Selected quad for the lemma: day_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
day_n	saturday_n	tuesday_n	wednesday_n	5,753	5	12.7972	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A95370	A sermon preached before Sir P.W. Anno 1681. With additions: to which are annexed three digressional exercitations; I. Concerning the true time of our Saviour's Passover. II. Concerning the prohibition of the Hebrew canon to the ancient Jews. III. Concerning the Jewish Tetragrammaton, and the Pythagorick Tetractys. / By John Turner, late fellow of Christ's College in Cambridge.	Turner, John, b. 1649 or 50.	1684 (1684)	Wing T3318AB; ESTC R185793	233,498	453

of those modern Writers who have either occasionally or ex professo inquired into this matter succeeded any better than the Ancients have done Scaliger's conjecture though approved by Casaubon and other Learned men and of which he was very fond himself is yet upon account of the harshness of the composition which he being so good a Grammarian would have understood had it been any man's conjecture but his own and for other very good reasons rejected by Grotius and Ludovicus Capellus Scaliger's Conjecture is founded upon Levit. 23. 15 16. And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering seven sabbaths shall be compleat Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty daies and ye shall offer a new meat-offering unto the Lord. From whence he would needs have it that the Jews were used to count their Sabbaths to the Feast of Pentecost from the second day of Unleavened-bread after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. reckoning from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say the second day of unleavened-bread but then it should not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without an adjection would not nor ever did that can be proved signifie the second day of Unleavened-bread but as they say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in another place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the first day of unleavened-bread and the last day of the Feast so if they had a mind to be understood they must speak out as plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otherwise what second day or what second thing which might be any thing with a seminine gender was meant it would be impossible for any man to divine Thirdly In the place upon which this Conjecture is founded it is not from the second day but from the morrow mimacharath in the Hebrew and in the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that it is plain if they had followed either the original Hebrew or the Translation of the LXX with which they were better acquainted in those days and from whence they must have borrowed this way of numbering of their Sabbaths if any such thing had been they would not have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fourthly The Jews in this case did not count by Sabbaths but by days for though it be true what Moses saith that from the morrow after the Sabbath seven Sabbaths were to be compleat yet when he speaks of the way of counting these seven Sabbaths he saith v. 16. Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days and so the Jews at this day keep their account saying the first after Omer the second after Omer c. till they come to fifty daies as Grotius upon this place-hath-observed Fifthly and lastly which I believe has not yet been taken notice of by any other though it be plain demonstration against Joseph Scaliger's opinion he proceeds upon a mistaken notion of the word Sabbath which in this Text hath two significations but neither of them such as will serve his turn for when it is said from the morrow after the sabbath by the Sabbath is understood the first day of Unleavened-bread which was as hath been shewn of a sabbatical nature let it fall upon what day of the week it would and from hence they numbred seven Sabbaths that is not seven Saturdays or Jewish Seventh-daies but seven times seven daies so as if Scaliger's opinion be true and if the Sabbaths were to be counted after his manner then it would not be alwaies the Saturday or Jewish Sabbath on which the Sabbatum Deuteroprôtum would fall but upon any day of the week indifferently so as for example if the second day of Unleavened-bread were upon the Munday then the next Sabbath after it excluding that day that is the next sabbatical Period of seven daies would be upon the Tuesday come seven night and this according to Scaliger would be the Sabbatum Deuteroprôtum and the Wednesday come six Weeks after would be the day of Pentecost But now it is plain that in that Instance of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Gospel of Saint Luke gives us it is to be understood of the Saturday or of the Jewish Sabbath properly and strictly so called for otherwise the Cavil of the Pharisees instead of deserving that solid and judicious answer which our Saviour gives to it would have been ridiculous and would have needed no answer at all since a Sabbath in the meaning and sense of that place from whence Scaliger borrows his Argument might have been understood of any day of the week let it be what it would and though there were no manner of Sanctity in it But if either Scaliger had he been living would have understood or if any now will needs understand for him the word Sabbath of seven revolutions of the Saturday or first day of the week and will have it that the day of Pentecost was the day after the seventh or last of these then let us suppose the Passover it self to be coincident with the Sabbath in which case the second day of Unleavened-bread will be upon our Sunday and upon the Munday come seven weeks the fifty daies will be compleat upon the Tuesday the first day of the Feast of Weeks or the first day of the Feast of Pentecost ought to fall but in regard there have not yet been seven revolutions of the Saturday come about we must stay yet five entire daies longer that is five and fifty daies and the first day of the Feast of Pentecost must alwaies happen upon our Sunday both of which since they are very absurd and contrary to the express words of the Law which reckons but fifty daies from the second day of Unleavened-bread let that day happen upon what day of the week it will it is manifest what is become of Scaliger's opinion of which as absurd as it is Grotius was pleased to say Sententia ista magnis argumentis à suo Authore desensa est that it was defended by its Authour by great and weighty arguments though for some reasons he thought it necessary to dissent from him and Casauben speaking of the same Conjecture saies Tantum dicam Certum atque indubitatum sententioe Scaligeri Fundamentum esse in verbis Mosis Lev. 23. 15. that is I will onely say this that Scaliger ' s opinion is grounded upon a certain and undoubted foundation of Levit. 23. 15. for we have seen how sandy and infirm and rotten that foundation is and how unable it is to support that little building of a very small conjecture how great soever in the opinion of its Authour which Scaliger would have built upon it Scaliger's pretended solution of this difficulty being thus confuted though in truth much the most ingenious and the nighest to truth of any which have been thought

Had our Saviour suffered upon the first day of unleavened Bread be would not have answered to the Passover but the Chagigah ibid. The general ignorance of all both ancient and modern Writers what the true meaning of the Sabbatum deuteroprotum should be p. 114 115. Scaliger's conjecture why rejected by Grotius and Capellus p. 115. Scaliger's conjecture laid down and the insufficiency of it shewn in five particulars p. 115 116 117. The Sabbatum deuteroprotum in St. Luke fell certainly upon the Saturday or Jewish Sabbath properly so called p. 117. The absurdity of Scaliger's opinion upon supposition that it always falls upon this day 117 118. Grotius his opinion proposed and rejected in five particulars p. 118 119 120. The conjecture of Capellus depending upon two different accounts of the Jewish year proposed p. 120 121. And proved largely that there neither were nor could be two such different account's from p. 121 to 128. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mensis Moon Month Almenick or Almanack all from the Hebrew Manah numeravit p. 124. The places of Scripture producible in favour of the different account considered p. 125 126. Teshoubath hashanah Tekouphath hashanah in Hebrew what ibid. Shanah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 annus p. 126 127. Tseth hashanah what together with a discovery of the mistake of the LXX and other interpreters p. 127 128. And through this whole Discourse it is undeniably proved that the Jews had no other way of computation but by the motion of the Moon nor any other way of equation to reduce the Lunar and Solar years to a balance but by an intercalary month at the latter end of the year Orach Jareach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saturnus what and whence p. 128 129. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diana 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 129 130. Cynthia Cybele Berecynthia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tohu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 130. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sibylla Choshek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tehom p. 131. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latrare ibid. A citation produced out of Clemens Alexandrinus to justifie my opinion p. 132. The mistakes of Epiphanius and Chrysostome concerning this matter together with the monstrous absurdity of Isidore Pelufiota p. 132 133. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agitare words proper and peculiar to festival solemnities and other considerations produced to prove that our Saviour's last Supper was on the Vigil of the Sabbatum deuteroprotum p. 133 134. The last place which is endeavoured to be eluded by Bochartus farther considered and the testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus improved against him for the asserting of my notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 134 135. The time of our Saviour's Supper being cleared it is variously disputed by learned men how he could eat the Paschal Lamb the night before the Jews ate theirs and for this they have proposed several expedients First That the Jews followed the Traditions of the Masters contained in certain Talmudical Canons while our Saviour rejecting their Traditions adhered strictly to the Letter of the Law but it is abundantly proved that there were no such Talmudical Canons as are pretended any where used in our Saviour's time from p. 134 to 137. The second Expedient founded in the difference betwixt the Astronomical conjunction and the sensible Phasis and the vanity of it abundantly detected p. 137. The third Expedient of Capellus from the embolism or intercalation of a day in the Jewish Calendar precarious and all these three expedients sufficiently resuted from Joh. 13. 29. A fourth Expedient from the Jews observation of two days together precarious as to the ancient Jews p. 138. Nay it is not onely precarious but plainly false as is abundantly proved from the confession of Maimonides himself that there never was any such custome at Jerusalem among the ancient Jews and from several other reasons p. 139. The Conclusion p. 140. AN EXERCITATION Concerning the true Time of OUR SAVIOUR'S Last Supper WITH HIS DISCIPLES FOR the time of our Saviour's Passover I affirm that it was upon the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan being the night before the Jews by the prescription of the Mosaick Law were to celebrate theirs and for the proof of this I shall produce these following places of Scripture in that order in which they are set down but not answered by the late excellent and profoundly learned Samuel Bochartus who being dead yet speaketh and whose Works will follow him through all generations laden with the spoils of industry and the rewards of praise as long as civility and learning shall endure but it is excusable in those that write so much to be sometimes mistaken and it is usually seen that the errours of great men are like themselves He therefore in his Hierozoicon in that Chapter where he discourses of the Paschal-lamb hath ranged those Scriptures which he pretends to answer in the following order The first is Joh. 13. 1. Now before the Feast of the Passover when Jesus knew that his hour was come And then v. 2. And supper being ended c. From whence the Argument is clear that if this place be to be understood of his last Supper with his Disciples then that last Supper was before the Feast of the Passover The second place is the eighteenth Chapter of the same Gospel at the 28. verse Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment and it was early and they themselves went not into the judgment hall lest they should be defiled but that they might eat the Passover Now this happening as it did the day after or rather the very same day when our Saviour ate his Passover with his Disciples whereas the Jews were not to eat theirs till the night following it is manifest our Saviour's Passover was a night before theirs The third place is Chap. 19. v. 14. And it was the preparation of the Passover and about the sixth hour and he that is Pilate saith unto the Jews Behold your King Now if Christ were betray'd and carryed before Pilate upon the Preparation of the Passover then the Jewish Passover was not yet come for the Parasceve or Preparation of any Feast was the day before it The fourth place is the 31. verse of the same Chapter The Jews therefore because it was the preparation that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day for that Sabbath day was an high day besought Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away In which words there are two things to be considered First We have it again plainly asserted that it was the preparation of the Sabbath which Sabbath this year was coincident with the Passover it self Secondly It is said That that Sabbath day was an high day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what the meaning of a great or high day is you may see from Isay 1. 13. the new moons and sabbaths the calling of assemblies I cannot away with Where the LXX render it

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is either from two Hebrew words erets and chamah because she receives that light from the Sun which is intercepted and obstructed by the Earth or else from two Greek ones which is more likely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because she was the measure of time for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the dorick Dialect is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the common as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or lastly which I acknowledge to be most likely of all though it do not so much favour my opinion it may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from cutting the Air or Atmosphere as by the passage of the Clouds in a moon-shinynight the Moon seems to doe with a swift and hasty motion from which as looking like a pursuit of some game and from the barking of Dogs whether it be that they are pleased or offended at her brightness she was by the ancient Mythologists made to preside over Hunting and from thence it is that she is called Cynthia that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Cybele from the same Greek word compounded with the Phoenician bel from the Hebrew bahal and Berecynthia by adding to the former composition the Hebrew barach fugit to denote the swiftness of her motion from whence also one of the names of the North-wind Boreas is to be derived it being exactly the Participle in Pohel boreach as Daniel Heinsius in his Exercitation upon Nonnus his Dionysiaca hath before me observed And because it may seem harsh and unusual to compound an Hebrew or Phoenician word with a Greek though in that there be no such absurdity that I know of it is to be noted that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self as being the Feminine of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of Hebrew extract as well as the other part of the composition for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is from thohu by which the primigenial Mass is signified in the first Chapter of Genesis from whence the Heathen Theologie derived all its Gods as you may see in the Remains of Hesiod Orpheus Epicharmus Aristophanes and others of the ancient Mythologers From thohu is the Phoenician 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Sanchuniathon and from thence the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thau and sigma being easily changed into one another as may be observed from this that there is a natural sibilus in each of them wherefore the Jews at this day in their pronunciation of thau at the end of a word do alwaies melt it into an s and in this very word of which we are speaking it is manifest that it hath been subject to such a permutation for what the common Greek calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the laconick was used to pronounce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so Sibulla is usually supposed to be composed of the laconick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the common Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Latin sepelio from the Nominative case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the oblique 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mare the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin sal and salax and as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is from thohu so from choshech in the same Chapter is that other Greek word in the ancient Mythologie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and from tehom in the Hebrew the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as the true translation of tehom rabah the great abyss would be in Greek by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And now if we can but prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be as good Hebrew as the rest the business is done That it is not a Greek word I am almost certain there being no word but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it can be derived whose signification belongs but to one sex and that too in common with all other Animals whatsoever We must take notice therefore that the old Greek word was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence there still remains the Plural Number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that what ever it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Since therefore shacan in Hebrew is consedit habitavit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to this Etymology will be properly canis domesticus a mastiff or houshold dogg as among the Latines lar signifies both an house and the dogg that keeps it whence the tutelar Deities of their houses were painted and carved in the shape of Doggs and latrare is quasi larrare to make a noise like a dogg but enough of this Having thus overthrown the Conjecture of Capellus as well as of those other Learned men that went before him I will now to establish mine own opinion upon a certain bottom produce a fragment of Saint Peter out of Clemcns Alexandrinus which whether it be genuine or no is very ancient as being to be found in all the Copies of Clemens and therefore is of greater authority than any modern Conjecture whatsoever The place of Clemens is this Strom. l. 6. speaking of the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnless the moon appear they never celebrate that sabbath which they call the first that is this Sabbath as all other Feasts is regulated by the Phasis of the Moon it seems therefore there was a Sabbath among the Jews which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first sabbath wherefore it having been proved already that they had but one beginning of their year in Nisan and it being farther clear that they reckoned their years by months and their months by new-moons this first Sabbath can be no other than the first after the New-moon of Nisan but in regard the reason of this change of the beginning of the year from Tisri to Nisan depended upon the Deliverance of the Israelites from under the Aegyptian Bondage which happened upon the fifteenth of Nisan therefore this day in some sense might be called the beginning of the year and the Sabbath coincident with it or following next after it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second first sabbath as in a different respect we may call the Sunday incident upon the first of January or next after it the first sunday and that upon the five and twentieth of March or next after it the second first sunday and this is somewhat like that notion which Epiphanius had of this word for he makes it be the second of two Sabbaths the one of which is a legal Sabbath that is any Feast day the other a natural by which he means the Saturday Sabbath which was instituted from the Creation but here is the fault of that solution that he makes it to be no certain day in every year but