Tillotson - BX5037 T451 1712 v1

298 l beVanity and Wickednef of Honouring VOL L And He is the Third Záchdriás Fnteritiorid, 2 Chron. 24. 2 r. who as he was reproving the Peoplefòr tranfgroging the C,oinmandinent of the Lórd, was Honed with Hones at the Commandment of the .King:, in the court of the houfe of the Lord. And this our Saviour Teems more particularly to retied upon, immediately after the Text ; O 7erufalem, yerufalem, thou thatfloneft the Prophets, &c. Now this one would think was certainly the Perfon intended by our Saviour, and fit to be mentioned with Abel, a hofe blood is Paid tó bave cried to the Lord. For of Zacharias it is likewife Paid, that when he died, he faid, the Lord look upon it, and require it. And Deruftus cites a Jewifh Writer, fpeaking thus by way of complaint againft the Jewifh Nation; becaufe in the inidfl of thee fell the Pries of the Lord, andbis Prophets, and becaufe before the Holy Temple in the miid/l of thee, wasfain he Godly andRighteous Prophet Zacharias, who lay unburied, nor did the Earthover his blood, but to this day it góes up andfpeaks in the mid/f of thee. So that none could have been more fit to havebeen joyn'd with 'Odin this refpe&. But as probable as this looks, there are Two very great Objections againft it. One is, that St. Matthew calls the Zacharias fpoken of by our Saviour, the Son of Barachias; whereas this Zacharias flail) by Joafh, was the Son of Jehoiada : And tho' it be very confiderable, which St. Yerome obferves,' that in. the Hebrew, or Nazarene Gofpel, it is Zacharias the Son of 7ehoida ; yet it is hard to rely upon that, againft all the Greek Copies. But a more difficult ObjePion, in my opinion, is, that our Saviour feems to defign to mention the Two Extreams, the Firft and Laft Righteous Man that was Slain, and between them' two comprehend- ed the Good Men of all Ages, that were Perfecuted and Slain ; and if fo, then that Zacharias in the Chronicles, who was flail) fo long before, can by no means be the Perfon. There is yet a Fourth Zacharias, mentioned by Me' ofepbus, Lib. 4. the Son of Baruch (which is probably enough the fame Name with Barachias,) who was the laft remarkableGood Man that was (lain, immediately before the Siege of Je- rufalem ; and that as Jofephus tells us, in the midit of the Temple ; which agrees with our Saviour's defcriptionof it, between the Altar and the Temple ; not the Altar of hicenfe, but of Burnt-Offerings, which was in the outward Court, be- fore the afcent to the Temple. ,So that Grotius thinks this was the Man intended by our Saviour, yet fo that he does both allude to the Hiftory of the former Zacharias, and foretel the Death of this. And there is but one Obje&ion a- gainft this ; that our Saviour fpeaks of this as already paff whomyou have (lain ; whereas this Zacharias was not flail) till after our Saviour's Death. But I think that a fitisfa&oryAnfwer may be given to this ( viz.) that our Saviour foretelling thofe future Perfecutions, which fhould All up the Meafure of their Sins, and bring final Deftru&ion upon them, he fpeaks of this as already paff, becaufe be- fore that Deftru&ion fhould come upon them, it would be true, they had flail] him : So that fpeaking of the Vengeance coming upon them, well might he fay, that upon themfhould come theblood ofall the righteous men, from Abel to Zacha- rias, whom theyhad(lain, &c. III. The Third Difficulty remains, and that is, in what Senfe, and with what Reafon and Juftice it is here threatned, that the blood of fuil theProphets andRigh- teous Men, fliedfrom thefoundationof theWorld, fhould be requiredof that Gene- ration. Sonic underftand this more ftri&ly 3 they fhould be charged with it, and formerly punifht for it, becaufe in imitating their cruel Predeceffors, they fhould be guilty of all their Cruelty. But there is no neceffity of this: At that our Saviour Teems to intend, is this, that their Punifhment in the Deftru&ionof yerss- falem, fhouldbe fo horrible, as if God had oncefor all Arraigned them of all the Righteous Blood that ever had been flied in the World, and brought the Pun«h ment of it upon them ; tho' in Truth the Punifhment did not exceed the defert of their ownSins. And if this be the meaning of it, there is nothing Harfh and Unreafonable in it. And thus I have explain'd, as well as I can, the feveral Dif- ficulties in the Text. I fhall make Two or Three Qbfervations from the main Scope and Defign of it, and fo conclude. I. That

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=