speaks it, obediens usque ad mortem, obedient until death, all his life long, Philip. ii. 8. Only take this, that at his conception at first, those three fore-mentioned characters or designments of a Nazarite were declared by the angel. 1. Jesus a saviour. 2. The holy one of God. 3. His dignity and pre-eminence over all: Luke i. 31, 32, Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. And he shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.' To which the types, both of Samson the judge, and Joseph the ruler, do fully answer. Thus also again at his death, those all meet in the inscription on the cross, 'Jesus the saviour, of Nazareth,' or 'Nazarene,' the holy One, king of the Jews.' For the second particular, viz., how it was ordered by God that the Jews should call Jesus a Nazarite; three things are worthy our notice in it.

1. That God in his all-wise counsel so ordered it, that the name or title Nazarite, which in the Greek is Nawgaños, should be used in the common language of the Jews to express an inhabitant of the city Nazareth, which word also had been singled forth by God to express a Nazarite to himself, one holy and consecrated to himself. It was, as many other words are, vox æquivoca, that had two senses equally and vulgarly in use. Fuit tum nomen gentilitium, tum religiosum, as Latinus, or Aareños, signified both an inhabitant, or one born in Italy, an Italian, so denoting a man's country; and was anciently used to signify one that adhered to, and was one of the popish religion, as distinguished from that professed by the Greek churches, or now by the protestant. And this was foretold by Irenæus as the title of antichrist his followers, long before that division was made; he thus interpreting the mystery of the number 666, Rev. xiii. 18. So now Romanus, a Roman, may and doth import one either dwelling or born at Rome, or one of the Romish religion. Or as if a child of an Englishman that had been of the separation at Amsterdam, and educated or born there, should be termed an Amsterdamian, it would import at once both the place whence he came and where he dwelt; as also (as commonly it doth) that he was of that profession which the English separatists did hold forth there. Multitudes of such instances are producible, and thus it fell out here.

Now that this word Nawgaños was then used to express both, I judge more evident.

(1.) In that we are sure that Nalagaños imported an inhabitant of Nazareth; for Matthew, who gives him that style, directly pointeth us unto that sense and signification of the word: for he says, He came and dwelt in Nazareth that it might be fulfilled.' He was called a Nazarite, as being vulgarly so styled from that city; yea and therefore it was that the Jews in scorn so called him, to defame him from that city, which was so vile and mean, as no good was thence expected; and therefore much less he that was to be the Messiah should come forth from thence. Also this appears in that in another evangelist, speaking at a time afore that name was given, he is called ỏ άnò roũ Nalagid, 'one of the city of Nazareth.'

Then [2.] The scripture or prophets nowhere speaking of Christ's dwelling in the city Nazareth, the fulfilling of the prophecies must be found in this, that this word Nalagaños hath some other mysterious signification, which should be proper and eminent in him that was the true Christ. Now this title i Nalagaños is in the same letters and syllables thereof a Nazarite, or one holy and separate to God. For the Septuagint, translating the Hebrew word for Nazir or Nazarite into the Greek, do still use this word with the same syllables and letters, only they sometimes use a, a, Nalagaños,

sometimes, or (n, Nangaños, whereas Matthew, w, Nawgaños, and that is all the difference.

And this those of an opposite opinion object, that because Matthew useth the letter w, whereas the Septuagint useth a, that therefore it is not the same word which they use to signify a Nazarite by. To which the answer is ready.

For 1. In that the Septuagint themselves do vary it, sometimes writing it with a, sometimes with, yet in each they alike intended to signify a religious Nazarite. I say, if they alter a into 7, in either intending the same word and the same signification, it may bear as well this other alteration of w, it being but a matter of diverse pronunciation, as Grotius observes, and not a diversity of the word itself, which in differing dialects, when the word is the same, is ordinary in languages, as we see in the Scottish and English tongue (which I mention for vulgar illustration). Yea, the ancient fathers make another alteration, writing it with : so Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Nazianzen, terming them Nazireans or Nazirites.

But 2. We all know that nothing is more usual than, in translating a word out of one language into another, to change a letter; as Miriam in the Hebrew, the Greeks into Maria, Schemuel, Samuel, and the like. And the Syriac, which was the language Christ and the Jews did then speak, did ordinarily in pronouncing the Hebrew, turn a into w: so as Nazareth after the Hebrew pronunciation was Nazoreth in the Syriac. Now Matthew in the Greek did incline and conform the termination or sound of the word to the Syriac rather than to the Hebrew, the Syriac being then in use. And so Nazorean, or Nazorite, is all one with Nazarite.

6

3. I omit to retort, that those of the other opinion that would have Christ here called by Matthew Nalagaños, from Netzer, the title in Hebrew which Isaiah gives to Christ, Isa. xi. 1, Of the branch,' is far remoter in sound and letters by far. And besides that that is a substantive word, this of Napatos is an adjective. But of this afterwards.

It is objected, 2. That Christ is also called Jesus Nalagnvds, the Nazarene, as well as Nalagaños, the Nazaraian. But Nazarene was not used (say they) to signify a Nazarite.

And it is answered again, that if Nazarene and Nazaraian (that I may in the English variation express it) signified both one, where his city's name is intended, as it is evident they did, then why not both these words also be as promiscuously used for a religious Nazarite, when it is evident that one of them was used to express it, viz., his being a Nazarite? There is nothing more usual in all languages than to make such variations, in names of religion as well as other, and yet so as they are still but one word in signification; as we say sometimes a Grecian, sometimes a Greek, and both signifying either his religion or his country; a Roman, a Romanist, a Calvinian or Calvinist; so if you will, a Nazarite, a Nazarean, is all one. And 2. Matthew that holds out to us this mystery, he calls him Nazaraian, or Nazarite, not Nazarene; so in this place, and so constantly elsewhere. And thus the inscription on the cross (as in John also) and not the other word Nazarene at all. So as Matthew intended to hold forth his being a Nazarite, as well as of the city Nazareth.

The second thing to be noted is, that as Christ was to be a Nazarite from his conception (as in his type of Samson it was foresigned), and also in his younger years of education, as well as when he died, so God in his providence ordered it, that the city Nazareth, from whence he should by the Jews be called a Nazarite, was not only the very place of his education,

but also of his very conception; and this is sedulously noted (to complete this mystery) unto us in the story of his conception: Luke i. 26, 27, ‘In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.' So then, though Bethlehem was the place of his birth, yet this Nazareth, from whence he had his name of Nazarite, was the place of his conception, to shew he was a Nazarite from his very conception, which hath been the point I have pursued. And as it was the place of his conception, so of his abode and education, until he put himself forth into the world, and appeared as the Messiah. This you have, Mat. ii. 22.

Now, yet further, to add unto Matthew's λngwe, and to make up fulfilling of prophecies yet more full, it was foretold by the prophet Jeremiah that his conception should be in one of the cities of the ten tribes,* which the story here in Matthew tells us was Nazareth. The prophet Micah had, before Jeremiah's time, foretold that the city of his birth should be Bethlehem, which the tribes of Judah and Benjamin gloried in, and therefore despised the other ten. The pharisees understood this, as you read in the evangelists, when Herod puts the question to them. But that any of the cities of the twelve † tribes should have any honour of his residence, much less the greatest honour of the laying the foundation of this tabernacle which God, not man, reared, viz., his very conception, they never so much as dreamed of this, especially not of that region or part of the ten tribes, Galilee; and above all the cities in Galilee, not out of that barren, desert place of all other, viz., Shall Christ come out of Galilee?' say they, John vii. 41. And again, ver. 42, Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was ?' And again, ver. 52, ' Search, and look for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.' Not so much as a prophet, much less the Messiah, the great prophet. And yet it was apparent, that one of their prophets, Jonah, was a Galilean, 2 Kings xiv. 25. Gathhepher was a city of the tribe of Zebulon, compared with Josh. xix, 13, which Zebulon was a part of Galilee, Isa. ix. 1.

6

But as for that city of Nazareth, they are yet more confident that Christ should not come thence: John i. 46, Can any good come out of Nazareth?' And out of this confidence it was that they styled him so ordinarily 'Jesus of Nazareth' in scorn, as imagining that alone did carry a confutation and evidence in it that this man of all else could not be the Messiah. So confident are men often of some one unanswerable argument against a great truth, when on the contrary it proves to be the greatest evidence of that truth, as in this case it fell out. But, lo, how Jeremiah had foretold how, though Bethlehem was to be the place of his birth, yet one of the cities of the ten tribes, and that in Galilee, should be the place of his conception (which is the thing in hand), as Isaiah had also that Galilee should be of his preaching. Read Jer. xxxi. 21, 22, Set thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps: set thine heart towards the highway, even the way which thou wentest: turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy cities. How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, a woman shall compass a man.' Jeremiah, as you know, lived till the Babylonish captivity, and had foretold how the captive Jews should again have liberty, by Cyrus his proclamation, to inhabit their own land, when Cyrus should give them liberty, * Jer. xxxi. 21, 22.-Ed. † Qu. 'ten'?-ED.

as Isaiah had foretold, and as he promiseth Judah: ver. 23, 24, 'Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, As yet they shall use this speech in the land of Judah, and in the cities thereof, when I shall bring again this captivity, The Lord bless thee, O habitation of justice, and mountains of holiness. And there shall dwell in Judah itself, and in all the cities thereof together, husbandmen, and they that go forth with flocks.' Also God courteth Ephraim, or the ten tribes, who had been long afore dispersed, to return with the tribes of Judah into their cities also, which they should then have free liberty to do. And to invite and allure them to it, they had the prophecies of their Messiah to them both, the delight and joy of each,' Mal. iii. 1, and glory of the people of Israel; and how each should come to have a share in him, the one in his birth, the other in his conception.

1. Of his birth; that it should be in those parts the two tribes inhabit he prophesies: Jer. xxxi. ver. 15-17, Thus saith the Lord, A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children, refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. Thus saith the Lord, Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border.' Now, this properly and exactly relates to the story of his birth, for being born in Bethlehem, which was on the confines of Judea, near Ramah, his birth there was the occasion of the slaughter of many of Rachel's, the mother of Benjamin, her great-grandchildren there in Ramah, and also of Judah in Bethlehem. You all know how Matthew applieth this to his birth: Mat. ii. 16-18, Herod sent forth and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Ramah was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning; Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.' And to comfort her, he tells her, that together with these lamentations and throes of hers, the Messiah's birth (who was the hope of Israel) should be attended into the world, which would sweeten these sorrows in the end or issue, to the hearts of the rest of the elect, which were to come out of their loins in those times, and then to dwell in those cities. And so this birth of the Messiah, to be in their quarters, was worth this sorrow, and abundantly recompensed it, and was a sufficent invitation for Benjamin and Judah to return to their cities.

2. Then, secondly, he applies himself to Ephraim, or the other ten tribes, as it is expressed, ver. 18-20, and invites them by this argument to turn again with Judah into their cities, that the conception of the Messiah should be in their quarters, and in one of their cities, as his birth was to be in the other: ver. 21, 22, Turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy cities. How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, a woman shall compass a man.' His meaning is, that this share and interest they and their regions should have in the Messiah, that in one of their cities this strange and unheard-of thing in the earth, and which the first creation knew not, should be; a woman, and a woman alone, without a man, should encompass a man in her womb, and conceive that Gebar, that strong man, that Son of man, the Christ. Now, this he alleging as an

argument to return unto their cities, his scope must be, that in one of their cities this great thing should be done. Now, then, turn we again to Luke i. 26, and the region, province, or shire in which this fell out was Galilee, and the city in that country this of Nazareth: In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth.' So then, in a manifest contradiction to the Jews, here is some good thing, yea, our chiefest good, comes out of Galilee; and Nazareth, it was the place of his conception.

Yea, and to view how all things meet yet more fully, as Samson was from his conception proclaimed a Nazarite, and the eminent type of Christ in this of his, so as in allusion thereunto, the word which Jeremiah there useth of Christ's conception hath an eye unto Samson, his type herein. It is not simply that a woman shall conceive a man, but Gebar, a strong man, that strong man of whom the strongest man that ever the world had, Samson, was but a shadow, a man filled with strength to overcome all our enemies, and to lift hell gates off their hinges, and to carry them up the mountains, as Samson did. Thus much for the second thing.

CHAPTER VI.

How God wisely ordered it that the Jews should call Christ a Nazarite, though he was not really born in that city.

The next thing to be noticed is, that God having in these types foretold he should be a Nazarite; and also in his wise disposement forelaid it, that an inhabitant of Nazareth, and a Nazarite devoted to be more eminently holy and a saviour, should by one and the same word be signified in vulgar use; yet further stand and admire that wonderful providence of his, whereby he brought it about that the Jews themselves should upon occasion of this city come unawares to give him this name, so to fulfil the prophecies which themselves read and understood not.

Let it be, 1, considered, that our Christ was not to take up the outward legal and ceremonial profession of a Nazarite among the Jews, which his forerunner John Baptist and Samson did. No; as he professed not himself to be legally a priest, that is, after the order of Aaron, so nor to be a Nazarite, having a vow upon him according to the tenor of their law, but came secretly and unknown to fulfil the substance and reality of both. Now how should this name then come vulgarly to be given him? No other way but by his having had his known and constant abode from his infancy in that city Nazareth. Then,

2. Consider how contingent a thing that was to fall on't.* The seat of the seed and progeny of David by inheritance, and according to their genealogy, was Bethlehem by Jerusalem, far removed from Nazareth in Galilee. But Herod then reigning, who was jealous of all that might pretend to be heirs of that crown he then wore, these the true heirs, Joseph and Mary, were forced to skulk and retire themselves to these remoter parts of Galilee, as the seat of their dwelling; and hence it fell out that this his conception fell out to be in Nazareth. Well but,

3. That his conception (so secret a matter) was at Nazareth, the Jews ordinarily would not have known or considered; nor was it (as it is not) the manner of men to give the name of one's country to the place he was

Qu. 'out'?-Ed.