Works

VERS. I.

WHY the Vulgar should have seventy and two, they themselves, I suppose are able to give no very good reason. Much less the Interpreter of Titus Bostrensis when in the Greek Copy before him he saw only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , why he should render Septuaginta duos, seventy two, who can tell?

Ibn Ezra upon the story of Eldad and Medad hath this passage: The wise men say, that Moses took six out of every tribe, and the whole number amounted to seventy and two: but whereas the Lord had commanded only seventy, the odd two were laid aside. Now if God laid aside two of those who had been enrolled, and endowed with the Holy Spirit, that so there might be the just number of seventy only, we can hardly imagine why our Savior should add two, to make it LXXII and not LXX. It was said to Moses at Mount Sinai, Go up thou and Aaron, and Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel: so will the holy blessed God ordain to himself in the world to come 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a counsel of Elders of his own people. Now the number of this Consistory, the Doctors determine to be no other than seventy. A Council of Seventy two was never heard of amongst the Jews, but once only at Jabneh.

R. Simeon ben Azzai saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I received it from the mouths of the LXXII Elders, on the day when they made R. Eliezar ben Azariah one of the Sanhedrin. Nor did they then remove Rabban Gamaliel, although he had displeased them.

VERS. III.

IT is added in another Evangelist, Be ye wise as serpents, &c. with which we may compare that in Midr. Schir. The holy blessed God saith concerning Israel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Those that belong to me are simple as Doves, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but amongst the Nations of the world, they are subtle as serpents.

VERS. IV.

I. WE have a passage something like this elsewhere: If thou meet any man salute him not; that is, (as is commonly expounded) do not hinder thy journey by discoursing with any in the way. But the same reason doth not hold in this place; the business of these Disciples not requiring such mighty expedition. They were commanded out two by two to this or the other place or City where Christ himself was to come in person; nor was it necessary they should run in so great hast, that they should make no stay in the way. Only having appointed them to such and such places, their business indeed lay nowhere but in those very places to which they had been particularly sent, to proclaim the coming of Christ there, and not to be telling it in the way. The twelve Apostles that were sent, their business was to declare the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, these, the coming of the King himself. No wonder therefore if the Apostles were not forbidden to salute any in the way, for their Province was where ever they came, to tell the world that the Kingdom of Heaven was come; but these were only to give notice that the Messiah was coming, and that, in those places only to which he was to come, and not to any whom they should meet cursorily in the way.

II. It was a very usual thing in that Nation upon some accounts not to salute any in the way, no not any person at all. He that is mourning for the dead, let him not salute any person, for the first seven days of his mourning. If thirteen fasts had been celebrated by order of the Sanhedrin for the imploring of rain, and yet no rain had fallen, then they diminish from their business, and from building, and from planting, and from espousals and marriage 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and from saluting each other, as men under the rebukes of heaven. That is, they abstained from all these things. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Religious do not use to salute one another; but if any of the common people do at any time salute them, they return it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a very low voice, with all gravity, veiling themselves, and sitting in the posture of mourners or excommunicate persons.

Whether that of the Apostle, Salute one another with an holy kiss, might not have some reference to this usage, might be a matter for our enquiry if there were place for it, but I forbear.

What therefore doth our Savior intend by this prohibition, Salute no man by the way? would he imitate this Jewish custom, that he would have them taken for mourners everywhere?

I. He would have all that belonged to him, conformable to himself, that everyone from the quality of the messengers, might in some measure judge what he was that sent them; as we have already hinted concerning the twelve Apostles. He himself was a man of sorrows, and if his messengers do represent some such thing either in their looks or behavior, the people might the easilier guess, what kind of person he was that commissioned them.

II. Christ had a twofold end in designing them to the places, to which he in his own person had determined to come: namely, that thither all persons should assemble themselves to his Doctrine for the healing of their souls: and that those that were diseased might be gathered thither, in order to a cure. Now it was very fit and convenient, that the behavior of those that were to assemble the people to these ends, should be mournful and solemn, to testify the fellow-feeling they had with the afflicted and miserable.

VERS. VIII.

THE Traditional Canons were so very precise and curious, about not eating unless what were clean, what had been duly tythed, and from which the Trumah had been duly separated, that it might be almost a wonder, the strict Traditionists should not be famished, if they lived and fed only by Canon. Let not the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the religious serve at the table of a laick, unless all things be rightly prepared and decimated.

From the irksomness and perplexity of this niceness doth our Savior acquit and absolve his followers, partly that he might introduce the Gospel-liberty; partly also consulting the necessity of his Disciples, who, if they had been bound up to that strictness in meats, what could they do, when their converse was to lie chiefly amongst persons perfectly unknown to them.

VERS. XVIII.

LUcifer falling from heaven, Isa. XIV. 12. is the King of Babylon divested of his Throne and Dominion. So is Satan in this place. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I beheld, I would refer it to this very time. When I sent you forth, I saw Satan's fall at hand, that he should be immediately despoil'd of his power and tyranny. For when the Messiah had determined to exhibit himself, and in order thereunto, to send out so numerous a multitude of persons that should publish his appearance, it was absolutely necessary, and it could not otherwise be, but that the power of Satan should sink, and his government be shaken.

It is probable these LXX Disciples were sent out upon the approach of the Feast of Tabernacles, and when there now remained about half a year to the death of Christ. In which interval of time, Christ showed himself more openly, both by the preaching of these persons, and also in his own personal exhibition of himself than before he had done. All which things determining in his death, whose death was also the death of Satan, might give him a very just occasion of saying, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven, thrown out of his throne and kingdom. Compare Revel. XII. 8. where heaven is to be interpreted the Church.

VERS. XXV.

Sect. Some few notes concerning the Jewish Doctors.

THE word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we meet with in Mat. XXII. 35. where the Syr. hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Scribe. So Luk. VII. 30. as also in this place, and Chap. XI. 45. nor without reason, when he in St. Matthew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one of them which was a Lawyer is said to be Mark XII. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one of the Scribes.

However, there seems some difficulty from a passage in our Evangelist, where, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , woe unto you Scribes, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Then answered one of the Lawyers, seems to make some distinction betwixt them. As to this we shall make some remarks in its proper place. In the mean time, let it not seem tedious to the Reader, if we discourse some things concerning the Doctors of the Law, with the various clasles and orders of them, that we may the better judge of that sort of men, which we have so frequent mention of in the Holy Scriptures. And,

I. It is not unknown how the name Scribe was a general title given to all the learned part of that Nation, as it is opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the rude and illiterate person If two persons eat together 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and are both Scribes, they each of them say grace singly for themselves, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but if one of them be a Scribe, and the other an illiterate person, the Scribe saith grace, and it sufficeth for the other that is unlearned.

Indeed the first original of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did more peculiarly signify the numberers. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The ancients were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (numberers) because they numbered all the letters of the Law, for they said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vau in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Levite. XI. 42. is the middle letter in the whole Book of the Law. The Gloss gives another reason out of the Jerus. Talm. namely, because they numbered all the points and contents of the Law as the forty principal servile works save one, &c.

Should we indeed grant that the first original of the word had such narrow bounds as this, yet does not this hinder, but that it afterward enlarged itself so far as to denote any person learned in the Law, and every Doctor of it: nay, that it extended itself even to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Schoolmasters that taught children: if not to the very 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Libellarii, those whose business it was to write out bills of divorce, and forms of Contracts, &c. of which two there is mention made, amongst the ten sorts, whereof if none should happen to be in a City, it was not fit for any disciple of the wise to abide in it .

II. That the fathers of the Sanhedrin were more emphatically called the Scribes, it is so well known, that it needs no confirmation. That passage in the Evangelist sufficiently shows it. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair: that is, on the Legislative bench, or in the Sanhedrin: where also the Sadducees that were of that Council are called Scribes. And the Scribes are distinguished there from the Pharisees, not that they were not Scribes, but because all the Scribes there were not Pharisees.

III. There was a certain degree of Doctors or Scribes that were in the Sanhedrin, but were not members of it, these are commonly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 those who gave judgment in the presence of the wise men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fit for the office of Legislators, but not yet admitted. Such were Simeon ben Azzai, and Simeon ben Zumah . Such also was Simeon the Temanite, of whom we have made mention elsewhere out of Sanhedr. fol. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he judged in the presence of the Sanhedrin sitting upon the ground. He did not sit on the bench with the fathers, as not being one of their number, but on the seats below, nearer the ground; him the fathers consulted in difficult matters. A shadow of which we have in England of the Judges, men learned in the Laws, who have their seats in our house of Lord's.

He that was particularly called the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the wise man, whether he was of the number of the fathers, or only of these kind of Judges, I shall not at present dispute, but leave the Reader to judge from this story. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the President of the Sanhedrin: R. Meir was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chacam or the wise man, and R. Nathan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the vice governor. Now when Rabban Simeon had decreed something that disparag'd R. Meir, and R. Nathan▪ Saith R. Meir to R. Nathan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I am the Chacam or the wise man: And thou art the vice-president: Let us remove Rabban Simeon from the Presidency, then thou wilt be the President, and I the Vice-president.

There is nothing more common, and yet nothing more difficult than that saying, the School of Hillel saith so and so, and the School of Schammai so, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but the wise men say otherwise. It is very obscure who these wise men should be. If we should say the Sanhedrin; it is plain that one part of it consisted of the Shammaeans, and another part of the Hillelites. If so, then it should seem that these wise men are those Judges of whom we have spoken: unless you will assign a third part to the Sadducees, to whom you will hardly attribute the determination of the thing, and much less the Emphatical title of the wise men. But this we leave undecided.

III. Let us a little inquire out of the Sanhedrin, we shall find variety of Scribes and Doctors of the Law, according to the variety of the Law itself, and the variety of teaching it. Hence those various Treatises amongst the Rabbins. The Micra, Mishneh, Midras, Talmud, Agadah, &c.

• 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Micra, is the Text of the Bible itself: its reading, and literal Explication.
• 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mishneh, the doctrine of Traditions and their Explication.
• 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Midrash, the mystick and allegorical doctrine and exposition of the Scriptures For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath-day. Now these were the ways and methods of preaching him.

I. As to the written Law (for everyone knows they had a twofold Law, written, and oral, as they called it.) As to the written Law therefore, they had a twofold way of declaring it, viz. explaining and applying it according to the literal sense of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for edification, exhortation, and comfort, as the Apostle hath it . Or else by drawing Allegories, mysteries, and far fetched notions out of it. As to the former way, the rulers of the Synagogue seem to have respect to it in what they said to Paul and Barnabas. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . If ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. As to the latter, the instances are endless in the Jewish writings everywhere, so far that they have even melted down the whole volume of the Scriptures into tradition and allegory.

It is not easily determined, whether these Preachers were so of a different order that the one should wholly addict himself to the plain and literal exposition, and application of the Scriptures, the other only to the mystical and more abstruse way of teaching; there is no question but both these did frequently meet both in one Preacher, and that in one and the same Sermon: and indeed I cannot tell but that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Agadah, may sometimes denote both these ways of expounding and interpreting the Law . When a certain person being interrogated about certain traditions, could give no answer, the standers by said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Perhaps he is not skilled in the [traditional] doctrine: but he may be able to expound. And so they propound to him Dan. X. 21. to explain. To which that also agrees well enough , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the masters of the Agada, or Expositions, because they are Dorshanin (or profound searchers of the Scriptures) are honor'd of all men, for they draw away the hearts of their auditors. Nor does that sound very differently as to the thing itself. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on the Sabbath day they discuss'd discussions [i. e. in the Scriptures. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , searching the Scriptures] to the masters of families who had been employed in their occasions all the week, and whiles they were expounding, they taught them the articles about things forbidden, and things permitted them, &c.

To these kind of mystick and allegorical expositions of Scripture (if at least it be proper to call them expositions) they were so strangely bewitched, that they valu'd nothing more than a skill tickling or rubbing the itching ears of their auditors with such trifles. Hence that passage, R. Joshua said to R. Johanan ben Bruchah, and to R. Eliezar the blind: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What new thing have you met with today in Beth Midras? They answered and said, we are all thy disciples, and drink wholly at thy waters. To whom he, It is impossible but you should meet with something novel every day in Beth Midras.

II. As to the Oral Law, there was also a twofold way of explaining it, as they had for the written Law.

I. The former way we have intimated to us in these words, The book of the Law when it grows old, they lay up with one of the disciples of the wise men, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even although he teach 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the traditions. The passage seems very obscure, but it is thus explained by the Gloss: Albeit it doth not any way help the disciples of the wise men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Talmud & Gemara, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but in Misnaioth, & Bariathoth; that is, he that would only read the body of the Traditional Law, and render the literal sense of it, and not he that would dispute scholastically, and comment upon it. For,

II. There were Doctors that would inquire more deeply into the Traditions, would give some accounts (such as they were) of them, would discuss difficulties, solve doubts, &c. a Specimen of which is the Talmudic Gemara throughout.

Lastly, Amongst the Learned, and Doctors of that Nation, there were the Agadici who would expound the written Law in a more profound way than ordinary, even to what was cabbalistical. These were more rare, and (as it should seem) not so acceptable amongst the people. Whether these are concerned in what follows let the Reader judge R. Joshua ben Levi saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so and so let it happen to me, if in all my life I ever saw 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the book Agada above once; and then I found an hundred seventy and sive Sections of the Law, where it is written, The Lord hath said, hath spoken, hath commanded. They are according to the number of the years of our father Abraham, as it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to receive gifts for men, &c. An hundred forty and seven Psalms, which are in the book of Psalms [mark the number] they are according to the number of the years of our father Jacob. As it is written, thou art holy, and inhabitest the praises of Israel; an hundred twenty and three turns, wherein Israel answereth Hallelujah (to him that repeats the Hallel) are according to the number of the years of Aaron, &c. And as a Coronis let me add that passage in Sanhedr . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If they be masters of the Textual reading, they shall be conversant in the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 if they be masters of the Mishneh, they shall be conversant in Mishneh Halacoth and Haggadoth: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and if they be masters of the Talmud, they shall be conversant in the Traditions of the Passover, in the Passover: in the traditions of Pentecost, in Pentecost: in the traditions of the feast of Tabernacles, in the feast of Tabernacles.

These all whom we have mentioned were Scribes and Doctors, and expounders of the Law, but which of these may properly and peculiarly challenge to themselves the title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Lawyers, whether all, or any particular classis of them? The latter is most probable: but then what classis will you choose? or will you distinguish betwixt the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Lawyer and the teacher of the Law? I had rather the Reader would frame his own judgment here. And yet that I might not dismiss this question wholly untouched, and at the same time not weary the Reader with too long a digression, I have referred what is to be alleged in this matter, to my notes upon Chapt. XI. 45.

VERS. XXVI.

AN expression very common in the Schools, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what readest thou? when any person brought a Text of Scripture for the proof of anything. The Rabbins have a Tradition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that the disease of the Squinancy came into the world upon the account of tithes: (the Gloss hath it, for eating of fruits that had not been tithed.) R Eliezar ben R. Jose saith, it was for an evil tongue. Rabba saith, and it is the saying also of R. Joshua ben Levi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what readest thou? The King shall rejoice in God, everyone that sweareth by himself shall glory: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [thence comes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] for the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped. And a little after upon another subject: R. Simeon ben Gezirah saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what or how readest thou? If thou know not, O thou fairest among Women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, Cant. I. 8.

We will not be very curious in enquiring whether our Savior used the very same form of speech 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or any other. In this only he departs from their common use of speech, in that he calls to another to allege some Text of Scripture, whereas it was usual in the Schools, that he that spoke that, would allege some place himself.

VERS. XXVII.

IN this answer of the man, there are these two things observable.

I. That our Savior brings in this clause, which in so many terms is not in Moses where the rest are. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where the Greek both of the Roman and Alexandrian Edition render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with all thy might; but where is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? I pass by other copies, wherein though is some varying, yet there is not this which is now before us.

Our Savior hath the same clause elsewhere , but not in the same order, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with all thy mind and with all thy strength: here it is, with all thy strength, and with all thy mind. What shall we say therefore? Shall we suppose it writ to this sense in the Hebrew, in their Phylacterics? this we can hardly think. Was it added by the Greek Interpreters, and so the Evangelists take it from thence? we see it not so. What then, doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? both strength and mind? Here indeed the hinge of the question turns. That it denotes strength no one doubts, yea and the Rabbins suppose it denotes Mammon too, with whom the Syriac and Targumist agree, but still where doth it signify 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the mind?

1. Take such a Gloss as is frequently in use amongst the allegorizing Doctors. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 With what measure he shall meet to thee, do thou praise him exceedingly. Where we see they play with the sound of words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is a very common thing with them to do. Ibn Ezra 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of the same sense with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 exceedingly, exceedingly: and intends thus much; love him exceedingly, as much as ever thou art able, and let thy love le perfect in thine heart.

2. To this we may add if we think fit, what they commonly require in all Religious services, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the preparation and the intention of the mind. From all which we may conceive that this was the common interpretation of that clause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with thy whole mind, was not added without just cause, but upon some necessity, there being something of obscurity in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so we might be apt to apply it only to our bodily or outward strength and might. Moses his words therefore are rendered by the Evangelists not strictly and according to the letter as they are in him or were in the Parchments in the Phylacteries, but both according to their full sense and tenor, as also according to the common and received interpretation of that Nation.

R. Levi bar Chaiothah went to Cesarea, and heard them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reciting their Shemaah (or their Phylacteries) Hellenistically (i. e. in Greek) &c. Now whether the clause we are now handling was inserted there, it would be in vain to inquire, because not possible but to know. But if the Jews thought it included in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is not unlikely; then is it probable that the Hellenists used it expressly in the Greek tongue.

I cannot but take notice of the words of the Jerusalem Targumist just now alleged▪ : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What should that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mean? Aruch quoting this passage hath it thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seems to be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is redundant, which is not unusual with the Babylonian Talmud, but with the Jerusalem hardly ever, or very rarely.

The second thing observable in this man's answer is, that he adds, And thy neighbor as thyself: which indeed was not written in the Schedules of their Phylacteries: otherwise I should have thought the man had understood those words of our Savior 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 how readest thou? as if he had said, How dost thou repeat the sentences of the Phylacteries; for he reciteth the sentence as it was in their Phylacteries, only adds, and thy neighbor, &c. Now the usual expression for the recitation of their Phylacteries was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which, word for word is, they read the Shemaa, which also is rendered by some; when indeed they commonly repeat them without book. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that reads the Book (of Esther) orally: i. e. as the Gemara explains it, without book, or by heart. It is quaeried, Why they repeat those two Sections every day? R. Levi saith, because the Ten Commandments (of the Decalogue) are comprehended therein. Showing further, how they are comprehended, saving only (which is very observable) the Second Commandment. Afterward indeed they confess, it was very fitting they should every day repeat the very Decalogue itself, but they did not repeat it, lest the Heretics should say, that only those Commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sinai. However, they did repeat those passages wherein they supposed the Decalogue was summed up.

Whether therefore this Lawyer of ours understood the words of our Savior, as having respect to that usage of repeating their Phylacteries; or whether he of his own accord and according to his own opinion would be giving the whole sum of the Decalogue, he shows himself rather a textual than a traditional Doctor, although the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Lawyer, seem to point out the latter rather.

VERS. XXIX.

THIS doubt and form of questioning he had learnt out of the common School where it is taught in Aruch in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He excepts all Gentiles, when he saith, thy neighbor.

An Israelite killing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a stranger Inhabitant, he doth not die for it by the Sanhedrin, because it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If any one lift up himself against his neighbor. It is not necessary to say, he does not die upon the account of a Gentile. For they are not esteemed by them for their neighbor.

The Gentiles amongst whom and us there is no war, and so those that are keepers of sheep amongst the Israelites, and the like; we are not to contrive their death: but if they be in any danger of death, we are not bound to deliver them. e. g. If any of them fall into the Sea, you shall not need to take him out: for it is said thou shalt not rise up against the blood of thy neighbor; but such an one is not thy neighbor.

VERS. XXX.

THIS was the most beaten and frequented road in the whole land of Israel, and that not only as it led to Perea, but also upon the account of that great traffick that was between these two Cities, especially because of the Courses that were as well in Jericho as Jerusalem. Of which we have discoursed elsewhere . To which I shall superadd this passage out of Jerusalem Taanith . The former Prophets instituted four and twenty Courses, and for every Course 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Stationary Classis of Priests, Levites, and Israelites in Jerusalem. It is a tradition. Four and twenty thousand, was the Stationary number out of Jerusalem. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And half that Station out of Jericho. Jericho could indeed have produced an entire Station, but that it would give the preference to Jerusalem, and therefore it produced but half.

Here therefore you may see in this Historical Parable, why there is such particular mention made of a Priest and Levite travelling that way, because there was very frequent intercourse of this sort of men between twese Towns, and that upon the account of the Stations above-mentioned.

It is with great confidence, I find, but upon what foundation I cannot tell, that the Commentators generally make Adummim the scene of this robbery, above all other places. It is true the road betwixt Jerusalem and Jericho was dangerous enough, and for that reason (as is commonly believed) there was placed a band of Soldiers betwixt Aelia and Jericho, for the safeguard of passengers: but, whereas it is said that the place is called Adummim, i. e. a place of redness, from the blood that was spilled by robbers there: this seems to have very little force in it: because the place had that name of Adummim even in Joshua 's days, when we can hardly suppose, the times to have been so pestered with robberies, as they were when our Savior uttered this parable. See the place , where if we consider the situation of the going up to Adumntim, it will appear, it was not very distant from Jericho.

The Rabbins term it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 next to death, beyond which condition, on this side death was only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one just expiring.

VERS. XXXI.

WHAT could be the reason this Priest and this Levite, should thus pass by a man in such a miserable condition? Was he not an Israelite? It is true they had learnt out of their own Schools, not to succor a Gentile, no nor a keeper of Sheep though he was an Israelite; now was this wounded man such an one? or did they think they should have contracted some pollution by touching one half head? The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , passed by on the other side, seems to hint, as if they passed by him keeping their distance from him. Let them tell the reason themselves: For my part I would impute it wholly to the mere want of Charity.

VERS. XXXIII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans: That is, so as to be obliged by them for any courtsie done to them. But would this Jew half dead reject the kindness of the Samaritan at this time? This person being of a Nation (than which the Jews hated nothing more) is brought in showing this kind • ess to the Jew, on purpose to give the plainer instance who is our neighbor. It might seem more proper to have said that the Samaritan acknowledged the wounded man for his neighbor, in being so kind to him: but our Savior intimates that he was the wounded man's neighbor, thereby teaching us, that even a stranger, yea an enemy (against the Doctrine of their own Schools) is no other than our neighbor.

VERS. XXXIV.

IT is a Tradition. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They spread a Plaister for the sick on the Sabbath day: That is, upon condition they had mingled it with Wine and Oil on the Evening of the Sabbath. But if they have not mixed it on the Evening of the Sabbath, it is forbidden. A Tradition. R. Simeon ben Eleazar saith, That it is allowed by R. Meir, both to mingle the Oil and the Wine, and also to anoint the sick on the Sabbath day.

VERS. XXXV.

A Ruch in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A shekel of the Law is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Selaa, and is of the value of sour pence. So that the half shekel is two pence. A price that was to be paid yearly by everyone, as a ransom for his soul or life. Whence not unsitly, we see two pence are paid down for the recovery of this man's life that had been wounded and half dead.

The Rabbins retain this Greek word using 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 however the Author of Aruch, calls it Ismaelitick, or Arabic. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Tavern or Inn, saith he, in the Ishmaelitish language is called Pandak. It is true indeed, the Arabic Version useth this word in this place, but it is well known whence it takes its original. Two men went into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Inn, one a just, the other a wicked man. They sat down apart. The wicked man saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the host: Let me have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one pheasant, and let me have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Conditum or Hippocras. The just man said to the Host, let me have a piece of bread and a dish of Lentiles. The wicked man laughed the just man to scorn. See how this fool calls for Lentiles when he may have dainties: on the contrary the just man, see how this fool eateth when his teeth are to be immediately dashed out. The just man saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the Host, give me two cups of Wine that I may bless them: he gave them him, and he blessed them, and rising up gave to the Host a piece of Money for the portion that he had eaten, and departed in peace. But there was a falling out betwixt the wicked man and his Host about the reckoning, and the Host dashed out his teeth.

VERS. XXXVIII.

OUR Savior is now at the Feast of Tabernacles: and visits Bethany where there had grown a friendship betwixt himself and Lazarus his Family, upon his having east out so many Devils out of Mary his Sister. For it is no foreign thing to suppose she was that Mary that was called Magdalene, because Bethany itself was called Magdala. As to the name Martha see Notes upon John XI. and the name Magdala, see Notes upon John XII.

CHAP. XI.

VERS. I.

WHAT kind of request is this, that this Disciple, whoever he is, doth here make? was he ignorant of, or had he forgot that form of Prayer which the Lord had delivered to them in his Sermon upon the Mount? If he had not forgot it, why then doth he require any other? Doth de mean, Lord teach us to pray, for John hath taught his Disciples? or thus, teach us a Form and rule of Prayer like that which John had taught his. This latter is the most probable, but then it is something uncertain what kind of form that might be which the Disciples of John were taught. As to this enquiry we may consider these things:

I. It is said of the Disciples of John 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , They fast often, and make Prayers. Where, upon many accounts I could persuade myself that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ought to be taken here in its most proper sense, for Supplications. To let other things pass, let us weigh these two:

1. That the Jews daily and common prayers, ordinary and occasional, consisted chiefly of Benedictions and Doxologies, which the title of that Talmudic Tract which treats of their prayers, sufficiently testifies, being called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Benediction, as also that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tephillah, the general Nomenclature for Prayer, signifies no other than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 praising, i. e. Benediction, or Doxology. To illustrate this matter we have a passage or two not unworthy our transcribing.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Perhaps a man begs for necessaries for himself, and afterward prayeth. This is that which is spoken by Solomon when he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 To the prayer, and to the supplication. I omit the Versions, because the Gemarists interpret it themselves. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rinna is Tephillah, and Tephillah is Bakkashah. Their meaning is this: the first word of Solomon 's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rinnah signifies Prayer ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 • s the Gloss hath it) i. e. Prayer with Praise, or Doxology. The latter word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tephillah, signifies Petition, or Supplication, [Gloss, beging for things necessary. ]

It cannot be denied but that they had their petitionary or supplicatory prayers, but then, the benedictory or doxological prayers were more in number, and more large and copious: especially those which were poured out occasionally or upon present emergency. Read the last Chapter of the Treatise I newly quoted and judge as to this particular: Read the whole Treatise, and then judge of the whole matter.

2. It may be reasonably supposed that the Baptist taught his Disciples a Form of Prayer different from what the Jewish Forms were: It stands with reason that he that was to bring in a new Doctrine (I mean new, in respect to that of the Jewish) should bring in a new way of Prayer too, that is a Form of Prayer that consisted more in Petition and Supplication, than the Jewish Forms had done; nay and another sort of petitions than what those Forms which were petitionary had hitherto contained. For the Disciples of John had been instructed in the points of Regeneration, justifying Faith, particular Adoption, Sanctification by the Spirit, and other Doctrines of the Gospel, which were altogether unknown in the Schools or Synagogues of the Jews. And who would imagine therefore that John the Baptist should not teach his Disciples to pray for these things?

II. It is probable therefore that when this Disciple requested our Savior that he would teach his Disciples 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as John had done: he had respect to such kind of Prayers as these, because we find Christ so far condescending to him that he delivers him a Form of Prayer merely petitionary, as may appear both from the whole structure of the Prayer, as also in that the last close of all the Doxology, For thine is the Kingdom, &c. is here left wholly out; being asked for a Form that was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he took care to deliver one to them that was merely supplicatory. This is confirmed by what follows concerning the man requesting some loaves of his neighbor, adding withal this exhortation, Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find. Which two things seem to answer those two things by which Supplicatory Prayer is desined; these are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sheelah, asking: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bakkashah, seeking: for if there may be any difference in the meaning of these two words, I would suppose it thus, Bakkashah, or seeking may respect the things of God: so seek ye first the Kingdom of God, &c. and Sheelah, or asking may respect those things which are necessary for ourselves: which texture we find very equally divided in this present Form of Prayer, where the three first petitions are in behalf of God's honor, and the three last in behalf of our own necessaries.

It was in use amongst the Jews, when they fasted to use a peculiar sort of Prayer, joined with what were daily, terming it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Prayer of the fast. This we have mentioned in Taanith where it is disputed whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 those that fasted for certain hours only, and not for the whole day, ought to repeat that Prayer of the Fast: As also, in what order and place that Prayer is to be inserted amongst the daily ones. Now if it should be granted that John had taught his Disciples any such form that might be particularly adapted to their fastings, it is not very likely this Disciple had any particular reference to that, because the Disciples of Christ did not Fast, as the Disciples of John did. It rather respected the whole frame of their Prayers which he had instructed them in, which consisted chiefly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Petitions and Supplications.

Object. But prob • bly this Disciple was not ignorant that Christ had already delivered to them a Petitionary Form in that Sermon of his upon the Mount, and therefore what need had he to desire, and for what reason did he importune another?

A • sw. It •• likely he did know it, and as likely he did not expect the repetition of the same again: but being very intent upon what John had done for his Disciples, did hope for a Form more full and copious, that might more largely and particularly express what they were to ask for, according to what he had observed probably in the Form that bad been prescribed by John, but the divine wisdom of our Savior knew however that all was sufficiently comprehended in what he had given them. And as the Jews had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 short summary of those eighteen Prayers epitomized: so would he have this Form of his a short summary of all that we ought to ask for.

VERS. IV.

I Am much deceived if this petition is not, amongst other things, and indeed principally and in the first place directed against the visible apparitions of the Devil, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The evil one: as also his actual obsessions: by which the phrase of God's leading us into temptation is very much sof • ned.

The Doxology For thine is the Kingdom, &c. is le •• out, because it was our Savior's intention in this place to deliver to them a Form of Prayer merely petitionary, for which very same reason also Amen is omitted too. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He shall say Amen at thy giving of thanks. And indeed they commonly ended all their Prayers, even those that consisted most of Petition, with Thanksgiving and Benediction; concluding in this manner, Blessed be them O Lord who hast thus done, or thus commanded, or the like, and then was it answered by all, Amen. This we may observe in those Psalms that conclude any portion of that Book, and end with Amen , upon what subject soever the Psalmist is engaged, either throughout the whole Psalm, or immediately before the bringing • orth of Amen, still he never doth mention Amen, without some foregoing Doxology and Benediction, Blessed be the Lord God, &c. Amen and Amen. In St. Matthew therefore we find Amen, because there is the Doxology: In St. Luke it is wanting because the Doxology is so too. You may see more of this in Notes upon Matth. VI.

VERS. XV.

I. AS to this name of Beelzebub I have elsewhere discoursed, and do still assert the reading of it with the letter l in the end of it, viz. Beelzebul, against the Syr • ack, Persiam, Vulgar, and other Translations which read it Beelzebub. The Italian cautiously indeed but not purely, Beelzebu, that he might not strike upon either the one or the other reading; but in the mean time I will not answer for the faithfulness and candor of the Interpreter.

II. Amongst the Jews we may observe three Devils called the chief, or Prince of the Devils: 1. The Angel of Death: who is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Prince of all the Satan's. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Devil Ashmodeus. Of him afterwards. 3. Beelzebul in this place. Now as to vindicating the writing of it by l in the end of the word, and not b.

III. It is a question whether there were such a thing as Beelzebub in rerum naturâ. Why should not the deity of the place take his farewell, when Ekron, the place of this Deity was wholly obliterated? When there was no more an Idol, nor Oracle at Ekron, did not the Demon cease to be Beelzebub any longer, although it did not cease to be a Demon? Wherever therefore Ekron was under the second Temple, or the place where it had been under the first, you can hardly persuade me there was any Idol or Oracle of Beelzebub, and so not Beelzebub himself. I will not here dispute whether A • hor the Cyrenians tutelary God against flies hath any relation or affinity with the name of Ekron. Let it be granted that Beelzebub might change his soil upon some occasion, and remove from Ekron to Cyrene; but then how should he come to be the Prince of the Devils, when all his business, and power was only among flies?

It may not be improbable perhaps, that he might be first or chief of those Demons, or Baalim, that Ahab brought among the Israelites, and so Ahaziah his Son, in the midst of his affliction and danger might fly to refuge to that Idol, as what had been the God of his Father: But what is it could move the Ages following at so long distance of time from this, that they should esteem this Demon, Beelzebub, the prince of the Devils? Here I confess myself not well satisfied: But as to Beelzebul, something may be said.

IV. I have already shewn in notes upon Matth. XII. that the Jewish Doctors (and such were these who contended with our Savior) did give Idolatrous worship the denomination of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zebul, or Dung, for the ignominy of the thing; and so was the Nation generally taught by these Rabbins. I gave some instances for the proof of it, which I shall not here repeat, but add one more. It is said of Joseph (when his Mistress would have tempted him to Adultery) that he came into the house to do his business. R. Judah saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It was a day of fooling, and of dunging, it was a day of theatres. Where the Gloss upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zebul, Stercoration, saith thus: It is a word of contempt, and so it is expounded by R. Solomon in the Treatise Avodah Zarah, and Tosaphoth, viz. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to Sacrifice (that is, to Idols) and they prove it out of Jerusalem Beracoth, where it is said, he that seeth a place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where they dung, (that is, offer sacrifice to an Idol) let him say, whoso offereth Sacrifice to strange God's, let him be accursed. Which words we have also alleged out of the Jerusalem Talmud.

V. Now therefore, when Idolatry was denominated Zebul amongst the Jews, and indeed reckoned amongst the grievousest of sins they could be guilty of, that Devil whom they supposed to preside over this piece of wickedness, they named him Beelzebul and esteemed him the prince of the Devils, or (if you will pardon the expression) the most deviliz'd of all Devils.

VI. They give the like title to the Devil Asmodeus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Asmodeus the King of the Devils. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Devil, the prince of the spirits. Which elsewhere is expounded, d 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Devil Ashmodeus. For in both places we have this ridiculous tale: There was a certain Woman brought forth a son in the night time, and said to her son, (a child newly born you must know) go and light me a Candle that I may cut thy Navel; As he was going, the Devil Asmodeus meeting him, said to him, go and tell thy Mother, that if the Cock had not crowed, I would have killed thee, &c.

The very name points at Apostasy, not so much that the Devil was an Apostate, as that this Devil provoked and enticed people to apostatize: Beelzebul amongst the Gentiles, and Asmodeus amongst the Jews, the first Authors of their apostasy. Whether both the Name and Demon were not found out by the Jews to affright the Samaritans. See the place above quoted Whenas Noah went to plant a Vineyard 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Demon Asmodeus met him and said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let me partake with thee, &c. So that it seems they suppose Asmodeus had an hand in Noah's drunkenness. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when he (that is, Solomon) sinned, Asmodeus drove him to it. &c. They call the Angel of death by the name of Prince of all Satan's; because he destroys all mankind by death, none excepted.

VERS. XXXI.

I. I Cannot but wonder what should be the meaning of that passage in Bava bathra, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Whoever saith that the Queen of Sheba was a Woman, doth no other than mistake. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What then is the Queen of Sheba? The Kingdom of Sheba. He would have the whole Kingdom of the Sabaeans to have come to Solomon: perhaps what is said, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 came 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with an exceeding great Army, (for so is that clause rendered by some) might seem to sound something of this nature in his ears. But, if there was any kind of ambiguity in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as indeed there is none; or if Interpreters doubted at all about it, as indeed none had done, the great Oracle of truth hath here taught us that the Queen did come to Solomon: but why doth he term her the Queen of the South, and not the Queen of Sheba?

II. There are plausible things upon this occasion spoken concerning Sheba of the Arabians, which we have no leisure to discuss at present. I am apt rather to apprehend, that our Savior may call her the Queen of the South in much a like sense, as the King of Egypt is called in Daniel, the King of the South: the Countries in that quarter of the world were very well known amongst the Jews by that title: but I question whether the Arabian Saba were so or no. Grant that some of the Arabian Countries be in later ages called Aliemin, or Southern parts; yet I doubt whether so called by antiquity or in the days of our Savior.

Whereas it is said that the Queen of the South came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, is it worth the patience of the Reader, to hear a little the folly of the Jews about this matter. Because it is said that she came to make a proof of his wisdom by dark sayings and hard questions, these Doctors will be telling us what kind of riddles and hard questions she put to him. She saith unto him, if I ask thee anything, wilt thou answer▪ me? He said, it is the Lord that giveth wisdom. She saith, what is this then? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 There are seven things go out and nine enter. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Two mingle (or prepare) the cup, and one drinks of it. He saith, there are seven days for a Woman's separation, that go out, and nine months for her bringing forth, that come in. Two breasts do mingle, or prepare the cup, and one sucks it. Again saith she, I will ask thee one thing more, what is this? A Woman saith unto her Son, thy Father was my Father; thy Grandfather was my Husband; thou art my Son and I am thy Sister. To whom he answered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Surely they were Lot's Daughters. There is much more of this kind, but thus much may suffice for riddles.

VERS. XXXIII.

THE coherence of this passage with what went before seems a little difficult; but the connection probably is this. There were some that had reviled him, as if he had cast out Devils by the Prince of the Devils; others that had required a sign from Heaven, Vers. 15, 16. To the former of these he gives an answer, Vers. 17, 18. and indeed to both of them Vers. 19. and so on. This passage we are upon respects both, but the latter more principally. q. d. You require a sign of me; would you have me light a Candle and put it under a bushel? Would you have me work miracles, when I am assured beforehand, you will not believe these miracles? Which however of themselves they may shine like a candle lighted up, yet in respect to you that believe them not, it is no other than a candle under a bushel, or in a secret place.

VERS. XXXVI.

THIS clause seems so much the same with the former, as if there were something of Tautology; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. If thy whole body therefore be full of light, &c. our Savior speaketh of the eye after the manner of the Schools, where the evil eye, or the eye not single, signified the covetous, envious, and malicious mind. Do not bring such a mind along with thee, but a candid, benign, gentle mind, then thou wilt be all bright and clear thyself, and all things will be bright and clear to thee. If you had but such a mind, O! ye carping, blasphemous Jews, you would not frame so sordid and infamous a judgment of my miracles, but you would have a clear and candid opinion concerning them.

VERS. XXXVIII.

HAD the Pharisee himself washed before dinner in that sense wherein 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies the washing of the whole body; it is hardly credible, when there was neither need, nor was it the custom to wash the whole body before meat, but the hands only. This we have spoken larglier upon elsewhere ; from whence it will be necessary for us to repeat these things; that there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a washing of the hands, and there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a dipping of the hands. This clause we are upon, refers to this latter. The Pharisee wonders that Christ had not washed his hands, nay that he had not dipped them all over in the water when he was newly come, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , v. 29. from the people that were gathered thick together.

Of how great esteem this washing their hands before meat was amongst them, besides what I have alleged elsewhere, take this one instance more: It is story'd of R. Akibah, that he was bound in prison, and R. Joshua ministered unto him as his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or reader. He daily brought him water by measure; one day the keeper of the prison met him, and said unto him, thou hast too much water today.—He poured out half and gave him half. When he came to R. Akibah, he told him the whole matter. R. Akibah saith unto him, give me some water to wash my hands; the other saith unto him, there is not enough for thee to drink, and how then shouldst thou have any to wash thine hands? to whom he, What shall I do in a matter wherein there is the guilt of death? It is better I should die (that is by thirst) than that I should transgress the mind of my colleagues: Who had thus prescribed about washing of hands.

And a little after, Samuel saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 At that time wherein Solomon instituted the Erubhin and washing of the hands, there came forth Bath-kol, and said, my Son, if thy heart be wise, even mine shall rejoice. Observe here (at least if you will believe it) that Solomon was the first author of this washing of hands. Whosoever blesseth immediately after the washing of hands, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Satan doth not accuse him for that time of his repast.

VERS. XXXIX.

THIS our Savior speaks of the persons and not of the vessels, which is plain in that,

I. He saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , your inward parts, &c. so that the sense is to this purpose: you cleanse yourselves outwardly indeed by these kinds of washings, but that which is within you is full of rapine, &c.

II. Whereas he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he that made that which is without, he doth not speak it of the artificer that made the cup or the platter, but of God. Else what kind of argument is this? He that made the cups and the platters, made both the outside and the inside of them: What then? therefore do ye make yourselves clean both outside and inside too. But if we refer it to God, then the argument holds forcibly enough. Did not God that made you without, make you within too? he expects therefore that you should keep yourselves clean, not only as to your outside, but as to your inside too.

III. It is hardly probable that the Pharisees should wash the outside of the cup or platter, and not the inside too; take but these two passages out of this kind of Authors themselves: Those dishes which any person eats out of over night, they wash them that he may eat in them in the morning. In the morning: they wash them that he may eat in them at noon. At noon: that he may eat in them at the Mincha; after the Mincha he doth not wash them again, but the cups, and jugs, and bottles he doth wash, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so it goes throughout the whole day, &c. I will not give myself nor Reader the trouble to examine the meaning of the words, it suffices only that here is mention of washing, and that the whole vessel, not of this or that part only; and the washing of such vessels was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by dipping them in water.

All vessels 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that have an outside and an inside, if the inside be defiled, the outside is also, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 if the outside be defiled the inside is not defiled; one would think this was to our purpose, and asserted the very literal sense of the words we have in hand, viz. that the cups and the platters, although they were unclean on the outside, yet in the inside they might be clean; and it was sufficient to the Pharisee if he cleansed them on the outside only, but the vessels here mentioned (if the Gloss may be our interpreter) are such 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which they might use both the outside and the inside indifferently: Some of them are recited by the Gemarists, viz. sacks, wallets, night-caps, pillowbears, &c.

Our Savior therefore does not here speak according to the letter, neither here nor in Mat. XXIII. 25. when he saith, Ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but by way of parable and similitude. You, while you are so very nice and officious in your external washings, you do nothing more than if you only washed the outside of the cup or dish, while there was nothing but filth and nastiness within.

VERS. XL.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a word very common to the Nation: Rabban Johanan ben Zacchai said to the Baithusians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ye fools, how prove you this? Esau said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cain was a fool. Pharaoh said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Esau was a fool.—Haman said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pharaoh was a fool—Gog and Magog will say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they were all fools that are gone before us. Hence that common phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 O thou most foolish thing in all the world.

VERS. XLI.

THIS seems Ironically spoken, and in derision to the opinion they had concerning alms.

I. As to the Version of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , may we not suppose it signifies not only quod superest, that which is over and above, as the vulgar, but also quod penes vos est, all that you have, as Beza. Or not only something that may have respect to the riches of this world, but something also that may have respect to the Doctrines and tenets of the Pharisees. As if the meaning was this, those things which are amongst you, i. e. which obtain commonly amongst you, are to this purpose, give but alms, and all things are clean unto you. When I observe amongst the Talmudists how the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used, when anything is put or determined (especially when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 occurs, I question whether it be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 come, see; or it is so, see. ) I cannot but persuade myself that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place looks something that way: your inward part is full of ravening; but the positions and tenets that obtain amongst you are, give Alms, &c.

II. However, grant that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 denotes that which is over and above, or that which you have; for I will not be very tenacious in this: yet is it hardly probable that our Savior utters this as his own, but rather as the words and opinion of the Pharisees; nor do I think that he speaks these things directly, or by way of direction to them, but that he cites their tenets in mere scoff and displeasure. For indeed this principle was the spawn of their own Schools, that giving of alms had a value in it, that served for atonement, justification, salvation, everything. Hence that common term that reached so comprehensively 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 righteousness; and hence is it that in those numberless places in the Holy Scriptures where the praises of justice and righteousness are celebrated, and all the blessings of it pronounced, they apply it all to the giving of alms. Take one instance for all. Rabh Asai saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Alms is equivalent to all the other commandments. R. Judah saith, Giving of Alms is a great thing, for it hastens our redemption. It is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 righteousness (i. e. giving of Alms) delivers from death.—Alms giving delivereth from sudden death, and from the judgment of Hell. R. Meir saith, If any wicked man should make this objection, that if God love the poor, why doth he not seed them: do thou make this answer, It is that we by them might be delivered from the judgment of Hell.

I wish indeed that the Greek Interpreters have not a touch of this, when they so oftentimes render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 justice by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or giving of Alms. So that the Reader may judge whether our Savior either would teach that rapine, injustice and unrighteousness might be cleansed by giving of alms, or that he would give them any counsel of this nature, when he knew they were sufficiently tinctured with this kind of Doctrine already.

VERS. XLV.

HERE seems a little difficulty, that whereas in the foregoing verse it is said, Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, it is not subjoin'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , then answered one of the Scribes, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one of the Lawyers; which scruple perhaps the vulgar observing, made him leave Scribes and Pharisees wholly out. Our Savior inveighs more peculiarly, and by name against the Pharisees, ver. 37, 42, 43. and at length joins the Scribes with them, v. 44. Hence that Lawyer cavils and complains, either that he had named the Scribes in terms, or that he had accused the Pharisees of nothing, but what the Scribes might be equally accused of. As to this very Scribe, did not he wash his hands before dinner as the Pharisees did? for it is said of all the Jews, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , except they wash their hands oft, eat not. Did not the Scribe tythe mint and rue as well as the Pharisee? when we find that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the tything of herbs was instituted by the Rabbins . In a word, the Scribes and the Pharisees go hand in hand in that discourse of our Savior's, Mat. XXIII. where he blameth both the one and the other for the same things. So that it is plain enough why this man complains, but it is not so plain why he should be termed one of the Lawyers, and not one of the Scribes.

I. It is not very easy distinguishing betwixt the Scribe and the Pharisee, saving that Pharisaism was a kind of tumour and excrescence as to superstition and austerities of Religion, beyond the common and stated practice of that Nation, even of the Scribes themselves. Whether that distinction betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 singular, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a disciple, hints any difference as to the austerity of Religion, I cannot affirm, only will lay a passage or two in the Reader's eye for him to consider.

The Rabbins have a tradition, Let no one say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I am a disciple, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I am not fit to be made a singular. The Gloss hath it, I am not fit to begin the fasts with the singulars. And the Gemara a little after, The Rabbins have a tradition, everyone that would make himself a singular, let him not make himself so: but if any one would make himself a disciple, let him. And at length 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is not lawful for a disciple of the wise to continue in fastings 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because he diminisheth from the work of God: that is, he ceaseth from learning and teaching.

One would here think that it is plainly distinguished betwixt a Pharisee, and any other, and yet the Gemarists in the very same place say thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all the disciples of the wise are singulars. At length they query 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who is a singular, and who is a disciple? A singular is he that is worthy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be preferred to be a Pastor of a Synagogue. A disciple is he, who if they ask him anything concerning a tradition in his doctrine, he hath wherewithal to answer. So that by a disciple they mean not he that is now a learning, but he who hath already learnt, and now teacheth; but in other places they apply both these to the disciple.

R. Johanan saith, who is a disciple of the wise? he whom they prefer to be Pastor of a Synagogue: He whom if they ask about any tradition in any place, hath wherewithal to answer. The difference between these, however confounded in this place was this: that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the disciple could answer doubts and questions, fetched out of that place, or from that subject upon which he had taught or read; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the singular, could answer all doubts raised from any place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even out of the Treatise concerning marriages. That mention of the Pastor and the Teacher, Eph. IV. 11. we seem to have some shadow of it here, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the disciple is the teacher, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the singular, is the Pastor of the Synagogue; and perhaps if these things were observed, it might give some light into that place of the Apostle.

II. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the disciple, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the singular, are sometimes confounded, sometimes distinguished, so also is the Scribe and the Pharisee. They are sometimes confounded, for many of the Pharisees were Scribes, and they are sometimes distinguished, for many of them were of the common people, and not Scribes. Perhaps it may not be improperly said, that there were Pharisees that were of the Clergy, and Pharisees that were of the laity. He whom we have now before us was a Scribe, but not a Pharisee: but it is not easy to give the reason why he is termed a Lawyer, and not a Scribe. Here is some place for conjecture but not for demonstration. As to conjecture therefore let us make a little assay in this matter.

I. I conceive that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Lawyer and Teacher of the Law, may be opposed to the Sadducees, to whom the Pharisee is diametrically opposite, for they were contrary to them in their practice of the Traditional rites, as much as they could; and these again contrary to them in Traditional doctrines abundantly. The Sadducees had indeed their Scribes or their teachers as well as any other party: there is frequent mention of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Scribes of the Sadducees. And from this antithesis probably is Rabban Gamaliel termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Doctor of Law . For there was then an assembly of the Sect of the Sadducees, ver. 17. Now when Gamaliel who was of the other Sect, made his speech amongst them, it is easy to conceive why he is there termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Doctor of Law. For the same reason we may suppose the person here before us, might be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one of the Lawyers, and not a Scribe, because there were Scribes even amongst the Sadducees.

II. I conceive therefore that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were the Traditionary Doctors of the Law. As to Gamaliel a Doctor of the Law, the thing is without dispute, and if there were any difference between the Lawyers and Doctors of the Law yet as to this matter I suppose there was none. Let us consider this following passage: It is a Tradition, R. Simeon ben Jochai saith, he that is conversant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Textual exposition of the Law, hath a measure which is not a measure. He that is conversant in Mishneh, hath a measure from whence they receive a reward; but if he be conversant in the Talmud, there is not a greater measure than this. Always betake yourself to the Mishneh, rather than the Talmud. But R. Jose ben R. Bon saith, This which thou sayest, obtained before the Rabbi had mixed with it manifold traditions, but from the time that he mixed with it manifold traditions, always have recourse to the Talmud, rather than to the Mishneh.

Now I pray who is he that (according to this tradition) merits most the title of a Doctor of Law, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; he that is conversant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the exposition and interpretation of the written Law, and the context of it? Alas! he doth but little, and for all the oil and labor he hath spent, hath only a measure which is not a measure. But he that is conversant in the Mishneh and