed to\nwriting, which they call \u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d1\u05db\u05ea\u05d1\u200f\u200e _Thora Schebictab_, the written\nLaw: the other delivered by tradition, \u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Thora begnal pe_,\nit was also termed their _Kabbala_, from \u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc\u200f\u200e _Kibbel_, signifying\n_Accipere_, to receive or learn. They say both were delivered by\n_God_ unto _Moses_ in Mount _Sinai_, but this latter was delivered\nfrom _Moses to ~Joshua~, from ~Joshua~ to the Elders, from the Elders\nto the Prophets, from the Prophets to those of the great Synagogue,\nand so successively to after-ages, till at last it was digested\ninto one Book, containing principally precepts and directions for\nthose Israelites which inhabited the holy Land. It is called ~Talmud\nHierosolymitanum~. It was composed in the year of our Lord 230._ This\nbecause it containeth but a few constitutions, is but of little use.\nAbout 500 _years after Christ_, then was there a more full and exact\ncollection of their constitutions, for direction of those _Jews_ which\ndwelt in _Babylon_, and other forreign places; this is termed _Talmud\nBabylonicum_, and is of greatest use among Authors; it containeth the\nbody of _their Civil and Canon Law_. This traditional law they hold to\nbe as authentick as their written word, and that _Moses_ received it\nfrom God, when he received the Law; for, say they, were it not for this\nexposition, the _Decalogue_ it self might have been delivered _In hora\nveloci_, _in less than an hour_.[495]\n\n    [495] _\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05dc\u05d7 \u05db \u05e9\u05e2\u05d7\u200f\u200e Moses Kotsen. in pr\u00e6f._\n\nHere we must note that the word _Kabbala_, when it is applied to the\n_Kabbalists_, to difference them from the _Talmudists_, is taken in a\nstricter sense, and signifieth those subtleties or mysteries which are\nobserved from the different writing of some letters in the Scripture,\nfrom the _transposing of them_, from a _mystical kind of Arithmetick_,\n&c. This was never wholly committed to writing, of some instances we\nhave, _Gen. 23. 2._ _Abraham came_ \u200e\u200f\u05dc\u05d1\u05db\u05ea\u05d4\u200f\u200e _to weep for Sara_. Here\nbecause the letter _Caph_ is less than the rest, they note[496] that\n_Abraham wept but little for Sara_, because she was old. Again, the\nletter _Aleph_ is found six times in the first verse of _Genesis_:\nHence R. _Elias_ collected that the world should endure but _six\nthousand years_: because _Aleph_ in the _Hebrews computation_ standeth\nfor a thousand. From the transposition _of letters_ they conclude after\nthis manner; \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05e8\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Cherem_ signifieth _Anathema_ or _Excommunication_,\nby a _Metathesis_ or _transposition of letters_, it is made \u200e\u200f\u05e8\u05d7\u05dd\u200f\u200e\n_Rachem_ signifying _mercy_; by another _transposition_ it is made \u200e\u200f\u05e8\u05de\u05d7\u200f\u200e\n_Ramach_, which letters in the _Jews computation_ make 248, which in\ntheir Anatomy, they find to be the just number of members in a mans\nbody: their conclusion hence is, that if _an excommunicated person\ndo truly repent then his ~Cherem~ is turned into ~Rachem~, his curse\nturned into a blessing: if he do not repent, then his ~Cherem~ entreth\ninto ~Ramach~, the curse entreth into all his members_, to the utter\ndestroying of the whole man. Again, \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u200f\u200e _Isch_, signifieth _a man_.\n\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05e9\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Escha_, _a woman_. Hence they note, that in the _name of the man_\nhere is \u200e\u200f\u05d9\u200f\u200e _Jod_ which is not in the _name of the woman_; in the _name\nof the woman_ there is \u200e\u200f\u05d4\u200f\u200e _He_, which is not in the _name of the man_:\nboth these make \u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Jah_, one of the names of God: these being taken\naway, in both names there remains \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05e9\u200f\u200e _Esch_ signifying _fire_, to shew,\nthat as long as man and wife agree, _God is with them_: but when they\ndisagree, _fire is between them_: Thus we see what vain mysteries their\n_Kabbalists_ observe.\n\n    [496] _Baal Turin._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IX.\n\n_Their Teraphim._\n\n\nConcerning the _Teraphim_, two things are especially to be enquired.\n_First_, what they were? _Secondly_, for what use? the word \u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05e8\u05e3\u200f\u200e\n_Taraph_, signifieth in general the _compleat Image of a man_. _Michal_\ntook an _image_, (_a Teraphim_) and laid it in the bed, _1 Sam. 19.\n13._ More particularly it signifieth an _Idol_ or _image made for mens\nprivate use in their own houses_, so that these images seem to have\nbeen their _Penates_ or _Lares_, their houshould _gods_; wherefore hast\nthou stoln my _gods? my Teraphim_, _Gen. 31. 30._ And this man _Michal_\nhad _an house of gods_, and made an _Ephod_ and _Teraphim_, _Jud. 17.\n5._ Because of the worship exhibited to these _Idols_: Hence from the\n_Hebrew_ _Taraph_, as some read it, _Tharaph_, cometh the _Greek_\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _To worship_.[497] The manner how these _Images_ were made,\nis fondly conceived thus among the _Rabbines_;[498] _They killed a man\nthat was a first-born son, and wrung off his head, and seasoned it with\nsalt, and spices, and wrote upon a plate of gold the name of an unclean\nspirit, and put it under the head upon a wall, and lighted Candles\nbefore it, and worshipped it_. With such _Laban_ spake, say they. But,\nwithout controversie, the _Teraphim_ which _Michal_ put in the bed,\nwas a _compleat statur, or Image of a man_. The use of these _Images_\nwas, to consult with them as with _Oracles_, concerning things for the\npresent unknown, or future to come. To this purpose they were made by\n_Astrologers_[499] under certain constellations, capable of heavenly\ninfluences, whereby they were enabled to speak. The _Teraphims have\nspoken vanity_, _Zach. 10. 2._ And among other reasons why _Rachel_\nstole away her Fathers Images, this is thought to be one, that _Laban_\nmight not by consulting with these Images discover what way _Jacob_\ntook in his flight.\n\n    [497] _\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f24\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd. Hesiod. \u1f1c\u03c1\u03b3. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1._\n\n    [498] _R. Eliezer. vid. Eliam Thisbit._\n\n    [499] _Aben. Ezra. Gen. 31._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. X.\n\n_The several sorts of Divination forbidden._\n\n\nWe shall find, _Deut. 18. 10, 11._ those _Diviners_, which are by the\nLaw forbidden, distinguished into _seven kinds_; not because there\nwere no other, but they were the most usual. 1. _An observer of times._\n2. _An Inchanter._ 3. _A Witch._ 4. _A Charmer._ 5. _A consulter with\nfamiliar spirits._ 6. _A Wizard._ 7. A _Nigromancer._ To these we may\nadd an eighth, out of _Hos. 4. 12._ _Consulting with the staff._ and\na ninth out of _Ezek. 21. 21._ A _consulter with entrails_. 1. The\nfirst is \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05df\u200f\u200e, an _observer of times_,[500] one that distinguisheth\ntimes and seasons, saying _Such a day is good, or such a day is naught;\nsuch an hour, such a week, such a month is luckie, and such and such\nunluckie for such and such businesses_: whence those[501] that derive\nthe word from \u200e\u200f\u05e2\u05d9\u05df\u200f\u200e _Gnajin_, signifying an _eye_ (as if hereby we meant\na _Jugler, or Imposter, who deceived the eyes of his spectators by\ncasting a mist before them_) utterly mistake: more pertinently they\nspeak, who derive it from \u200e\u200f\u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Gnona_, signifying _Time_. But of all\nI approve those who derive it[502] from \u200e\u200f\u05e2\u05e0\u05df\u200f\u200e _Gnanan_, A _Cloud_, as if\nthe Original signified properly a _Planetary_, or _Star-gazer_. Hereby\nhe is distinguished from the second sort of unlawful _Diviners_, for\nhe also was an Observer of times; _the first_ drawing his conclusions\nfrom the _colour or motion of the Clouds: the second from his own\nsuperstitious observation of good and evil events, happening on such\nand such dayes, such and such times_: the _first_ seemeth to have drawn\nhis conclusions, _a priori_, from the _Clouds_ or _Planets, causing\ngood and bad events_: the second, _a posteriori, from the events\nthemselves, happening upon such and such times_. This _Planetary_,\nwhen he observed the _clouds_, seemeth to have stood _with his face\nEastward, his back Westward, his right hand towards the South, and\nhis left hand towards the North_: except it was from this positure of\nthe _Star-gazers body_ in time of observing, I find no reason why the\n_Hebrews_ should term the _Eastern_ part of the world \u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e, _Kadim_\ni. The _former part of the world_: the _Western part_ \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u200f\u200e, i. e. The\n_back part_; the _South part_ \u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05df\u200f\u200e _Jamin_, i. e. The _right hand_;\nthe _North part_ \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05de\u05d0\u05dc\u200f\u200e _Shemol_, i. e. The _left hand_. That the reason\nof these denominations is, because _Adam_ was created with his face\ntoward the _East_, is as vain, as hard to prove.\n\n    [500] _Jarchi. Lev. 19. 26._\n\n    [501] _D. Kimchi. in rad._\n\n    [502] _Aben. Esra. Levit. 19. 26._\n\n2. The second is \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\u200f\u200e, _Menachesch_, rendred an _Inchanter_; it\nimporteth rather an _Augur_, or _Soothsayer_. The Original signifieth\nsuch an one _who out of his own experience draweth observations to\nforetell good or evil to come_, as _Soothsayers_ do, by observing such\nand such events, by such and such flying of Birds, screechings, or\nkawings. The _Rabbines_ speak in this wise:[503] _He is Menachesch, a\nSoothsayer, who will say, because a morsel of bread is fallen out of\nhis mouth, or his staff out of his hand, or his son called him back, or\na Crow kawed unto him, or a Goat passed by him, or a Serpent was on his\nright hand, or a Fox on his left hand, therefore he will say, Do not\nthis or that to day._ This word is used, _Gen. 30. 27._ I have _learned\nby experience_, saith _Laban_, that the Lord hath blessed me for thy\nsake. Again, _Gen. 44. 5._ _Is not this the cup in which my Lord\ndrinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth?_ that is, _proveth, or maketh\ntryal or experience what manner of men ye are_: The _Heathen_ people\nwere very superstitious in these observations: Some daies were _Atri_,\nothers _Albi_, some _unlucky_, others _lucky_; on some daies they\naccounted it unfortunate to begin battel, on some months unfortunate to\nmarry.\n\n    [503] _D. Kimchi. radic._\n\n    _Mense malum Maio nubere vulgus ait._\n\n                            _Ovid. Fast._\n\nAnd as they were _superstitious in observing unlucky signs_, so\nlikewise in the means used to _avert the evil_ portended: the means\nwere either _words_ or _deeds_.[504] _Deeds_; thus if any unlucky Bird,\nor such like came in their way, _they would fling stones at it_; and\nof this sort is _the scratching of a suspected Witch_, which among the\nsimple sort of people is thought to be a means to cure _Witch-craft_.\nBy _words_, they thought to elude the evil, signified by such signs,\nwhen they say, \u0395\u1f30\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76, _In caput tuum recidat hoc omen_; _This\nevil light on thy own head_.\n\n    [504] _Plura istiusmodi \u1f10\u03bd\u03cc\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1 vide apud Theophrastum\n    Character. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc._\n\nThe third is \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05db\u05e9\u05e3\u200f\u200e _Mecascheph_, _a Witch_, properly a _Jugler_. The\nOriginal signifieth such a kind of _Sorcerer who bewitcheth the\nsenses and minds of men, by changing the forms of things, making them\nappear otherwise than indeed they are_. The same word is applied to\nthe Sorcerers in _Egypt_, who resisted _Moses_ _Exod. 7. 11._ Then\n_Pharaoh_ also called _Mecaschphim_, the Sorcerers. Now the _Magicians_\nin _Egypt_; they also did in like manner with their _Inchantments_.\nThis latter part of the Text explaineth what those Sorcerers were.\nIn that they are called _Magicians_, it implieth their learning,\nthat they were _wise men_, and _great Philosophers_: the word\n_inchantments_ declareth the _manner of the delusion_, and it hath\nthe signification of such a _slight whereby the eyes are deluded_,\nfor \u200e\u200f\u05dc\u05d4\u05d8\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Lahatim_, there translated _inchantments_, importeth the\n_glistering flame of a fire or sword, wherewith the eyes of men are\ndazled_. The _Greek_ version doth not unfitly term them \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2,\n_Unguentarios_, _Syplasiarios_, _Compounders of Medicines_, or if you\nplease _complexion-makers,[505] such Artisans who mask men and womens\nfaces with paintings and false complexions_. Hence it is that the\n_Apostle_ compareth such false teachers, _who under a form and shew\nof godliness_, lead captive silly women, to the _Egyptian_ Sorcerers\n_Jannes ~and~ Jambres, who resisted ~Moses~,_ _2 Tim. 3. 8._ These\ntwo were of chief note: In the _Talmud_[506] they are all called\n_Johanne_ and _Mamre_; by _Numenius_,[507] a _Pythagorean_, _Jannes_\nand _Mambres_; by _Pliny_,[508] _Jamnes and Jotape_.\n\n    [505] _\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03c8\u03bf\u03c2. Suidas._\n\n    [506] _Talmud. tract. Menachoth. c. 9._\n\n    [507] _Origen. contra Celsum. lib. 4._\n\n    [508] _Plin. nat. hist. lib. 30, cap. 1._\n\nThe fourth is \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Chober_, _a Charmer_. The _Hebrew_ word signifies\n_conjoyning_ or _consociating_; either from the league and fellowship\nwhich such persons have with the devil, or as _Bodine_ thinketh[509]\n_because such kind of Witches have frequent meetings, in which they\ndance and make merry together_. _Onkelos_ translateth such a charmer\n\u200e\u200f\u05e8\u05d8\u05d9\u05df\u200f\u200e _Raten_, _a mutterer_, intimating the manner of these Witcheries\nto be by the muttering, or soft speaking of some spell or charm. The\ndescription of a _Charmer_ is thus delivered:[510] _He is a character\nwho speaketh words of a strange language, and without sense, and he\nin his foolishness thinketh that these words are profitable: that if\none say so or so unto a Serpent or Scorpion, it cannot hurt a man, and\nhe that saith so or so unto a man, he cannot be hurt_, &c. _He that\nwhispereth over a wound, or readeth a verse out of the Bible, likewise\nhe that readeth over an Infant, that it may not be frighted, or that\nlayeth the book of the Law, or the Phylacteries upon a child that it\nmay sleep, such are not only among Inchanters, or Charmers, but of\nthose that generally deny the law of God, because they make the word of\nthe Scripture medicine for the body, whereas they are not, but medicine\nfor the soul._ As it is written, _Prov. 3. 22._ _They shall be life\nunto thy soul_. Of this sort was that whereof _Bodinus_[511] speaketh,\n_That a child by saying a certain verse out of the Psalms, hindred a\nwoman that she could not make her butter; by reciting the same verse\nbackward, he made her butter come presently_.\n\n    [509] _Bodin. Mag. d\u00e6mon. l. 1. c. 6._\n\n    [510] _Maimon. tract. Idolol. c. 11. sect. 10. 12._\n\n    [511] _Bodin. Mag. d\u00e6mon. l. 2. c. 1._\n\nThe fifth, \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05d5\u05d1\u200f\u200e _Schoel Ob_, _a consulter with Ob_, or _with\nfamiliar spirits_. _Ob_ signifieth properly a _bottle_, and is\napplied in divers places of Scripture to _Magicians_, because they\nbeing possessed with an evil spirit, speak with a soft and hollow\nvoice, _as out of a bottle_. The _Greek_ calleth them \u1f18\u03b3\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n_Ventriloquos_; _such whose voice seemeth to proceed out of their\nbelly_.[512] Such a _Diviner_ was the Damosel, _Acts 16. 16._ in\nSt. _Augustines_ judgement,[513] and is probably thought so by most\nExpositors, who are of opinion, that the _spirit_ of _Python_ with\nwhich this Damosel was possessed, is the same which the _spirit of Ob_\nwas amongst the _Hebrews_. Hence the _Witch of Endor_, whom _Saul_\nrequested to raise up _Samuel_, is said in _Hebrew_ to have consulted\nwith _Ob_; but among the _Latine_ Expositors she is commonly translated\n_Pythonissa_, _one possessed with the spirit of Python_.\n\n    [512] _Chrysostom. 1 Cor. 12. Tert. adv. Marcion. l. 4. c. 25._\n\n    [513] _August. 1. de doct. Christ. c. 23._\n\nThe sixth is, \u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u200f\u200e _Iiddegnoni_, a _Wizard_; in the _Greek_, he is\ntranslated sometimes \u0393\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, a _cunning-man_. In both Languages he had\nhis name from _knowledge_, which either the _Wizard_ professed himself\nto have, or the common people thought him to have. The _Rabbies_\nsay,[514] he was so called in _Hebrew from a certain beast named by\nthem ~Jadua~, in shape resembling a man, because these Wizards when\nthey did utter their Prophecies, held a bone of this Beast between\ntheir teeth_. This haply might be some _Diabolical Sacrament or\nCeremony_, used for the Confirmation of the league between _Satan_ and\nthe _Wizard_. _Prophane_ History[515] mentioneth Divinations of the\nlike kind, as that _Magicians_ were wont to eat the principal parts\nand members of such beasts which they deemed _Prophetical_, thinking\nthereby, that by a kind of \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 the Soul of such Beasts would\nbe conveyed into their bodies, whereby they might be enabled for\nProphecy.\n\n    [514] _P. Fag. Levit. 19. Verum Athen\u00e6us bestiam hanc vocat\n    \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1. Vid. Bodin. Mag. d\u00e6mon. l. 1. c. 6. p. 18._\n\n    [515] _Perer. de Mag. p. 57._\n\nThe seventh is \u200e\u200f\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d0\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Doresch el hammethim_; the _Greek_\nanswereth word for word, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, _An enquirer of the\nDead, a Necromancer_. Such Diviners consulted with _Satan in the shape\nof a dead man_. A memorable example we find recorded, _1 Sam. 29._\nThere, King _Saul_ about to war with the _Philistines_ (God denying to\nanswer him either by _dreams_, or by _Urim_, or by _Prophets_) upon\nthe fame of the _Witch of Endor_, he repaired to her, demanding that\n_Samuel might be raised up from the dead_, to tell him the issue of the\nwar. Now that this was not in truth _Samuel_, is easily evinced, both\nby testimonies of the learned, and reasons. _First_, it is improbable,\nthat God who had denied to answer him by any _ordinary means_, should\nnow deign him an answer so extraordinary. _Secondly_, no Witch or Devil\ncan disturb the bodies or Souls of such as die in the Lord, because\nthey rest from their labors, _Rev. 14. 13._ _Thirdly_, if it had been\n_Samuel_, he would doubtless have reproved _Saul for consulting with\nWitches_.\n\nThe eighth is \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05e7\u05dc\u05d5\u200f\u200e _Scoel maklo_, _A Consulter with his Staff_.\n_Hos. 4. 12._ _Jerome_ saith the manner of this divination was thus:\n_That if the doubt were between two or three Cities, which first should\nbe assaulted; to determin this, they wrote the names of the Cities upon\ncertain staves or arrows, which being shaked in a quiver together the\nfirst that was pulled out determined the City._ Others[516] deliver\nthe manner of this consultation to have been thus: _The consulter\nmeasured his staff by spans or by the length of his finger, saying, as\nhe measured, I will go, I will not go, I will do such a thing, I will\nnot do it, and as the last span fell out, so he determined_: This was\ntermed by the Heathens \u1fe5\u03b1\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 or \u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, _Divination by rod\nor arrows_.\n\n    [516] _Vid. Drus. in Deut. p. 592._\n\nThe ninth was \u200e\u200f\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05db\u05d1\u05d3\u200f\u200e _Roe baccabed_, _a diviner by intrales_, _Ezek.\n22. 21._ _Nebuchadnezzar_ being to make war both with the _Jews_, and\nthe _Ammonites_, and doubting in the way, against whether of these he\nshould make his first on-set: First he consulted with his _Arrows and\nStaves_, of which hath been spoken immediately before: _Secondly_, he\nconsulted with the _intrals of beasts_. This practice was generally\nreceived among the _Heathens_, and because the _liver_ was the\nprincipal member observed, it was called \u1f21\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03b1, _Consultation\nwith the liver_. Three things are observed in this kind of divination.\nFirst, the colour of the intrals, whether they were all well\n_coloured_. Secondly, their _place_, whether none were _displaced_.\nThirdly, the _number_, whether none were wanting; among those that were\nwanting, the want of the liver, or the heart chiefly presaged ill: That\nday _Julius C\u00e6sar_ was slain, it is storied, that in two fat Oxen then\nsacrificed, the heart was wanting in them both.\n\n\n\n\nTHE FIFTH BOOK\n\nOF THEIR CONSISTORIES.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\n_Their Courts of Judgment, especially their Ecclesiastical Consistory._\n\n\nThere were in _Israel_ distinct _Courts_, consisting of distinct\n_persons_, the one principally for _Church-businesses_, the other for\n_affairs in the Commonwealth_; the one an _Ecclesiastical Consistory_;\nthe other a _Civil Judicatory_:[517] Of these, and their several\ncensures, and punishments, it remaineth now to be spoken.\n\n    [517] _Junius Analys. Expos. Deut. 17._\n\nThese different Consistories, or _Courts_ of Justice, we find first\ndistinguisht, _Deut. 17. 12._ _He which will not hearken unto the\nPriest, nor unto the Judge_. Where the people of _Israel_ are directed,\nin what cases, and to what persons they should make their Appeals from\ninferiour _Courts_; namely, the _Priests_, _in matters spiritual_, or\n_ceremonial_, and to the _Judges_, _in matters civil or criminal_.\nThese two Courts are more plainly distinguished, _2 Chron. 19._ where\n_Jehosaphat_, reforming many abuses in _Church_ and _Commonwealth_,\nfirst appointed thorow-out all the fenced Cities of _Judah_, _secular\nJudges_ to determine criminal causes, _ver. 5._ And at _Jerusalem_ he\nappointed a _Spiritual Court_, consisting of _Levites, Priests, and\nthe chief Fathers of Israel_, _vers. 8._ And in causes spiritual for\nthe Lord, _Amariah_ the _High priest_ was chief: in causes criminal\nfor the King, _Zebadiah_ was chief, _ver. 11._ Likewise the _Prophet\nJeremiah_ is condemned to die by the _Consistory of Priests_, _Jer. 26.\n8._ But by the _Consistory of Princes, or secular Judges sitting in the\ngate_, he was absolved and discharged, _vers. 16._ Yea, although the\ntyranny of _Antiochus_, and the troublesome times insuing had bred such\na confusion in matters of Government among the _Jews_, that an evident\ndistinction can hardly be found in the _New-Testament_, yet some\nfoot-steps, and imperfect tokens of both Courts are there observable,\nprincipally, _Matth. 21. 23._ _It._ _Matth. 26. 3._ The _Chief\nPriests_ and the _Elders_, of the people, are named as two distinct\n_Consistories_: and each Consistory seemeth to be differenced by its\nproper name: The _secular Consistory_ termed \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, A _Councel_:\nthe _spiritual_ termed \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f74, _a Synagogue_. _They will deliver you\nup to the Councels, and they will scourge you in their Synagogues_,\n_Matth. 10. 17._ Hence that great Assembly of _Prophets_ and holy men\ncalled together by _Esra_, for the reformation of the _Church_, after\ntheir return from _Babylon_, is called _Synagoga magna_, _A great\nSynagogue_.\n\nThe Office of the _Ecclesiastical Court_, was to put a difference\nbetween things _holy_ and _unholy_, and between _clean_ and _unclean_,\n_Levit. 10. 10._ and to _determine Appeals in controversies of\ndifficulty_. It was a _representative Church_. Hence is that _Dic\nEcclesi\u00e6_, _Mat. 18. 16._ _Tell the Church_, because unto them belonged\nthe _power of Excommunication_, the several sorts of which censure\nfollow in the next Chapter.\n\nOnly here take notice, that as in the _Civil Consistories_, consisting\nof _seventy Judges_, which was the supreme Court, there were two\nsate as Chief; namely, one whom they termed _Nasi_, _The Lord Chief\nJustice_; and the other whom they termed _Abbeth din_, the _Father of\nthe Senate_: so in the _Ecclesiastical Consistory_ the _High-priest_\nand his _Sagan_, or _second High priest_ sate chief there, _2 King.\n23. 4._ That the _High priest_ sate in the _Sanhedrim_ necessarily,\nis an errour;[518] for he was not elected into that Company, except\nhe were a man of extraordinary wisdome. Again, note, that sometimes\nboth _Consistories_ assembled together, as often as the matters to be\ndetermined were partly _ceremonial_, partly _civil_, partly belonging\nto the _Church_, partly to the _Commonwealth_: which being not noted,\ncauseth the Courts not to be distinguished by many Expositors. This\nmeeting and joyning of both _Consistories_ often appeareth in the\n_Gospel_. The _chief Priests_ and _Elders_ meet together.\n\n    [518] _Moses Kotsen. in Sanhedrin._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\n_Of their Excommunication._\n\n\nThey had three _Degrees of Excommunication_. The first was called\nin the _N. T._ _a casting out of the Synagogue_, _John 9. 22._ by\nthe _Jews_[519] _Niddui_ i. _a separation_ or _putting away_. It\nsignified[520] _a separation from all commerce or society either with\nman or woman_ for the distance of _four Cubits_; also _from eating or\ndrinking with any; from the use of the marriage-bed, from shaving,\nwashing, or the like_, according to the pleasure of the _Judge_, and\nthe quality of the offence. It was of force 30 days, yet so that they\nmight be shortened upon repentance. He that was thus _excommunicated_,\nhad power to _be present at divine service, to teach others, and learn\nof others; he hired servants, and was hired himself_, but always on\ncondition of the aforesaid _separation_. If he remained impenitent,\naccording to the pleasure of the Judge, his punishment was increased,\neither to the doubling or the tripling of the time, or to the extending\nof it to their lives end; his male-children were not circumcised; if he\ndied without repentance, then, by the sentence of the Judge, a stone\nwas cast upon his Coffin or Bier, to shew that he was worthy to be\nstoned. They mourned not for such a one with solemn lamentation, they\nfollowed him not unto the grave, nor buried him with common burial.\n\n    [519] _\u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9\u200f\u200e Significat h\u00e6c vox Separationem, Elongationem;\n    deducitur \u00e0 verbo \u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05d3\u05d4\u200f\u200e Separavit. Hinc etiam Proscriptus,\n    profligatus, aut separatus quispiam dicitur \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [520] _Buxtorf. ex Rabbinis Epist. Heb. pag. 55._\n\nThe second was called in the _N. T._ _a giving one over to Satan_, _1\nCor. 5. 5._ By the _Jews_ \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05e8\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Cherem_. For the better understanding\nof this word, we must know that it is not used in this sense in the\n_Old Testament_; there we shall find it applied to _persons_, or to\n_things_; if to _persons_, then it signifieth _a devotion of them\nto God by their death_, _Levit. 27. 29._ If to _things_, then it\nsignifieth _a devotion of them unto God_, by separating them from\nordinary use. Hence it is that _Achan_ is punisht for stealing the\n_devoted_ thing, _Josh. 7._ _Persons_ thus _devoted_, were termed\nby the _Greeks_ \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1; and _devoted things_, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1.[521]\nNotwithstanding, in the _Apostles_ time, both _Cherem_ and \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1,\nsignified a _second degree of Excommunication_, differing from the\nformer. First because it was not done in a _private Court_, but\npublished in the audience of the _whole Church_: Secondly, maledictions\nand curses were added out of the Law of _Moses_, At the publishing\nhereof Candles were kindled; and when the curses were ended, they put\nout the candles, in token that the excommunicate person was _deprived\nof the light of heaven_. This kind of _excommunication_ was exercised\nagainst the _incestuous person_, and against _Hymen\u00e6us_,[522] and\n_Alexander_.[523]\n\n    [521] _Bud\u00e6us \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 dici tradit, homines sacros, (~i.~)\n    quorum capita inferis dicata sunt & devota; \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 vero\n    donaria diis consecrata._\n\n    [522] _1 Cor. 5. 5._\n\n    [523] _Tim. 20. 1._\n\nThe third was called in the _New Test._ by the _Syriack_ name\n_Maranatha_, _1 Cor. 16._ that is, _the Lord cometh_; _Maran_\nsignifieth _the Lord_, and _Atha_ _cometh_ and this they say was\ninstituted by _Enoch_, _Judg. 11._ The _Jews_ called it _Schammatha_,\nthe Etymology of which word I find to be twofold. Some say[524] it\nsoundeth as much as _Maran Atha_ _the Lord cometh_. _Schem_ signifieth\nthe _Lord_, and _Atha_ _cometh_: others say[525] it soundeth _there is\ndeath_, _Schem_ signifying _there_ and _Mitha_ _death_. Hence we may\nrender it an _excommunication to death_. And this is thought[526] to be\nthe reason of that phrase, _1 John 5. 16._ _There is a sin unto death_,\ni. which deserveth _excommunication to death_. _R. Gersom_[527] forbade\nthe breaking open of letters, under the penalty of all three sorts\nof _excommunication_. And this was termed _Excommunicatio in secreto\nnominis tetragrammati_: see the form thereof in the _Chapter of the\nSadduces_.\n\n    [524] _\u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05dd\u200f\u200e Dominus \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05ea\u05d0\u200f\u200e venit._\n\n    [525] _Elias Thisbites. in radice \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05de\u05ea\u05d0\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [526] _Betram. de Politia Judaic. c. 2. p. 21._\n\n    [527] _Buxtorf. Epi. Hebr. p. 59 in dorso Epistol\u00e6 subjici\n    solebat h\u00e6c abbreviatura \u200e\u200f\u05db\u05d4\u05e8\u05d2 \u05de\u05ea \u05d0\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u200f\u200e ~i.~ prohibitum est per\n    anathema. R. Gersom luminis captivitatis (scil. resignare has\n    literas)._\n\nIn the _Greek Church_ there were[528] _four degrees of this censure_.\n1. \u03a3\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. Those were censured with this _degree_, who were only\n_debarred the Lords Table_: as for enterance into the _Church_, hearing\nthe Word, praying with the Congregations, they enjoyed equal liberty\nwith _other Christians_, they might stand by and behold others receive\nthe _Sacrament_, but themselves did not partake thereof, whence they\nwere called _Stantes_. 2. \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, concerning this censure, all that\nI read of it is thus; that he that is _thus censured_ hath admittance\ninto the Church.[529] But his place must be _behind the Pulpit_, and\nhe must depart with the _Catechumeni_, that is such _Pagans_ who were\ngained to the _Christian Faith_, but not fully admitted into the\n_Church_, because they wanted Baptism, and therefore that they might\nnot pray promiscuously with other _Christians_, there was a place\nbehind the _Quire of the Church_ in manner of Cloysters, allotted to\nthem, and was from them called _Catechumenum_:[530] This I take to be\nthe place of this _second degree of Excommunication_, so that the force\nof this censure I think to consist in these three things. First, they\nwere _barred the Lords Table_. Secondly, they might _not stand by at\nthe administration of the Lords supper_ (which was allowed in the first\ndegree) and this appeareth clearly, because the _Catechumeni departed\nalways at the celebration of the Communion_, for to them principally it\nwas said, _Ite missa est_. Thirdly, though they might \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd _fall\ndown on their knees and pray_, and were thence called _Succumbents_,\nyet this they might not do in the Congregation, but only in that place\n_behind the quire or pulpit_, which was allotted to the _Catechumeni_,\nand in this also this _second degree_ differeth from the _first_.\nThe third sort of censure was \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, the party thus censured was\npermitted to come no further than the _Church Porch_, where it was\nlawful for him to hear the Scriptures read, but not to joyn in prayer,\nnot to approach the _Lords Table_, whence such were termed _Audients_.\nThe Fourth, and last sort, was \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, persons under this censure\nstood quite without the Church, requesting those that entered in, with\ntears and weeping to petition the _Lord_ for mercy toward them, whence\nthey were called _Plorantes_.\n\n    [528] _Vid. Justelli not. in codicem canonum Eccl. univers. ad\n    canon 55. Bellar. de p\u0153nit. l. 1. c. 22. & Casaub. Exercit. p.\n    52. observant quintum gradum quem ille \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd aliter \u03bc\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03bd\n    appellat._\n\n    [529] _Vid. Iustel. loco citato._\n\n    [530] _Hospin. de Templis. p. 88._\n\nSeeing it is commonly thought, that _Cain_ was censured by the first\ndegree of _Excommunication_, called _Niddui_, and that the last called\n_Schammmatha_ was of _Enochs constitution_; both these being of such\nantiquity, I dare not say that the _three degrees of Excommunication_\nwere borrowed from the _three sorts of uncleanness_, which excluded\npeople out of the _three Camps_, though there was an observable\nproportion between them.[531] _Niddui_ may be parrallel\u2019d with the\nexclusion out of the _Camp of God alone_, which befel those that\nwere defiled by touch of the dead: _Cherem_ may be compared to the\nexclusion out of the _Camp of God, and the Camp of Levi_, which befel\nthose that were defiled of an issue. _Schammatha_ may be compared with\nthe exclusion out of _all three Camps, the Camp of God, the Camp of\nLevi, and the Camp of Israel_, this befel those that were defiled with\nleprosie; and from the _Jews_, it is probable that the _Greek_ and\n_Latine Churches_ borrowed their _degrees of Excommunication_.\n\n    [531] _De quibus. P. Fagius, in Num. 5. 2._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n_Their Civil Consistories, what persons were necessarily present in\nthem._\n\n\nIn many things men might be sinful in respect of _Gods Law_, though\nnot liable to punishment, in respect of mans; _thou shalt not avenge,\nnor be mindful of wrong_, _Levit. 19. 18._ which the _Hebrews_ explain\nthus, _To avenge_, is to deny a good turn to one who formerly denied\nhim. To _be mindful of a wrong_, is to do a good turn to one who\nformerly would not do so much for him; but at the doing thereof, to\nupbraid the other of his unkindness. They illustrate it thus: when\n_Reuben_ said to _Simeon_, Lend me thy Hatchet; he answereth, I will\nnot lend him: Afterward _Simeon_ had need to borrow an Hatchet of\n_Reuben_, and saith unto him, lend me thy Hatchet: _Reuben_ saith unto\nhim, I will not lend him, thou wouldst not lend me thine: this is \u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05e7\u05d9\u05de\u05d4\u200f\u200e\n_Nekima_, _Avengement_. Now when _Reuben_ saith to _Simeon_, Lend me\nthy Hatchet: he answereth, I will not lend him: afterwards _Simeon_\nborroweth a Hatchet of _Reuben_: _Reuben_ saith, lo, I will lend it\nthee, I will not deal with thee as thou dealedst with me, this is \u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4\u200f\u200e\n_Netira_, _Mindfulness_: both these were sinful, but not liable to mans\njudgment.\n\nIn all civil Courts, five sorts of persons were alwayes present. 1.\n_Judges._ 2. _Officers._ 3. _Pleaders._ 4. _Notaries._ 5. _Witnesses._\nIn the _supreme Court_, there was one that was chief over all the other\n_Judges_, they called him in _Hebrew_ _Nasi_, in _Greek_ \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, _The\nPrince_. His leave was craved for the tryal of actions. The _Witnesses_\nwere at least two, _Deut. 29. 15._ If they were false, they punish\u2019d\nthem with a _Talio_, the same punishment which he intended against his\nbrother, _Deut. 19. 19._ The _Notaries_ were two,[532] one stood on the\n_right hand to write the sentence of Absolution_, and what was spoken\nin defence of the party; the other stood on the _left hand, to write\nthe sentence of condemnation_, and the objections against the party.\n_Drusius_[533] thinks that _Christ_ speaking of the last Judgment had\nreference to this, _He shall set the sheep on the right hand, and on\nthe left the goats_, _Matth. 25. 23._ The _Officers_ were in manner of\n_Sheriffs_, they were present to execute what the _Judges_ determined;\nwhence they carried up and down their _staves_ and _whips_,[534] as\nthe _Consuls_ of _Rome_ had _Rod_ and _Axes_, carried before them for\nthe readier execution of justice. In _Hebrew_ they are called \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e\n_Schoterim_, by the Septuagint sometimes \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, in our _English_\ntranslation commonly _Officers_, and by Saint _Luke_ \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2: for,\ndoubtless there is allusion unto them, _Luke 12. 58._ When thou goest\nwith thine adversary, (\u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9) to the _Magistrate_, as thou art in the\nway, give diligence that thou maist be delivered from him, lest he hale\nthee to the _Judge_, and the _Judge_ deliver thee to the _Officer_,\n_&c._ The _Pleader_ was called \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05e8\u05d9\u05d1\u200f\u200e _Baal rib_, he stood on the\n_right hand_ of the party cited into the _Court_, whether he pleaded\nfor or against him. The _Lord_ shall stand on the right hand of the\npoor, to save him from those that judge his soul, _Psa. 109. 31._ that\nis, _The Lord shall plead his cause_. And _Satan_ stood at the _right\nhand of_ Joshua, _Zach. 3. 1._ that is _to accuse him, or plead against\nhim_. When S. _John_ speaking, _If any man sin, we have an Advocate_,\n_1 John 2. 1._ he alludeth unto this _Baalrib_, or _Pleader_. The\n_Judges_, they examined and determin\u2019d matters and after examination,\nsentence was pronounced by the _Judge_ in this manner: _Tu N. justus,\nTu. N. reus_, _Thou ~Simon~ art just: Thou ~Reuben~ art guilty_: at the\npronunciation of which the guilty person was dragged to the place of\nexecution. _When he shall be judged, let him be condemned_, _Ps. 109.\n7._ the _Hebrew_ is, _Let him go out wicked_.\n\n    [532] _Moses Kotsen. in Sanhedrim._\n\n    [533] _Drus. pr\u00e6ter. Matth. 25._\n\n    [534] _Moses Kotsen. in Sanhedrim._\n\nThe manner of sentencing persons, varied in most Countries. The _Jews_\nby a simple pronunciation of sentence, both absolved men, and condemned\nthem. The _Romans_[535] gave sentence by calling in Tables into a\ncertain box or urne prepared for the purpose: if they absolved any,\nthey wrote the letter _A_ in the table, it being the first letter of\n_Absolvo_: if they would condemn any, they cast in a table with _C_\nwritten in it, which is the first letter of _Condemno_: if the matter\nwere hard to determine, they would cast in other tables with _N L_,\nsignifying _Non Liquet_. The _Gr\u00e6cians_[536] in like manner used three\nletters: \u0398 was a token of _condemnation_, which occasioned that of\n_Persius_.\n\n    _Et potis es nigrum, vitio pr\u00e6figere Theta._\n\n    [535] _Rosin. Antiq. Rom. l. 9. c. 25._\n\n    [536] _Eras. Adag. \u0398 pr\u00e6fig._\n\n\u03a4 was a token of _absolution_; \u0391, of _ampliation_. Others signified\n_condemnation_, by giving _a black stone_; and _absolution_ by giving a\n_white stone_.\n\n    _Mos erat antiquis, niveis atrisque lapillis,_\n    _Hos damnare reos, illos absolvere culpa._\n\n                            _Ovid. Metamorph. 15._\n\nTo this there seemeth to be allusion, _Rev. 2. 17._ To him who\novercometh I will give a _white stone_; that is, I will absolve and\nacquit him in the day of judgement.\n\nNote these three phrases, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03af\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, _To rise up to\njudgment_; \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, _To rise up in judgment_; \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, _To depart guilty_. The first is applied to the\n_Judge_ in the execution of Justice, _When God rose up to Judge_,\n_Psalm 76. 10._ that is, to _execute judgement_. The second is applied\n_to the party prevailing in judgment_. _The men of Nineveh shall\nrise up in judgement with this generation_, _Mat. 12. 41._ that is,\n_shall be justified before this generation_. The last is applied to\nthe _party condemned_, _Psal. 109. 7._ _Let him depart guilty or\nwicked: the ungodly shall not stand in judgment_, _Psal. 1._ The\nlike phrases were in use among the _Romans_, _Stare in Senatu_, to\nprevail in the _Senate_; _Causa cadere_, _to be cast in ones suit_.\nBut these phrases among the _Romans_ I think to have been taken out\nof their Fence-Schools, where the set posture of the body, by which a\nman prepareth himself to fight and grapple with his enemy, is termed\n_Status_, or _Gradus_, as _cedere de Statu_, _to give back_; _Gradum\nvel statum servare_, _to keep one\u2019s standing_: and from thence have\nthose elegancies been translated into places of Judgment.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n_The number of their Civil Courts._\n\n\nTheir Civil Courts were two, \u200e\u200f\u05e1\u05e0\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Sanhedrim gedola_, _the\ngreat Consistory_, or _Supreme Senate_, \u200e\u200f\u05e1\u05e0\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05e7\u05d8\u05e0\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Sanhedrim\nKetanna_, _the lesser and inferiour Court_. Thus I find them divided\ngenerally by the _Rabbins_: And although the latter was subdivided,\nas will after appear; yet in old time there were onely two first\nbranches: which division our _Saviour Christ_ seemeth to have followed,\ncalling the lesser Court \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, by the name of _Judgement_: the\ngreater \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, by the name of a _Counsel_. Whosoever is angry with\nhis brother unadvisedly, shall be culpable of _Judgement_. Whosoever\nsaith unto his brother _Raca_, shall be worthy to be punished by the\n_Counsel_: Whosoever shall say _Fool_, shall be worthy to be punished\nwith the _fire of Gehenna_, _Mat. 5. 22._ In which words, as there is a\n_gradation of sin_, 1. _Anger_, a passion of the mind. 2. _Raca_,[537]\nscornful, or slighting speech, as _Tut, Tush, &c._ 3. _Fool_,\nreproachful and opprobrious names: so likewise there is a _gradation\nof punishment_. 1. _Judgement_, a lesser Court. 2. _Councel_, the\ngreater Court. 3. The _fire of Gehenna_: Now _Gehenna_ was a Valley,\nterrible for two sorts of fires in it: First, for that wherein men\nburnt their children unto _Moloch_.[538] Secondly, for another fire\nthere continually burning, to consume the dead carcasses, and filth of\n_Jerusalem_; partly for the terribleness of the first, and partly for\nthe contemptibleness of the place by reason of the second fire, it was\na _type of hell fire it self_. We may resolve that text thus, _anger_\ndeserved the punishments of the _lesser Court_; _Raca_, the punishments\nof the _greater_: and _Fool_ deserved punishments beyond all Courts,\neven the _fire of_ Gehenna.\n\n    [537] _Raca non grandis alicujus est sermo convitii, sed magis\n    \u00e8 contemptu natum est, & neglectu dicentis Chrysost. homil. 16.\n    in Mat._\n\n    [538] _David Kimchi. Ps. 27. 13._\n\nThe _greater Court_, by way of excellency, was called the _Sanhedrim_,\nwhich word came from the _Greek_, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, _a place of Judgement_:\nIt was also called \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df\u200f\u200e _Beth din_, _the house of Judgment_.[539]\nIt was distinguished from the other _Courts_; first, in respect of the\nnumber of the _Judges_, which were _seventy one_, according to the\ncommand of _God_ to _Moses_ at their first institution, _Numb. 11. 16._\n_Gather unto me ~seventy~ men of the ~Elders~ of ~Israel~, whom thou\nknowest that they are the ~Elders~ of the people, the Governours over\nthem, and bring them unto the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and let\nthem stand there with thee_. From the latter words of this Text, it\nis observed, that there were _seventy_ besides _Moses_; and therefore\nafter his decease they alwaies chose one _chief Judge_ in his room,\nnot reckoning him among the _seventy_; they called him _Nasi_, the\n_Prince_ or _chief over the seventy_. These _seventy_ are thought[540]\nto be chosen _six_ out of every _Tribe_, save the _Tribe of Levi_,\nout of which only _four_ were chosen. Others think[541] the manner of\ntheir choice was thus; six of every Tribe had their names written in\nlittle scrolls of paper: in _seventy_ of these scrolls was written \u200e\u200f\u05d6\u05e7\u05df\u200f\u200e\n_Zaken_, _Senex_, _an Elder_, in the two other \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05dc\u05e7\u200f\u200e _Cheleck_, _pars_,\n_A part_; these scrolls they put into a pitcher or urn, and those that\npluck\u2019d out a scroll wherein _Elder_ was written, were counted amongst\nthe number of the _Judges_; those that pluck\u2019d out the other scrolls,\nin which a _Part_ was written, they were rejected, _Numb. 11. 26._ The\nsenior of these _seventy_ was called \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df\u200f\u200e _Ab beth din_, the\n_Father of the Judgment Hall_. The whole Set[542] or _Bench of Judges_,\nsate in manner of an half circle, the _Nasi_ sitting in the midst\nabove the rest, the other sitting round about beneath, in such manner\nthat the _Father of the Judgement Hall_ sate next to the _Nasi_ on the\nright hand. The _lesser Consistory_ was subdivided into two sorts,\none consisted of _twenty three Aldermen_, and two such _Consistories_\nthere were in _Jerusalem_, the one at the _door of the Court before\nthe Temple_, the other at the _door of the Mountain of the Temple_:\nyea, in every City throughout _Israel_ where there were sixscore\nhousholders, such a Consistory was erected: the other sort of _lesser\nCourts_ consisted only of a _Triumvirate_, _three Aldermen_; and this\nwas erected in the lesser Cities, which had not the number of sixscore\nhousholders.\n\n    [539] _Moses Kotsen. fol. 186. col. 2._\n\n    [540] _Fran. Junius. Analyt. expos. Num. 11._\n\n    [541] _Solom. Jarchi._\n\n    [542] _Moses Kot. f. 185. col. 2._\n\nThe second difference[543] between the _greater Consistory_ and the\n_lesser_, was in respect of the place. The _seventy_ sate only at\n_Jerusalem_, within the _Court of the Temple_, in a certain house\ncalled \u200e\u200f\u05dc\u05e9\u05db\u05ea \u05d4\u05d2\u05d6\u05d9\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Lischath hegazith_, _the paved Chamber_, because of\nthe curious cut stones wherewith it was _paved_: by the _Greeks_ it was\ncalled \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, the _Pavement_. _Pilate_ sat down in the Judgement\nSeat, in a place called the _Pavement_, _John 19. 13._ The other\nConsistory sate all in the _gates of the Cities_. Now because the gates\nof the City are the strength thereof, and in their gates their Judges\nsate: Hence is that, _Mat. 16. 18._ _The gates of Hell_ shall not\novercome it, that is, neither the _strength_ nor _policy_ of _Satan_.\n\n    [543] _Moses Kotsen. ibid._\n\n_Lastly_, they differed in respect of their _Power_ and _Authority_:\nthe _Consistory of seventy_ received _appeals_ from the other\n_inferiour Courts_,[544] from that there was no appeal: Again, the\n_Consistory of three_ sate not on life and death, but onely on petty\nmatters, as whipping, pecuniary controversies, and such like; the other\nof twenty three sate on life and death, but with a restrained power;\nthey had not authority to judge an _whole tribe, the High-priest, false\nProphets_, and other such weighty matters: this belonged only to the\n_seventy in Jerusalem_:[545] Hence is that, _O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,\nwhich killest the Prophets_, _Luk. 3. 34._ The means how they tryed\nthe false _Prophet_ was thus; they observed the judgements which he\nthreatned, and the _good_ which he prophesied to a place: if the\njudgements took not effect, this did not argue him a _false Prophet_,\nbecause God was merciful, as in the case of _Hezekiah_, and the people\nmight repent, as the _Ninivites_ did: but if he prophesied _good_, and\nthat came not to pass, they judged him a _false Prophet_. The ground\nof this tryal they make the words of _Jeremiah the Prophet, which\nprophesied of peace when the word of the Lord shall come to pass, then\nshall the Prophet be known that the Lord hath truly sent him_, _Jer.\n28. 9._\n\n    [544] _Deut. 17. 8._\n\n    [545] _Cun\u00e6us de rep. Hebr. p. 109._\n\nThe _Colledge_ or company of these seventy, exercised judgment, not\nonly under the _Kings_ and _Judges_,[546] but their authority continued\nin times of vacancies, when there was neither _Judge_ nor _King_ to\nrule _Israel_, and it continued until[547] _Herod_ put them down, and\ndestroyed them, to secure himself of the Kingdome.\n\n    [546] _P. Galat. l. 4. cap. 5._\n\n    [547] _Joseph. Antiq. l. 14. c. 17._\n\nHere some may object, that there were no such _Courts_, or their\nliberty much infringed in _Samuels time_: for he went from year to year\nin circuit to _Bethel_, and _Gilgal_, and _Mizpeh_, _and judged Israel\nin all those places_, _1 Sam. 7. 16._ To which, I take it, we may say,\nthat as the _Emperours_ of _Rome_ had power to ride Circuits, and keep\nAssises, which was done without any infringement of the liberties of\ntheir _Senate_: So the _Kings_ and _Judges_ in _Israel_ had the like\npower, and yet the authority of their Courts stood firm. This kind of\njudging by keeping Assises, the _Romans_ termed \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, the\nother \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\n_Properties required in Judges, and the manner of their election._\n\n\nThe Law of _God_ required these _properties_ in _Judges_: 1. _Wisdom._\n2. _Understanding._ 3. _Integrity._ 4. _Courage._ _Deut. 1. 13._ Others\nare reckoned, _Exod. 18. 21._ namely, 5. _The fear of God._ 6. _Love of\nTruth._ 7. _Hating of coveteousness_: to these may be added the eighth,\nnamely, _having no respect of persons_, _Deut. 1. 17._ These two\nlast especially, the _Heathens_ required in their Judges: whence the\n_Thebans_[548] painted _Justice without hands, and without eyes_, to\nintimate that Judges should receive no gifts, nor be swayed with sight\nof persons.\n\n    [548] _Plut. de Iside._\n\nThe _Jews_[549] added many more. 1. _That they should be free from\nall blemish of body._ 2. _That they should be skilled in the seventy\nLanguages, to the intent that they might not need an Interpreter in\nthe hearing of Causes._ 3. _That they should not be far stricken in\nyears; which likewise was required by the Romans in their Judges, as\nappeareth by that common adage, Sexagenarius de ponte._ 4. _That they\nshould be no Eunuchs, because such commonly were cruel._ 5. _That they\nshould be Fathers of children, which they thought was a special motive\nto mercy._ 6. _That they should be skilful in Magick, without the\nknowledge of which, they were not able to judge of Magicians._\n\n    [549] _Moses Kotsen. in Sanhedrim._\n\nThat there might be a sufficient supply of able men to succeed in the\nroom of the _Judges_ dying, there sate[550] three benches of others\nbeneath, whom they called[551] _Talmidi Chacamim_, _Scholars of the\nwise men_: out of these they made their Election, and two of these\nalways accompanied the condemned person to the place of execution.\n\n    [550] _Moses Kotsen. ibid._\n\n    [551] _\u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e Discipuli sapientum._\n\nTheir _Inauguration of Judges was two fold_: At first, by _imposition\nof hands_ upon the head of the party, after the example of _Moses_\nlaying hands on _Joshua_: this _imposition of hands_ was not held\nlawful,[552] except it were in the presence of five or three _Judges_\nat the least. Afterwards, it was by _saying a certain verse_[553] Lo,\n_thou art associated, and power is given thee to judge of penalties_.\nHence is that saying of _Galatinus_ out of the _Talmud_, _Institutio\nJudicum, aut manu fiebat, aut nomine tantum_.\n\n    [552] _Petr. Galatin. lib. 4. cap. 5._\n\n    [553] _\u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea \u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05da \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05da \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e7\u05e0\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e Maimon. in\n    Sanhedrin, c. 4._\n\nObserve here, that _Samuc_, which I render _associated_, doth not\nalwayes signifie a man licensed to the discharge of some publik office\nby the _imposition of hands_; for here it is applied to those who were\n_not admitted by imposition of hands_. Now the reason why these words\n_Semica_, and _Semicuth_, are generally by all Expositors, _Jews_ and\n_Christians_, translated the _imposition of hands_, is, because this\nsolemn kind of licensing, termed _Semica_, or _Semicuth_, was in old\ntime used only towards two sorts of men in their admission, towards\n_Rabbies_ and towards _Judges_; which kind of permission, because\nit was not performed towards either of them without this ceremony\nof _imposing hands_: hence these two words have been translated the\n_imposition of hands_; whereas properly they signifie nothing else,\nbut _an association, an approximation, or conjoyning of one into the\nsame corporation or company, of which he that doth associate and give\nadmission is a member_.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\n_Ceremonies common in all capital Judgments._\n\n\nIn their greater punishments, which deprived of life, some _ceremonies_\nwere _common_ to them all.\n\nFirst, _The Judges were to use deliberation in all causes_, but\nespecially in matters capital. There were four causes, saith _Jonathan_\nin his _Targum_,[554] that came before _Moses_ ( he mentioneth none\nin particular, but what they were, we shall presently learn out\nof other records.) _Two_ of these were not _weighty_; in these he\n_hastened_: _Two more material_, concerning life and death; in these he\ndelayed.[555] _C\u00e6terum tam de his quam de illis dicebat, Non audivi_;\n_Of both the lighter and weightier causes, ~Moses~ said I have not\nheard_, to wit, from the _Lord:_ to shew, that a deliberation and\nconsultation as it were with God, ought to be in all _judgements_,\nbefore sentence be pronounced. These four causes are named in other\n_Records_:[556] The _two lightest are_, 1. _The matter of uncleanness\ndebarring the people from the Passover_, _Num. 9. 9._ Secondly, _the\ncase of ~Zelophehads~ daughters_, _Num. 36. 10._ _The 2 weightier\nare_, 1. _The cause of the blasphemer_, _Lev. 24. 13._ _Secondly, The\ncase of him that gathered Sticks on the Sabbath_, _Numb. 15. 35._ In\nall these judgments there is, _The Lord spake unto Moses_. And in the\nfirst, which was counted among the lighter causes (because it was not\non life and death) even there doth _Moses_ in a solemn manner bespeak\nthe people to stand still, _Et ego audiam_, _And I will hear what the\nLord will command_. Notwithstanding, _wilful delays in Justice_ maketh\nthe _Judge unrighteous_. In that _unrighteous Judge_, from whom the\nWidow wrested sentence by importunity; we read not of any other fault\nin him, but delay, _Luke 18. 6._\n\n    [554] _Targum Jonath. Num. 9. 8._\n\n    [555] _\u200e\u200f\u05d5\u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05e9\u05ea \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d9\u05ea\u200f\u200e Jonath._\n\n    [556] _Targum. Hierosol. Num. 9. 8._\n\n_Secondly_, The party accused was placed on some _high place_, from\nwhence he might be seen and heard of all the people: _Set Naboth_, _in\ncapite populi_, _on high among the people_, _1 Kings 21. 9._\n\n_Thirdly_,[557] The _Judges_ and the _Witnesses_ did (when sentence was\npronounced) put their hands upon the condemned persons head, and said;\n_Sanguis tuus super caput tuum_, _Thy blood be upon thine own head_:\nunto this the people had reference, saying, _His blood be on us, and on\nour children_, _Mat. 27. 25._\n\n    [557] _Drus. pr\u00e6teri. Matth. 27._\n\n_Fourthly_, The place of execution was _without the gates_, the\nmalefactors were had thither by _two Executioners_, termed by the\n_Rabbines_[558] \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05d6\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05db\u05e0\u05e1\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Chazani hacceneseth_, _Spectators of the\nCongregation_, which is a _periphrasis_ of those whom S. _Mark_ calleth\n\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, _Mark 6. 27._ which word, though it be used by the\n_Greeks_ and _Chaldee Paraphrasts_,[559] yet it is a meer _Latine_,\nderived _\u00e0 speculando_; because in the _Court_ the _Executioners_ were\nonly Spectators, to behold and attend what the _Judges_ would command\nthem.\n\n    [558] _Moses Kotsen. in Sanhedrim. It. Talmud. it. Maccoth. cap. 3. in\nMischna._\n\n    [559] _\u200e\u200f\u05e1\u05e4\u05d5\u05e7\u05dc \u05d8\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0\u200f\u200e Uziel. & Targum Hierosol. Gen. 37. 36._\n\n_Fifthly_, When the malefactor was led to execution, a _publick cryer_\nwent before,[560] saying, _Such a one is going to be punisht with such\na death, because he hath committed such, or such an offence, at such a\ntime, in such a place; and these ~N. N.~ are witnesses thereof: If any\ntherefore knoweth any thing which may do him good, let him come and\nmake it known_. For this purpose one was appointed to stand at the door\nof the Consistory, with an handkerchief or linnen cloth in his hand,\nthat if any person should come for his defence, he at the door swinged\nabout his handkerchief, upon the sight whereof, another standing in\nreadiness a pretty distance off with an horse, hastened and called back\nthe condemned person: yea, if the Malefactor had any further plea for\nhis own purgation, he might come back four or five times, except he\nspake vainly; for the discerning whereof, two of those whom they termed\n_Scholars of the wise men_, were sent with him to observe his speech on\nthe way.\n\n    [560] _Moses Kotsen. in loco superius citato._\n\n_Sixthly_, He was exhorted to _confess_, that he might have his portion\nin the world to come: Thus _Joshua_ exhorted _Achan_, _Josh. 7. 19._\n_My son, give I pray thee glory unto the Lord God of Israel, and make\nconfession unto him_: unto whom _Achan_ answered, _vers. 20._ _Indeed I\nhave sinned against the Lord God of Israel, and thus have I done_.\n\n_Seventhly_, In the time of execution, they gave the Malefactor\n_Granum thuris in calice vini_, _A grain of Frankincense in a cup of\nWine_:[561] this they did give to cause a giddiness in the condemned\npersons head, that thereby he might be less sensible of the pain.\nSt. _Mark_ calleth this cup \u1f10\u03c3\u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, _Wine mingled with\nMyrrhe_, Mark 15. 23. This was done after the _manner of the Jews_,\nbut the _Souldiers in mockery_ mingled Vinegar and Gall with it, _Mat.\n27. 34._ As likewise they gave him a second cup in _derision_, when\nthey took a spunge, and filled it with Vinegar, and put it on a reed,\n_Matth. 27. 48._ S. _Mark_ in the first cup mentioneth the custome\nof the _Jews_, which in it self had some shew of compassion; for the\nground of this custom was taken from that, _Prov. 31. 6._ _Give strong\ndrink unto him that is ready to perish_. S. _Matthew_ mentioneth onely\ntheir wicked mixture, contrary to the _receiv\u2019d custom_; so that one\nEvangelist must expound the other. This first _cup_ was so usually\ngiven before execution, that the word _Calix_ _a cup_, is sometimes in\nthe Scripture put for _death it self_. _Father, if it may be, let this\ncup pass from me._\n\n    [561] _\u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d8 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05e1 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d9\u05d9\u05df\u200f\u200e Corat. lebona becorschel iaijn\n    Maimon. in Sanhedrin cap. 13. It. Moses Kotsen. in Sanhedrim._\n\nLastly,[562] The _Tree_ whereon a man was hanged, and the _Stone_\nwherewith he was stoned, and the _Sword_ wherewith he was beheaded,\nand the _Napkin_ wherewith he was strangled, they were all buried,\nthat there might be no evil memorial of such a one, to say: _This is\nthe Tree, this is the Sword, this is the Stone, this is the Napkin,\nwhereon, or wherewith, such an one was executed_.\n\n    [562] _Casaub. exercit. p. 654. ex Maimonid._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\n_Their capital punishments._\n\n\nThe _Jews_ of old had only _four sorts of death_[563] in use among\nthem. 1. _Lapidatio_,[564] stoning. 2. _Combustio_,[565] burning. 3.\n_Decollatio_,[566] beheading. 4. _Suffocatio_,[567] strangling. Of\nthese, _stoning was counted the most grievous, burning worse than\nbeheading, beheading worse than strangling, and strangling was the\neasiest of all_.\n\n    [563] _Paraphrast. Cald. Ruth. 1. 17. Mikkotsi. fol. 188. col. 3._\n\n    [564] _\u200e\u200f\u05e1\u05e7\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4\u200f\u200e Sekila, Lapidatio._\n\n    [565] _\u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05e4\u05d4\u200f\u200e Sheripha, combustio._\n\n    [566] _\u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05e8\u05d2\u200f\u200e Hereg. decollatio._\n\n    [567] _\u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05e0\u05e7\u200f\u200e Chenek. Suffocatio._\n\nThey have a rule,[568] that wheresoever the Scripture saith of an\noffender, _Morte plectetur_, _he shall be punish\u2019d with death_, not\nexpressing the kind of death, there it ought to be interpreted of\n_Strangling_. For example, the Law saith of the Adulterer, _Lev. 20.\n19._ _Morte plectatur_, _let him be punished with death_: because the\nkind of death is not here mentioned, they interpret it _strangling_.\nThe reason of this rule is, because strangling was the easiest death of\nthe four; and where the Law determineth not the punishment, there they\nsay, _Ampliandi favores_, The favourablest exposition is to be given.\n\n    [568] _\u200e\u200f\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e1\u05ea\u05dd \u05d7\u05e0\u05e7 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0\u200f\u200e Omnis mors qu\u00e6\n    absolut\u00e8 in lege usurpatur, strangulatio est. R. Solom. Exod.\n    21. 16._\n\nThe rule is not generally true; for in former times _Adultery was\npunish\u2019d with stoning_. I will judge thee after the manner of them that\nare _Harlots_, saith the _Lord_, _Ezek. 16. 38._ And in the fortieth\nverse the judgment is named, _They shall stone thee with stones_:\nlikewise the _Scribes_ and _Pharisees_ said unto Christ, _Moses_ in the\nLaw commanded us, that such should be stoned, _John 8._\n\nBefore we treat in particular of these four punishments it may be\nquestioned, _Whether the Jews had any power to judge of life and death,\nat that time when they crucified our blessed Saviour?_ The _Jews said\nto ~Pilate~, Is it not lawful for us to put any man to death_; _Joh.\n18. 31._ Latter _Jews_ say[569] that _all power of capital punishments\nwas taken from them forty years before the destruction of the second\nTemple_, and of this opinion are many _Divines_.\n\n    [569] _Moses Kotsen. in Sanhedrim._\n\n_Answer._ First, the _Jews_ speech unto _Pilate_, that it was not\nlawful for them to put any man to death, cannot be understood, as if\nthey should have said, we have no power to put any man to death; for\nadmit, that power in criminals were, in the _general_, taken from them,\nyet in this _particular_ power was permitted them at that time from\n_Pilate_, _Take ye him, and judge him according to your Law_, _Joh. 18.\n31._ Neither can it be said, that their Law could not condemn him, if\nhe had been a transgressor thereof; or that they had not out of their\nlaw to object against him: for they say, _They had a law, and by their\nlaw he ought to die_, _John 19. 7._ It was not then want of _Power_,\nbut the _holiness of that time_, made them say _it was unlawful_.\nFor they held it _unlawful_ upon their _days of preparation_ to sit\non life and death, as hath been shewn in the _Chapter of translating\nFeasts_. And _Friday_, on which our _Saviour_ was condemned, was the\n_preparation of their Sabbath_.\n\n_Secondly_, in the questions, whether power of judging capital crimes\nwere taken from them by the _Romans_? We are to distinguish between\n_crimes_. _Some crimes were transgressions of the Romans law_, as\ntheft, murder, robberies, _&c._ power of judging in these was taken\nfrom them: _other crimes were transgressions only against the law of\nMoses_, as blasphemy, and the like: in these, power of judging seemeth\nto have remained with them. When _Paul_ was brought by the _Jews_\nbefore _Gallio_, _Gallio_ said unto them, if it were a matter of\n_wrong_ or _wicked lewdness_, O ye _Jews_, reason would, that I should\nbear with you: but if it be a _question of words_, and _names of your\nlaw_, look ye to it, _Acts 18. 14._\n\nIn handling these four punishments: First observe the _offenders_, whom\nthe _Jews_ make liable to each punishment, and then the _manner of the\npunishment_.\n\nThe _persons_ to be _stoned_ were _eighteen_.[570] 1. _He that lieth\nwith his own mother_, 2. _Or with his fathers wife_, 3. _Or with his\ndaughter-in-law_, 4. _Or with a betrothed maid_, 4. _Or with the male_,\n6. _Or with the beast_. 7. _The woman that lieth down to a beast._\n8. _The blasphemer._ 9. _He that worshippeth an Idol._ 10. _He that\noffereth of his seed to Moloch._ 11. _He that hath a familiar spirit._\n12. _The Wizard._ 13. _The private enticer to Idolatry._ 14. _The\npublique withdrawer to Idolatry._ 15. _The Witch._ 16. _The prophaner\nof the Sabbath._ 17. _He that curseth his Father or his Mother._ 18.\n_The Rebellious Son._ The _manner of stoning_ was thus: The offender\nwas led to a place without the gates, two cubits high, his hands being\nbound: from hence one of the Witnesses tumbled him by a stroke upon\nthe loins; if that killed him not, the Witnesses lifted up a stone,\nbeing the weight of two men, which chiefly the other Witnesse cast upon\nhim; if that killed him not, _all Israel threw stones upon him_. _The\nhands of the Witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and\nafterwards the hands of all the people_, _Deut. 17. 7._\n\n    [570] _Moses Kotsen. fol. 188. col. 4._\n\nHence the opinion of _R. Akiba_[571] is commonly received, that such\nan Idolater (it holdeth in all others condemned to this death) was\nreserved until one of the common feasts, at which _all the multitude of\nIsrael came to Jerusalem_. The party thus executed being quite dead,\nwas afterward for greater ignominy hanged on a tree, till towards the\n_Sun-set_, at which time he and the tree were both buried.\n\n    [571] _Paul. Fagius. Deut. 17. 7._\n\nMalefactors adjudged to _burning_ were _ten_:[572] 1. _The Priests\ndaughter which committed whoredome._ 2. _He which lieth with his\nown daughter._ 3. _Or with his daughters daughter._ 4. _Or with his\nsons daughter._ 5. _Or with his wives daughter._ 6. _Or with her\nsons daughter._ 7. _Or with her daughters daughter._ 8. _Or with his\nMother-in-law._ 9. _Or with the Mother of his Mother-in-law._ 10. _Or\nwith the Mother of his Father-in-law._\n\n    [572] _Moses Kotsen. loco superius citato._\n\nThe _manner of burning_ was _two fold_. Some they burnt with wood\nand faggots; this was termed[573] by them _Combustio corporis_, _the\nburning of the body_: Others they burnt by pouring in scalding hot lead\nin at their mouths, which descending into their bowels killed them,\nthe bulk of their body remaining whole, and this was termed therefore\n_Combustio anim\u00e6_, _the burning of their soul_. This last was most in\nuse, and alone described by most of their Writers.\n\n    [573] _Rab. Levi. Levit. 20._\n\nMalefactors condemned to _beheading_, were _of two sorts_,[574] 1. _The\nMurderer_, 2. _Those of any City, who were drawn to Idolatry_. The\nmanner thereof is at this day in use.\n\n    [574] _Moses Kotsen. in Sanhedrim._\n\nMalefactors _strangled_, were six,[575] 1. _He that smiteth his father\nor his mother_, 2. _He that stealeth a soul of Israel_, 3. _An Elder\nwhich contradicteth the Consistory_, 4. _A false Prophet, and he that\nprophesieth in the name of an Idol_, 5. _He that lieth with another\nmans wife_, 6. _He that abuseth the body of the Priests daughter_.\n\n    [575] _Moses Kotsen. ibid._\n\nThe manner of _strangling_ was thus. The malefactor was put in\ndung up to the loins, a towel being cast about his neck; which two\nExecutioners, one on each side, plucked to and fro until he was dead.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\n_Punishments not capital._\n\n\nThe _lesser punishments, not capital_, in use among the _Hebrews_,\nare chiefly four. 1. _Imprisonment_, 2. _Restitution_, 3. _Talio_, 4.\n_Scourging_.\n\n_Imprisonment._ Under this are comprehended the _Prison, Stocks,\nPillory, Chains, Fetters, and the like_: all which sorts of punishment,\nseeing they differ very little or nothing at all from those which are\nnow in common use with us, they need no explication.\n\nThe _keepers of the Prison_, if they let any committed unto them\nescape, were liable to the same punishment which should have been\ninflicted on the party escaped. This is gatherable from that, _1 Kings\n20. 39._ _Keep this man, if by any means he be missing, then shall thy\nlife be for his life_.\n\nConcerning that _Liberia Custodia_, which _Drusius_[576] proveth to\nhave been in use among the _Romans_, I much doubt whether any such\ncustome were in use among the _Hebrews_. That some kind of prisoners\nat _Rome_ did go abroad with a lesser kind of fetters in the day time\nto their work, and so return at night to their prison, hath elsewhere\nbeen observed by me. And[577] _Eadem catena & custodiam & militem\ncopulabat_, _The same chain tyed both the prisoner and the keeper_.\nObserve the unusual significations of these two words, _Custodia_ a\nprisoner, and _Miles_ a keeper. So that _Drusius_ delivered _Seneca_\nhis meaning, but not his words, when he repeats them thus: _Eadem\ncatena tam reum quam militem tenet_. Observe further, that the prisoner\nwas tyed by his _right arm_, and the _keeper_ by the _left_, because\nthe right arm is the stronger, and therefore justly remaineth free\nrather to the _keeper_, than to the _prisoners_. Hence is that,[578]\n_Tu forte leviorem in sinistra putas catenam_; because the _keeper_\ntyed himself unto the same chain, not in way of punishment, but\nvoluntarily for the safer keeping of the _prisoner_.\n\n    [576] _Drus. pr\u00e6ter. 2 Tim. 1. 18._\n\n    [577] _Senec. Epist. 5. Non in lib. de tranquil. c. 10.\n    quemadmodum citato \u00e0 Drusio._\n\n    [578] _Sen. de tranquil. cap. 10._\n\n_Restitution._ This was commanded when goods were _unjustly gotten_, or\n_wrongfully detained_, _Exod. 22._ it was threefold.[579]\n\n    [579] _Tho. Aquin. secunda secund\u00e6 q. 62._\n\nRestitution is threefold.\n\n    _Secundum idem_, _in identitie_, when the _very same thing_ is\n    restored which is wrongfully gotten.\n\n    _Secundum \u00e6quale_, when there is _so much for so much_ in\n    quantity restored, the goods unjustly gotten being sold or lost.\n\n    _Secundum possibile_, when restitution is made according to\n    that which a man hath, not being able to satisfie the whole.\n\n_Restitution in identitie_, was, and is principally required. Whence\nit is, that if the theft, whether Ox or Sheep, were found alive upon a\nman, he restored but _double_, _Exod. 22. 4._ but if they were killed\nor sold, then _five Oxen_ were restored for an _Ox_, and _four sheep_\nfor a sheep, _Exod. 21. 1._ The _Jews_ were so precise in this kind,\nthat if they had built an house with a beam or piece of Timber unjustly\ngotten, they would pull down the house, and restore the _same beam or\npiece to the owner_.[580] From this the Prophet _Habakkuk_ doth not\nmuch dissent: _The stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of\nthe timber shall answer it_, _Habak. 2. 11._\n\n    [580] _David Kimchi._\n\nAmong the _Jews_ he ought to be sold that was not of sufficient worth\nto make restitution, _Exod. 22. 3._ And _Augustine_[581] saith of\nChristians, _That he which doth not make restitution according to\nhis ability, never repented_. And, _Non remittetur peccatum, nisi\nrestituatur ablatum_.\n\n    [581] _Aug. Epist. 54._\n\n_Talio._ This was a punishment in the _same kind_, _an eye for an eye,\nand a tooth for a tooth, hand for hand, and foot for foot_, Deut. 19.\n21.\n\n_Talio_ is twofold.\n\n    _Talio identitatis_, or _Pythagorica_, which was according to\n    the letter of the Law, when the offender was punisht with the\n    _loss of an eye_, for putting out another eye, _&c._\n\n    _Talio similitudinis_, or _analogica_, which was when the\n    _price of an eye_, or some proportionable mulct is paid for an\n    eye put out, or any other member spoiled.\n\nThe _Hebrews_ understand[582] _Talio similitudinis_, that the _price of\na maim_ should be paid; not _Talio identitatis_, not that the offender\nshould be punisht with the like _maim_; because to punish like for like\n_in identitie_, is in some cases impossible, as if a blind man put out\nanothers eye, or one toothless strike out anothers tooth.\n\n    [582] _Oculum pro oculo, id est, pretium oculi. Targum Jonath.\n    Deut. 19. 21. It. R. Solomon. ibid._\n\nIn case of bodily maims therefore, the _Hebrew Doctors_ say,[583] that\nthe party offending was bound to a _five fold satisfaction_: first, for\nthe hurt in the loss of the member. Secondly, for the _damage_, in loss\nof his labour. Thirdly, for his pain or grief arising from the wound.\nFourthly, for the _charge_ in curing it. Fifthly, for the _blemish_\nor deformity thereby occasioned. _Munster_ rendreth those five\nthus: _Damnum, l\u00e6sio, dolor, medicina, confusio_. The _Romans_[584]\nlikewise had a _Talio_ in their Law, but they also gave liberty to the\noffender to make choice, whether he would by way of _commutation_ pay\na proportionable mulct, or _in identitie_ suffer the like maim in his\nbody?\n\n    [583] _Vid. Munster. Exod. 21._\n\n    [584] _A. Gellius lib. 11. cap. 1._\n\n_Scourging._ This was _two fold_; either _Virgis_, with rods; or\n_flagellis_, with scourging. This latter was more grievous than the\nformer, as appeareth by that _Ironical_ speech;[585] _Porcia lex virgas\nab omnium civium corpore amovit, hic misericors flagella retulit_.\nBoth were in use among the _Romans_, but only the latter among the\n_Hebrews_. This beating or _scourging_ was commanded, _Deut. 25. 2, 3._\nwhere the number of stripes was limited, which the _Judge_ might not\nexceed. _Forty stripes_ shall he cause him to have, and _not past_.\nThe _Jews_ in many things laboured to seem _holy above the Law_. For\nexample, where the Lord commanded a _Sabbath_ to be sanctified, they\nadded their _Sabbatulum_, that is, they began their _Sabbath_ about\nan hour sooner, and ended about an hour later than the law required:\nwhere the Lord forbade them to _eat or drink things sacrificed to\nIdols_, they prohibited _all drinking with Heathens_,[586] because it\nis doubtful whether it were offered to Idols or no. The Lord commanded\nthem in the time of the _Passover_ to _put away leaven out of their\nHouses_, they would not take the _name into their mouths_[587] all the\ntime of that Feast. The Lord commanded them to abstain from _eating\nSwines flesh_; they would not so much as name it, but in their common\ntalk[588] would call a _Sow_ \u200e\u200f\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Dabar Acher_, _Another thing_.\nIn like manner the Lord commanded chief Malefactors which deserved\nbeating, to be punisht with _forty stripes_; they in their greatest\ncorrections would give but _thirty nine_. _Of the_ Jews _five times\nreceived I forty stripes save one_, _2 Cor. 11. 24._ For this purpose\nthe _scourge_ consisted of _three thongs_, so that at each blow he\nreceived _three stripes_; and in their greatest corrections were given\n_thirteen blows_, that is, _forty stripes save one_. Whether these\nthongs were made[589] the one of a Bulls hide, the other of an Asses\nhide, or all three of a Calves,[590] the matter is not material, both\nopinions have their Authors.\n\n    [585] _Cic. pro Rabirio._\n\n    [586] _Thisbites in \u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05e1\u05da\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [587] _Thisbites in \u200e\u200f\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [588] _Elias Thisbit. ibid._\n\n    [589] _Talmud. lib. Maccoth. cap. 3. in Mischna._\n\n    [590] _Baalturim. vid. Drus. 2 Cor. 10. 24._\n\nThe manner of correcting such, was thus. The malefactor had both his\nhands tyed to _a post_, one cubit and half high, so that his body\n_bowed upon it_. The _Judge_ shall cause him to _bow down_, _Deut.\n25. 2._ This _post_ or _stake_ on which the Malefactor leaned in time\nof whipping, was termed \u200e\u200f\u05e2\u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u200f\u200e _Gnammud_, _Columna_, _a Pillar_. His\ncloaths were plucked off from him downward unto the thighs, and this\nwas done[591] either by _renting_ or _tearing_ of them. The _Governours\nrent_ Paul _and_ Silas _their cloaths, and commanded them to be beaten\nwith rods_, _Acts 16. 22._\n\n    [591] _Talmud, ibid._\n\nThat the _Beadle_ should inflict a number of stripes proportionable\nunto the transgression, this correction was performed in the _sight of\nthe Judge_. The _Judge_ shall cause him to be beaten _before his face_,\n_Deut. 25. 2._ The _chief Judge of the three_, during the time of the\ncorrection, did either read or recite _Deut. 28. 58, 59._[592] _If thou\nwilt not keep, and do all the words of this law_, &c. _Then the Lord\nwill make thy plagues wonderful_, &c. The _second Judge_ he numbred the\nstripes, and the _third_ he bade the _Beadle smite_. The _chief Judge_\nconcluded all, saying, _Yet he being merciful forgave their iniquity_,\n&c. _Psal. 78. 38._\n\n    [592] _Talmud. ibid._\n\nSometimes in notorious offences, to augment the pains, they tyed\ncertain huccle-bones or plummets of lead, or sharp thorns to the end\nof the thongs, and such scourges the Greeks termed[593] \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 _Flagra taxillata_ in the Scripture they are termed[594]\n_Scorpions_. My father hath chastised you with _rods_, but I will\ncorrect you with _Scorpions_, _1 King. 12. 12._\n\n    [593] _Eustathius. Item. Athen\u00e6us lib. 4._\n\n    [594] _Tholosan. synt. jur. univers. l. 31._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IX.\n\n_Punishments borrowed from other Nations._\n\n\nThe punishments borrowed from other Nations are principally six: 1.\n_Crux_, _The death on the Cross_. 2. _Serr\u00e2 dissectio_, _the cutting\none asunder with a saw_. 3. _Damnatio ad bestias_, _The committing\none to fight for his life with wild beasts_. 4. \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u1f78\u03c2, _the wheel_.\n5. \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2, _Drowning one in the sea_. 6. \u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2, _Beating\none to death with cudgels_. The first and the third were meerly _Roman\npunishments_; the second was likewise used by the _Romans_, but whether\noriginally taken from them is doubtful: the fourth and the last were\nmeerly _Greek punishments_; the fifth was for the substance in use\namong _Hebrews_, _Greeks_ and _Romans_, but in the manner of drowning\nthem, they differed. It will be needful to speak somewhat of all these.\n\n1. _Crux._ This word is sometimes applied to _any tree or stake on\nwhich a man is tortured to death_, but most properly it is applied\nto a _frame of wood consisting of two pieces of timber compacted\ncross-wise_. The first is termed _Crux simplex_, the last _Crux\ncompacta_. This latter is threefold. 1. _Decussata._ 2. _Commissa._ 3.\n_Immissa._\n\n_Crux decussata._ This was made of two equal pieces of timber obliquely\ncrossing one the other in the middle, after the manner of the _Roman_\nX, and thence it is called _decussata_.[595] _Decussare, est per medium\nsecare. Veluti si du\u00e6 regul\u00e6 concurrant ad speciem liter\u00e6_ X, _qu\u00e6\nfigura est crucis._ This kind of cross is by the common people termed\n_Crux Andr\u00e6ana_, Saint _Andrews-cross_, because on such an one he is\nreported to have been crucified.\n\n    [595] _Hieron. in Jerem. c. 31._\n\n_Crux commissa._ This was, when a piece of timber erected, was joyned\nin the middle to a traverse, of over-thwart top; somewhat shorter\nthan the piece erect, in manner of a _Roman_ T. This is called _Crux\nAntoniana_, S. _Anthony his Cross_, because he is often painted with\nsuch a _Cross_.\n\n_Crux immissa._ This was when a short traverse somewhat obliquely\ncrossed the stake erect, not quite in the middle, as _Crux decussata_,\nnor quite on the top as _Crux commissa_, but near the top, in this\nmanner \u2020. This is thought[596] to have been _Crux Christi_, _the Cross\non which our Saviour Christ suffered_.\n\n    [596] _Lipsius de cruce lib. 10. cap. 10._\n\nThe _Ceremonies_ used by the _Romans_ towards those whom they crucified\nwere these: First, they _scourged_ them, and sometimes tyed them to a\n_Piller_ in time of scourging. _Artemidorus_[597] is clear in this,\n\u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03ba\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u1f70\u03c2, that is, being tyed to the\n_Piller_, he received many stripes. _Plautus[598] is thought to have\nalluded_ to the same.\n\n    _------Abducite hunc_\n    _Intro, atque adstringite ad columnam fortiter._\n\n    [597] _Joseph. excid. lib. 5. cap. 32. Philo contra Flaccum.\n    It. Liv. lib. 1._\n\n    [598] _Plaut. Bacch._\n\nThe ancient _Fathers_[599] report that our _Saviour_ was whipt thus\n_ad columnam_: but the Scripture is silent, both touching the place\nand manner of this whipping, only that he was whipt is testified. _He\nscourged Jesus_, and delivered him to be crucified, _Mat. 27. 26._\n\n    [599] _Prudentius; Hieron. Beda vid. Lip. de cruce, lib. 2. cap. 4._\n\n_Secondly_, They caused them to _bear their own Cross_,[600] _Malefici\nc\u00f9m ad supplicium educuntur, quisq; suum effert crucem_. Thus _Christ\nbore his own Cross_, _John 19. 17._ To this there is allusion, _He that\ntaketh not his Cross, and followeth after me, he is not worthy of me_,\n_Mat. 10. 38._\n\n    [600] _Plutarch. de sera num. vind._\n\n_Thirdly_,[601] That the equity of the proceeding might clearly appear,\nthe cause of the punishment was written in a table, and so carried\nbefore the condemned person; or else it was proclamed by a publick\nCryer. This cause was termed by the _Romans_ commonly _Titulus_, by\nsome[602] it is called _Elegium_. Thus Pilate _wrote in Hebrew, Greek,\nand Latine, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews_.\n\n    [601] _Euseb. Eccl. hist. lib. 5. cap. 1. It. Suet. Domit. cap. 10._\n\n    [602] _Tertul. Apol. cap. 2. Sueton. in Calig._\n\n_Fourthly_,[603] They _pluckt off their cloaths_ from such as were to\nbe crucified. Thus _Christ suffered naked_.\n\n    [603] _Artemidor. l. 2. c. 58._\n\n_Serra dissectio_, _A sawing one in sunder_. They sawed them from the\nhead downward. The _Romans_[604] they used this kind of punishment, so\nlikewise did the _Hebrews_. Thus _Manasses_ is thought to have punisht\nthe _Prophet Isaiah_, and the Apostle to have alluded unto it, _They\nwere sawn a-sunder_, _Heb. 11. 37._\n\n    [604] _Sueton. in Calig. cap. 27._\n\n_Damnatio ad bestias._ Those who were condemned to wild beasts, are\nproperly termed _Bestiarii_. Whether S. _Paul_ did, according to the\nletter, fight with beasts at _Ephesus_, _1 Cor. 15. 32._ is much\ncontroversed. Some[605] understand by _Beasts_, _Demetrius_, and others\nthat opposed him at _Ephesus_, others[606] more probably understand\nthe word _literally_. And this kind of punishment was commonly\nexercised against _Christians_ in the _Primitive Church_, insomuch\nthat the _Heathens_ imputing the cause of all publick calamities unto\nthe _Christians_, would call out,[607] _Christianos ad Leones!_ _Let\nthe Christians be haled to Lyons_: yea, the litteral interpretation\nof the words, is a stronger argument that Saint _Paul_ believed the\nResurrection (which is the scope of the text) than to understand the\nwords of a metaphorical fight, against the enemies of his doctrine.\n\n    [605] _Theophylact. Anselm._\n\n    [606] _Chrysostom. Ambros. & alii._\n\n    [607] _Tertullian. Apol. cap. 40._\n\n\u03a4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u1f78\u03c2, _The Wheel_: A wise _King_ bringeth the _wheel_ over the\nwicked, _Prov. 20. 26._ I take the words to imply no more but this,\nthat _as the wheel turneth round, so by the wisdom of a King the\nmischief intended by wicked men, is brought upon their own head_.\nThat hereby should be understood, the grinding of wicked men under a\ncart-wheel, as the husband brake some sort of grain under the wheel,\nis the meer conceipt of Expositors on this place; for no Records make\nmention of any such punishment in use among the _Jews_. Among the\n_Greeks_ there was a punishment went under this name:[608] it was\ncalled \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u1f78\u03c2, A _Wheel_, not because a wheel was _brought over the\nwicked_, but because they bound fast the offender to the _spokes of a\nwheel_, and there scourged him, to inforce a confession.\n\n    [608] _\u1f18\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u2019 \u1f15\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, Aristoph. in\n    Iren. De eadem p\u0153na loquuntur Demosth. 3. in Aphob. & Suidas._\n\n\u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2, _Drowning in the Sea_. This was in use among many\nNations, but the manner differed. The _Romans_[609] they sewed up a\nParricide into a leather budget, sewing up together with him into the\nsame budget, _a Serpent_, _a Cock_, and _an Ape_, and so cast them\nall into the Sea. The _Grecians_[610] when they judged any to this\nkind of punishment, they wrapt him up in lead. The _Hebrews_ tyed a\nmilstone about his neck. Thus, in respect of the manner those are to be\nunderstood, who say,[611] this kind of punishment was peculiar to the\n_Jews_.\n\n    [609] _Senec. lib. 5. controv. 4. Juvenal Satyr 8. Modestus,\n    Digest. l. 48. ad legem Pomp. de parric. vid. C\u00e6l. Rhod. l. 11.\n    c. 21._\n\n    [610] _Athen\u00e6us l. 14._\n\n    [611] _Hier. Mat. 18. 6._\n\n\u03a4\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2. It is rendred by the general name of _torturing_, _Heb.\n11. 35._ _2 Mac. 6. 19._ But the word signifieth a special kind\nof torturing, by beating one with cudgels unto death. It hath its\ndenomination from \u03c4\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, which signifieth a _Drum_ usually: and\nhence some[612] have parallel\u2019d this torture with that among the\n_Romans_ termed _Equuleus_; as if the person thus tortured, were rackt,\nand stretched out in manner of a _drum head_: but it signifieth\nalso a _drum stick_, and thence[613] cometh the punishment to be\ntermed _Tympanismus_, that is, a _Tabring, or beating one to death\nwith cudgels_, as if it were with _drum-sticks_. This is evident\nby _Eleazar_; he came willingly, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, _to this kind of\ntorment_, _2 Macab. 6. 19._ and in the thirtieth verse, where he gave\nup the Ghost, there is mention of his strokes, not of his _racking or\nstretching_.\n\n    [612] _Magius in lib. de Equuleo, vid. Drus. pr\u00e6ter. l. 8._\n\n    [613] _Scholiastes Aristophanis \u03c4\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1 scribit esse \u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2\n    \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 in Pluto p. 50._\n\n_Junius_[614] reckoneth another kind of punishment termed by the\n_Hebrews_, \u200e\u200f\u05e6\u05d9\u05e0\u05e7\u200f\u200e _Tsinok_, which he would have to be a compound word:\ndoubtless his meaning is that it would be compounded of \u200e\u200f\u05e6\u05d9\u200f\u200e _Tsi_,\n_Navis_, _a ship, or boat_, and \u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05e0\u05e7\u200f\u200e _Janack_, _Sugere_, _to suck_: for\nhe saith that thereby is meant a certain punishment, termed _Navicula\nsugentis_ which _Plutarch_[615] describeth in this manner; _That the\noffender should be inclosed between two boates, as in a prison, or, as\nhis phrase is_ (_quasi in vagina_) _as in a sheath; and, to preserve\nlife in him, milk and honey tempered together was forcibly put into his\nmouth, whether he would or no_. And hence, from this _sucking in of\nmilk and honey_, this punishment hath been termed _Navicula sugentis_.\nBut the _Hebrews_[616] say, that _Tsinock_ was nothing else but\n_manacles_, or _cords_, wherewith prisoners hands were tyed. I leave it\nindifferent to the Reader to follow which interpretation he please.\n\n    [614] _Junius. Jer. 29. 26._\n\n    [615] _Plutarch. in Artaxerxe._\n\n    [616] _\u200e\u200f\u05db\u05dc\u05d9 \u05de\u05e1\u05d2\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e Instrumentum constringens manus. D.\n    Kimch. Jer. 29. 26._\n\n\n\n\nTHE SIXTH BOOK\n\nOF _MISCELLANEOUS RITES_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\n_Of Circumcision._\n\n\nTheir _Sacraments_ were two. First, the _Passover_ of which there hath\nbeen a set Chapter. Secondly, _Circumcision_, of which now.\n\n_Circumcision_, was a cutting off the foreskin, as a sign and seal of\n_Gods_ Covenant made with the People of the _Jews_. It is called a\n_sign_ by _God_ in its first institution, _Gen. 17._ and a _seal_ by\nthe _Apostle_, _Rom. 4. 11._ Yea, it is called a _sign_ and a seal, by\na _Doctor_ of the _Jews_,[617] more ancient than their _Talmud_.\n\n    [617] _Zohar. Gen. 17._\n\nIt was used (though not as a _Sacrament_) by many other Nations:[618]\nby the inhabitants of _Colchis_, the _\u00c6thiopians_, the _Troglodit\u00e6_,\nand the _Egyptians_.\n\n    [618] _Alex. ab Alex. lib. 2. cap. 25. Herodo. l. 2. Diodor.\n    Sicul. l. 2. c. 1. It. l. 4. c. 3._\n\nIn a figurative sense, alluding unto this _Sacramental Rite_, we read\nof three other sorts of _Circumcision_ in the _Scripture_; so that in\nall there are four mentioned. 1. _This of the flesh._ 2. _Another of\nthe heart._ 3. _A third of the lips._ 4. And a _fourth of the ears_.\nWe are to consider it in its proper acception, and here to observe:\nFirst, the _time when_ it was administred. Secondly, the _manner how_.\nThirdly, the _penalty in case it was omitted_.\n\nThe _time_ was the _eighth day_; yea, the _eighth day_ was so precisely\nobserved, that if it fell on the _Sabbath_, yet they _circumcised the\n~Child~_; whence rose that saying among them, _Circumcisio pellit\nSabbatum_ _Circumcision driveth away the Sabbath_; or, the _Sabbath_\ngiveth place to _Circumcision_. And with this accordeth that of our\nSaviour, _Ye on the Sabbath day circumcise a man_, _John 7. 22._ The\n_Jews_ superstitiously conceiting that each creatures perfection\ndepended upon the sanctification of one _Sabbath_ day at least, say\nthat _God_ did therefore enjoyn the _eighth day_, that one _Sabbath_\nmight first pass over each male, before he should be partaker of this\nSacrament. But more probably we may say, that the reasons why God would\nnot suffer them to anticipate the _eighth day_, were first to shew,\nthat _God_ in the matter of Salvation, neither was, nor is _simply tyed\nto Sacraments_; for then there had been no less cruelty in _forbidding\nCircumcision until the eighth day_, than there was love in _permitting\nit upon the eighth_. Secondly, because in this time of the _Mosaical\nPedagogie_, there was a kind of _legal uncleanness_, in which the\ncreatures were thought to be, as remaining in their blood, for the\nfirst _seven daies_ after their birth, _Levit. 22. 27._ _It. 12. 2, 3._\nNotwithstanding, _God_ thought it not convenient to defer it longer\nthan eight daies, for the comfort of the Parents, which they received\nby a mature and seasonable initiation of their children.\n\nThe manner how Circumcision was administred, I find thus recorded:\nSome of those that were present held a vessel full of dust,[619] into\nwhich they did cast the foreskin being cut off. Again, they prepared\nin the room, a certain _void chair for Elias_;[620] which was done,\npartly in honour of him, for which respect also, as often as they fell\non any difficult place in Scripture they would say[621] _Veniet Elias,\n& omnia enodabit_; _We know that Elias will come, and he will tell us\nall things_: But chiefly it was done, because they thought _Elias_ to\nbe present there in spirit, whose bodily coming they did, and do daily\nexpect. These ceremonies are meerly _Jewish_, practised by the latter\n_Jews_, but utterly unknown in our _Saviour Christ_ his time, and,\nas it appeareth by the _Samaritan woman_ her speech, that proverbial\nsaying applyed now to _Elias_, was of old applyed to _Christ_, _John 4.\n25._ _Thirdly_, he which supplyed the place of the _Witness_, or as we\nphrase it, of the _Godfather_,[622] held the Child in his arms whiles\nit was _Circumcised_: this _Godfather_ they called _Baal Berith_, and\n_Sandack_; that is, the _Master of the Covenant_. Uriah _the Priest_,\nand _Zachariah_ the son of _Jeberechia_, are thought[623] to have been\n_Godfathers_ at the Circumcision of _Maher-shalal-hash-baz_, _Esay. 8.\n2._ and from them the custome of having _Godfathers_ in _Baptisme_, to\nhave taken its original. _Fourthly_, the Parents named the Child, and\nin _Zacharies_ time, it seemeth that in the naming of the Infant, they\nhad respect to some name of his Ancestors. _They said unto her, there\nis none of thy kindred that is named with this name_, _Luk. 1. 61._\nOther Nations had their set daies also after the birth, for the naming\nof their Children. The _Romans_[624] gave names to their male-children\non the ninth day, to the female on the eighth. The _Athenians_[625]\ngave names on the tenth. Others[626] on the seventh. These daies\n_Tertullian_[627] called _Nominalia_. The _Grecians_ besides the tenth\nday on which they named the Child, they observed also the _fifth_,[628]\non which day the Midwives took the Child, and ran about a fire made\nfor that purpose, using that Ceremony as a purification of themselves\nand the Child: on this day the Neighbours also sent in _gifts_, or\n_small tokens_, _Munera natalitia_;[629] from which custom that amongst\n_Christians_, of the _Godfathers_ sending gifts to the baptized Infant,\nis thought to have flown. But to return again to the Rites of the\n_Jews_. After the Child had been _circumcised_, the Father said:[630]\n_Blessed be our Lord God, who hath sanctified us with his precepts, and\nhath commanded us, that we should cause this child to enter into the\nCovenant of Abraham_. After this, the whole Church or company present\nreplyed in this manner,[631] _As thou hast made him to enter into the\nCovenant, so make him also to enter into the Law, into Matrimony, and\ninto good works_.\n\n    [619] _Paul. Fag. Deut. 10._\n\n    [620] _Christoph. Cast. in Malac. c. 3._\n\n    [621] _Mercerus in abreviaturis. \u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [622] _\u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05d5\u05d4\u05d2\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05dc\u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05de\u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05e7 \u05d1\u05df \u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e1\u05e0\u05d3\u05e7 \u05d5\u05d4\u05dc\u05d5\u05e2\u05d6\u05d9\u05dd\n    \u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u200f\u200e Elias Thisb. in \u200e\u200f\u05e1\u05e0\u05d3\u05e7\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [623] _Jun. & Trem. Es. 8. 2._\n\n    [624] _Plutarch. prob. 102. Macrob. Sat. l. 1. c. 16._\n\n    [625] _C\u0153l. Rhodig. l. 22. cap. 12._\n\n    [626] _Arist. hist. anim. lib. 7. c. 12._\n\n    [627] _Tertul. de Idol. cap. 16._\n\n    [628] _Scholiast. Aristoph. in Lusistrat. p. 886. It. Suidas in\n    \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1._\n\n    [629] _Stukius de conviv. l. 1. c. 16._\n\n    [630] _\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e7\u05d3\u05e9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5\n    \u05d5\u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05db\u05e0\u05d9\u05e1\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u200f\u200e Moses Kotsen. in tractat.\n    circumcis. fol. 115._\n\n    [631] _\u200e\u200f\u05db\u05e9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d4\u05db\u05e0\u05e1\u05ea\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05db\u05df \u05ea\u05db\u05e0\u05d9\u05e1\u05d4\u05d5 \u05dc\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d7\u05d5\u05e4\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e\n    Moses Kotsen. ibid._\n\nThe _penalty_ for the omission of _Circumcision_ running in this\nform; _That soul shall be cut off from his people_, _Gen. 17. 14._ I\nunderstand the _penalty_ to be pronounced against such an omission;\nwhich proceeded either from _contempt_ or _wilful neglect_. In this\ncase the question is, what is meant by this phrase, _His soul shall be\ncut off from the people_. Secondly, _who ought thus to be punisht?_\nwhether the child, or the _parents_, and such who _supply the place\nof parents_? For the first, besides _Gods_ secret action in punishing\nsuch Delinquents, methinks there is a rule of direction for the Church,\nhow to proceed against such in her Discipline: If any understand here,\nby _cutting off such a mans soul from his people_, the sentence of\n_excommunication_, or _casting him out of the Synagogue_, I shall not\noppose it; though I rather incline to those, who understand hereby a\n_bodily death_ inflicted upon such an offender, in which sense the\nphrase is taken, _Exod. 31. 14._ _Whosoever doth any work on the\nSabbath, that soul shall be cut off from among his people_. And it is\nvery remarkable, that when _Moses_ his child was _uncircumcised, the\nLord sought to kill Moses_: which as it intimated the punishment of\nthis fault to be a _bodily death_ so it clearly evinceth, that not the\n_child_ till he cometh to years of discretion, but the _parents_ were\nliable to punishment. The opinion of the _Rabbines_ concerning this\nlatter point is thus delivered:[632] _If the Father circumcise him not,\nthen the Judges are commanded to circumcise him: and if it be unknown\nto the Judges, and they circumcise him not, when he is waxen great,\nhe is bound to circumcise himself, and every day that passeth over\nhim, after he is waxen great, and, he circumciseth not himself, lo he\nbreaketh the Commandment._\n\n    [632] _Moses Kots. tract. circumcis. fol. 114. col. 4._\n\nHere it may be demanded, how it is possible for a man, after once he\nhath been marked with the sign of _Circumcision_, to blot out that\ncharacter and become _uncircumcised_? for thus some _Jews_, for fear\nof _Antiochus_, made themselves uncircumcised, _1 Mac. 1. 16._ Others\nfor shame, after they were gained to the knowledge of Christ, and to\nentertainment of the _Christian faith, uncircumcised themselves_, _1\nCor. 7. 18._ The answer is,[633] that this was done by _drawing up\nthe foreskin_ with a Chirurgion his instrument; and unto this the\n_Apostle_ in the fore quoted place alludeth, \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9, _Ne attrahat\npr\u00e6putium_. This wicked invention is ascribed unto _Esau_, as the first\n_Author_ and practiser thereof.\n\n    [633] _Epiphan. lib. de mens. & pond. p. 415. It. Celsus l. 7.\n    c. 25._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\n_Of their first fruits and their firstlings, or first-born._\n\n\nThe use and end of their _first-fruits_, was that the _after-fruits_\nmight be _consecrated in them_. To this purpose they were enjoyned\nto offer the _first fruits of their trees_, which served for food,\n_Levit. 19. 23, 24._ In which this order was observed; the _three\nfirst years_ after the tree had been planted, the fruits were counted\n_uncircumcised_ and _unclean_: it was unlawful to _eat them, sell them,\nor make any benefit of them_: on the _fourth year_, they were accounted\n_holy_, that is, either they were given to the _Priests_,[634] _Num.\n18. 12, 13._ or the owners did eat them before the _Lord at Jerusalem_,\nas they did their _second tithe_: and this _latter_ is the common\nopinion of the _Hebrews_.[635] After the _fourth year_, they returned\nto the use of the owner: we may call these \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, _simply the\nfirst-fruits_.\n\n    [634] _\u200e\u200f\u05d5\u05d4\u05db\u05d4\u05df \u05d9\u05d0\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u200f\u200e Sacerdos ea comedebat. Aben Ezra in hunc\n    locum._\n\n    [635] _Talmud. Bab. in Magnasher sheni cap. 1._\n\n_Secondly_, they were enjoyned to pay yearly the _first-fruits of\nevery years increase_, and these we may call, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2, and of them\nthere were many sorts. _First, first-fruits in the sheaf_, _Lev. 23.\n10._ _Secondly, first-fruits in two wave-loaves_, _Levit. 23. 17._\nThese two bounded their harvest, _that in the sheaf_ was offered\nin the _beginning of harvest_, upon the fifteenth of _Nisan_,\n_the other of the loavs at the end_, upon their _Penticost_: and\n_Levit. 23._ they are both called \u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05e0\u05d5\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Thenuphoth_, that is,\n_shake-offerings_. _Thirdly_, there was a _first of the dough_. _Num.\n15. 20._ namely,[636] a _four and twentieth part thereof_, given unto\nthe _Priests_: which kind of offering was observed, even when they\nwere returned out of _Babylon_, _Nehem. 10. 37._ Unto this St. _Paul_\nhath reference, _Rom. 11. 16._ _If the first fruits be holy, the\nlump is holy_. _Fourthly_, they were to pay unto the _Priests_ the\n_first-fruits of the threshing floor_, _Numb. 15. 20._ These two last\nare called \u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Therumoth_, that is, _heave offerings_: this the\n_heave-offering of the threshing floor_; the other the _heave-offering\nof the dough_, _Numb. 15. 20._ Under the name of _first-fruits_,\ncommonly Authors treat of no others but this last, and wholly omit all\nthe former sorts. Before we proceed to the explaining of the last,\nnote with me the difference of these two words, _Thenuphoth_, and\n_Therumoth_: both signifie _shake-offerings_, _heave-offerings_, or\n_wave offerings_, but with this difference;[637] the _Therumoth_ was\nby a _waving of elevation_, lifting the oblation upward and downward,\nto signifie, that _God_ was _Lord_ both of Heaven and Earth. The\n_Thenuphoth_ was by a waving of _agitation_, waving it to and fro, from\nthe right hand to the left, from the _East_ to the _West_, from the\n_North_ to the _South_: by which kind of _agitation_, they acknowledged\n_God_ to be _Lord_ of the whole world. Now, that we may know what\nthese _first-fruits of the threshing floor were_, the _Rabbies_, and\nthe others following them, distinguish them into _two sorts_: the\nfirst of these, was _first-fruits_ of seven things only: 1 _Wheat._ 2\n_Barley._ 3 _Grapes._ 4 _Figs._ 5 _Pomgranates._ 6 _Olives._ 7 _Dates._\nFor all which the Promised Land is commended, _Deut. 8. 8._ These\nthe _Talmudists_[638] term \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Biccurim_; and when they treat of\n_first-fruites_ they treat of them under this name, and understand\nby the name of _Biccurim_ no other. These, they say, are the _first\nfruits_, which the people are so often in the Law commanded to bring\nup unto the _Sanctuary_, at the _Feast of Pentecost_, which was the end\nand closure of their harvest, as was signified both by this oblation,\nand likewise by that of the two _wave-loaves_, _Lev. 23. 17._\n\n    [636] _\u200e\u200f\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4 \u05ea\u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u200f\u200e Uziel Numb. 15. 20._\n\n    [637] _P. Fagius in Pentat._\n\n    [638] _R. Solom. Deut. 26. 2. It. Moses Kotsens. fol. 201. Col. 4._\n\nThe second was paid of _Corn, Wine, Oyl, and the Fleece_, _Deut. 18.\n4._ _Numb. 18. 12._ yea, of all things else that the earth brought\nforth of mans food. Thus their _Doctors_ are to be understood, where\nthey say,[639] _Quicquid eduliorum ex terra incrementum capit,\nobnoxium est primitiis, Therum\u00e6, & decimis_. This they call, \u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d4\u200f\u200e\n_Theruma_, an _heave-offering_: the _Greek_ renders it, \u1f00\u03c6\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, _A\nseparation_, because this was a _consecration, or setting apart of\nthe Lords portion_. In allusion unto this, I take S. _Paul_ to have\ntermed himself \u1f00\u03c6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, _separated unto the Gospel_,\n_Rom. 1. 1._ \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f08\u03b1\u03c1\u1f7c\u03bd, _Aaron shall separate the Levites_, so\nthe _Greek_ renders it; but the Original is, _Aaron shall wave the\nLevites_, _Numb. 8. 11._ Again, \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 _Separate me Barnabas and\nSaul_, _Acts 13. 2._ _Drusius_ delivereth another reason, as hath been\nsaid in the _Chapter_ of the _Pharisees_. But to proceed: the _Hebrews_\ncalled this second payment, not only _Theruma_, _simple_, but sometimes\n_Theruma gedola_,[640] the _great heave offering_, in comparison of\nthat _Tithe_ which the _Levites_ payed unto the _Priests_: for that was\ntermed _Theruma magnasher_, the _heave offering of the Tithe_, _Numb.\n18. 26._ which though it were _one of ten_, in respect of that portion\nwhich the _Levites_ received; yet it was but _one of an hundered_, in\nrespect of the Husbandmans stock, who payed the _Levites_: and thus\nit was a great deal less than the _great heave offering_, as will\npresently appear. This (the _Hebrews_ say) the owners were not bound to\nbring up to _Jerusalem_.\n\n    [639] _Moses Egypt. in. Jud. part. 3. tract. de Therumoth. cap. 2._\n\n    [640] _\u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u200f\u200e_\n\nThe _law_ prescribed no set quantity to be paid, either in the\n_Biccurim_ or in the _Theruma_; but, by _tradition_, they were taught\nto pay at least the _sixtieth_ part in both, even in those _seven\nthings_, also paid under the name of _Biccurim_, or _first fruits_, as\nwell as in their _heave-offering_ termed _Theruma_, or _Theruma gedola_.\n\nThus the _Talmudists_ do distinguish the _Biccurim_ from the _Theruma\ngedola_: but in my opinion the _Biccurim_ may be contained under\n_Theruma gedola_; and in truth, both of them are nothing else but the\n_heave-offering of the floor_, formerly mentioned out of _Num. 15.\n20._ My reasons are these: 1. _Scripture_ giveth no such leave to keep\nany part of their _first-fruits_ at home; if that could be proved, the\ndistinction were warrantable. 2. _Scripture_ doth not limit _first\nfruits_ unto those _seven kinds_, which alone go under the name of\n_Biccurim_. 3. Themselves confound both members; for their _Biccurim_,\nthey say, they paid, 1. _Wheat._ 2. _Barley._ In their _Theruma_,\nthey say, they paid _Corn_; as if under _Corn_; _Wheat_ and _Barley_\nwere not contained. Some may say, they paid their _Biccurim in the\nEar_, while the harvest was yet standing and their _Theruma in Wheat\nand Barley ready threshed and winnowed_. My reasons why it cannot\nbe so, are these: 1. Because then they should pay _twice a sixtieth\npart_ in their corn. 2. Because the corn offered in the sheaf was but\na little quantity, and it was offered not at their _Pentecost_ when\ntheir harvest ended, but at their _Passover_ when their harvest began,\n_Levit. 23. 10._ Whereas their _Biccurim_, or _first fruits_, were\nalwayes offered at their _Pentecost_.\n\nBut omitting further proofs, I proceed to shew the ground, why in\nthis _heave-offering of the floor_, at least a _sixtieth part_ was\nprescribed: it is grounded upon that of the Prophet _Ezek._ This is\nthe oblation that ye shall offer, _the sixth part of an Ephah out\nof an Homer_, _Ezek. 45. 13._ that is, _the sixtieth part of the\nwhole_, because an _Homer_ containeth ten _Ephahs_. Hence they took\nthat distinction of these offerings. Some[641] they say, gave the\n_fortieth part of their encrease_: this, because it was the greatest\nquantity given in this kind of oblations, they termed _Theruma oculi\nboni_,[642] _The oblation of a fair eye_: others (though they were not\nso liberal as the former, yet they might not be reputed niggardly)\ngave a _fiftieth part_, and this they termed _Theruma mediana_,[643]\n_The oblation of a middle eye_: others, whom they reputed sordid,\ngave just a _sixtieth part_, less then which they could not give,\nthis they termed _Theruma oculi mali_,[644] _The oblation of an evill\neye_; so that the payment of these was bounded by the tradition of\nthe _Elders_, between the _sixtieth_ and the _fortieth part_: But the\n_Pharisees_[645] that they might be _holy above others_, made their\nbounds the _fiftieth_ and the _thirtieth part_; so that he was reputed\n_sordid_ with them that paid the _fiftieth part_; and none liberal\nexcept he paid the _thirtieth_. The manner how these first-fruites\ntermed _Biccurim_ were paid, is at large set down, _Deut. 26._ But in\ntime of the _Prophets_ other _Ceremonies_ seem to have been received,\nof which the _Hebrew Docters_ say thus:[646] _When they carried up\ntheir first-fruits, all the Cities that were in a county gathered\ntogether to the chief City of the county to the end that they might not\ngo up alone: for it is said, In the multitude of people is the Kings\nhonour_, _Prov. 14. 28._ _And they came and lodged all night in the\nstreets of the City, and went not into houses, for fear of pollution:\nand in the morning the Governor said, Arise, and let us go up to Sion,\nthe City of the Lord our God. And before them went a Bull which had his\nhorns covered with Gold, and an Olive Garland on his head, to signifie\nthe first fruits of the seven kinds of fruits. There was likewise a\npipe struck up before them, untill they came near to Jerusalem and all\nthe way as they went, they sung, I rejoyced in them that said unto me,\nwe will go into the house of the Lord_, &c. _Psal. 122._ Unto this, and\nother like manner of solemn Assemblies the _Prophet_ hath reference,\nsaying, _Ye shall have a song as in a night when a holy solemnity is\nkept, and gladness of heart, as when one goeth with a pipe to come unto\nthe mountain of the Lord_, _Esay. 30. 29._\n\n    [641] _Solom. Jarchi. Deut. 18. 4. Item Hieron. in Ezek. 45. fol. 260._\n\n    [642] _\u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05e4\u05d4\u200f\u200e Theruma gnaiin jopha._\n\n    [643] _\u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05ea\u200f\u200e Theruma benonith._\n\n    [644] _\u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d4 \u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05e8\u05e2\u05d4\u200f\u200e Theruma gnajin ragna._\n\n    [645] _Epiphan. contr. Pharis. pag. 11._\n\n    [646] _Maimon. in Biccurim. cap. 4. sect. 16._\n\nThe _firstlings_, or _first-born_ of man and beast, the _Lord_\nchallenged as his own, _Exod. 13._ The ground of this Law was, because\n_God smote all the first-born in Egypt from man to beast, but spared\nthe Israelites_; for a perpetual memory of which benefit, he commanded\nthem to sanctifie all their _first-born males_ unto him. Now the _first\nborn men, and unclean beasts_, were redeemed for five silver shekels\nof the _sanctuary_, paid unto the _Priests_ for each of them, _Numb.\n18. 15, 16._ Unto this S. _Peter_ alludeth saying, _We are not redeemed\nwith corruptible things, as silver and gold_, _1 Pet. 1. 18._ The\n_firstlings of a clean beasts_ ought to be sacrificed, their blood to\nbe sprinkled on the Altar, their fat to be burnt for a burnt-offering,\nand their flesh to return to the _Priests_.\n\nObserve how _God_ would be honoured by the _firstlings of men and\ncattel_; by the _first-fruits of trees, and of the earth, in the sheaf,\nin the threshing-floor, in the dough, in the loavs_: All which teach us\n_to consecrate the first and prime of our years unto the Lord_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n_Of Tithes._\n\n\nWe are here to enquire: First, _what things_ in general were titheable:\n_Secondly_ how many _kind of Tithes_ there were: Thirdly, the _time_\nwhen each sort of _tithes_ began to be _titheable_.\n\nFirst, their yearly encrease was either _Cattel_, _fruits of the\ntrees_, or _fruits of the land_; of _all these_[647] they payed\n_tithes_, even to mint, anise, and cumine, _These things they ought not\nto leave undone_, _Mat. 23. 23._\n\n    [647] _Vid. Sixtin. Amama de decimis._\n\nSecondly, the _sorts of tithes_ payed out of the fruits, both of the\ntrees and the land, by the Husbandman, were two, payd in this manner:\nWhen the Harvest had been ended, and all gathered, then the Husbandman\nlaid aside his _great Theruma_, otherwise called the _first-fruits of\nhis threshing floor_, of which it hath been spoken in the _Chapter of\nthe first fruits_. This being done, then out of the remainder he paid\na _tenth part_ unto the _Levites_, and this they termed _Magnasher\nrischon_,[648] _the first tithe_, _Tob. 1. 7._ This was always paid in\nkind, and as it seemeth to me, it was not brought up to _Jerusalem_\nby the husbandman, (others[649] think otherwise) but payed unto the\n_Levites_ in the several Cities of tillage, _Neh. 10. 37._ out of this\n_first tithe_ the _Levites paid a tenth portion_ unto the _Priests_;\nthis they termed _Magnasher min hammagnasher_,[650] _the tithe of the\nTithes_, _Neh. 10. 38._ and _Decima sanctitatum_, the _tithe of holy\nthings_, _2 Chron. 31. 6._ this the _Levites_ brought up to the house\nof _God_, _Neh. 10. 38._ When the _Levites_ had paid this tenth portion\nunto the _Priests_, then the _Levites_ and their Families might eat\nthe remainder of the first tithe in any place, even out of _Jerusalem_,\n_Num. 18. 31._\n\n    [648] _\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [649] _Decim\u00e6 prim\u00e6 necessario aut \u00e0 colono ipso aut ejus\n    vicario Hierosolymas deportand\u00e6 erant. Sixtin. Amama de\n    decimis._\n\n    [650] _\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8 \u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u200f\u200e_\n\nThis first tithe being paid, the Husbandman paid out of that which\nremained a second tithe; this the Husbandman might pay in kind if he\npleased, or if he would, he might by way of commutation pay the worth\nthereof in money; but when he payed in money, he added a fifth part; so\nthat what in kind was _ten in the hundred_, that changed into money,\nwas _twelve in the hundred_. This the Husbandman brought up unto\n_Jerusalem_, and made a kind of Love-feast therewith, unto which he\ninvited the _Priests_ and _Levites_, only every _third year_ he carried\nit not to _Jerusalem_, _but spent it at home within his own gates_,\nupon the _Levites, the fatherless, the widows, & the poor_, _Deut. 14.\n28._ They reckoned[651] their third year from the _Sabbatical year_,\non which the land rested: so that the first and second _Tithe_ was\npayed by the Husbandman; the _first, second, fourth and fifth years\nafter the Sabbatical year_: but upon the third and sixth years only,\nthe first _Tithe_ was paid to the _Levites_, and the second was spent\nat home. Hence in respect of the _kinds_, this is called _Magnasher\nscheni_,[652] the second _tithe_, _Tobit. 1. 7._ in respect it was paid\nto the poor every third year: it is called _Magnasher gnani_[653],\n\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9, _the poor mans tithe_, and _Magnasher schelischi_[654],\n_the third tithe_, _Tob. 1. 1._ On those years on which it was carried\nup to _Jerusalem_, it ought of necessity to be eaten within the _Court\nof the Temple_, _Deut. 14. 26._ and by the _third tithe_ we are to\nunderstand the _poor mans tithe on the third year_, which year is\ntermed _a year of tithes_, _Deut. 26. 12._\n\n    [651] _Moses Kotsen. tract. de decima secundo. fol. 199._\n\n    [652] _\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [653] _\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [654] _\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\u200f\u200e_\n\nThey likewise tithed their cattel. _Of their bullocks, & their sheep,\nand all that passed under the rod, the tenth was holy to the Lord_,\n_Lev. 27. 32._ Some Expositors understand by this phrase of _passing\nunder the rod_, that all cattel are _titheable_ which live under the\n_custody of a keeper_, as if there were allusion to the _shephards\nstaff_, or _keepers rod_, which they use in keeping their cattel.\nThe _Hebrews_ more probably understand hereby, the _manner of their\ndecimation_ or _tithing_ their cattel, which was as followeth.[655] _He\nthat hath Lambs (or Bullocks) thus separateth his tenth, he gathereth\nall his lambs and all his bullocks into a fold to which he maketh a\nlittle door, that two cannot go forth together; their dams are placed\nwithout the door, to the end, that the lambs hearing them bleating,\nmight go forth one after another in order. Then one beginneth to number\nwith his rod, one, two, three, ~&c.~ and the tenth which cometh forth,\nwhether it be male or female, perfect, or blemished, he marketh it\nwith a red mark, saying this is for tithe._ At this day the _Jews_,\nthough they are not in their own Country, neither have any _Levitical\nPriesthood_, yet those who will be reputed religious among them, do\ndistribute in lieu of tithes, the tenth of their encrease unto the\npoor, being perswaded that _God_ doth bless their estates the more: for\ntheir usual Proverb is,[656] _Thegnasher, bischebil sche thegnasher_;\nthat is, _Pay tithes, that thou mayst be rich_.\n\n    [655] _Solomon Jarchi, Lev. 27. 32. & Maimon. de primogen. c.\n    7. Sect. 1. 5._\n\n    [656] _\u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05dc \u05e9\u05ea\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u200f\u200e_\n\nThe _time_ of the year from which they reckoned _tithes_, was\ndifferent. For _beasts_[657] they counted the year from _Elul_ to\n_Elul_, that is, from _August_ to _August_, for _grain_, _pulse_, and\n_herbs_,[658] from _Tisri_ to _Tisri_, that is, from _September_ to\n_September_: for the _fruit of trees_, from _Schebat_ to _Schebat_,\nthat is, from _January_ to _January_.\n\n    [657] _Talmud tract. de novo anno ad initium, Buxt. Synag. Jud. c. 12._\n\n    [658] _Moses Kotsen. in pr\u00e6cept. affirm. 136._\n\nIn this _Synopsis_ following (which _Sixtinus Amama_ hath taken out of\n_Scaliger_) the manner of _Israels_ tithings is set down.\n\n                     | 6000 | Bushels in one year.\n                     |  100 | Bushels was the least that\n                     |      |   could be paid by the Husbandman\n                     |      |   to the _Priests_ for\n                     |      |   the first-fruits of the threshing\n                     |      |   floor.\n                     | 5900 | Bushels remained to the Husbandman,\n                     |      |   out of which he\n                     |      |   payed two Tythes.\n                     |  590 | Bushels were the first Tithe to\n                     |      |   the _Levites_.\n                     |   59 | Bushels the _Levites_ paid the\n    The Husbandman   |      |   _Priests_, which was called\n    had growing      |      |   the _Tithe of the Tithes_.\n                     | 5310 | Bushels remained to the Husbandman,\n                     |      |   out of which he\n                     |      |   paid his second tithe.\n                     |  531 | Bushels were the second\n                     |      |   Tithe.\n                     | 4779 | Bushels remained to the Husbandman\n                     |      |   as his own, all being\n                     |      |   paid.\n                     | 1121 | Bushels are the sume of both\n                     |      |   Tithes joyned together,\n                     |      |   which is above a sixth part\n                     |      |   of the whole, namely _nineteen_\n                     |      |   out of an hundred.\n\nWe are to know moreover, that through the corruption of the times, in\ntime of _Hezekiah_\u2019s reign, Tithes began generally to be neglected,\ninsomuch that then _Overseers_ were appointed to look to the true\npayment thereof, _2 Chr. 31. 13._ Notwithstanding, partly through the\n_negligence_ of the _Overseers_, partly through the _covetousness_ of\nthe _people_, about one hundred thirty years before our _Saviours\nIncarnation_, corruption so prevailed, that the people in a manner\n_neglected all tithes_, yea none or very few payed either their\nfirst, second, or _poor manns tithe_, only they paid the _great\nheave-offering_ justly. For this reason (saith _Moses Kotsensis_[659])\n_in the daies of_ John _the Priest, who succeeded_ Simeon _the just_,\n(I take it he meaneth _Johannes Hyrcanus_) their great Court, termed\ntheir _Sanhedrim_, made a Decree, that more faithful _Overseers_\nshould be appointed for the _Tithes_. At this time many things became\nquestionable, whether they were tithable or no; whence the high\nCourt of their _Sanhedrim_ decreed, that in the _things doubtful_\n(which they termed \u200e\u200f\u05d3\u05de\u05d0\u05d9\u200f\u200e _Demai_)[660] though they paid neither first,\nnor _poor mans tithe_, yet they paid a second _tithe, and a small\nheave-offering_; namely, \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d7\u05d3 \u05de\u05de\u05d0\u05d4\u200f\u200e _one part of an hundred_: _Mint_,\n_Anise_ and _Cummin_, seemeth to have been of these _doubtful things_;\nin which, though the decree of their _Sanhedrim_ required but _one in\nthe hundred_, yet the _Pharisees_ would pay a just tenth, _Mat. 23.\n23._, and hence it is that they boasted, _They gave tithes of all that\nthey possessed_, _Luk. 18. 12._ In which they outstripped the other\n_Jews_, who in these payments took the liberty granted them by the\n_Sanhedrim_.\n\n    [659] _Moses Kotsen. fol. 199. col. 3._\n\n    [660] _Moses Kotsen. ibid._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n_Of their Marriages._\n\n\nIn this Chapter of their _Marriages_, we are to consider: First,\nthe _distinction of their wives_. Secondly, the _manner of their\nbetrothings_. Thirdly, the _rites and ceremonies of their marriage_.\nLastly, the _forme of their divorce_. The _Patriarchs_ in the _Old\nTestament_ had many of them, _two sorts of wives_: both of them were\n_reputed lawful_, and _true wives_, and therefore the children of both\nwere accounted _legitimate_. The _Hebrews_ commonly call the one \u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e\n_Naschim_; _Primary-wives_, married with nuptial ceremonies and rites\nrequisite. Some derive the word from \u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05e9\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Nischa_, _Oblitus fuit, quasi\nOblivios\u00e6 dict\u00e6_, because for the most part, _womens memory is not so\nstrong as mens_: but they think not amiss, who say that women are so\ncalled from _oblivion_, or _forgetfulness_, because the Fathers family\nis _forgotten_, and in a manner _extinct in their daughters when they\nare married_. Hence proceeds that common saying of the _Hebrews_,[661]\n_Familia matris non vocatur familia_: and for the contrary reason,\na _male child_ is called \u200e\u200f\u05d6\u05db\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Zacar_, from his memory, _because the\nmemory of the Father is preserved in the Son_,[662] according to that\nspeech of Absolom, _I have no Son to keep my name in remembrance_, 2\nSam. 18. 18.\n\n    [661] _\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05ea \u05d0\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e7\u05e8\u05d5\u05d9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05d4\u200f\u200e Aben Ezra. Numb. 1. 2._\n\n    [662] _Eandem prolis mascul\u00e6 rationem habitam apud Gr\u00e6cos\n    testatur Euripides. \u03a3\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2._\n\nThe other sort of wives they call[663] _Pillagshin_, _secondary wives_,\nor _half wives_; the _English_ translates them _Concubines_, and that\nnot unfitly, for sometimes the _Hebrew_ word it self denoteth an\n_infamous Strumpet_, or _common Harlot_.\n\n    [663] _\u200e\u200f\u05e4\u05dc\u05d2\u05e9\u200f\u200e Vxor secundaria vocem compositam esse aiunt ex \u200e\u200f\u05e4\u05dc\u05d2\u200f\u200e\n    Dividere, & \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05e9\u05d4\u200f\u200e uxor, quasi uxor divisa & dimidia._\n\nThe differences between these _Concubines_, and the _chief_ or\n_primary wives_, are many. 1. A _disparity_ in their authority, or\nhoushold government: the _Wife_ was a _Mistress_, the _Concubine_ as\nan _hand-maid_ or _servant_. She had only _Jus thori_, a true and\nlawful _right unto the marriage bed_ as the chief wife had; otherwise\nshe was in all respects inferiour. And this appeareth in the history\nof _Sarah_ and _Hagar_. Secondly, the _betrothing_ was different:\nthe _chief wife_ at her espousals received from her Husband certain\n_Gifts_ and _Tokens_, as pledges and ceremonies of the contract. Thus\n_Abrahams_ steward (who is probably thought to be _Eliezer_, of\nwhom we read, _Gen. 15. 2._) gave in _Isaacs_ name unto _Rebecca_,\n_jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment_, _Gen. 24. 53._\nThis custome was in use also among the _Grecians_, who calleth these\ngifts \u1f1d\u03b4\u03bd\u03b1.[664] Moreover[665] _the chief wife_ likewise received from\nher husband _a bill of writing_, or _matrimonial_ letters, whereas\nthe _Concubine_ received neither _such gifts_, nor such _letters_.\n_Thirdly_, only _the children of the chief wife succeeded the father\nin his inheritance; the children of the Concubine received gifts or\nlegacies_: _Abraham gave all his goods to Isaac_, but unto the _sons of\nthe Concubines_ which _Abraham_ had, _Abraham gave gifts_, _Gen. 25.\n5, 6._ And here, by the way we may take notice, that _the first-born_\nby right of primogeniture, received a _double portion of his fathers\ngoods_, _the father shall give him a double portion of all that he hath\nfor he is the first of his strength_, _Deut. 21. 17._ Unto this custome\nthe _Prophet Elisha_\u2019s speech alludeth, when he prayeth _Elijah_, that\nhis spirit might be _double_ upon him, _2 King. 2. 9._ that is that\nhe might have a _double portion of his spirit, in comparison of the\nother Prophets_, or rather the _sons of the Prophets_, amongst whom\nhe obtained the place of an _elder brother_, and therefore prayeth\nfor the _right of primogeniture_: so that we are not to understand\nhim, as if he did ambitiously desire a greater measure of the spirit\nthan rested upon his _Master_, but that he desired to excel the other\n_remaining Prophets_, unto whom afterward he became a _father_. The\n_Hebr._ phrase[666] is in both places the same. _Secondly_, in their\n_betrothing_ we are to consider, 1. The _distance of time_ between\nthe _espousals_, and the _confirmation_ of their marriage, which some\nhave conceited to have been a _full year_, at least ten months; and\nthis they observe from _Rebecca_, her brother and mothers answer unto\n_Abrahams_ servant, desiring that the Maid might not depart presently,\nbut remain after the Espousals at least ten dayes, _Gen. 24. 55._ Which\nText they interpret[667] _ten months_, understanding thereby that which\nelsewhere is phrased[668] _an year of dayes_, _Gen. 41. 1._ But if we\nshould yield this interpretation (although our _English_ _at least ten\ndayes_ is more agreeable unto the _Septuagint_ and the _Original_) yet\nit followeth not, that this time was craved for the fulfilling of any\nprescribed distance between the Espousals and the marriage, but rather\nit implieth the tender affection of the mother towards her daughter,\nas being loath so suddenly to part with her: Notwithstanding, it is\nnot unlikely that there was a competent distance of time between the\nfirst affiancing, and the confirmation of the _marriage_, though not\nprescribed, or _limited to any set number of dayes_, _weeks_, or\n_months_. The second thing considerable in their betrothings, is to\nenquire the _manner of their contracting_, which might be done in\n_Israel_ three ways.[669] First, _By a piece of money_. Secondly, _By\nwriting_. Thirdly, _By copulation_, _and all these in the presence of\nwitnesses_. _By a piece of money_, though it were but a farthing, or\nthe worth thereof, at which time the man used this, or the like form\nof words;[670] _Lo thou art betrothed unto me_: and he gave her the\nmony before witnesses. _By bill_, and then he wrote the like form of\nwords; _Be thou betrothed unto me_, which he gave her before witnesses;\nand it was written with her name in it, else it was no betrothing. _By\ncopulation_, and then he said likewise, _Lo thou shalt be betrothed\nunto me by copulation_, and so he was united unto her before two\nwitnesses, after which copulation she was his betrothed wife. If\nhe lay with her by way of _fornication_, and not by the _name of\nbetrothing_; or if it were by themselves, without the fore-acquainting\nof _Witnesses_, it was no betrothing: however he might not lye with her\nthe second time, before the marriage was accomplished. And though the\nbetrothing might be _any of these three wayes_, yet usually it was by a\n_piece of money_; and if they would, they might do it by _writing_, but\nbetrothing by copulation was forbidden by the wise men of _Israel_, and\nwho so did it was chastised with rods: howbeit the _betrothing_ stood\nin force. These solemnities in _betrothing_ were performed by the man\nand woman under a Tent or Canopy made for the purpose, called in their\nlanguage _Chuppa_,[671] _a Tabernacle or Tent_: to this the Psalmist\nalludeth, _Psal. 19. 4, 5._ _In them hath he set a Tabernacle for the\nSun which as a Bridegroom coming out of his Chamber, rejoyceth as a\nstrong man to run a Race._\n\n    [664] _\u03a4\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd \u1f27\u03bd \u03ba\u2019 \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b5\u03b4\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9. Hom. Iliad. 9.\n    vid. etiam Suid. in \u1f1d\u03b4\u03bd\u03b1._\n\n    [665] _D. Kimchi. 2 Sam. 5. 13._\n\n    [666] _\u200e\u200f\u05e4\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e partem duorum._\n\n    [667] _Onkelos & R. Solom._\n\n    [668] _\u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e Duorum annorum dierum._\n\n    [669] _\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05db\u05e1\u05e3 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d8\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05df \u05d1\u05e2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e Moses Kotsen. fol.\n    124._\n\n    [670] _\u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9\u05ea \u05dc\u05d9\u200f\u200e Maimon. in Ischoth, c. 3. s. 1._\n\n    [671] _\u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05d5\u05e4\u05d4\u200f\u200e Elias Thisbit._\n\n_Thirdly_, the rites and ceremonies of their marriage were performed in\nthe assembly of _ten men_ at least, with blessings and thanksgivings\nunto _God_, whence the house it self was called _Beth hillula_,[672]\nthe _House of praise_ and their marriage song _Hillulim_,[673]\n_praises_. The _Bridegrooms intimate friends_ which accompanied him\n& sung this _Epithalamium_ or _marriage song_, were termed \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f76\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, _children of the Bride-chamber_, _Mat. 9. 15._ Such\nI conceive those _thirty companions_ to have been which _Sampson_\nassociated to himself, _Judg. 14. 11._ The form of this _phrase_ or\n_blessing_ is at large described by _Genebrard_, and the sum thereof\nis this: The chief of these companions taketh a cup, and blesseth it\nsaying _Blessed art thou O Lord our God, the King of the world, w^{ch}\ncreatest the fruit of the vine_: afterward then he saith, _blessed be\nthe Lord our God the King of the world, who hath created man after his\nown Image, according to the image of his own likeness, & hath therby\nprepared unto himself an everlasting building, blessed be thou, O\nLord, who hast created him_. Then followeth again, _Blessed art thou,\nO Lord our God, who hast created joy and gladness, the Bridegroom and\nthe Bride, charity and brotherly love, rejoycing and pleasure, peace\nand society: I beseech thee, O Lord, let there suddenly be heard in\nthe Cities of Judah, and the streets of Jerusalem the voice of joy\n& gladness, the voice of the bridegroom & the Bride: the voice of\nexultation in the bride-chamber is sweeter than any feast: and children\nsweeter than the sweetness of a song_: and this being ended, he\ndrinketh to the married couple.\n\n    [672] _\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05dc\u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [673] _\u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05dc\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e_\n\nThis custome _of praising God_ at such times was not needless or\nsuperfluous, for the _fruit of the womb_ was expected as a _special\nblessing_ from God, and so acknowledged by them in that saying, that\n_four keys_ were in the hand of him who was the _Lord_ of the whole\nworld, which were committed neither to _Angel_ nor _Seraphim_; namely\n_Clavis pluvi\u00e6, clavis cibationis, clavis sepulchrorum, & clavis\nsterilitatis_.[674] Concerning the _key of Rain_, thus speaketh the\nScripture, _the Lord will open to thee his good treasure_, _Deut. 28._\nConcerning the _key of food_, _thou openest thy hands_, Psal. 145.\nConcerning the _key of the grave_, _when I shall open your sepulchres_,\n_Ezek. 37._ Concerning the _key of barrenness_, _God remembred_ Rachel\n_and opened her womb_, _Gen. 30._ Whereby it is intimated, that these\nfour things _God hath reserved in his own hand and custody_: namely,\n_Rain, food, the raising of our bodies and the procreation of children_.\n\n    [674] _\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e4\u05ea\u05d7 \u05de\u05d8\u05e8\u05d0 \u05de\u05e4\u05ea\u05d7 \u05e4\u05e8\u05e0\u05e1\u05d4 \u05de\u05e4\u05ea\u05d7 \u05e7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0 \u05de\u05e4\u05ea\u05ea \u05e2\u05e7\u05e8\u05ea\u05d0\u200f\u200e Targum\n    Hieros. Gen. 30. 21._\n\nThe time _of their marriage feast_ appeareth clearly to have been\n_usually seven daies_.[675] _Sampson_ continued his _feast seven\ndaies_, _Judg. 14. 10, 11._ And of this _seven daies feast_,\n_Divines_[676] do understand that speech of _Labans unto Jacob_,\nconcerning _Leah_, _fulfill her weak_, and we will also give thee this,\n_Gen. 29. 27._ in which speech, it is thought that _Laban_ did desire\n_Jacob_, not to reject and turn away _Leah_, but to confirm the present\n_marriage_, by fulfilling the _usual days of her marriage feast_. From\nthis custom, together with the practise of _Joseph_, mourning seven\ndayes for his father, _Gen. 50. 10._ arose that usual proverb among the\n_Jews_, _Septem ad convivium, Septem ad luctum_. The chief governor of\nthe feast was called _Baal mischte_;[677] which name is fitly expressed\nby being called the _ruler of the feast_,[678] _Joh. 2. 9._ The _modern\nJews in Italy_, when they invite any to a _marriage feast_, use this\nform of words, _Such a one, or such a one entreateth you to credit his\ndaughters marriage with your presence at the feast, &c._ Then he which\nis invited replieth, _Mazal tob_[679] which some interpret to be the\nwishing of _good luck_ in general, but I rather think, that hereby was\nwished to the married parties, _a special blessing in the procreation\nof children_: whence the _wedding ring_, given unto the Bride-wife, had\nthis inscription or posie _Mazal tob_;[680] and the _Hebrews_ call the\nPlanet _Jupiter_, _Mazal_, whose influence they thought to be of great\nefficacy and force for generation: but in truth, _Mazal_, signifieth\nany other Planet or Star in the Heaven, according to that _Hebrew_\nProverb,[681] _There is no herb in the earth, that hath not a Mazal or\nStar in the Firmament answering it, and striking it, saying grow_. Now\n_tob_ signifieth good; so that the phrase soundeth as much as, _be it\ndone in a good hour_, or _under a good Planet_.\n\n    [675] _Vid. Thisbit. in \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05ea\u05df\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [676] _Augustin. qu\u00e6st. super Genes. 88._\n\n    [677] _\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05de\u05e9\u05ea\u05d4\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [678] _\u0391\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2._\n\n    [679] _\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05d6\u05dc \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u200f\u200e i. Stukius. de conviv. l. 2. c. 3._\n\n    [680] _Munster. Gen. 30._\n\n    [681] _Non est tibi ulla herba inferius cui non sit Mazal in\n    firmamento, & ferit ipsam \u03c4\u1f78 Mazal, & dicit ei, Cresce._\n\nAt the time of the marriage also, the man gave his wife a _dowery\nbill_, which the _Scrivener_ wrote, and the Bride-groom paid for,\nwhereby he endowed his spouse, if she were a _Virgin_, with 300\nDeniers, (that is fifty shekels) and if she had been married before\nwith an hundred _Deniers_, that is twenty five shekels and this was\ncalled the _root_ or _principal of the dowry_: the _dowry_ might not\nbe less, but more, so much as he would, though it were to a talent of\ngold. There is mention of a contract between _Tobias_ and _Sarah_,\nand that was performed, _not by a Scrivener_, but by _Raguel_, the\nwomans father; where we may observe, that before the writing of this\nbill there was a _giving of the woman unto her husband_. The form\nof words there used is, _Behold, take her after the Law of Moses_,\n_Tobit. 7. 14._ A copy of this Dowry-bill is taken by _Bertram_ out\nof the _Babylon Talmud_. The words thereof are _thus_:[682] _Upon the\nsixth day of the week, the fourth of the month Sivan, in the year\nfive thousand two hundred fifty four of the creation of the world,\naccording to the computation which we use here at ~Massilia~, a City\nwhich is scituate near the Seashore, the Bridegroom ~Rabbi Moses~, the\nson of ~Rabbi Jehuda~, said unto the Bridewife ~Clarona~, the daughter\nof ~Rabbi David~, the son of ~Rabbi Moses~, a Citizen of ~Lisbon~;\nBe unto me a wife according to the law of ~Moses~ and ~Israel~: and\nI according to the word of God, will worship, honour, maintain, and\ngovern thee according to the manner of the husbands among the ~Jews~,\nwhich do worship, honour, maintain, and govern their wives faithfully,\nI also do bestow upon thee the dowry of thy Virginity, 200 Deniers in\nsilver, which belong unto thee by the law: and moreover, thy food, thy\napparel, and sufficient necessaries; as likewise the knowledge of thee,\naccording to the custom of all the earth_. Thus _Clarona_ the _Virgin_\nrested and became a _wife_ to _Rabbi Moses_ the son of _Jehuda_, the\nBridegroom.\n\n    [682] _Talmud. Bab. vid. Buxtorf. Grammatic. Chald. p. 38. 9._\n\nAfter the marriage was finished, then the wife might challenge from\nher Husband three things as debt. 1. _Food._ 2. _Apparel._ 3.\n_Cohabitation_, or _the right of the bed_; which they note from _Exod.\n21. 10._ where it is said, If he take him another wife, _her food, her\nraiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish_. And unto this\nthe _Apostle_ alludeth, calling it _Due benevolence_, _1 Cor. 7. 3._\n\nThe Wife, when she was first presented unto her Husband, covered her\nHead with a _veil_, in token of _subjection_. _Rebecca_ took a _veil_,\nand covered her self, (_Gen. 24. 65._) and for this cause (namely in\n_sign of subjection_) ought the woman to have power on her head, _1\nCor. 11. 10._ where by _Power_ the _Apostle_ understandeth a _veil_.\nDo any ask the question, why he should denote this _veil_ by the name\nof _power_, especially seeing it was in _token of subjection_? The\n_Apostle_ being an _Hebrew_ of the _Hebrews_, might have respect to\nthe _Hebrew_ word _Radid_,[683] signifying a _veil_, which cometh from\nthe root _Radad_, to bear _rule and authority_, and so might use the\nGreek word,[684] signifying _power_ in the same sense as the _Hebrews_\ndid. And, in truth, what was this subjection to the husband but a kind\nof _power_ and _protection_ derived unto the _Wife_, in comparison of\nher former state, being a _Virgin_? and therefore in case her husband\nwas jealous of her, among other tokens of sorrow, she was commanded\nto stand at her tryal with her _head uncovered_,[685] _Numb. 5. 18._\nintimating thereby, that if she could not then clear her self, she\nwas from thenceforward deprived of all _power_, which heretofore she\nenjoyed by the means of her Husband.\n\n    [683] _\u200e\u200f\u05e8\u05d3\u05d9\u05d3\u200f\u200e Velamen mulieris, \u00e0 verbo \u200e\u200f\u05e8\u05d3\u05d3\u200f\u200e Subjecit._\n\n    [684] _\u1f18\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1._\n\n    [685] _\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e8\u05d3\u05d9\u05d3\u200f\u200e Sine Radid. \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Sic ego interpretor\n    verba Maimon. in Sota. 12. c. 3. sect. 5._\n\nAfter the marriage was finished, sometimes there was permitted a _Bill\nof Divorce_: this the _Hebrews_ called _Sepher Kerithuth_,[686] _a\nBill of cutting off_, because the woman is by this means _cut off from\nher Husbands family_. _Ten things were_ thought[687] requisite as the\n_root_ and foundation of a divorce. 1. _That a man put her not away\nbut of his own will._ 2. _That he put her away by writing, not by any\nother thing._ 3. _That the matter of the writing be to divorce her,\nand put her away, out of her possession._ 4. _That the matter of that\ndivorcement be between him and her._ 5. _That it be written by her\nname._ 6. _That there be no action wanting, after the writing thereof,\nsave the delivery of it unto her._ 7. _That he give it unto her._ 8.\n_That he give it her before witnesses._ 9. _That he give it her by\nthe law of divorces._ 10. _That it be the Husband or his deputy that\ndelivereth it unto her._ The form or copy of this _bill of divorcement_\nwas as followeth,[688] _Upon such a day of the week, such and such\nof the month N. such or such an year of the Creation of the world,\naccording to the computation which we use here in this City N. scituate\nnear the River N. that I of the Country N. the son of Rabbi N. of the\nCountry N. But now I dwelling in such or such a place, near such or\nsuch a river, have desired of my own free will, without any coaction,\nand have divorced dismissed and cast out thee, thee I say, thee my wife\nN. of the country N. the daughter of Rabbi N. dwelling in such or such\na country, and dwelling now in such or such a place, scituate near\nsuch or such a river, which hast been my wife heretofore, but now I do\ndivorce thee, dismiss thee, and cast thee out, that thou mayst be free,\nand have the rule of thy self, and to depart, and to marry with any\nother man whom thou wilt, and let no man be refused by thee for me from\nthis day forward for ever. Thus be thou lawful for any man, and this\nshall be to thee from me, a bill of separation, a bill of divorce, and\na letter of dismission, according to the law of ~Moses~ and ~Israel~._\n\n                                          N. _the son of_ N. _witness_.\n                                          N. _the son of_ N. _witness_.\n\n    [686] _\u200e\u200f\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05db\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e Gr\u00e6ce \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5._\n\n    [687] _Maimon. de divort. c. 1. sect. 5._\n\n    [688] _H\u00e6c forma reperitur apud Mosem Kotsensem. fol. 133.\n    Aliud exemplar ibidem habetur. It. in Mose Egyptio. part.\n    2. fol. 59. unde desumpta est h\u00e6c testium subscriptio quam\n    opposuimus._\n\nThis _bill_ was written by a _Scrivener_, or _publick Notary_.[689] And\nfurthermore,[690] a woman being _divorced_, or otherwise a _widow_, it\nwas not lawful for her to marry again, till she had _tarried ninety\ndays, besides the day of her divorce, or of her husbands death, and her\nlast espousals: to the end it might be known, whether she were with\nchild or no, & that there might be proof, whether it were the seed of\nher first husband, or of her second_.\n\n    [689] _Solomon Jarchi. Hos. c. 1. 10._\n\n    [690] _Maimon. de divort. cap. 11. sect. 18._\n\nIt was a common custome among the _Romans_, about the time of our\n_Saviours_ birth, even for the women to _divorce their Husbands_, and\nto marry again at their pleasure. Of this, _Heathen_ Authors speak:\n\n    _----Sic fiunt octo mariti,_\n    _Quinque per autumnos._\n\n    _Juvenal. Satyr 6. verse 230._\n\n    _Et nubet decimo jam Thelesina viro._\n\n                       _Martial. lib. 8._\n\n_Non consulum, sed maritorum numero annos suos computant, &c._[691]\nThe bill tendred by the woman, was termed[692] \u0393\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2,\n_letters of forsaking_; _not letters of cutting off, or putting\naway_. This same practise was in use also among the _Hebrews_.\nHence is that saying of our Saviour: _If a woman shall put away her\nhusband, and be married to another_, &c. Mark 10. 12. Now although,\nat that time, humane laws forbad not _marriages renewed with others\nupon such divorce_, yet _Gods_ law condemned both such _divorces_, &\nsuch _marriages_, and, _before God_, persons _marrying_ after such\ndivorcements were reputed _digamites_, that is, to have _two husbands,\nor two wives_. For this reason, a _Minister_ above others is commanded\nto be \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1; _The husband of one wife_, _1 Tim. 3. 2._ And\nthe _woman_ she is commanded to be \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74, _The wife of one\nhusband_, _1 Tim. 5. 9._ In which text, _second marriages_ (in case\nof the Husbands or Wives death) are no more forbidden, than the Poet\nforbade them in the like phrase.\n\n    _Unico gaudens mulier marito._\n\n           _Horat. Carmin. 3. 14._\n\n    [691] _Senec. 3. de Benef. 16._\n\n    [692] _Plutarch. in Alcibiade._\n\nNote in the last place, that among the _Jews_ the Bride-woman also\nbrought a _dowry_ to her husband; it was sometimes _more_, sometimes\nless; it was called by the _Rabbins_[693] \u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05d0\u200f\u200e _Nedunia_: _Raguel\ngave with his daughter_ Sarah _half his goods, servants and cattel, and\nmoney_, _Tob. 10. 10._\n\n    [693] _Elias Thisbit. It. Solom. Jarchi. Gen. 31. 15._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\n_Of their Burials._\n\n\nAt the time of a mans death, before his Burial, many ceremonies were\nobserved. _First_, the next of the kin closed the eyes of the deceased\nbody. _Joseph shall put his hands upon thy eyes_, _Genes. 46. 4._ This\nwas likewise practised both by the _Romans_ and the _Gr\u00e6cians_.\n\n    _Ille meos oculos comprimat, Ille tuos._\n\n                                     _Ovid._\n\n    _\u1f44\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1._\n\n                 _Homer. Iliad. 11._\n\n_Secondly_, they washed the body being dead. _Tabitha died, and when\nthey had washed her, they laid her in an upper-chamber_, _Act. 9.\n37._ The _baptization_ or _washing_ at such a time was threefold. The\nfirst was \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, _Eccles. 34. 26._ _A washing from the\npollution contracted by the touch of a dead carkass_; that if haply\nany ignorantly and unawares became thus unclean, then was he by a\nkind of washing to be made clean again. The second was \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, _a baptization or washing of the dead Corps it self_. Thus\n_Tabitha_ was _washed_: neither is the word \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2, unusually\napplied to _common washings_, as _Mar. 7. 4._ we read of the _washing\nof cups, pots, vessels, tables_, the _Greek is_ \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2. The _first_\nof these washings was proper to the _Jews_: this second in use with\n_Jews_ _Christians_,[694] and _Heathens_:[695] the _third_ (which\nwas \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, _a baptization for the dead_, _1 Cor.\n15. 9._) proper to some _amiss-led Christians_. It may be demanded,\nwhat manner of _Baptism_ this was? with submission of my judgment,\nI understand this place with S. _Ambrose_[696] of a _Sacramental\nwashing_, applied unto some living man in the name and behalf of his\nfriend, dying without _Baptism_, out of a superstitious conceit,\nthat the Sacrament thus conferred to one alive, in the name of the\ndeceased, might be available for the other dying _unbaptized_. As if\nthe Apostle did wound those superstitious _Corinthians_ with their own\nquills, and prove the Resurrection of the dead from their own erroneous\npractice, telling them in effect, that their superstitious custome of\n_baptizing_ the living for the dead, were vain and bootless, if there\nwere no resurrection, and therefore the Apostle useth an emphatical\n_distinction of the persons_, in the next immediate verse, saying,\nwhy are we also in jeopardy every hour? he inferreth the resurrection\nby force of a _double_ argument; the _first_ drawn from their\nsuperstitious _baptization_ for the dead: the _second_, from the hourly\njeopardy and peril wherein we, that is, himself and other _Christians_\nare. So that as that _Father_ noteth, the Apostle doth not hereby\n_approve_ their doing, but evinceth their hope of the resurrection\nfrom their own practice, though erroneous. That there was _Vicarium\ntale Baptisma_ (as _Tertullian_[697] calleth it) in use among the\n_Marcionites_, is evident, yea, and among the _Corinthians_[698] also:\nthe manner thereof is thus described:[699] _When any Catechumenist\ndied, some living person placed under the bed of the deceased, they\ncame unto the deceased party, and asked him whether he would be\nbaptized: then he replying nothing, the party under the bed answered\nfor him, saying that he would be baptized: and thus they baptized him\nfor the dead, as if they acted a play upon the Stage_.\n\n    [694] _Tertullian. Apolog. c. 47. It. Euseb. hist. lib. 7. c. 17._\n\n    [695] _Corpusque lavant frigentis & ungunt Virg. lib. 6. \u00c6neid._\n\n    [696] _Ambros. 1 Cor. 16. 29._\n\n    [697] _Tertul. lib. de resur. carnis._\n\n    [698] _Epiphan. de Corinthian. h\u00e6res. 28._\n\n    [699] _Chrysost. 1 Cor. 15._\n\nThe _third_ ceremony used by the _Jews_ towards the dead party, was the\n_embalming_ of the corps, which for the main thereof, it is probable\nthey learned from the _Egyptians_, for we find _Joseph_ to be the first\nthat practised it, _Gen. 50. 2._ The _Egyptian_ manner of _embalming_\nwas thus:[700] _they took out the bowels of the dead, they cleansed\nthem and washed them with the wine of Dates, and after that again with\nodors: then filled they the bowels with pure Myrrh beaten, and Cassia,\nand other Odors (except Frankincense) and sewed them up. After this\nthey seasoned the corps hidden in Nitre seventy days, not longer: after\nseventy days they washed the corps, and wrapped it in fine linnen\ncloth gummed, which gum the Egyptians often used instead of glew._\nThe _Greeks_ termed this \u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. And the use thereof was for the\n_preservation_ of the body, that it might not putrifie; and therefore\nwhen the Funeral Obsequies were not long delayed, they used another\nkind of _embalming_, namely, an external and outward application of\nSpices and Odours, without the unbowelling of the corps. This the\n_Greeks_ termed \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.[701] This was used toward our _Saviour\nChrist_, _John 19. 40._\n\n    [700] _Herodot. Euterp._\n\n    [701] _Usurpatur tamen \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd in scripturis, lata\n    significatione, ad denotandum utramque condituram. Imo \u1f14\u03b8\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd.\n    occurrit. Gen. 50. 26. pro eo, quod in Hebr. \u200e\u200f\u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05e0\u05d8\u05d5\u200f\u200e Et\n    aromatibus condiverunt._\n\nSometimes they did use to _burn the corps_, preserving onely the bones\nin some urn or pitcher, _Amos 6. 10._ But commonly they interred the\nwhole body, and buried it in the earth. The ancient _Jews_ if they\nreceived not from their Ancestors, then would they purchase a _burial\nplace_ themselves, for the burial of them and their family. The form\nof that place was thus: It was a _vault_ hewed out in a rock,[702] six\ncubits long, and four broad, in which eight other cells or lesser holes\n(or as some say, thirteen) were made, as so many distinct receptacles,\nor _tombs_ for the dead bodies to be laid in: as often as they buried\nany, they were wont to _roll a great stone to the mouth of the cave_.\nThe _cave_ or _vault_ it self they termed from the act of burial,\n_Keber_,[703] which signifieth a place of burial, or from its form,\n_Magnara_,[704] _a den or cave_. These several cells or receptacles in\nwhich the body was laid, they called _cucim_,[705] _graves, tombs_:\nand the _stone_ they named _Golel_,[706] _a rolling stone_. This\ngiveth great light to that in the _Gospel_. _Joseph_ took the body of\n_Christ_, and wrapped it in a clean linnen cloth, and put it in his\n_new tomb_, which he had hewen out in a rock, and _rolled a great stone\nto the door of the Sepulchre_, _Mat. 27. 59, 60._ These _caves_ or\n_vaults_ the wealthier sort would _paint_, _garnish_, and _beautifie_\nat the mouth or enterance of them: hence cometh that phrase, _Sepulchra\ndealbata_, _painted tombs_. As often as they had an occasion to mention\nor speak of any friend deceased, they used that in the _Proverbs_,\n_The memory of the just is blessed_, _Prov. 10. 7._ Hence the\n_Rabbies_,[707] in their quotations of any worthy Author deceased,\nusually subjoyn this honourable commemoration, _N. Benedict\u00e6 memori\u00e6_,\n_N. such or such a one of blessed memory_.\n\n    [702] _\u200e\u200f\u05d3 \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05dc \u05e9\u05e9\u200f\u200e Talmud Seder. Nez. in Bavabathra. cap. 6._\n\n    [703] _\u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05d1\u05e8\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [704] _\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e2\u05e8\u05d4\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [705] _\u200e\u200f\u05db\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [706] _\u200e\u200f\u05d2\u05dc\u05dc\u200f\u200e_\n\n    [707] _\u200e\u200f\u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d4\u200f\u200e Memoria ejus sit in benedictione._\n\nBut their usual Epitaph or inscription upon their Sepulchers, was,[708]\n_Let this soul be bound up in the Garden of Eden, or in the bundle of\nthe living, Amen, Amen, Amen, Selati_.\n\n    [708] _\u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05ea\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d4\u05d0 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d2\u05df \u05e2\u05d3\u05df \u05d0 \u05d0 \u05d0 \u05e1\u05dc\u05ea\u200f\u200e Sheindler in \u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05d3\u05e8\u200f\u200e_\n\nThe latter _Jews_ have been strangely conceited concerning the place\nof burials, and are perswaded that if an _Israelite_ be buried in any\nstrange country, out of the promised Land, he shall not be partaker so\nmuch as of Resurrection, except the Lord vouchsafe to make him _hollow\npassages_, under the earth, thorow which his body by a continual\nvolutation and rolling, may be brought into the land of _Canaan_.\nThe ground hereof is taken from the charge of _Jacob_ unto his son\n_Joseph_, that he should not bury him in the land of _Egypt_, but in\n_Canaan_. For which charge they assign three reasons.[709] _First_,\nbecause he foresaw by the spirit of Prophecy, that the dust of that\nland should afterward be turned into lice. _Secondly_, because those\nwho died out of the holy Land should not rise again without a painful\nrolling and tumbling of their bodies thorow those hollow passages.\n_Thirdly_, that the _Egyptians_ might not idolatrously worship him.\n\n    [709] _Solom. Jarchi. Gen. 47. 29._\n\nThey made a feast at their burials, which is stiled _The bread of men_,\n_Ezek. 14. 17._ And a _cup of consolation_, _Jer. 16. 7._ because\nit was administred to comfort those that were sad of heart. It much\nresembled the _Roman Silicernium_.\n\nFrom those two places last quoted, we may observe, that at the burial\nof their friends, they used these ceremonies which follow; some to\n_testifie_, some to _augment_ their grief. 1. _Cutting themselves_,\nthat is, wounding or cutting any part of their body, with any kind\nof Instrument. This practice was learned from the _Heathens_,[710]\nwho were wont not only to scratch their face, but to punch and prick\ncertain parts of their body with a needle, and then cover it over with\nink, which they used as a special ceremony in their superstitious\nworship, and therefore it is forbid, _Deut. 14. 1._ _Secondly, making\nthemselves bald_,[711] which was done divers manner of ways; either\nby _shaving their hair_, or _plucking it off_ with their hands, or by\n_impoisoned plaister to make it fall off_. Other Nations were wont to\nshave off the hair of their head, and to offer it in the behalf of the\ndead: they did sometimes shave their cheeks, sometimes their eye-lids:\nand this also, being an _Heathenish_ custome, was likewise forbidden in\n_Israel_, _Deut. 14. 1._ _Thirdly, going bare headed_, that they might\ncast dust or ashes upon their heads, signifying thereby that they _were\nunworthy the ground on which they went. Fourthly, going barefooted_\nfor their greater humiliation. _Fifthly, the covering of their lips_,\nfor that was a special sign of sorrow and shame, _The Seers shall be\nashamed_, &c. they shall all cover their lips, for they have no answer\nof God, _Mich. 3. 7._ If it be demanded, how they covered their lips?\nIt is thought[712] they did it _by casting the skirt of their cloak,\nor garment over them. Sixthly,[713] renting their cloaths. Seventhly,\nputting sackcloth about their loyns_, _Gen. 37. 34._ These were general\ntokens of grief, used upon all extroardinary occasions of sorrow. Two\nother there were, more proper to burials, to augment their grief.\n_First, Minstrels_, who with their sad tunes inclined the affections\nof the people to mourning.[714] Of these there were _two sorts_: Some\nplaying on _pipes_, others sounding _trumpets_. At the funeral of\nNoblemen, or old men, they used a _trumpet_: at the funeral of the\ncommon people, or children, they used a _pipe_.[715] In this respect\nit is said; _That Jesus, when he raised_ Jairus _his daughter, cast\nout the Minstrels_, Mat. 9. 23. _Secondly_, women hired to sing at\nburials for the same purpose, and likewise by outward significations\nof sorrow, to move the company, and more strongly to affect them,\n_Call for the mourning women_, &c. _and send for skilful women_, _Jer.\n9. 17._ These the _Romans_ called, _Pr\u00e6ficas, quasi in hoc ipsum\npr\u00e6fectas_, _Chief or skilful mourners_.\n\n    [710] _Gentes, quasdam corporis partes acu vulnerabant, vel\n    alias incidebant atramentumque superponebant, quod in cultum\n    d\u00e6monum suorum fiebat, pr\u00e6cipietur ergo ne ullo pacto sicut\n    gentes ferirent carnes suas; quemadmodum sacerdotes Cybeles &\n    de\u00e6 Sororum, ut refert Lucianus. P. Fag. Deut. 14. 1. Unguibus\n    ora soror f\u00e6dans & pectora pugnis. Virg. lib. 4. \u00c6neid._\n\n    [711] _Sectis fratri imposuere capillos. Ovid. Met. 3._\n\n    [712] _D. Kimchi & Aben. Esra P. Fag. Lev. 14. 45._\n\n    [713] _Sciss\u00e2que Polyxena pall\u00e2. Juvenal. Satyr. 10._\n\n    [714] _Majoris \u00e6tatis funera ad tubam proferre solebant:\n    minoris vero \u00e6tatis ad tibias. Servius. \u00c6neid. lib. 5._\n\n    [715] _Tibia cui teneros suetum deducere manes Lege Phrygum\n    mesta. Statius. Theb. lib. 6, ver. 121._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\n_Of their Oaths._\n\n\nThe manner of _swearing_ was sometimes by _lifting up their hands\ntowards heaven_; _Abraham_ said to the _King of Sodom_, _I have\nlifted up my hand unto the Lord_; that is, I have _sworn_, that I\nwill not take from a thred, even to a shoe-latchet, _Gen. 14. 22._\nUnto which custome the Psalmist seemeth to allude, _Psal. 106. 26._\n_He lifted up his hand_, that is, _he swore_. Sometimes he that took\nthe Oath _did put his hand under the others thigh_, which administred\nthe Oath. We read this manner of administration to have been used by\n_Abraham_, _Gen. 24. 2._ and _Jacob_, _Gen. 47. 29._ Which ceremony\nsome[716] interpret to be as a _token of subjection_; others[717] as\na _mystery of circumcision_; the sign wherof they bore about that\nplace of their body: Others[718] more probably think it to be a\n_mysterious signification of Christ the promised seed_, who was to\ncome out of _Abrahams loyns_, or _thigh_; as the like phrase is used,\n_Gen. 46. 26._ the souls that came out of _Jacobs thigh_. Sometimes\nalso the manner of deposing, was to _stand before the Altar_, _1\nKings 8. 31._ Which was also the custome of the _Athenians_,[719] the\n_Carthaginians_,[720] and the _Romans_.[721]\n\n    [716] _Aben Esra. Gen. 24. 2._\n\n    [717] _Solomon Jarchi, ibid._\n\n    [718] _August. qu\u00e6st. super Gen. 62._\n\n    [719] _Alex. ab. Alex. lib. 5. cap. 10._\n\n    [720] _Livius dec. 3. lib. 1. It. Valer. Max. l. 9. c. 3._\n\n    [721] _Jures licet & Samothracum, & nostrorum aras. Juvenal.\n    Satyr. 3._\n\nThe object of a lawful Oath was, and is, _onely the Lord_: whence he\nthat took the Oath was said to _confess unto God_, compare _Isa. 45.\n23._ with _Rom. 14. 11._ And the ancient form of imposing an Oath was\nthis, _Give glory to God_, _Josh. 7. 19._ _John. 9. 24._ Now God was\nglorified by an Oath, because thereby there was a solemn confession\nand acknowledgement of _Gods Omni-presence_, that he is present in\nevery place: of his _Omniscience_, that he knoweth all secrets: of\nhis _truth_, that he is _a maintainer of truth_, and _an avenger of\nfalshood_: of his _justice_, that he is willing; and his _omnipotency_,\nthat he is able to punish those that by swearing shall dishonour him,\nAnd as the _object of a lawful oath_ was onely _God_: so it is implied,\nthat it was not rashly or unadvisedly to be undertaken, but by a kind\nof necessity _imposed_; for the _Hebrew_ word \u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u200f\u200e is a Passive, and\nsignifieth _to be sworn_, rather than to _swear_.\n\nIn corrupter times they were wont to swear by the _creatures_,[722]\nbut the _Jews_ chiefly by _Jerusalem, by the Temple, by the gold of\nthe Temple, by the Altar, and the gift on the Altar_. This _gift_ in\n_Hebrew_ was termed _Corban_,[723] and it was one of those oaths which\nin our _Saviour Christs_ time the _Scribes_ and _Pharisees_ accounted\nprincipally obligatory. If any swore _by the Altar_, it was nothing:\nbut if any swore by the _oblation of the Altar_, he was bound to\nperform it, _Matth. 23. 18._ Yea, although _Gods law_ enjoyned honour,\nand relief toward parents; yet if they had bound themselves by this\noath _Corban_, that they would not help or relieve their parents, they\ntaught they were discharged. Whence, saith their _Talmud_,[724] _Every\none ought to honour his father and mother, except he hath vowed the\ncontrary_. And it is evident[725] that the _Jews_ did often by solemn\nvows and _oaths bind themselves, that they would never do good to\nsuch, or such a man_. We must furthermore know that usually to their\noaths there was an _execration_, or _conditional curse_ annexed, which\nsometimes was expressed, as, _if I do not do thus and thus, then the\nLord do so to me, and more also_, _1 Sam. 14. 44._ Also _1 Kin. 20.\n10._ Sometimes it is _understood_, as, _I have sworn, if I take from\na thred to a shoo-latchet_, _Gen. 14. 22._ _then let the Lord do so\nto me, and more also_; this, or the like, is _understood_ and maketh\nthe former part of the oath to sound negatively; as if _Abraham_ had\nsaid, _I have sworn, I will not take from a thread to a shoo-latchet_.\nIn like manner, _Psal. 95._ I have sworn, _if they shall enter into\nmy rest_; that is, _They shall not enter into my rest_, _Heb. 3. 18._\nThis helpeth the exposition of that difficult place, _Mat. 15. 5._\nwhich we read,[726] _By the gift that is offered by me thou maist have\nprofit_: but if we conceive it thus, according to the form of the oath\n_Corban_, _By Corban if thou receive any profit by me_, and understand\nthe execration implyed: _Then let God do thus, and much more to me_;\nthe sense will be thus; _By Corban thou shalt receive no profit by\nme_. This exposition is as agreeable to the scope of the place, as it\nis to their form of swearing, and plainly sheweth how the _Pharisees_\nby their traditions transgressed the Commandment of God. For God\ncommanded, saying, _Honour thy father and Mother._ But the _Scribes_\nand _Pharisees_ said; Whosoever should say to father or mother seeking\nrelief, _By Corban thou shalt receive no profit from me_, he was\ndischarged.\n\n    [722] _Allium, porrum & cepas inter deos jure jurando habuerunt\n    Egyptii, Plin. lib. 19. c. 6. Item. Juvenal. Sat. 15._\n\n    [723] _\u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\n    \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6. Inter qu\u00e6 sacramenta, cum quibusdam aliis etiam\n    jusjurandum quod Corban appellatur, enumerat Joseph. contra\n    Appion. l. 1. p. 147._\n\n    [724] _Talmud. Hierosolymit. tract. de votis cap. 10._\n\n    [725] _\u1f4d\u03c1\u03ba\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f60\u03c6\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1.\n    Jurejurando se obstringunt huic vel illi homini nihil se\n    commodi pr\u00e6stituros! Philo Jud. de specialibus legib. p. 595._\n\n    [726] _\u0394\u1ff6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f43 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f60\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc7\u03c2, Per Corbam, si quicquam\n    tibi prodero: interpretor \u1f43 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd, Si quicquam quemadmodum \u1f43\u03c2\n    \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd. Si quisquam, Mat. 10. 14. & Mat. 23. 18. Et execratione\n    subaudita sensus emergat, Per Corbam nihil tibi prodero,\n    C\u00e6terum, si quis urgeat, quod in fonte sit \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03b2\u1fb6\u03bd, non per\n    Corban, vel \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03b2\u1f70\u03bd, sciendum quod similis ellipsis in\n    jurandi formulis non est inusitata, hinc \u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u200f\u200e valet\n    \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d4\u05d6\u05d4\u200f\u200e ~per domicilium hoc~. Vide Drusium de tribus sectis l. 2.\n    cap. 17._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\n_Of their Writing, Masorites, and their Work._\n\n\n_Writing_ in no Nation came to its perfection on a sudden, but by\ndegrees: The Opinions of the Ancients concerning the Authors and\nInventers of letters are different. Some say[727] _Cadmus_ brought\nthe use of letters into _Greece_: others say,[728] _Palamedes_: some\nsay,[729] _Radamanthus_ brought them into _Assyria_: _Memnon_ into\n_Egypt_: _Hercules_ into _Phrygia_: and _Carmenta_ into _Latium_.\nLikewise some say the _Ph\u0153nicians_ had first the knowledge and use of\nletters.\n\n    _Ph\u0153nices primi (fam\u00e6 si credimus) ausi_\n    _Mansuram rudibus vocem signare figuris._\n\n                                     _Lucan._\n\n    [727] _Plin. l. 7. c. 56. Diodor. Sicul. l. 6. c. 5._\n\n    [728] _Servius. lib. 2. \u00c6neid._\n\n    [729] _Alex. Genial. l. 1. c. 30._\n\nOthers say the _Ethiopians_:[730] others the _Assyrians_.[731] But upon\nbetter grounds it is thought,[732] that _Moses first taught the use of\nletters to the Jews_, and that the _Ph\u0153nicians_ learned them from the\n_Jews_, and the _Grecians_ from the _Ph\u0153nicians_.\n\n    [730] _Diodor. Sicul. l. 4._\n\n    [731] _Plin. l. 7. c. 56._\n\n    [732] _Euseb. pr\u00e6par. Evang. lib. 18._\n\nIn like manner, the matter upon which men wrote, in ruder times was\ndifferent. Some wrote on _rinds of trees_, whence _Liber_, signifying\noriginally a _rinde of a tree_, is now used for _a book_:[733]\nsome wrote on _tile-stone_ with a _bone_ instead of a _pen_; some\non _Tables_; this last was chiefly in use among the _Jews_, the\n_Decalogue_ was was written in two _tables_. Again, write these things\nupon a _table_, _Esay. 30. 8._ \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c5\u03be\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, saith the _Septuagint_, as\nif the writing-tables at that time were made of _Box-trees_. They used\nnot then _pens_ or _quills_, but a certain instrument or _punch_,\nmade of Iron or Steel, called _Stylus_, it was sharp at one end, for\nthe more convenient indenting or carving of the characters, and broad\nat the other, for the scraping or blotting out what had been written:\nwhence sprang that Proverbial speech:[734] _Invertere stylum_, _to\nunsay what he had said_, or _to blot out what he hath written_: _Scribe\nstilo hominis_: _write with the pen of man_, _Esay. 8. 1._ Afterward\nbefore they came to bind up books in manner as now we have them, they\nwrote in a roll of _Paper_ or _Parchment_, which sometimes was _ten\ncubits_ broad, and _twenty_ long, _Zac. 5. 2._ This they called \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05d2\u05dc\u05d4\u200f\u200e\n_Megilla_, in _Hebrew_, from _Galal_, _to roll_, _Volumen_ _in Latine_,\nin _English a volumn_, from _volvo_, _to roll_. In the _volumn of the\nbook_ it is written, _Psal. 40. 7._ And _Christ closing_ the Book, gave\nit to the Minister, _Luk. 4. 20._ the word is \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03be\u03b1\u03c2, _complicans_\n_folding_, or rolling it up: and _vers. 17._ \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03be\u03b1\u03c2, _explicans_,\n_unfolding_, or opening it.[735] These _volumns_ were written not with\none entire continued writing, but the writing was distinguished into\nmany _spaces_, _columns_ or _platforms_, like unto so many _Are\u00e6_:\nthese _platforms_, filled with writing, were instead of so many _pages_\nin a book: and thus we are to understand that _Jer. 36. 23._ When\n_Jehudi_ had read three or four _leaves_, he cut it with a pen-knife,\n_&c._ These _leaves_ were nothing else but such _spaces_, and platforms\nin the _roll_. After this manner the _Jews_ reserve the Law written in\nsuch _rolls_, and with such _spaces_, in their _Synagogues_ at this day.\n\n    [733] _Diogen. Laert. in vit\u00e6 Cleanthis._\n\n    [734] _Erasm. in Adag._\n\n    [735] _Buxtorf. institut. epist. p. 4._\n\nIt is much controversed, whether the _Jews_ did from the beginning\nwrite with _vowels_ and _accents_, or whether they were added by the\n_Masorites_; for the understanding of which, it will be needful,\n_First_, to enquire who the _Masorites_ were: _Secondly_, what their\nwork was; and then to deliver in a proposition what may be probably\nthought in this point.\n\nFirst, concerning the _Masorites_, we are to know that \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e1\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Masar_\nsignifieth _tradere_, _to deliver_, and _Masor_ _a tradition_,\ndelivered from hand to hand to posterity without writing, as the\n_Pythagoreans_ and _Druides_ were wont to do; but by the figure\n_Synecdoche_, it signifieth those _critical notes_ or _Scholion_,\nwritten in the margine of the Bible, and those that were the Authors\nof those _critical observations_ were termed _Masorit\u00e6_, _Masorites_.\nConcerning these Authors, who they were there are two opinions.\nSome[736] think that they were certain learned _Jews_ living in the\nCity _Tiberias_, they termed them _Sapientes Tiberiadis_, _the wise\nmen of Tiberias_. These _wise men_ are thought to have added these\n_marginal notes_ unto the _Hebrew Bibles_[737] some time after the\nfinishing of the _Babylon Talmud_, which was about the year of our\n_Lord_, 506. This opinion is unlikely for these two reasons. 1.[738]\nBecause we cannot find in Histories, the continuance of any Colledg or\nSchool in _Tiberias_ so long, but rather that _degrees in learning_\nceased there within four hundred years after our _Saviour his birth_.\n2.[739] In both _Talmuds_ mention is made of the _Masora_, and the\nthings contained therein. Others therefore more probably say,[740] that\nthe _Masorites_ were that _Ecclesiastical Senate_ or _Council_ held by\n_Esra, Haggai, Zachary, Malachi_, and divers others assembled for the\nreformation of the Church after their return from _Babylon_; they are\ncalled _Viri Synagog\u00e6 magn\u00e6_. This _Council_ continued at least forty\nyears: for _Simeon the just_, who went out in his _Priestly robes_,\nto meet and pacifie _Alexander the Great_, coming in hostile manner\nagainst _Jerusalem_,[741] was the last of that _Council_, and that was\nabove three hundred years before the birth of our _Saviour_. _Esra_ was\nthe _President_ or Chief of this _Council_; he was of such repute among\nthe _Jews_, that they parallel\u2019d him with _Moses_, saying,[742] _Dignus\nerat_ Esra, _quod data fuisset lex per manus ejus_ Israeli, _si non\npr\u00e6cessisset eum_ Moses.\n\n    [736] _Aben Esra vid. Buxt. commen. Masor. c. 3._\n\n    [737] _Elias Levita in pr\u00e6fat. tertia l. Masoreth hammasoreth._\n\n    [738] _Buxtorf. in comment. Masor. c. 7._\n\n    [739] _Buxtorf. in comment. Masor. c. 8._\n\n    [740] _R. Asarias. R. Gedalia. Buxtor. in comment. Masor. c. 11._\n\n    [741] _Pirke Aboth. c. 1._\n\n    [742] _Talmud. Sanhedrim. c. 2. fol. 21._\n\nIn the second place we are to consider the _work_, what the men of\nthis great _Synagogue_, being the true _Masorites_, did: their work\nmay be reduced to these particulars. 1. When this great _Council_ was\nassembled, they, among whom _Ezra_ was chief (who was assisted with\nthe inspiration of _Gods Spirit_)[743] determined what _Books_ were\n_Canonical_, what _spurious_ and _Apocryphal_. _Secondly_,[744] the\n_authentick_ and _Canonical Books_, were purged by them, of all errors\ncrept into the Text in time of their captivity. _Thirdly_,[745] they\ndigested the _Old Testament_ into _twenty two books_, according to the\nnumber of the _Hebrew letters_. _Fourthly_, they distinguisht it into\ngreat _Sections_ and _Verses_; for though the Law was not so confusedly\nwritten, without any space or note of distinction between word and word\nthat it seemed all one _continued verse_, or as the _Kabbalists_ speak,\n\u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d7\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Theba achath_, _one word_, until the time of the _Masorites_;\nyet it was not so distinguisht into _Sections_ and _Verses_, as\nnow we have it. _Fifthly_, they added their censures and _critical\nobservations_, concerning the irregularity of many words, in respect\nof the _vowels_ and _accents_. _Sixthly_, they numbered the _verses_,\n_words_, and _letters_ of every Book, to prevent all possibility of\ncorrupting the Text in future times; for now they say, the gift of\nProphesie should cease. _Lastly_, they noted the _different writing_,\nand _different reading_, for the understanding of which we must know,\nthat in the _Hebrew_ Text many words are written with more, many with\n_fewer letters_, than they are pronounced; many words _written_ in the\nText which are not _pronounced, &c._[746] In the margin the difference\nis expressed: whence the difference in the Text they term \u200e\u200f\u05db\u05ea\u05d1\u200f\u200e _Cethib_,\n_Scriptionem_, the writing; the difference in the margin they term \u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05e8\u05d9\u200f\u200e\n_Keri_, _Lectionem_, the Reading: because they do read according to\nthat in the margin. This difference is thought by some[747] to be a\ncorrection of the Bible, according to several copies after their return\nfrom _Babylon_: but, that it is of _Divine Authority_, containing many\nmysteries known to _Moses_, and the _Prophets_ successively (though\nmany of them unknown to our Age) and that it was not any correction,\nbut the difference it self primarily and purposely was intended by\nthe _Prophets_, and holy Penmen of the Scripture, evidently appeareth\nby the diversity of readings in those books which were written by\n_Haggai_, _Zachary_, _Malachi_, _Daniel_, and _Esra_: They being the\nAuthors of their own books, needed no _correction_ at that time,\nthemselves being present, yet in them this _different reading_ is used.\n\n    [743] _Buxtorf. in comment. Masor. c. 11._\n\n    [744] _Tertull. l. de habit. muliebr. Chrysost. hom. 8. ad\n    Hebr\u00e6os. Iren\u00e6us adver. h\u00e6res. lib. 3. c. 25. August. de mirab.\n    sacr\u00e6, script. l. 2. circa finem._\n\n    [745] _Genebrard. l. 2. Chronolog._\n\n    [746] _Sunt octo voces qu\u00e6 script\u00e6 sunt in textu, sed non\n    leguntur quas adducit. Masora, Ruth. 3. 12._\n\n    [747] _Contra hos disputat Elias Levita in pr\u00e6fat. 3. l.\n    masoreth hammasoreth._\n\nIn the third place, the Proposition followeth; namely, _Seeing\nthat the_ Masorites _passed their censure on many words for their\nirregularity in their vowels and accents_; therefore, _the vowels\noriginally were not from the_ Masorites, _but of the same antiquity\nwith their words_; and in truth, otherwise they had been a _body or\ncarkass without a soul_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\n_Of Israels pitching their Tents, or of their Camps._\n\n\nWhiles the _Israelites_ wandred thorow the Wilderness, their _Church_\nwas a _Tabernacle_; and their _habitations_, _Tents_: so that their\nwhole _Camp_ might be termed a _moveable City_. It was divided into\nthree parts. In the centre or middle of all was the _Tabernacle_ it\nself, with its _Courts_, this they termed the _Camp of the Divine\nMajesty_. Next round about, pitcht the _Priests_ and _Levites_, to whom\nthe charge of the _Tabernacle_ belonged, (and therefore the nearest\nadjoyning place of habitation might be the convenientest for them) this\nwas called the _camp of Levi_. In the utter parts, round about _Levi_,\nthe _twelve Tribes_ pitcht their Tents; this they termed the _Camp of\nIsrael_. The first _Camp_ resembled a great _Cathedral Church_, with\nits _Church-yard_. The _second_ a Priviledg-place _about the Church_,\nas it were for _Colledges_ for the habitation of the _Clergy_. The\n_third_, the _body of a City_, wherein the _Towns-men_ or _Laity_\ndwelt. The form of the whole, is probably thought to be _four-square_,\nsome say _twelve miles long_, and _twelve miles broad_.[748]\n\n    [748] _Uziel. Num. 2. 3._\n\nIn the Eastern part pitched these three Tribes, _Judah_, _Issachar_,\nand _Zebulon_. On the South-side, _Reuben_, _Simeon_, and _Gad_. On\nthe West, _Ephraim_, _Manasses_, and _Benjamin_. On the North, _Dan_,\n_Asher_, and _Napthali_: and these made up the _outward Camp_, termed\nthe _Camp of Israel_. Between each Tribe, in every one of those four\nquarters, there were distant spaces like Streets, where there was\nbuying and selling as in a market, and tradesmen in their shops in\nmanner of a City leading to and fro.[749] This _Camp_ is thought[750]\nto be round a _mile distant_ from the _Tabernacle_, that is _a Sabbath\ndaies journey_; and this is gathered from _Josh. 3. 4._ where the\ndistance between the _People_ and the _Ark_ is commanded to be _two\nthousand cubits_.\n\n    [749] _\u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff3 \u1f22 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b9\u03b4\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3\n    \u1f10\u1ff4\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9. Joseph. l. 3. Antiq. c. 11. p. 97._\n\n    [750] _Tradunt Hebr\u00e6i, filios Israelita castrametatos fuisse\n    in circuitu tabernaculi ut unum milliare interfuerit (~i.~)\n    spacium mille passuum, & hoc erat iter Sabbati. P. Fag. Num. 2.\n    3._\n\nAfter this, pitched the _Camp of Levi_: in the Eastern part _Moses_,\n_Aaron_, and the _Priests_; in the South the _Cohathites_; in the West\nthe _Gershonites_; in the North the _Merarites_.\n\nIn the _middle_ was the _Camp of the Divine Majesty_. Unto this _David_\nalludeth: God is in the middest of her, she shall not be moved, _Psal.\n46. 5._\n\nAfter the same manner the parts of the City _Jerusalem_ were\ndistinguished, when the Commonwealth was setled.[751] From the _gate of\nJerusalem, to the mountain of the Temple_, was the _Camp of Israel_;\nfrom the _gate of the mountain of the Temple, to the gate of the Court_\n(which was otherwise called _Nicanors gate_) was the _Camp of Levi_:\nfrom the _gate of the Court_, and forward, was the _Camp of the Divine\nMajesty_.\n\n    [751] _Maimon. in Bethhabchirab. c. 7. sect. 11._\n\nFurthermore we are to know, that the _twelve Tribes_ had between\nthem four principal _Banners_, or _Standards_; _three Tribes to one\nStandard_: for which reason, the _Church_ is said to be terrible as an\nArmy with _banners_, _Can. 6. 4._ The _Hebrew_ word _Banner_, _Numb. 2.\n2._ the _Greek_[752] translateth _Order_ and so the _Caldee_ calleth it\n_Tekes_[753] (a word borrowed of the _Greek_ \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03c2) _order_: Whence the\n_Apostle_ taketh his phrase, Every man in his own _order_, _1 Cor. 15.\n23._\n\n    [752] _\u1f0c\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6._\n\n    [753] _\u200e\u200f\u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d8\u05e7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d4\u200f\u200e Quisque juxta ordinatam suam aciem._\n\nEvery _banner_ was thought to be of _3 colours_,[754] according to\nthe colours of the precious stones in the brest-plate, bearing the\nnames of their _Patriarchs_. But this proportion will not hold in\nall, seeing _Levi_ (who is not here among the other _Tribes_) was in\nthe breast-plate one of the _twelve_: and _Joseph_ there graved on the\n_Beril_ hath here _two Tribes, Ephraim and Manasses_, unto whom _two\ncolours_ cannot be allowed from the breast plate.\n\n    [754] _Jonathan Uzel. Num. 2. 3._\n\nEach _Banner_ had its several _motto_, or inscription. In the _first\nStandard_ was written, from _Num. 10. 25._ _Rise up, Lord, and\nlet thine enemies be scattered, and let them that hate thee flee\nbefore thee_. It is moreover taught by the _Hebrews_,[755] that each\n_Standard_ had a distinct _sign_ engraven in it. _Reubens Standard_ had\nthe _Image of a Man_: _Judahs_ the _Image of a Lion_: _Ephraims_ the\n_Image of an Ox_: and _Dans_ the _Image of an Eagle_.\n\n    [755] _Dicunt in vexillo Reuben fuisse imaginem hominis: in\n    vexillo Jehudah imaginem leonis: in vexillo Ephraim imaginem\n    bovis: in vexillo Dan, imaginem aquil\u00e6 P. Fag. Numb. 2. Aben\n    Esra, ibidem._\n\nThese same _four creatures_ are used by _Ezekiel_, _Ez. 1. 10._ to\ndescribe the nature of _Angels_. Every _Cherubim_ is said to have _four\nfaces_: _the face of a man_; to shew his understanding; _of a Lion_,\nto shew his power; _of an Ox_, to shew his ministratory office; _of an\nEagle_ to shew his swiftness in the execution of _Gods_ will.[756] The\nsame description of _Angels_ you may find, _Rev. 4. 6._\n\n    [756] _Angeli ex hoc versu definiri possunt; sunt enim spiritus\n    intelligentes, ut homo, potentes ut Leo, ministratorij ut Bos,\n    & celeres ut aquila. Tremel. in Ezek. 1._\n\nBy the same _four_, in the opinion of many of the _Fathers_,[757] are\nshadowed forth the _four Evangelists_. The _man_ shadowed S. _Matthew_,\nbecause he begins his _Gospel_ with the Generation of _Christ_,\naccording to his humanity: The _Lyon_ S. _Mark_, because he beginneth\nhis _Gospel_, from that voice of the _Lion_ roaring in the Wilderness,\n_Vox clamantis in deserto_: The _Ox_ S. _Luke_, because he beginneth\nwith _Zacharias the Priest_: and the _Eagle_ S. _John_, who soaring\naloft beginneth with the _Divinity of Christ_.\n\n    [757] _Hieronym. ad initium sui commentarii in Mat. It. Gregor.\n    homil. 4. in Ezek. ab Hieronim. dissentit. D. Augustinus in\n    Matth\u00e6o & Marco, nam in Leone Mattheum, Marcum, in homine putat\n    adumbratum. August. de consensu Evangelist. l. 1. c. 6._\n\nThus have we seen how they pitch\u2019d their _camps_, their _marching_\nfolloweth: and here we are to consider, first, their _marching in their\njourneys_ thorow the Wilderness. Secondly, their _marching in their\nbattels_.\n\nConcerning their _marching in their journeys_, they either _moved\nforward_, or _abode still_, according to the moving or standing of the\nCloud, which conducted them: the manner thereof is described, _Numb.\n10._ and summarily we may view it thus: when _God_ took up the Cloud,\n_Moses_ prayed, and the _Priests_ with Trumpets blew an alarm, then\n_Judah_ the first Standard rose up, with _Issachar_ and _Zebulon_,\nand they _marched foremost_: then followed the _Gershonites_ and\n_Merarites_, bearing the boards and coverings of the _Tabernacle_ in\nwagons; the Trumpets sounded the second alarm, then _Reuben_, _Simeon_,\nand _Gad_ rose up and _followed the Tabernacle_, and after them went\nthe _Kohathites_, in the midst of the _twelve Tribes_, bearing on their\nshoulders the _Ark, Candlestick, Table, Altar_, and other holy things.\nAt the third alarm rose up the _Standard of Ephraim_, _Manasses_, and\n_Benjamin_, and these followed the _Sanctuary_: unto this _David_ hath\nreference, when he prayeth, _Psa. 80. 2._ _Before Ephraim, Benjamin,\nand Manasses_, stir up thy strength, and come and save us. At the\nfourth alarm, arose the _Standard of Dan_, _Asher_, and _Napthali_: and\nto these was committed the care of gathering together the lame, feeble,\nand sick, and to look that nothing was left behind: whence they are\ncalled the _gathering Host_, _Josh. 6. 9._ unto this _David_ alludeth:\nwhen my Father and my Mother forsake me, the _Lord_ will _gather_ me,\n_Psal. 27. 10._\n\nConcerning their _marching in War_: _First_, the _Priests_ sounded the\nalarm with Trumpets, _Num. 10. 9._ this they termed: _Therugnah_.[758]\n_Secondly_, one _Priest_ was selected out of the rest, to stir up the\nhearts of the people, and by a kind of hortatory Oration, to encourage\nthem to the war, _Deut. 20. 2._ him they called _Unctum belli_, _the\nanointed of the battel_. _Thirdly_, they marched on by five and five\nin battel-array, _Exo. 13. 18._ so the Original signifieth in that\nplace.[759]\n\n    [758] _\u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05e8\u05d5\u05e2\u05d4\u200f\u200e Clangor, Vociferatio. Hebr\u00e6i duplicem clangorem\n    esse statuunt alterumque vocari \u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2\u05d4\u200f\u200e alterum \u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05e8\u05d5\u05e2\u05ea\u200f\u200e quorum\n    ille \u00e6quabilis est vox, hic citus concisusque fragor, ille ad\n    convocandos c\u00e6tus, hic ad accendendos millitum animos facit._\n\n    [759] _\u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e_\n\nIn the last place, we are to consider how they were to deal in\nbesieging a Town; for the conceiving whereof, note these two\npropositions.\n\n1. _They were to offer peace unto all Forreigners, and Canaanites_,\n_Deut. 20. 10._ And this is clearly signified _Josh. 11. 19._ There\nwas not a City that made peace with the Children of _Israel_, save the\n_Hivites_, the inhabitants of _Gibeon_, all other they took in battel.\nFor it was of the _Lord_ to harden their hearts. Yet here _Moab_ and\n_Ammon_ are excepted; _Israel must not seek their peace_, _Deut. 23. 6._\n\n2. _They were to make covenant with none of the seven Nations_, _Deut.\n7. 2._ _Exod. 23. 32. & 34. 14._ With _Forreigners they might_, _Josh.\n9. 17._ peradventure you _dwell among us_, and how shall we _make a\ncovenant_ with you? Not, how shall we _make peace with you_?\n\nSome may question, what the difference was between _making peace_, and\n_making a covenant_? I answer, _two fold_. 1. The _making of peace_\nwas a naked stipulation, or promise, mutually made for the laying\naside of all hostile affections towards each other; whereby life on\nboth sides might be secured. _Making a covenant_, was a solemn binding\nof each other, to performance of this mutual promise by outward\nceremonies,[760] of cutting a beast in twain, and passing between the\nparts thereof, _Jer. 34. 18._ as if they would say; _Thus let it be\ndone to him, and thus let his body be cut in two, who shall break this\ncovenant_? Secondly, peace was not concluded by the _Israelites_, but\nonly upon these terms, _That the People should become tributary unto\nthem_, _Deut. 20. 11._ The _making of a covenant_ was upon equal\nterms, without any condition either of tribute or service, as is\ngatherable from the _Covenant_ made by _Joshua_ with the _Gibeonites_,\nwhere there is no mention of any condition at all, _Josh. 9._\n\n    [760] _H\u00e6c est causa cur Hebr\u00e6i F\u0153dus facere dicant \u200e\u200f\u05db\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u200f\u200e\n    (~i.~) Dividere, aut dissecare f\u0153dus, quemadmodum apud Latinos,\n    dicitur percutere f\u0153dus, qu\u00e6 locutio fluxit ab antiquo f\u0153deris\n    faciendi more: Sacerdos enim feriebat porcum silice, dicens,\n    Sic \u00e0 Jove feriatur is, qui sanctum hoc fregerit f\u0153dus, ut ego\n    hunc porcum ferio. Livius. Decad. 1. l. 1. p. 17._\n\nThis difference seemeth to me warrantable, and serveth to reconcile\nmany places of Scripture, as where _God_ saith, _Offer peace to all_,\nand _make a covenant with none_. _Secondly_, It sheweth the fraud\nof the _Gibeonites_ to be greater than is commonly conceived, for\nthey sought not _peace simply_, but _a covenant_. _Make a league\nwith us_, _Josh. 9. 6._ _Thirdly_, It salveth that common Objection\nmade in defence of _unadvised Oaths_, to prove them _obligatory_,\nthough _unlawful_. The Argument is framed thus; _The covenant which\n~Joshua~ made with the Gibeonites unadvisedly, was unlawful: but that\nwas observed by him, and the breach thereof, when ~Saul~ slew the\nGibeonites, punished by God_, _2 Sam. 21. 1._ _Therefore, &c._ I say\nit salveth that Objection: because if we diligently observe _Joshua_\u2019s\npractise, we shall find _unadvised Oaths_ to be so far, and _only\nso far binding_, as they agree with _God_\u2019s _words_. _God_\u2019s _word_\nrequired the _Gibeonites_ should have their lives secured, because they\naccepted _peace_; Thus far therefore the _covenant was still of force_.\n_God_\u2019s _word_ required, that the _Canaanites_, after the acceptation\nof peace, should become _tributary_; here the _covenant was not of\nforce_, and therefore _Joshuah_ made them _hewers of wood, and drawers\nof water_, which is a kind of tribute in the language of the Scripture,\na tribute of the _body_, though not of the _purse_: in which sense the\n_\u00c6gyptian Task-Masters_ are in the Original called _Tribute-masters_,\n_Exod. 1. 11._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IX.\n\n_Their Measures._\n\n\n_Measures_ in use among the _Hebrews_, and so among all other\n_Nations_, are of _two sorts_: some _Mensur\u00e6 applicationis_, _measures\nof application_, as, a span, a cubit, a yard, and the like. Secondly,\n_Mensur\u00e6 capacitatis_, _measures of capacity_, as pints, quarts, pecks,\nbushels, _&c._ _Measures of application_, mentioned in Scripture, are\nthese that follow (in which there might be no deceit; the ground of\nthese measures was the breadth of so many, or so many barley corns\nmiddle sized, laid by one another) \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05e6\u05d1\u05e2\u200f\u200e _Etsbang_, _Digitus_, _a\nfinger, an inch_.[761] It containeth the breadth of six barley corns\njoyned together where they are thickest: though in round-reckoning it\ngoeth for an inch, yet in accurate speaking _four fingers make three\ninches_.[762] Of this there is mention, _Jer. 52. 21._\n\n    [761] _Arias Mont. Thubal Cain._\n\n    [762] _Quatuor digiti constituunt tres pollices. Fran. Iunius\n    in Ezek. 40. 5._\n\n_Palmus_, This was two fold; _Palmus minor_, and _Palmus major_. The\nlesser containeth the breadth of _four fingers_, (i.) _three inches_,\nthe _Hebrews_ term it, \u200e\u200f\u05d8\u05e4\u05d7\u200f\u200e _Tophach_, the _Greeks_ \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b4\u03b1: the\ngreater is termed \u200e\u200f\u05d6\u05e8\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Zereth_, by the _Greeks_ \u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03bc\u1f74; in Latine\n_Spithama, & Dodrans_. It containeth the measure that is between the\nthumb and the little finger stretcht out, a _span_.\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05e4\u05e2\u05dd\u200f\u200e, _Pagnam_, _Pes_, _a foot_. It containeth _twelve inches_.[763]\n\n    [763] _Quatuor Palmos; scil. minores. Pet. Martyr. 1. Reg. c. 6._\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05de\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Amma_, _Cubitus_, _a Cubit_. We shall find in Authors mention\nof _four kinds of Cubits_. 1. _Cubitus communi_, this was the measure\nfrom the elbow to the fingers end. It contained a foot and half, or\n_half a a yard_, it is called the _common Cubit_. 2. _Cubitus sacer_,\n_An holy Cubit_, this was a full _yard_, containing _two of the common\nCubits_, as appeareth by comparing _1 Kin. 7. 15._ with _2 Chron.\n3. 15._ In the first place, the pillars are reckoned each of them\n_eighteen cubits_ high: in the second place they are reckoned _five\nand thirty cubits_ high; which, together with the basis, being one\nordinary cubit high, _doubleth the number_: so that the first Text is\nto be understood of _holy cubites_; the second of _common cubits_. 3.\n_Cubitus regis_, the _Kings cubit_; this was _three fingers longer than\nthe common cubit_:[764] Whereas the common cubit is termed _cubitus\nviri_, the _cubit of a man_, _Deut. 3. 11._ _Onkelos_ doth improperly\nterm it, _cubitum regis_, the _Kings cubit_. _Lastly_, there was\n_cubitus geometricus_, _A geometrical cubit_, it contained _six common\ncubits_,[765] and according to _these cubits_, it is thought that\n_Noah\u2019s Ark was built_.\n\n    [764] _Herodot. lib. 2. in descrip. Bab._\n\n    [765] _Orig. hom. 2. in Genes. It. Aug. de Civitat. Dei, lib.\n    15. cap. 27._\n\nSome make the difference between the _cubit of the sanctuary_, and _the\ncommon cubit_, to be thus; _The common cubit_, they say, contained\n_fifteen inches_,[766] the _holy cubit_ _eighteen inches_.[767]\nBut that the _holy cubit_ contained _two common cubits_, hath been\nevidently proved; and it is probable, that those who make the\ndifference to be only three _inches_, have mistaken the _Kings cubit_,\nfor the _holy cubit_.\n\n    [766] _Quinos palmos._\n\n    [767] _Sex palmos._\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05d1\u05dc\u200f\u200e _Chebel_, _Funiculus_, _a line or rope_. The just length thereof\nis unknown: the use thereof was to measure grounds; whence it is\nsometimes taken for the inheritance it self. _The lines are fallen to\nme in pleasant places_, _Psal. 16. 6._ That is, mine _inheritance_.\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Kaneh_, _Arundo_, the _Reed_. The use of this was to measure\nbuildings; the length thereof was _six cubits and an hand-breadth_,\n_Ezek. 40. 5._ The cubits in this place are interpreted[768] _Kings\ncubits_: it was less liable to deceipt than the _Rope_, because\nit could not be _shortened_ or _lengthened_, by _shrinking_ or\n_stretching_: hence the _Canon_ or _rule_ of the _holy Scripture_ is\nmystically typed out by this _Reed_, _Ezek. 40._ and _Revel. 21. 15._\n\n    [768] _Tremelius in hunc locum._\n\nTo these may be added other _measures_, wherewith they measured their\n_wayes_ and _walks_. The least of these was \u200e\u200f\u05e6\u05d2\u05d3\u200f\u200e _Tsagad_, _passus_, _a\npace_.\n\n\u03a3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, _Stadium_, _a furlong_. It is often mentioned in the _New\nTestament_, not at all in the _Old_. It contained _one hundred twenty\nfive paces_,[769] which is the eighth part of our mile. Some think it\nto be called so, \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, from _standing_, because _Hercules\nran so much ground before he stood still_.\n\n    [769] _Isidor._\n\n_Milliarium_, _a mile_; It containeth with us a _thousand paces_, but\nmuch more among the _Hebrews_. Their word \u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Barah_, translated often\n_Milliarium_, properly signifying a _dinner_ or _meal_, and being\napplyed unto _journeys_, _walks_ or _ways_, it signified so much ground\nas usually is gone, or conveniently may be travelled in half a day,\nbetween _meal_ and _meal_, or _bait_ and _bait_. The word is read,\n_Gen. 35. 16._ When there was (\u200e\u200f\u05db\u05d1\u05e8\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5\u200f\u200e _Cibrath haarets_) _about half\na daies journey of ground_. The _Greek_ in that place hath an uncouth\nword \u03c7\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u1f70; doubtless it was made from the _Hebrew_\u2019s _Cibrath_, and\nsignifieth _half a daies journey_.\n\nTheir _measures of capacity_, termed _Mensur\u00e6 capacitatis_, were of\n_two sorts_; some for _dry things_ as Corn, Seed, _&c._ Some for\n_liquid things_, as Wine, Oyl, _&c._ In both, that there might be a\njust proportion observed, all their measures were designed by a set\nnumber of _Hens eggs-shells of a middle size_.\n\nIn my parallelling of them with our measures, where I speak of\n_Bushels, half Bushels, Pecks_, &c. I am to be understood according to\n_Winchester measure_, as we phrase it: such a bushel contained _eight\ngallons_. Where I speak of _gallons, pottles, quarts_, &c. I am to be\nunderstood according to our Ale-measure, thereby I avoid fractions of\nnumber.\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05d1\u200f\u200e, _Kab_, _Kabus_, _a Kab_.[770] This contained _twenty four eggs_,\nit held proportion with our _Quart_. The least measure mentioned in\nScripture, is the _fourth part of a Kab_, _2 Kings 6. 25._ The famine\nin _Samaria_ was so great, that a _fourth part of a Kab of Doves dung_\nwas sold for five pieces of silver. The _Rabbines_ have a Proverb, that\n_ten Kabs of speech descended into the world, and the women took away\nnine of them_.[771]\n\n    [770] _Arias Mont. Thubal Cain._\n\n    [771] _\u200e\u200f\u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d9\u05d7\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e8\u05d3\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05ea\u05e9\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d8\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e Vid. Buxtorf.\n    Lexic. in \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4\u200f\u200e_\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05e2\u05de\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Omer._ It contained[772] _one Kab and an half, and a fifth part\nof a Kab_, that is, _three pints and a half pint_, and a fifth part of\nan half pint. It was the tenth part of an _Ephah_, _Exod. 16. 36._\n\n    [772] _Alsted. pr\u00e6cog. theol. l. 2. p. 588._\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05e1\u05d0\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Seah_, \u03c3\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, _a Satum_; The _Latine_ Interpreters commonly\nrender it by _Modius_. It contained[773] _six Kabs_, that is a _Gallon\nand half_. We translate the word in general, _a measure_: To morrow\nthis time, a _measure_ (that is, a _Satum_) of fine flower shall be\nsold for a Shekel, _2 Kings 7. 1._\n\n    [773] _Vide Buxtorf. Lexic. in \u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05d1\u05d1\u200f\u200e ex opere R. Alphes.\n    tractat. de Pasch. chap. 5. fol. 176._\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05e4\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Ephah._ It contained[774] _three Sata_, that is, _half a bushel,\nand a pottle_.\n\n    [774] _Arias Mont. Thubal Cain._\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05dc\u05ea\u05da\u200f\u200e _Lethec._ It contained[775] _fifteen Modios (i.) Sata_; that is,\n_two bushels, six gallons, and a pottle_. Mention of this is made,\n_Hos. 3. 2._ It is there rendred in _English_, _half an Homer_.\n\n    [775] _Epiph. de mensur. & Ponderib._\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05de\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Homer._ It is so called from \u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Chamor_, _Asinus_, _an\nAss_, because this measure contained so much grain or corn as an Ass\ncould well bear. It contained _ten Ephahs_, _Ezek. 45. 11._ that is,\n_forty five gallons_ or _five bushels, and five gallons_.\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05db\u05d5\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Cor_, _Corus_. The _Cor_, and the _Homer_, were of the same\nquantity, _Ezek. 45. 14._ It was not only of liquid things, _Luke 16.\n7._\n\nThese measures of which we have spoken hitherto, the _Hebrews_ used in\nmeasuring _dry things_: Three other measures there were, which they\nused for liquid or _moist things_.\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05dc\u05d5\u05d2\u200f\u200e _Log_. It contained[776] _six egg-shells_. It was of the same\nquantity as the _fourth part of a Kab, half a pint_.\n\n    [776] _Buxtorf. in loco superius citato._\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05d9\u05df\u200f\u200e _Hin_. It contained[777] the quantity of _seventy two egg-shells_,\nso that it was of our measure _three quarts_.\n\n    [777] _Buxtorf. ib._\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Bath_; \u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _Bathus_, the _Bath_. It was of the same capacity\nwith the _Ephah_, the tenth part of an _Homer_, _Ezek. 45. 14._ The\n_Latine_ Interpreters commonly render it _Cadus_. _Hieron_[778] writing\nupon _Ezekiel_, renders it _Vadus_. _Decima pars Cori, inquit, in\nspeciebus liquidis vocatur Bathus, sive Vadus._ I sometimes thought\nthere had been some error in the print, namely, _Vadus_, put for\n_Cadus_: But now I find the _Greeks_ to use both \u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, and \u03b2\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, for\nthis measure, and from the last of these _Greek_ words, that ancient\n_Father_ reads it, _Vadus_. Sometimes our _English_ renders it, in\ngeneral, _a measure_, _Luk. 16. 6._ It contained _four gallons and a\nhalf_.\n\n    [778] _Hieron. Ezek. 45._\n\nAll these measures were proper to the _Hebrews_: I find three others\nmentioned in the _N. T._ taken from other Nations.\n\n\u03a3\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2; _Sextarius_. We _English_ it, in general, _a Pot_, _Mar. 7.\n4._ It was of the same quantity with the _Log_,[779] if we understand\nit of the _Roman Sextarius_. It was somewhat more, if we understand it\nof the _Attick Sextarius_: _undecim Attici sextarii \u00e6quabant Romanos\nduodecim_. In probability we are to understand the _Roman_ measure, so\nthat it contained _six eggs_, that is, _half a pint_.\n\n    [779] _Alsted. pr\u00e6cog. Theol. p. 561._\n\n\u03a7\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9\u03be, _Chenix_, _a measure_, _Rev. 6. 6._ It signifieth properly\nthat measure of corn, which was allowed servants for their maintenance\nevery day. Whence was occasioned that speech of _Pythagoras_: _Super\nCh\u00e6nice non sedendum_. That is, _we must not rest upon the provision\nwhich sufficeth for a day, but we must take care for the morrow_. It\ncontained[780] _four Sextarii_, that is, _a Quart_.\n\n    [780] _Bud\u00e6us de asse. lib. 5._\n\n\u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2, _Metretes_, _Joh. 2. 6._ It is translated a _Firkin_. It was\na measure in use among the _Athenians_. It was of the same quantity\nwith _Cadus_,[781] and _Cadus_ (as before was noted) was equal to the\n_Hebrew_ _Bath_, so that it contained _four Gallons and an half_.\n\n    [781] _Bud\u00e6us de asse. lib. 5._\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. X.\n\n_Their Coyns. First of brazen Coyns._\n\n\nThat they might have just _Coyns_ and _Weights_ they weighed both them\nand their weights by _Barley-corns_.\n\n\u039b\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, _Minutum_, _a Mite_, _Luk. 21. 2._ _Mar. 12. 42._ The latter\n_Hebrews_ call it \u200e\u200f\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\u05d8\u05d4\u200f\u200e, the _Syriack_ \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d0\u200f\u200e (i. _Octava_, _the\neighth part of Assarium_,) It weighed _half a barly-corn_.[782] It\nvalued of our mony, _three parts of one ~c~_.\n\n    [782] _\u200e\u200f\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\u05d8\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05e7\u05dc \u05d7\u05e6\u05d9 \u05e9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\u200f\u200e Moses Kotsens. f. 124. col. 4._\n\n\u039a\u03bf\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 _Quadrans_, _a Farthing_. It was a _Roman coyn_, weighing _a\ngrain of barly_; it consisted of _two mites_. The poor Widow threw in\n_two mites which makes a farthing_, _Mark. 12. 42._ By consequence it\nvalued of ours c. \u00bd.\n\n\u1f08\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, _Assarius, vel assarium_. It was a _Roman coyn_, weighing\n_four grains_. The _Rabbins_ call it \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d9\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Isor_, and say, that it\ncontaineth[783] _eight mites_. Of this we read, _Mat. 10. 29._ Are not\ntwo Sparrows sold for (an _Assarium_?) our _English_ readeth it, for a\n_farthing_? It valueth of ours, in precise speaking, q^{a.}--q.\n\n    [783] _Drusius in pr\u00e6ter. Luc. 12. 59._\n\n\n_Their silver Coyns._\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d2\u05e8\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Gerah_. It was the twentieth part of the shekel of the Sanctuary;\n_A shekel is twenty Gerahs_, _Exod. 30. 13._ It was the least silver\ncoyn among the _Hebrews_; it valued of ours 1 _d. ob._\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d2\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\u200f\u200e _Agorath_: We English it in general, _a piece of silver_, _1\nSa. 2. 36._ But it _appeareth_ by the _Chaldee paraphrase_, that it is\nof the _same_ value with _Gerah_; that _paraphrase_ renders both \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e2\u05d0\u200f\u200e\n_Megna_; by the _Greek_ they are both rendred \u1f44\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 the value therof\ntherfore is 1 _d. ob._\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05e9\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Keshitah_. The word signifieth a _lamb_, and is used for a\ncertain _coyn_ among the _Hebrews_, on the one side whereof the Image\nof a _lamb_ was stamped; our _English_ reads it in general, _a piece\nof mony_. _Jacob_ bought a parcel of a field for an hundred _pieces of\nmony_, _Gen. 33. 19._ In the original it is, for an hundred _lambs_.\nBut it is apparent, that _Jacob_ paid _mony_; for S. _Stephen_\nsaith, he bought it for _mony_, _Act. 7. 16._ In the judgment of the\n_Rabbines_,[784] it was the same that _Obolus_, _twenty of them went to\na shekel_;[785] so that the value thereof was 1 _d. ob._\n\n    [784] _R. Solom. Gen. 33. 19. It. R. David. in lib. radic. It.\n    Levi ben Gers. Gen. 33. 19._\n\n    [785] _Drus. ad diffic. loca, Gen. p. 119._\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05db\u05e1\u05e3\u200f\u200e _Ceseph_, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd _Argenteus_, _a piece of silver_: as the\n_Romans_ numbred their sums by _Sesterces_, insomuch that _Nummus_\nis oftentimes put absolutly to signifie the same as _Sestertius_: So\nthe _Hebrews_ counted their sums by _shekels_, and the _Grecians_ by\n_Drachm\u00e6_: Hence _Argenteus_, _a piece of silver_, being put absolutely\nin the _Bible_, if mention in that place be of the _Hebrew_ coyns, it\nstandeth for a _shekel_, and valueth 2 _s._ 6 _d._ if it stand for the\n_shekel of the sanctuary_: if it stand for a _common shekel_, then it\nvalueth 1 _s._ 3 _d._ But if mention be of the _Greek coyns_, as _Acts\n19. 19._ then it signifieth the _Attick Drachma_, which valueth of our\nmoney 1 _d. ob._\n\n\u0394\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u1f74, _Luk. 15. 8._ It was a _quarter of a shekel_,[786] and thus by\nconsequence it valued of ours 7 _d. ob._\n\n    [786] _Breerwood de nummis._\n\n\u0394\u03af\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, _Didrachmon_; _Mat. 17. 24._ We _English_ it _tribute\nmoney_: The _Syriack_ readeth _Duo Zuzim_;[787] now that coyn which was\ntermed _Zuz_ by the _Hebrews_, was answerable to the _Roman Denair_;\nwhence it appeareth, that it valued of ours 1 _s._ 3 _d._\n\n    [787] _\u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05d6\u05d5\u05d6\u05d9\u05df\u200f\u200e_\n\n\u03a3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1, _Stater_. We English it a _piece of money_ at large, but it\ncontained precisely _two didrachmas_. For the _tribute money_ to be\npaid for each person, was _Didrachmum_, as is evident, _Mat. 17. 24._\nand this _Stater_ was paid for _two_, namely, for _Christ_ and _Peter_,\nthe value of it therefore was, 2 _s._ 6 _d._\n\n\u0394\u03b5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, _Denarius_, _a peny_. This was their _tribute money_, _Mat.\n22. 19._ There were _two sorts of pence_[788] in use among them: the\n_common peny_, which valued of ours 7 _d. ob._ And the _peny of the\nSanctuary_, which valued 1 _s._ 3 _d._ For it was answerable to their\n_Didrachmum_; and of this last we must understand S. _Matthew_ in this\nplace, for their _tribute mony_ was _Didrachmum_, as before hath been\nnoted out of _Mat. 17. 24._ This _Didrachmum_ or _half shekel_ was\nformerly paid by the _Isr\u00e6lites_ every year after they were 20 years\nold;[789] towards their _Temple_, _Exod. 30. 13._ _C\u00e6sar_ by taking\naway this _money_ from the _Temple_, and changing it into a _tribute_\nfor his _own Coffers_, did in truth take away from _God_ that which was\n_God_\u2019s. Hence in that question proposed unto _Christ_, _Is it lawful\nto give tribute unto ~C\u00e6sar~, or not?_ _Christ_ answereth, _Render unto\n~C\u00e6sar~ the things that are ~C\u00e6sar\u2019s~, and unto God the things that\nare God\u2019s_. This very _tribute_ afterward was paid by the _Jews_[790]\ntoward the _Roman capital_, by vertue of a Decree made by _Vespasian_.\n\n    [788] _Tremel. Mat. 22. 19._\n\n    [789] _Aben Esr. Nehem. 10. 32._\n\n    [790] _Joseph. de bello, lib. 7. cap. 26._\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d6\u05d5\u05d6\u200f\u200e _Zuz_, It was the _fourth part of a shekel of silver_:[791] it\nvalued therefore of ours, 7 _d. ob._\n\n    [791] _\u200e\u200f\u05d6\u05d5\u05d6 \u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 \u05e9\u05e7\u05dc \u05db\u05e1\u05e3\u200f\u200e Elias Thisbit._\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05e7\u05dc\u200f\u200e _Shekel_, _Siclus_, _a shekel_: it was twofold; _Siclus regius_,\n_the Kings shekel_, of common use in buying and selling, it valued 1\n_s._ 3 _d._ And _Siclus Sanctuarii_; _the shekel of the Sanctuary_, it\nvalued 2 _s._ 6 _d._\n\nThe _shekels of the Sanctuary_ were of _two stamps_. The one was always\nin use among the _Jews_: the _thirty pieces of silver which ~Judas~\nreceived, are thought to be 30 shekels of the Sanctuary_. It had stampt\non the one side, the _pot of Manna_, or as others think, _Aarons censer_\nor _Incense-cup_: the inscription on this side was \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05e7\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc\u200f\u200e _Shekel\nIsrael_, _The shekel of Israel_: on the reverse side was stampt _Aarons\nRod budding_, with this inscription about the Coyn \u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4\u200f\u200e\n_Jeruschalaiim hakeduscha_. After the coming of our _Saviour_, the\n_Jews_ which were converted to the _Christian Faith_, changed their\n_shekel_,[792] and on the first side stampt the _Image of Christ_, with\n\u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05e9\u200f\u200e at the mouth of the Image, and \u200e\u200f\u05d5\u200f\u200e in the pole, which three\nletters made his name _Jesu_. On the reverse side there was no picture,\nbut the whole rundle was filled with this inscription, \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7 \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d1\u05d0\n\u05d1\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05de\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d7\u05d9\u200f\u200e (i.) _Messias rex venit cum pace, & lux de\nhomine facta est vita_. In some Coyns, for the latter clause of that\ninscription is read \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e (i.) _Deus homo est factus_.\n\n    [792] _Alsted pr\u00e6cog. Theol. p. 550._\n\nThe _King\u2019s shekel_, in _David_ and _Solomon_\u2019s time, had stampt on\nthe one side, a kind of a Tower standing between \u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u200f\u200e and \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05dc\u05dd\u200f\u200e, and\nunderneath was \u200e\u200f\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9\u200f\u200e. The whole inscription was, _Jerusalem urbs\nsanctitatis_: On the reverse side, the rundle was filled with this\n_Hebrew_, \u200e\u200f\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05de\u05d4 \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05da\u200f\u200e (i.) _David rex, & filius ejus\nSolomon rex_.\n\nThe _shekel_ again was divided into lesser Coyns, which had their\ndenomination from the parts thereof. Thus we read of the half\n_shekels_, _Exod. 30. 13._ The _third part of a shekel_, _Nehem. 10.\n32._ The _quarter of a shekel_, _1 Sam. 9. 8._\n\n\n_Their Gold Coyns._\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d6\u05d4\u05d1\u200f\u200e _Zahab_. The _English_ reads it, _a piece of gold_, _2 Kin. 5.\n5._ By it is meant, that which elsewhere is called _Siclus auri_,\n_a shekel of gold_, _1 Chron. 21. 25._ Hence the one thousand seven\nhundred _pieces of gold_ mentioned, _Judg. 8. 26._ the _Greek_ renders\n1700, _shekels of gold_.[793] The weight of this Coyn was two _attick\ndrams_,[794] the value 15 _s._\n\n    [793] _\u03a3\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c7\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, &c._\n\n    [794] _Breerwood de nummis._\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d5\u05df\u200f\u200e _Adarcon_, of this we read, _Esra 8. 27._ It was also called\n\u200e\u200f\u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05de\u05d5\u05df\u200f\u200e _Drachmon_, of which we read _Esra 2. 69._ Both these names seem\nto denote the same coyn; if not, yet both were of the same weight. The\n_Greek_ interprets them both by \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u1f74, and our _English_ accordingly\nrenders both, a _dram_, which must be understood of the _drams_ in use\namong the _Hebrews_, weighing two _Attick drams_. From the _Greek_\n\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u1f74, _Drachmon_ seemeth to have had its name. He conjectureth not\namiss, who thinketh[795] that _Adarcon_ was so called, _quasi Daricon_,\nwhich was a certain coyn of gold in use among the _Persians_ and from\nKing _Darius_ (whose Image one side thereof bore) was named _Daricon_,\nand \u200e\u200f\u05d0\u200f\u200e amongst the _Chald\u00e6ans_, is often prefixed before a word, as\n\u200e\u200f\u05d4\u200f\u200e is amongst the _Hebrews_. The value of this Coyn was of ours 15\n_s._\n\n    [795] _Breerwood de nummis._\n\n\n_Their sums._\n\nTheir sums were _two_ \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u200f\u200e _Maneh_, \u03bc\u03bd\u1fb6 _Mina_, a _Pound_. In _gold_\nit weighed _one hundred shekels_. This appeareth by comparing these\nTexts, _1 Kin. 10. 17._ _Tres_ \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e _Manim_ _three pound_ of gold went\nto one shield. Now we read, _2 Chron. 9. 16._ _Three hundred shekels_\nof gold went to one shield. The name _shekels_ is not expressed in\nthe Original, but necessarily understood, as appeareth in that which\nwas spoken of _Zahab_. For it is a received rule, that in Scripture,\n_Aurum_ being put with a _numeral_ signifieth so many _shekels of\ngold_; and so _Argentum_ in like manner. The weight thereof then being\n_100 shekels_, it followeth, that the value was 75 _l._ In _silver_,\ntheir _Maneh_ weighed _60 shekels_, _Ezek. 45. 12._ so that it valued\n7 _l._ 10 _s._ Note, that _Sheindler_[796] was deceived, in saying,\nthat the price or value of the _Maneh_ was changed in _Ezekiels_ time,\nbecause it then valued 60 _shekels_: for the difference is not between\nthe sacred & profane _Maneh_, as _Sheindler_ conceives, but _between_\nthe _Maneh_ of gold, which was valued at _100 shekels_ always, and\nthe _Maneh_ of silver, which weighed _60 shekels_, according to the\nforequoted place in _Ezekiel_.\n\n    [796] _Sheindler in \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u200f\u200e_\n\nThe second sum was \u200e\u200f\u05db\u05db\u05e8\u200f\u200e _Cicar_, _Talentum_, _A Talent_. This, if it\nwere of _silver_, it contained in weight _3000 shekels_. For, those two\nverses being compared together, _Exod. 38. 25, 26._ sheweth, that _six\nhundred thousand_ men paying every man _half a shekel_, the whole sum\namounted to an _hundred talents_; whence it followeth, that a _talent\nof silver_ amongst the _Hebrews_ was 375 _l._ But a _talent of gold_\n(the proportion of gold to silver being observed) was twelve times as\nmuch, so that it valued of ours 4500 _l._\n\nIn this tract of their Coyns we are to know _three things_. First,\nthat as the _Romans_, in the former ages, used _\u00c6s grave_, _Bullion\nmoney_, unstampt, which in the _Mass_ or _Billot_ they weighed out in\ntheir payments, and afterward _\u00c6s signatum_, _coyned metals_: so the\n_Hebrews_ though at last they used, _coyned money_, yet at first they\n_weighed their mony uncoyned_; _Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver_,\n_Gen. 23. 6._ Hence the _shekel_ had its _name from_ \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05e7\u05dc\u200f\u200e _Shakal_,\n_ponderare, librare_, _to weigh_, or _put in the ballance_. _Secondly_,\nas the coyned _shekel was twofold, one_ for the use of the _Sanctuary_;\nthe other for the use of the _Commonwealth_; and that of the\n_Sanctuary_ was double the price of the _other_; so the _weight of the\nshekel_ to be distinguisht after the same manner; the _shekel of the\nSanctuary weighed half an ounce Troy weight; the common shekel_ weighed\n_a quarter of an ounce_. For example, _Goliahs spears head weighed 600\nshekels of the Sanctuary_ _1 Sam. 17. 7._ that is, _twenty five pound\nweight_: _~Absalom\u2019s~ hair weighed two hundred shekels after the Kings\nweight_, _2 Sam. 14. 26._ that is, _four pound weight and two ounces_.\nYea, the sums which I have reckoned only _according to the Sanctuary_,\nin common use, _according to the King\u2019s weight_, they abate half their\nvalue.\n\n3. The lesser coyns were in general termed \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 or in the singular\nnumber \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1, _Joh. 2. 15._ The word signifieth properly a small\nquantity or little piece of metal, such as may be clipt off from coyns.\n_Upon the first of the mon. ~Adar~, Procla. was made throughout Israel,\nthat the people shold provide their half shekels, w^{ch} were yearly\npaid toward the service of the Temple_, according to the commandment\nof _God_, _Ex. 30. 13._[797] On the 25. of _Adar_,[798] then they\n_brought tables_ into the _Temple_ (that is, into the _outward Court_\nwhere the _people stood_) on these _tables_ lay these \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, or\n_lesser coyns_, to furnish those _who_ wanted _half shekels_ for their\noffrings, or that wanted _lesser pieces of mony_ in their payment for\n_oxen, sheep, or doves_, which likewise stood there in a readiness\nin the same _court_ to be sold for _sacrifices_: but this _supply of\nlesser coynes_ was not without an _exchange_ for other _mony or other\nthings_ in lieu _of mony_, and that upon advantage. Hence those that\nsat at these _tables_, as chief _bankers_ or _masters of the exchange_,\nthey were termed \u039a\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76, in respect of the _lesser coyns_ which\nthey exchanged: in respect of the _exchange it self_, they were termed\n\u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03b2\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76, for \u039a\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 signifieth the same in _Greek_ as _Cambium_\nin _Latine_,[799] whence those _Letters of exchange_, which the\n_Latines_ call _Literas Cambii_, the _Greek_ call \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03b2\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70,\n_Tickets of exchange_: in respect of the _Tables_ at which they sate,\nthey are termed by the _Talmudists_ \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05d5\u05dc\u05d7\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e, _Schulcanim_ from\n\u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05d5\u05dc\u05d7\u05df\u200f\u200e _Schulchan_ _Mensa_; for the same reason they are sometimes\ntermed by the _Greeks_ \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b6\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, and by the _Latines Mensarii_. These\nare those _changers of money_ which our _Saviour_ drove out of the\n_Temple_.\n\n    [797] _Moses Kotsens. de Siclis. fol. 122. col. 2._\n\n    [798] _Moses Kotsens. ibid._\n\n    [799] _\u039a\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2, inquit Pollux, est \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u1f74 vid. Dru.\n    Annot. in N. T. part. alter._\n\n_FINIS._\n\n.\u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05d4\u05dc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\u05dc \u05d7\u05d9\u200f\u200e\n\n\n\n\nThe Names of Authors cited in this BOOK.\n\n\n    A\n\n    _Aben Esra._\n\n    _Aboth._ _vid._ _Pirke Aboth._\n\n    _\u00c6schines._\n\n    _Alexander Neopol._\n\n    _Alstedius._\n\n    _Ambrosius._\n\n    _Aquinas._\n\n    _Aristoteles._\n\n    _Arias Montanus._\n\n    _Aristophanes_, _Aureli\u00e6 Allobrogum_, 1607\n\n    _Artemidorus._\n\n    _Athen\u00e6us._\n\n    _Augustinus_, _Coloni\u00e6 Agrippin\u00e6_, 1616\n\n\n    B\n\n    _Baalturim._\n\n    _Beda._\n\n    _Bellarminus._\n\n    _Bertramus._\n\n    _Beza._\n\n    _Bodinus._\n\n    _Breerwood._\n\n    _Buxtorfius._\n\n    _Bud\u00e6us._\n\n\n    C\n\n    _Caninius._\n\n    _Capnio_, _vi._ _Reuchlin._\n\n    _Carion._\n\n    _Casaubonus._\n\n    _C\u0153lius Rhodiginus._\n\n    _Chazkuni._\n\n    _Chemnitius._\n\n    _Chimchi_, _alias_, _R. David Kimchi._\n\n    _Chrysostomus._\n\n    _Clem. Alexandrinus._\n\n    _Cicero._\n\n    _Concilium quintum, sextum._\n\n    _Cyrillus._\n\n    _Cyprianus._\n\n    _Cun\u00e6us_, _Lugduni Batavorum_, 1617\n\n\n    D\n\n    _Demosthenes_, _Venitiis_, 1554\n\n    _Diodorus Siculus._\n\n    _Dionysius Halicarnas._\n\n    _Drusius_, _de tribus sectis_, _Franeker\u00e6_, 1619.\n\n\n    E\n\n    _Elias Thisbites._\n\n    _Epiphanius._\n\n    _Erasmus._\n\n    _Euripides._\n\n    _Eustathius._\n\n    _Eusebius._\n\n\n    F\n\n    _Funccius._\n\n    _Fagius._\n\n    _Firmicus._\n\n\n    G\n\n    _Galatinus_, _Francofurti_, 1612\n\n    _Gellius._\n\n    _Genebrardus._\n\n    _Gorionides._\n\n    _Gregor. Nazianzen._\n\n    _Gyraldus._\n\n\n    H\n\n    _Herodianus._\n\n    _Herodotus._\n\n    _Hesiodus._\n\n    _Hieronymus_, _Basile\u00e6_, 1516\n\n    _Homerus._\n\n    _Horatius._\n\n    _Hospinianus_, _Tiguri_, 1611\n\n\n    I\n\n    _Jalcut_, _Cracovi\u00e6_, 1595\n\n    _Jansenius._\n\n    _Josephus_, _Aureli\u00e6 Allobrog._, 1611\n\n    _Jonathan._\n\n    _Junius._\n\n    _Justin Martyr._\n\n    _Justin, histor._\n\n    _Juvenalis._\n\n    _Ilmedenu._\n\n\n    K\n\n    _Kimchi._ _vid._ _Chimchi._\n\n\n    L\n\n    _Lactantius._\n\n    _Laertius._\n\n    _Levi ben Gersom._\n\n    _Lipsius._\n\n    _Livius._\n\n    _Lucanus._\n\n    _Lucianus._\n\n    _Lyranus._\n\n\n    M\n\n    _Macrobius._\n\n    _Magius._\n\n    _Maimonides_, _lib. Jad._ _Venetiis_, 1574\n\n    _Masius._\n\n    _Maximus Tirius._\n\n    _Montacutius._\n\n    _Moses Kotsensis._ _Venetiis_, 1557\n\n    _Munsterus._\n\n    _Musar._\n\n    _Modestus._\n\n\n    O\n\n    _Oecumenius._\n\n    _Onkelos._\n\n    _Origines._\n\n    _Ovidius._\n\n\n    P\n\n    _Philo Jud\u00e6us_, _Coloni\u00e6 Allobrog._, 1613\n\n    _Pirke Aboth._\n\n    _Plautus._\n\n    _Plinius._\n\n    _Pierius_, _Basile\u00e6_, 1575\n\n    _Plutarchus._\n\n    _Procopius._\n\n    _Prudentius._\n\n\n    R\n\n    _Reuchlinus_ (_pro quo citatur Capnio perperam_) _Francofurti_, 1612\n\n    _Rosinus._\n\n    _Ruffinus._\n\n\n    S\n\n    _Seder-olam minus._\n\n    _Septuaginta interpretes._\n\n    _Serarius._\n\n    _Scaliger_, _De emend. temp. Luteti\u00e6_, 1583\n                _Trih\u00e6res. Franeker\u00e6_, 1619\n\n    _Sheindler._\n\n    _Sigonius._\n\n    _Scholiastes Aristophanis._\n\n    _Solomon Jarchi._\n\n    _Solinus._\n\n    _Sozomenus._\n\n    _Statius._\n\n    _Stukius._\n\n    _Suetonius._\n\n    _Suidas._\n\n    _Syrius interpres._\n\n\n    T\n\n    _Talmud Babylonicum._\n\n    _Talmud Hierosolymitanum._\n\n    _Targum Uzielidis sive Jonathanis._\n\n    _Targum Onkelos._\n\n    _Targum Hierosolymitanum._\n\n    _Tertullianus_, 1609\n\n    _Theophylactus._\n\n    _Theodoretus._\n\n    _Theophrastus._\n\n    _Tholosanus._\n\n    _Thisbites._\n\n    _Tiraquellus._\n\n    _Toletus._\n\n    _Tremelius._\n\n\n    V\n\n    _Vatablus._\n\n    _Valerius Max._\n\n    _Varro._\n\n    _Virgilius._\n\n\n    X\n\n    _Xenophon_, _Basile\u00e6_, 1569\n\n\n    Z\n\n    _Zepperus._\n\n    _Zohar._\n\n\n\n\nA TABLE OF THE Several TEXTS of SCRIPTURE Explained in the Six Books.\n\n\n    Chap.        Vers.                Pag.\n    --------------------------------------\n                   GENESIS.\n    --------------------------------------\n      4          3, 4                   23\n      4            21                  136\n      7            24                   84\n      8             4                ibid.\n      9            25                    1\n     11            31                  143\n     14            22             245, 247\n     15             2                  230\n     17                                213\n     17            14                  216\n     18            22                   73\n     20             7                   24\n     21            10                    1\n     22             2                  148\n     23             2                  169\n     23            16                  269\n     24             2                  245\n     24            53                  230\n     24            55                  231\n     24            56                  236\n     25          5, 6                  230\n     29            27                  234\n     30            27                  173\n     30                                133\n     31            28                   87\n     31            30                  170\n     31            53                  143\n     35            19                  265\n     35            16                  261\n     37            34                  244\n     38            24                    2\n     41             1                  231\n     43            16                   97\n     43            24                   88\n     44             5                  173\n     45            15                   87\n     46             4                  239\n     46            26                  245\n     47            29                  245\n     49             3                    2\n     49             7                   26\n     49            10                    3\n     50             2                  241\n     50            10                  234\n    --------------------------------------\n                   EXODUS.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1            11                  248\n      1            14                  109\n      3             6                   47\n      3            15                  142\n      7            11                  174\n     12             6                  107\n     12            15                  110\n     12         26, 3                  106\n     12            27                  103\n     13                                223\n     13      2, 9, 11               42, 43\n     13            18                  257\n     14             1                  154\n     14            24                   81\n     15            20                   24\n     16            23                  101\n     16            34                   17\n     16            36                  262\n     18             7                   87\n     18            21                  193\n     21            10                  236\n     21            14                   77\n     22       1, 2, 4             203, 204\n     23   32 & 34, 14                  257\n     25            22                   63\n     28                             14, 16\n     28            16                  167\n     29      4, 9, 20               16, 17\n     30            10              64, 133\n     30            13   265, 266, 267, 270\n     30            23                   13\n     31            14                  217\n     32                                157\n     32            20                  158\n     32        34, 10             158, 159\n     34                                161\n     35             3                  101\n     38        25, 26                  269\n    --------------------------------------\n                  LEVITICUS.\n    --------------------------------------\n      6             3                  146\n      8        12, 30               13, 14\n     10            10                  180\n     12          2, 3                  214\n     13                                130\n     13             2                   18\n     15         4, 23                   15\n     16         3, 41              15, 133\n     18            21                  143\n     19            18                  185\n     19        23, 24                  218\n     20            10                  199\n     21     2, 10, 11                   17\n     21     14, 7, 17                   16\n     22            27             107, 214\n     23                                118\n     23    5, 6, 7, 8                  104\n     23    10, 11, 17        115, 116, 118\n     23            17             218, 220\n     23            24                  121\n     23            40                  118\n     23            43                  119\n     24            13                  196\n     25     6, 10, 21                  134\n     25             8                  136\n     26            30                  161\n     27            29                  218\n     27            32                  226\n    --------------------------------------\n                   NUMBERS.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2             2                  254\n      3                                 19\n      3            15                   20\n      4            41                   23\n      5             3                   23\n      5            18                   26\n      6                                 31\n      6             5                   32\n      8            10                   20\n      8            11                  220\n      8            24                   20\n      9                                113\n      9             9                  195\n     10                            18, 256\n     10             2                  102\n     10             9                  256\n     10            25                  255\n     11        16, 26             190, 191\n     12            18                  113\n     15                                 45\n     15            20             218, 219\n     15            35                  196\n     15            38                   44\n     18            12                  220\n     18        12, 13                  218\n     18        15, 16                  223\n     18            26                  220\n     18            31                  225\n     23            28                  154\n     24            21                   55\n     25             3                  154\n     27            18                   29\n     28             4                  108\n     28        11, 15                  121\n     28        16, 17             104, 128\n     29                                119\n     29          1, 6                  122\n     36            10                  195\n    --------------------------------------\n                 DEUTERONOMY.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1        13, 17                  193\n      3            11                  260\n      3            29                  154\n      4        41, 43                   77\n      6             4                   43\n      7             2                  257\n      8             8                  219\n      9             3                   78\n      9            21                  159\n     11            13                   43\n     14            21                    8\n     14            12                  244\n     14            18                  225\n     14            26                ibid.\n     15          2, 4             134, 135\n     16             2             104, 128\n     16             6                  111\n     17             7                  201\n     17            12                  179\n     18             4                  220\n     18        10, 11                  171\n     19             3                   78\n     19        15, 19                  186\n     19            21                  204\n     20            10                  257\n     20            11                ibid.\n     21             6                   40\n     21            17                  230\n     22             5                  163\n     22             8                  117\n     22            12                   44\n     23             6                  257\n     25             2                  207\n     25          2, 3                  206\n     26                                222\n     26            12                  225\n     28                                233\n     28        58, 59                  207\n     29            11                   23\n     29            15                  186\n     33             5                    2\n    --------------------------------------\n                   JOSHUA.\n    --------------------------------------\n      3             4             100, 154\n      6             4                  136\n      6             9                  256\n      7                                182\n      7            19                  246\n      7        19, 20                  197\n      9             6                  258\n      9             7                  257\n      9            23                   22\n     11            19                  257\n     19          1, 9                   27\n     20             6                   79\n     20             7                   77\n    --------------------------------------\n                   JUDGES.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1            16                   55\n      3             7                   76\n      7             1                   72\n      7            19                   81\n      8            23                    2\n      8            26                  268\n      8            33                  154\n      9             4                  155\n     13                                 32\n     14                                183\n     14        10, 11             232, 233\n     14            12                   90\n     17             5                  170\n    --------------------------------------\n                    RUTH.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2             4                   87\n    --------------------------------------\n                  1 SAMUEL.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2            36                  265\n      5             4                  156\n      7            15                    2\n      7            16                  193\n      9             8                  267\n      9             9                   24\n     10             1                   88\n     14            44                  247\n     16            11                   94\n     17             7                  269\n     19            13                  170\n     25            41                   88\n     28                                177\n     28          6, 7                  165\n     31            10                  160\n    --------------------------------------\n                  2 SAMUEL.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2             1                  167\n      7            18                   73\n     14            26                  270\n     18            18                  219\n     20            25                   27\n     21             1                  258\n    --------------------------------------\n                   1 KINGS.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2            28                   77\n      6             3                   65\n      6            37                   67\n      7            15                  260\n      8             9                   63\n      8            31                  245\n     10            17                  268\n     11                                143\n     11             5                  160\n     12            12                  207\n     12            28                  159\n     13            33                   17\n     18                                147\n     18            19                   76\n     20            10                  247\n     20            39                  203\n     21             9                  196\n     22            30                   12\n    --------------------------------------\n                   2 KINGS.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1             2             154, 155\n      2             9                  230\n      2            12                   25\n      4            23                  121\n      4            29                   87\n      5             5                  267\n      5            18                  164\n      6             1                   25\n      6            25                  262\n      7             1                ibid.\n     11            12                   11\n     12            10                   27\n     12            19                   66\n     17        30, 31                  164\n     17            33                   49\n     19            37                  164\n     21             7                   76\n     22             3                   27\n     23             4              13, 181\n     23             6                   76\n     23            10                  143\n     23            11                  150\n     23            13                  160\n    --------------------------------------\n                   1 CHRON.\n    --------------------------------------\n      6            49                   18\n     21            25                  268\n     23             4                   19\n     23            24                   20\n     24                                 19\n     25             8                   20\n     26                                ib.\n     26            20                   19\n    --------------------------------------\n                   2 CHRON.\n    --------------------------------------\n      3            15                  260\n      5            12                   20\n      6            13                   65\n      9            16                  268\n     15            16                   76\n     19      5, 8, 11                  180\n     20             5                   65\n     29            22                   18\n     31             6                  224\n     31            13                  226\n     35             6                  111\n    --------------------------------------\n                    EZRA.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2            43                   22\n      2            69                  268\n      3             8               20, 67\n      3            12                   68\n      6            15                   67\n      7             6                   27\n      7             9                  ib.\n      8            27                  268\n    --------------------------------------\n                  NEHEMIAH.\n    --------------------------------------\n      3             1                   73\n      3         3, 28                   74\n      8            10                   96\n      8            15                  118\n      8            18                  119\n     10            32                  267\n     10            37                  219\n     10        37, 38                  224\n    --------------------------------------\n                   ESTHER.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1             8                   95\n      9            21                  138\n    --------------------------------------\n                   PSALMS.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1                                188\n     15             1                   62\n     16             6                  260\n     19             1                   63\n     19          4, 5                  232\n     23             5                   89\n     26             6                   40\n     27            10                  256\n     40             7                  249\n     45             1                   27\n     45             8                   14\n     46             5                  254\n     52                                164\n     54                                ib.\n     60             8                   89\n     74             8                   70\n     76            10                  188\n     78            38                  207\n     80             2                  256\n     81             3                  122\n     84             7               28, 72\n     95                                247\n     99             1                   63\n    106            20                  157\n    106            26                  245\n    109             7                  188\n    116            13                   97\n    118            20                   70\n    109            31                  187\n    122                                223\n    128             3                   94\n    133             2                   14\n    141             2                   64\n    145                                233\n    --------------------------------------\n                  PROVERBS.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1            21                   70\n      3            22                  175\n      4            10                   73\n      9             9                   72\n     10             7                  242\n     14            28                  222\n     15            17                   86\n     20            26                  211\n     21            14                   66\n     31             6                  198\n    --------------------------------------\n                  CANTICLES.\n    --------------------------------------\n      6             4                  254\n    --------------------------------------\n                   ISAIAH.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1             1                   24\n      8             1                  249\n      8             2                  215\n     12             3                  120\n     17             8                  161\n     18             2                  153\n     27             9                  161\n     30             8                  248\n     30            29                  223\n     37            38                  164\n     38             8                   84\n     45            23                  246\n     63             3                  133\n     65             5                   41\n    --------------------------------------\n                  JEREMIAH.\n    --------------------------------------\n      7            18                  160\n      9            17                  245\n     16             7              97, 243\n     19             5                  144\n     26         8, 16                  180\n     28             9                  192\n     32            35                  144\n     34            18                  257\n     35                                 31\n     35             7                   56\n     36             6                  130\n     36            23                  249\n     40             5                   86\n     44            17                  160\n     48             1                  164\n     48             7                  157\n     52            21                  259\n     52            24                   18\n    --------------------------------------\n                   LAMENT.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2            19                   81\n    --------------------------------------\n                   EZEKIEL.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1            10                  255\n      8                                163\n      8            14                  152\n     16            38                  199\n     20            21                   97\n     21            21             172, 177\n     22            41                   94\n     24            17                  243\n     37                                233\n     40             5                  261\n     45            11                  262\n     45            12                  268\n     45            13                  222\n     45            14                  263\n    --------------------------------------\n                   DANIEL.\n    --------------------------------------\n      9            24                   84\n    --------------------------------------\n                    HOSEA.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1             1                   25\n      3             2                  262\n      4            12             171, 177\n    --------------------------------------\n                    AMOS.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2             8                   94\n      5            26                  149\n      6            10                  241\n      8             4                  121\n    --------------------------------------\n                    JONAH.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1             5                  110\n    --------------------------------------\n                    MICH.\n    --------------------------------------\n      3             7                  244\n    --------------------------------------\n                    HAB.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2            11                  204\n    --------------------------------------\n                    HAGG.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2            10                   68\n    --------------------------------------\n                   ZACHAR.\n    --------------------------------------\n      3             1                  187\n      5             2                  249\n      9            14                  137\n     10             2                  171\n    --------------------------------------\n                   MALACH.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2             7                   18\n    --------------------------------------\n                     TOB.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1             7                  224\n      1          7, 8                  225\n      7            14                  235\n     10            10                  139\n    --------------------------------------\n                ECCLESIASTIC.\n    --------------------------------------\n     34            26                  223\n    --------------------------------------\n                  1 MACCHAB.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1            16                  217\n      4            59                  123\n      5            42                   27\n    --------------------------------------\n                  2 MACCHAB.\n    --------------------------------------\n      4            19                  151\n      6            19                  211\n    --------------------------------------\n                   MATTHEW.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2             4                   27\n      2            23                   32\n      3            17                  168\n      4            23                    7\n      5                                189\n      5            22                  146\n      8            11                   93\n      9         3, 11                   28\n      9            15                  232\n      9            23                  244\n     10        12, 13                   87\n     10            17                  180\n     10            29                  264\n     10            38                  209\n     10            41                   24\n     11            19                   25\n     12            41                  188\n     14            25                   81\n     15             2                   39\n     15             5                  247\n     16            14                   38\n     16            18                  192\n     17            24                  265\n     18            16                  181\n     20       3, 5, 6                   81\n     21             9                  118\n     21            23                  180\n     22            19                  266\n     22        23, 32                   47\n     23             5                   41\n     23             6                   30\n     23             9                   25\n     23            17                  103\n     23            18                  246\n     23            23             224, 226\n     24            31                  122\n     25            23                  186\n     26             3                  180\n     26            17                  113\n     26            49                   30\n     26            65                   17\n     27            24                   40\n     27            25                  196\n     27            26                  209\n     27            28                   13\n     27        34, 38             197, 198\n     27        59, 60                  242\n     28             1                   80\n    --------------------------------------\n                    MARK.\n    --------------------------------------\n      6            21                   61\n      6            27                  196\n      7             3                   39\n      7             4                   40\n      7             4             240, 263\n      8            15                   61\n     10            12                  238\n     12                                 50\n     12            42                  264\n     13            35                   81\n     14             1                   19\n     14            26                   92\n     15            23                  197\n     15        25, 34              82, 109\n     15            42                   99\n    --------------------------------------\n                    LUKE.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1          5, 9                   19\n      1            61                  215\n      2             1                   59\n      3             2                   18\n      3    37, 38, 46                   89\n      4        17, 20                  249\n      4            20                   71\n      5            17                   27\n      7            30                ibid.\n      7            38                   87\n      7        37, 38               46, 89\n      7            39                   41\n      8            44                   44\n     10            39                   31\n     11            38                   40\n     12             2                    7\n     12            38                   81\n     12            58                  187\n     13             1                   60\n     13            15                  102\n     13            34                  192\n     14             7                   90\n     15             8                  265\n     16             1                  116\n     16          6, 7                  263\n     16            22                   93\n     16            29                   24\n     18                                 45\n     18             6                  196\n     18            11                   37\n     18            12                   41\n     18            13                   73\n     20            27                   47\n     21          1, 4                   66\n     21            20                  264\n     22             1             104, 128\n     22        17, 18                   90\n     22            19                   93\n     23            11                   13\n     23            44                   82\n    --------------------------------------\n                    JOHN.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1        14, 16                   14\n      1            18                   99\n    --------------------------------------\n                  JOHN.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1            25                   11\n      1            38                   30\n      2             6              89, 264\n      2             9                  234\n      2            15                  270\n      2            20                   67\n      3            10                   23\n      3            26                   30\n      4             9                   47\n      4            20                   50\n      4            25                  215\n      7            22                  214\n      7            37                  120\n      7            38                ibid.\n      7            49                   37\n      8             5                  199\n      8            20                   66\n      9            22                  181\n      9            24                  246\n     10             3                   16\n     10            22                  139\n     10            23                   65\n     11             9               80, 83\n     13             2                  112\n     13             5                   88\n     13             9                   41\n     13            23                   93\n     13            29                  128\n     16             2                  112\n     18        28, 31             128, 129\n     19             7                  200\n     19            13                  191\n     19            14                   82\n     19            17                  209\n     19            24                  128\n     19            33                  114\n     19            36                   98\n     19            40                  241\n    --------------------------------------\n                  ACTS.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2             5                   10\n      2            15                   83\n      3             1                ibid.\n      3            11                   65\n      5            37                   59\n      6             1                    8\n      6             6                   21\n      6             9                   70\n      7            16                  265\n      7            43                  149\n      7            60                   73\n      9             2                   70\n      9            37                  239\n     10             9                   83\n     10         9, 10                   97\n     11            26                   33\n     13             2              21, 220\n     13         5, 14                   70\n     13            42                   98\n     14            23                   21\n     15             2                   32\n     15            21                   70\n     16            13                   73\n     16            16                  176\n     17            23                  141\n     18            14                  200\n     19                                166\n     19             2                   68\n     19      8, 9, 10                   71\n     19            19                  265\n     19            24                   76\n     19        24, 28                  162\n     21            24                   32\n     21            38                   60\n     22             3                   13\n     23             6               47, 49\n     23             8                   47\n     23             8                   37\n     24                                129\n     24             5                   32\n     26             1                   22\n     27             9                  130\n    --------------------------------------\n                  ROMANS.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1             1                  227\n      1            11                   36\n      3            25                   63\n      4            11                  213\n      5          6, 7                   34\n     11            16                  219\n     14            11                  246\n    --------------------------------------\n                 1 CORINTH.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1            20               24, 28\n      4            13                  132\n      5                                114\n      5             5                  182\n      7             3                  236\n      7            18                  217\n      8             5                  153\n     10            16                   93\n     10            19                   97\n     11                                115\n     11            10                  236\n     11            26                  106\n     14                                 31\n     15             9                  240\n     15            23                  254\n     15            32                  210\n     16                                183\n     16            20                   87\n    --------------------------------------\n                2 CORINTH.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2            15                   14\n      5            22                  133\n    --------------------------------------\n                  2 CORINTH.\n    --------------------------------------\n     11            24                  206\n    --------------------------------------\n                  GALATH.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2            11                   33\n    --------------------------------------\n                  EPHES.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2            13                  114\n    --------------------------------------\n                  PHILLIP.\n    --------------------------------------\n      3             5                    8\n    --------------------------------------\n                  COLOSS.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2     8, 16, 18                   64\n      2    20, 21, 23                  ib.\n      2             9                   68\n    --------------------------------------\n                  1 TIMOTHY.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1             4                   28\n      1            15                   72\n      3             2                  238\n      3            13                   21\n      4             3                   57\n      5             3                  238\n      5            22                   21\n      5            23                   57\n    --------------------------------------\n                  2 TIMOTH.\n    --------------------------------------\n      3             8                  174\n    --------------------------------------\n                  HEBREWES.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1             1                  165\n      3            18                  247\n      5             4                   17\n      9             4                   63\n      9            12                  133\n      9            26                  114\n     11            35                  211\n     11            37                  210\n     12            23                   20\n    --------------------------------------\n                  JAMES.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2             2                   12\n    --------------------------------------\n                  1 PETER.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1            18                  223\n      5            14                   87\n    --------------------------------------\n                  2 PETER.\n    --------------------------------------\n      1            20                   24\n      3             8                  136\n    --------------------------------------\n                  1 JOHN.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2             2                   63\n      5            16                  183\n    --------------------------------------\n                  2 JOHN.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2             1                  187\n    --------------------------------------\n                   APOC.\n    --------------------------------------\n      2            17                  188\n      4             6                  255\n      6             6                  264\n     14            14                  177\n     21            15                  261\n\n_FINIS._\n\n\n\n\nList of changes made\n\n\nSource of corrections: comparison with other editions of the same work,\nand with the author\u2019s original source materials.\n\nThe corrections are to be read:\n\nas found in this e-text;\nas printed in the original\n\n\nPREFATORY MATERIAL\n\n3. Baal-Peor;\n3. Baal-Poor\n\n\nMAIN TEXT\n\nPage 3\n\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9;\n\u1f02\u03b9\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f70\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05d9 \u05db\u05de\u05d5\u05da \u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05de\u05d9 \u05db\u05de\u05d5\u05da \u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e (word order error)\n\nPage 8\n\nBagbag;\nBaghag\n\nPage 15\n\nBigde Zahab;\nBidge Zahab\n\nPage 18\n\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9;\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\n\nPage 22\n\nAnsche Magnamad, Viri stationarii;\nAnsche, Magnamad, Vire stationarii\n\nPage 26\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d7\u05db\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d9\u200f\u200e (as best possible to make out from the printing)\n\nPage 33\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05d6\u05e8\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05e1\u05e8\u200f\u200e\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05e6\u05d9\u05d3\u05e7\u05dd\u200f\u200e\n\nPage 39\n\nsaid to have been done;\nsaid to have bin done\n\n\u03c0\u03cd\u03ba\u03b1;\n\u03c0\u03c5\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1\n\nSyriack Text;\nSyriack Texth\n\nPage 42\n\nPhylacteries for the hand;\nPhylacteries for the head\n\nPage 43\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d8\u05d5\u05d8\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e Totaphot;\n\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05d8\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e Mitaphoth\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d8\u05d8\u05e3\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05d8\u05e3\u200f\u200e\n\nPage 44\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05e2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e\n\nPage 50\n\nSyriake;\nSyriaek\n\nPage 52\n\nthey put on a suit;\nthey put one a suit\n\ncould not be believed;\ncould not believed\n\nPage 57\n\n\u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5;\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\n\nThe Apostle useth the word;\nThe Apostle useth the wound\n\nPage 58\n\n\u1f31\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9;\n\u1f10\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\nPage 59\n\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f31\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2;\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2\n\nPage 61\n\nHerod, Tetrarch;\nHerod, Tetartch\n\nPage 64\n\nwith the twelve Loaves;\nwhich the twelve Loaves\n\nPage 66\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05d5\u05e4\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05d9\u05e4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05dc \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4\u200f\u200e\n\nPage 80\n\nNatural, containing day and night;\nMatural, containing day and night\n\nPage 84\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e Magnoloth;\n\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05d7\u200f\u200e Magnoloch\n\nMenses cavi;\nMenses cravi\n\nPage 86\n\n\u0394\u1f76\u1ff3;\n\u03b4\u1f76\u1ff3\n\nMendose ponitur \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 pro \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u1f70\u03bd;\nMendose ponitur \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 pro \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u1f70\u03bd\n\nPage 90\n\nHabotsagn;\nHahotseong\n\nPage 92\n\n\u1f51\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2;\n\u1f51\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n\nPage 93\n\nThe table being placed in the middest;\nThe table thing placed in the middest\n\nPage 97\n\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2;\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2;\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\n\nPage 98\n\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd;\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05e9\u05d1\u05d1\u05ea\u200f\u200e\n\nPage 105\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05df \u05d4\u05e4\u05e1\u05d7 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e6\u05de\u05d4\u200f\u200e;\n\u201c\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u200f\u200e\u201d omitted\n\nPage 106\n\nthis be kept;\nthis he kept\n\nPage 110\n\nfrom the fourth to the sixth hour;\nfrom the fourth of the sixth hour\n\nPage 118\n\n\u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd;\n\u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\nThyrsi;\nThyrisi\n\n\u0395\u1f30\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7;\n\u1f1c\u03b9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\n\nPage 122\n\n\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f72\u03c2;\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f72\u03c2\n\nPage 124\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d2\u05d4\u05d6\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d2\u05d4\u05e5\u200f\u200e\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d6\u05d1\u05d3\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05e6\u05d1\u05d3\u200f\u200e\n\nPage 131\n\nwhich name the Heathens applied;\nwith name the Heathens applied\n\nin the name of all the people;\nin the name of the all people\n\nPage 132\n\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6;\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f11\u03bc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\n\n\u03b8\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9;\n\u03b8\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\nPage 148\n\nBaalites;\nBaabites\n\nPage 150\n\n\u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd;\n\u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05d0\u05d9\u05e8 \u05db\u05dc\u200f\u200e, Heircol;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05d0\u05e8 \u05db\u05dc\u200f\u200e, Hiercol\n\nPage 154\n\nLatium;\nLatum\n\nPage 157\n\ngraving tool;\ngraving Stool\n\nPage 172\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e, Kadim;\n\u200e\u200f\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e, Tzadim\n\nPage 173\n\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03cc\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1;\n\u1f10\u03c5\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\n\nPage 184\n\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2;\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\n\nPage 188\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03af\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd;\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c1\u03af\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2;\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\nPage 189\n\nto keep one\u2019s standing;\nto keep\u2019s one standing\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05e1\u05e0\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e1\u05e0\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e (word order error)\n\nPage 193\n\n\u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd;\n\u03c3\u1f7a\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\n\nPage 213\n\nthe \u00c6thiopians, the Troglodit\u00e6, and the Egyptians;\nthe \u00c6thiopians, the Traglodit\u00e6, and the Egyptians\n\nPage 215\n\nMaher-shalal-hash-baz;\nMaher-shalal-haz-baz\n\nPage 217\n\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9;\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03bf\n\nPage 220\n\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd;\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f08\u03b1\u03c1\u1f7c\u03bd;\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6 \u0391\u03b1\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\n\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5;\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\n\nPage 227\n\nBushels in one year;\nBushels in own year\n\nPage 228\n\nMint, Anise and Cummin;\nMint, Anise and Cummim\n\nPage 241\n\n\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd;\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n\nPage 250\n\nthat the Masorites were;\nthat the Nasorites were\n\nPage 251\n\nTheba achath;\nTheba agnath\n\nPage 253\n\nfor the habitation of the Clergy;\nfor the habition of the Clergy\n\ntwelve miles long;\ntwelves miles long\n\nPage 254\n\nIn the middle was the Camp of the Divine Majesty;\nIn the middle was Camps of the Divine Majesty\n\nPage 263\n\nParagraph on \u201cBath\u201d, rearranged lines, which were printed out of order.\n\nPage 266\n\nVespasian;\nVespasion\n\nPage 267\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05d1\u200f\u200e\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u200f\u200e and \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05dc\u05dd\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u200f\u200e and \u200e\u200f\u05de\u05dc\u05dd\u200f\u200e\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05de\u05d4 \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05da\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d5\u05d1\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc\u05de\u05d4 \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d3\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05da\u200f\u200e\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\nFootnote 26\n\nin fonte spurius ille textus;\nin fonte spurius illo textus\n\nFootnote 29\n\nEccles.;\nEccse.\n\nFootnote 34\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea \u05d3\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05df\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d1\u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d5\u05d1\u05d8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d3\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05df\u200f\u200e\n\nFootnote 44\n\nmagnus ipse est;\nmagnus ipsa est\n\nFootnote 59\n\nEodem sensu Gr\u00e6ci appellant artis medica candidatos;\nEodom sensu Gr\u00e6ci appellant artis medica condidatos\n\nFootnote 74\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e1\u05d5\u05de\u05da \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05da \u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05da\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05e1\u05d5\u05de\u05da \u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05da \u05e1\u05de\u05ea\u05da\u200f\u200e (as best possible to make out from the\nprinting)\n\nFootnote 113\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05dc \u05ea\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d9\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05dc \u05ea\u05d2\u05e9 \u05d1\u05d9\u200f\u200e\n\nFootnote 126\n\nConcil. quini Sexti;\nConcil. quinti Sexti\n\nFootnote 128\n\nMagnifice \u2026 Varronem;\nMagnifico \u2026 Varonem\n\nFootnote 138\n\nElias de \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05e8\u05e7\u200f\u200e is given in other editions as \u200e\u200f\u05e9\u05d5\u05e7\u200f\u200e.\n\nFootnote 139\n\nl. 3 p. 130;\nl. 34. 130.\n\nFootnote 238\n\nrecensionem;\nrecentionem\n\nFootnote 251\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea \u05e4\u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05ea \u05e4\u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e\n\nFootnote 252\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea \u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e Neshikoth parusoth, Oscula separationis.;\n\u200e\u200f\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea \u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e Neshekoth parishuth, Oscula seseparationis.\n\nFootnote 329\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05d2 \u05d4\u05e1\u05db\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d7\u05d2\u05d5 \u05d4\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e\n\nFootnote 362\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05de\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u200f\u200e\n\nFootnote 382\n\n\u1f18\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f23\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f76;\n\u1f18\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f11\u03c9\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f23\u03bd \u1f10\u03bf\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae\u03b8\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f76\n\nFootnote 387\n\n\u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b7\u03c2;\n\u0395\u03c5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b7\n\nFootnote 414\n\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6;\n\u1f40\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6\n\nFootnote 439\n\n\u0396\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9;\n\u0396\u03b7\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\n\nFootnote 456\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05da \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05e2\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e0\u05e7\u05d9\u05d0 \u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05d4\u05e2\u05d2\u05dc\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05da \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05e4\u05d5\u05e8\u05e2\u05e4\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d1\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e0\u05e7\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d8\u05e9\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05e2\u05d2\u05dc\u200f\u200e\n\nFootnote 514\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1;\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b2\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\n\nFootnote 534\n\nMoses Kotsen;\nMoses Kimchi\n\nFootnote 553\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05ea \u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05da \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05da \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e7\u05e0\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d0\u05ea \u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05da \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05da \u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05d0\u05e4\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3 \u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e7\u05e0\u05e1\u05d5\u05ea\u200f\u200e\n\nFootnote 555\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d5\u05d1\u05d0\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05e9\u05ea \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d9\u05ea\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d5\u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e0 \u05d5\u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e0 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05de\u05e9\u05ea \u05dc\u05d0 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d9\u05ea\u200f\u200e\n\nFootnote 616\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05db\u05dc\u05d9 \u05de\u05e1\u05d2\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05de\u05dc\u05d9 \u05de\u05e1\u05d2\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200f\u200e\n\nFootnote 621\n\nMercerus;\nMacerus\n\nFootnote 631\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05db\u05e9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d4\u05db\u05e0\u05e1\u05ea\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05db\u05df \u05ea\u05db\u05e0\u05d9\u05e1\u05d4\u05d5\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05db\u05e9\u05dd \u05e9\u05d4\u05db\u05e0\u05e1\u05ea\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05db\u05df \u05e0\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05e1\u05d2\u05d5\u200f\u200e\n\nFootnote 636\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05ea\u05e8\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05ea\u05e8 \u05de\u05d5\u200f\u200e\n\nFootnote 663\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d0\u05e9\u05d4\u200f\u200e uxor;\n\u200e\u200f\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4\u200f\u200e uxor\n\nFootnote 685\n\nSine Radid;\nSinie Radid\n\nFootnote 701\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05e0\u05d8\u05d5\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d5\u05d9\u05d7\u05e0\u05d8\u05e8\u200f\u200e\n\nFootnote 707\n\n\u200e\u200f\u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d4\u200f\u200e;\n\u200e\u200f\u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05e0\u05d2\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d4\u200f\u200e","title":"Moses and Aaron: Civil and Ecclesiastical Rites, Used by the Ancient Hebrews","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":89198}