This bill was written by a Scrivener, or publick Notary.[689] And furthermore,[690] a woman being divorced, or otherwise a widow, it was not lawful for her to marry again, till she had tarried ninety days, besides the day of her divorce, or of her husbands death, and her last espousals: to the end it might be known, whether she were with child or no, & that there might be proof, whether it were the seed of her first husband, or of her second.

It was a common custome among the Romans, about the time of our Saviours birth, even for the women to divorce their Husbands, and to marry again at their pleasure. Of this, Heathen Authors speak:

Non consulum, sed maritorum numero annos suos computant, &c.[691] The bill tendred by the woman, was termed[692] Γράμματα ἀπολείψεως, letters of forsaking; not letters of cutting off, or putting away. This same practise was in use also among the Hebrews. Hence is that saying of our Saviour: If a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, &c. Mark 10. 12. Now although, at that time, humane laws forbad not marriages renewed with others upon such divorce, yet Gods law condemned both such divorces, & such marriages, and, before God, persons marrying after such divorcements were reputed digamites, that is, to have two husbands, or two wives. For this reason, a Minister above others is commanded to be μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνὴρ; The husband of one wife, 1 Tim. 3. 2. And the woman she is commanded to be ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνὴ, The wife of one husband, 1 Tim. 5. 9. In which text, second marriages (in case of the Husbands or Wives death) are no more forbidden, than the Poet forbade them in the like phrase.

Note in the last place, that among the Jews the Bride-woman also brought a dowry to her husband; it was sometimes more, sometimes less; it was called by the Rabbins[693] ‎‏נדוניא‏‎ Nedunia: Raguel gave with his daughter Sarah half his goods, servants and cattel, and money, Tob. 10. 10.

CHAP. V.
Of their Burials.

At the time of a mans death, before his Burial, many ceremonies were observed. First, the next of the kin closed the eyes of the deceased body. Joseph shall put his hands upon thy eyes, Genes. 46. 4. This was likewise practised both by the Romans and the Græcians.

Secondly, they washed the body being dead. Tabitha died, and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper-chamber, Act. 9. 37. The baptization or washing at such a time was threefold. The first was βαπτισμὸς ἀπὸ νεκρῶν, Eccles. 34. 26. A washing from the pollution contracted by the touch of a dead carkass; that if haply any ignorantly and unawares became thus unclean, then was he by a kind of washing to be made clean again. The second was βαπτισμὸς τῶν νεκρῶν, a baptization or washing of the dead Corps it self. Thus Tabitha was washed: neither is the word βαπτισμὸς, unusually applied to common washings, as Mar. 7. 4. we read of the washing of cups, pots, vessels, tables, the Greek is βαπτισμὸς. The first of these washings was proper to the Jews: this second in use with Jews Christians,[694] and Heathens:[695] the third (which was βαπτισμὸς ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, a baptization for the dead, 1 Cor. 15. 9.) proper to some amiss-led Christians. It may be demanded, what manner of Baptism this was? with submission of my judgment, I understand this place with S. Ambrose[696] of a Sacramental washing, applied unto some living man in the name and behalf of his friend, dying without Baptism, out of a superstitious conceit, that the Sacrament thus conferred to one alive, in the name of the deceased, might be available for the other dying unbaptized. As if the Apostle did wound those superstitious Corinthians with their own quills, and prove the Resurrection of the dead from their own erroneous practice, telling them in effect, that their superstitious custome of baptizing the living for the dead, were vain and bootless, if there were no resurrection, and therefore the Apostle useth an emphatical distinction of the persons, in the next immediate verse, saying, why are we also in jeopardy every hour? he inferreth the resurrection by force of a double argument; the first drawn from their superstitious baptization for the dead: the second, from the hourly jeopardy and peril wherein we, that is, himself and other Christians are. So that as that Father noteth, the Apostle doth not hereby approve their doing, but evinceth their hope of the resurrection from their own practice, though erroneous. That there was Vicarium tale Baptisma (as Tertullian[697] calleth it) in use among the Marcionites, is evident, yea, and among the Corinthians[698] also: the manner thereof is thus described:[699] When any Catechumenist died, some living person placed under the bed of the deceased, they came unto the deceased party, and asked him whether he would be baptized: then he replying nothing, the party under the bed answered for him, saying that he would be baptized: and thus they baptized him for the dead, as if they acted a play upon the Stage.

The third ceremony used by the Jews towards the dead party, was the embalming of the corps, which for the main thereof, it is probable they learned from the Egyptians, for we find Joseph to be the first that practised it, Gen. 50. 2. The Egyptian manner of embalming was thus:[700] they took out the bowels of the dead, they cleansed them and washed them with the wine of Dates, and after that again with odors: then filled they the bowels with pure Myrrh beaten, and Cassia, and other Odors (except Frankincense) and sewed them up. After this they seasoned the corps hidden in Nitre seventy days, not longer: after seventy days they washed the corps, and wrapped it in fine linnen cloth gummed, which gum the Egyptians often used instead of glew. The Greeks termed this ταριχεύειν. And the use thereof was for the preservation of the body, that it might not putrifie; and therefore when the Funeral Obsequies were not long delayed, they used another kind of embalming, namely, an external and outward application of Spices and Odours, without the unbowelling of the corps. This the Greeks termed ἐνταφιάζειν.[701] This was used toward our Saviour Christ, John 19. 40.

Sometimes they did use to burn the corps, preserving onely the bones in some urn or pitcher, Amos 6. 10. But commonly they interred the whole body, and buried it in the earth. The ancient Jews if they received not from their Ancestors, then would they purchase a burial place themselves, for the burial of them and their family. The form of that place was thus: It was a vault hewed out in a rock,[702] six cubits long, and four broad, in which eight other cells or lesser holes (or as some say, thirteen) were made, as so many distinct receptacles, or tombs for the dead bodies to be laid in: as often as they buried any, they were wont to roll a great stone to the mouth of the cave. The cave or vault it self they termed from the act of burial, Keber,[703] which signifieth a place of burial, or from its form, Magnara,[704] a den or cave. These several cells or receptacles in which the body was laid, they called cucim,[705] graves, tombs: and the stone they named Golel,[706] a rolling stone. This giveth great light to that in the Gospel. Joseph took the body of Christ, and wrapped it in a clean linnen cloth, and put it in his new tomb, which he had hewen out in a rock, and rolled a great stone to the door of the Sepulchre, Mat. 27. 59, 60. These caves or vaults the wealthier sort would paint, garnish, and beautifie at the mouth or enterance of them: hence cometh that phrase, Sepulchra dealbata, painted tombs. As often as they had an occasion to mention or speak of any friend deceased, they used that in the Proverbs, The memory of the just is blessed, Prov. 10. 7. Hence the Rabbies,[707] in their quotations of any worthy Author deceased, usually subjoyn this honourable commemoration, N. Benedictæ memoriæ, N. such or such a one of blessed memory.

But their usual Epitaph or inscription upon their Sepulchers, was,[708] Let this soul be bound up in the Garden of Eden, or in the bundle of the living, Amen, Amen, Amen, Selati.

The latter Jews have been strangely conceited concerning the place of burials, and are perswaded that if an Israelite be buried in any strange country, out of the promised Land, he shall not be partaker so much as of Resurrection, except the Lord vouchsafe to make him hollow passages, under the earth, thorow which his body by a continual volutation and rolling, may be brought into the land of Canaan. The ground hereof is taken from the charge of Jacob unto his son Joseph, that he should not bury him in the land of Egypt, but in Canaan. For which charge they assign three reasons.[709] First, because he foresaw by the spirit of Prophecy, that the dust of that land should afterward be turned into lice. Secondly, because those who died out of the holy Land should not rise again without a painful rolling and tumbling of their bodies thorow those hollow passages. Thirdly, that the Egyptians might not idolatrously worship him.

They made a feast at their burials, which is stiled The bread of men, Ezek. 14. 17. And a cup of consolation, Jer. 16. 7. because it was administred to comfort those that were sad of heart. It much resembled the Roman Silicernium.

From those two places last quoted, we may observe, that at the burial of their friends, they used these ceremonies which follow; some to testifie, some to augment their grief. 1. Cutting themselves, that is, wounding or cutting any part of their body, with any kind of Instrument. This practice was learned from the Heathens,[710] who were wont not only to scratch their face, but to punch and prick certain parts of their body with a needle, and then cover it over with ink, which they used as a special ceremony in their superstitious worship, and therefore it is forbid, Deut. 14. 1. Secondly, making themselves bald,[711] which was done divers manner of ways; either by shaving their hair, or plucking it off with their hands, or by impoisoned plaister to make it fall off. Other Nations were wont to shave off the hair of their head, and to offer it in the behalf of the dead: they did sometimes shave their cheeks, sometimes their eye-lids: and this also, being an Heathenish custome, was likewise forbidden in Israel, Deut. 14. 1. Thirdly, going bare headed, that they might cast dust or ashes upon their heads, signifying thereby that they were unworthy the ground on which they went. Fourthly, going barefooted for their greater humiliation. Fifthly, the covering of their lips, for that was a special sign of sorrow and shame, The Seers shall be ashamed, &c. they shall all cover their lips, for they have no answer of God, Mich. 3. 7. If it be demanded, how they covered their lips? It is thought[712] they did it by casting the skirt of their cloak, or garment over them. Sixthly,[713] renting their cloaths. Seventhly, putting sackcloth about their loyns, Gen. 37. 34. These were general tokens of grief, used upon all extroardinary occasions of sorrow. Two other there were, more proper to burials, to augment their grief. First, Minstrels, who with their sad tunes inclined the affections of the people to mourning.[714] Of these there were two sorts: Some playing on pipes, others sounding trumpets. At the funeral of Noblemen, or old men, they used a trumpet: at the funeral of the common people, or children, they used a pipe.[715] In this respect it is said; That Jesus, when he raised Jairus his daughter, cast out the Minstrels, Mat. 9. 23. Secondly, women hired to sing at burials for the same purpose, and likewise by outward significations of sorrow, to move the company, and more strongly to affect them, Call for the mourning women, &c. and send for skilful women, Jer. 9. 17. These the Romans called, Præficas, quasi in hoc ipsum præfectas, Chief or skilful mourners.

CHAP. VI.
Of their Oaths.

The manner of swearing was sometimes by lifting up their hands towards heaven; Abraham said to the King of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand unto the Lord; that is, I have sworn, that I will not take from a thred, even to a shoe-latchet, Gen. 14. 22. Unto which custome the Psalmist seemeth to allude, Psal. 106. 26. He lifted up his hand, that is, he swore. Sometimes he that took the Oath did put his hand under the others thigh, which administred the Oath. We read this manner of administration to have been used by Abraham, Gen. 24. 2. and Jacob, Gen. 47. 29. Which ceremony some[716] interpret to be as a token of subjection; others[717] as a mystery of circumcision; the sign wherof they bore about that place of their body: Others[718] more probably think it to be a mysterious signification of Christ the promised seed, who was to come out of Abrahams loyns, or thigh; as the like phrase is used, Gen. 46. 26. the souls that came out of Jacobs thigh. Sometimes also the manner of deposing, was to stand before the Altar, 1 Kings 8. 31. Which was also the custome of the Athenians,[719] the Carthaginians,[720] and the Romans.[721]

The object of a lawful Oath was, and is, onely the Lord: whence he that took the Oath was said to confess unto God, compare Isa. 45. 23. with Rom. 14. 11. And the ancient form of imposing an Oath was this, Give glory to God, Josh. 7. 19. John. 9. 24. Now God was glorified by an Oath, because thereby there was a solemn confession and acknowledgement of Gods Omni-presence, that he is present in every place: of his Omniscience, that he knoweth all secrets: of his truth, that he is a maintainer of truth, and an avenger of falshood: of his justice, that he is willing; and his omnipotency, that he is able to punish those that by swearing shall dishonour him, And as the object of a lawful oath was onely God: so it is implied, that it was not rashly or unadvisedly to be undertaken, but by a kind of necessity imposed; for the Hebrew word ‎‏נשבע‏‎ is a Passive, and signifieth to be sworn, rather than to swear.

In corrupter times they were wont to swear by the creatures,[722] but the Jews chiefly by Jerusalem, by the Temple, by the gold of the Temple, by the Altar, and the gift on the Altar. This gift in Hebrew was termed Corban,[723] and it was one of those oaths which in our Saviour Christs time the Scribes and Pharisees accounted principally obligatory. If any swore by the Altar, it was nothing: but if any swore by the oblation of the Altar, he was bound to perform it, Matth. 23. 18. Yea, although Gods law enjoyned honour, and relief toward parents; yet if they had bound themselves by this oath Corban, that they would not help or relieve their parents, they taught they were discharged. Whence, saith their Talmud,[724] Every one ought to honour his father and mother, except he hath vowed the contrary. And it is evident[725] that the Jews did often by solemn vows and oaths bind themselves, that they would never do good to such, or such a man. We must furthermore know that usually to their oaths there was an execration, or conditional curse annexed, which sometimes was expressed, as, if I do not do thus and thus, then the Lord do so to me, and more also, 1 Sam. 14. 44. Also 1 Kin. 20. 10. Sometimes it is understood, as, I have sworn, if I take from a thred to a shoo-latchet, Gen. 14. 22. then let the Lord do so to me, and more also; this, or the like, is understood and maketh the former part of the oath to sound negatively; as if Abraham had said, I have sworn, I will not take from a thread to a shoo-latchet. In like manner, Psal. 95. I have sworn, if they shall enter into my rest; that is, They shall not enter into my rest, Heb. 3. 18. This helpeth the exposition of that difficult place, Mat. 15. 5. which we read,[726] By the gift that is offered by me thou maist have profit: but if we conceive it thus, according to the form of the oath Corban, By Corban if thou receive any profit by me, and understand the execration implyed: Then let God do thus, and much more to me; the sense will be thus; By Corban thou shalt receive no profit by me. This exposition is as agreeable to the scope of the place, as it is to their form of swearing, and plainly sheweth how the Pharisees by their traditions transgressed the Commandment of God. For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and Mother. But the Scribes and Pharisees said; Whosoever should say to father or mother seeking relief, By Corban thou shalt receive no profit from me, he was discharged.

CHAP. VII.
Of their Writing, Masorites, and their Work.

Writing in no Nation came to its perfection on a sudden, but by degrees: The Opinions of the Ancients concerning the Authors and Inventers of letters are different. Some say[727] Cadmus brought the use of letters into Greece: others say,[728] Palamedes: some say,[729] Radamanthus brought them into Assyria: Memnon into Egypt: Hercules into Phrygia: and Carmenta into Latium. Likewise some say the Phœnicians had first the knowledge and use of letters.

Others say the Ethiopians:[730] others the Assyrians.[731] But upon better grounds it is thought,[732] that Moses first taught the use of letters to the Jews, and that the Phœnicians learned them from the Jews, and the Grecians from the Phœnicians.

In like manner, the matter upon which men wrote, in ruder times was different. Some wrote on rinds of trees, whence Liber, signifying originally a rinde of a tree, is now used for a book:[733] some wrote on tile-stone with a bone instead of a pen; some on Tables; this last was chiefly in use among the Jews, the Decalogue was was written in two tables. Again, write these things upon a table, Esay. 30. 8. ἐπὶ πυξίου, saith the Septuagint, as if the writing-tables at that time were made of Box-trees. They used not then pens or quills, but a certain instrument or punch, made of Iron or Steel, called Stylus, it was sharp at one end, for the more convenient indenting or carving of the characters, and broad at the other, for the scraping or blotting out what had been written: whence sprang that Proverbial speech:[734] Invertere stylum, to unsay what he had said, or to blot out what he hath written: Scribe stilo hominis: write with the pen of man, Esay. 8. 1. Afterward before they came to bind up books in manner as now we have them, they wrote in a roll of Paper or Parchment, which sometimes was ten cubits broad, and twenty long, Zac. 5. 2. This they called ‎‏מגלה‏‎ Megilla, in Hebrew, from Galal, to roll, Volumen in Latine, in English a volumn, from volvo, to roll. In the volumn of the book it is written, Psal. 40. 7. And Christ closing the Book, gave it to the Minister, Luk. 4. 20. the word is πτύξας, complicans folding, or rolling it up: and vers. 17. ἀναπτύξας, explicans, unfolding, or opening it.[735] These volumns were written not with one entire continued writing, but the writing was distinguished into many spaces, columns or platforms, like unto so many Areæ: these platforms, filled with writing, were instead of so many pages in a book: and thus we are to understand that Jer. 36. 23. When Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with a pen-knife, &c. These leaves were nothing else but such spaces, and platforms in the roll. After this manner the Jews reserve the Law written in such rolls, and with such spaces, in their Synagogues at this day.

It is much controversed, whether the Jews did from the beginning write with vowels and accents, or whether they were added by the Masorites; for the understanding of which, it will be needful, First, to enquire who the Masorites were: Secondly, what their work was; and then to deliver in a proposition what may be probably thought in this point.

First, concerning the Masorites, we are to know that ‎‏מסר‏‎ Masar signifieth tradere, to deliver, and Masor a tradition, delivered from hand to hand to posterity without writing, as the Pythagoreans and Druides were wont to do; but by the figure Synecdoche, it signifieth those critical notes or Scholion, written in the margine of the Bible, and those that were the Authors of those critical observations were termed Masoritæ, Masorites. Concerning these Authors, who they were there are two opinions. Some[736] think that they were certain learned Jews living in the City Tiberias, they termed them Sapientes Tiberiadis, the wise men of Tiberias. These wise men are thought to have added these marginal notes unto the Hebrew Bibles[737] some time after the finishing of the Babylon Talmud, which was about the year of our Lord, 506. This opinion is unlikely for these two reasons. 1.[738] Because we cannot find in Histories, the continuance of any Colledg or School in Tiberias so long, but rather that degrees in learning ceased there within four hundred years after our Saviour his birth. 2.[739] In both Talmuds mention is made of the Masora, and the things contained therein. Others therefore more probably say,[740] that the Masorites were that Ecclesiastical Senate or Council held by Esra, Haggai, Zachary, Malachi, and divers others assembled for the reformation of the Church after their return from Babylon; they are called Viri Synagogæ magnæ. This Council continued at least forty years: for Simeon the just, who went out in his Priestly robes, to meet and pacifie Alexander the Great, coming in hostile manner against Jerusalem,[741] was the last of that Council, and that was above three hundred years before the birth of our Saviour. Esra was the President or Chief of this Council; he was of such repute among the Jews, that they parallel’d him with Moses, saying,[742] Dignus erat Esra, quod data fuisset lex per manus ejus Israeli, si non præcessisset eum Moses.