Works

VERS. IX.

R. Chaia bar Abba saith, R. Jochanan saith, All the Prophets prophesied not but of the days of the Messias, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But as to the world to come, eye hath not seen, O God, besides thee, &c. These words are repeated elsewhere upon another occasion. Where the Gloss, The eyes of the Prophets could not see these things.

You see here the Rabbin distinguishes between the Days of Messiah, and the World to come; which is sometimes done by others: but they are very commonly confounded. And you see upon what reason, yea upon what necessity he was driven to this distinction; namely, that he supposed some things laid up for those that waited for God, which the eyes of the Prophets never saw. But, saith he, the Prophets saw the good things of the days of the Messiah; therefore they are laid up for the world to come, after the days of the Messiah. Rabbin, learn from Paul, that the revelation under the Gospel is far more bright, than the Prophets ever attained to.

VERS. I.

THE Hebrews would say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 little children (from a word that signifies to give suck ) Hence that saying is very common, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Children in School. Rabh said to Rabh Samuel bar Shillah (the Schoolmaster;) Take a child of six years of age, and give him food as you would do an Ox. The Gloss is, Feed him with the Law, as you feed an Ox, which you fatten. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let a man deal gently with his son to his twelfth year. The Gloss there, If he refuse to learn, let him deal gently with him, and with fair words, &c.

VERS. XII.

THAT the Apostle is speaking of Doctrines is plain by the Context.

I. He supposeth these builders, although they built not so well, yet to have set themselves upon that work with no ill mind, verse. 15. He himself shall be saved.

II. By the several kinds of these things, Gold, Silver, Wood, Hay, Stubble, we may understand not only the different manner of teaching, but even the different kinds of Doctrines taught. For if they had all propounded the same Truth and Doctrine, it had been no great matter, if they had not all declared it in the same manner. But while some produce Gold, Silver, Wood, precious, pure, sound Doctrine, others bring Hay, Stubble, Doctrine that is vile, trifling, and of no value or solidity; the very Doctrines were different, and some were such as could endure the trial of the fire, and others, which could not.

III. There were some who scattered grains of Judaism among the people: but this they did not, as professedly opposing the Gospel, but out of ignorance, and because they did not as yet sufficiently understand the simplicity of the Gospel. Paul calls these and such like Doctrines Hay and Stubble, to be consumed by fire: Yet while they in the mean time who had taught such things, might escape, because they opposed not the Truth out of malice, but out of ignorance had broached Falsehood.

VERS. XIII.

TWO things shall discover every man's work, The Day, and The Fire. Both which you may not understand amiss of the Word of God manifesting and proving all things. For the light of the Gospel is very frequently called the Day, and the Law of God called Fire, Deut. XXXIII. 2.

But I had rather in this place understand by the Day, the day of the Lord that was shortly coming, and by Fire the fire of Divine indignation to be poured out upon the Jewish Nation. And I am the more inclined to this interpretation, because there is so frequent remembrance of that Day and Fire in the Holy Scriptures.

When therefore there were some, who built Judaism upon the Gospel foundation, and that out of unskillfulness, and ignorance, of the simplicity of the Gospel, (for of such the Apostle here speaks;) he foretells and threatens, that the Day and Fire of the Lord is coming upon the Jews: by which the folly and inconsistency of that superstructure would not only be revealed, but that very superstructure itself should perish.

This place being taken in this sense, all the things the Apostle speaks in this passage become plain. That Fire shall prove Doctrines, whether they are Evangelical, or no. If any ones Work or Doctrine will endure the trial of that Fire, he shall receive the reward of sound Doctrine: if the Doctrine of any will not endure it, but be consumed, he shall receive the damage of his pains and labor lost, but he himself shall be saved, but this, as he is proved by Fire.

Would you have a parallel of a Doctrine and building of straw, concerning which Paul speaks? The Rabbins deliver 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let no man plaster his house with lime, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But if he mix sand and straw with lime, it is allowed. The Tradition respects the times after the Destruction of the Temple, when by reason of the mourning for that fatal overthrow, it was not permitted them to whiten their Walls, but to let them be overrun with blackness, as a Colour fit for mourners. Therefore it was not permitted to whiten the Walls with lime only, lest they should look too bright; but if they were mixed with sand and straw, whereby the whitness of the lime might be darkened, then it was permitted. A Doctrine of straw truly! from a superstruction of straw, and that yields a very fit image of those Jewish Doctrines, of which the Apostle speaks, clouding the brightness of the Gospel.

VERS. I.

THE Hebrews would say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 little children (from a word that signifies to give suck ) Hence that saying is very common, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Children in School. Rabh said to Rabh Samuel bar Shillah (the Schoolmaster;) Take a child of six years of age, and give him food as you would do an Ox. The Gloss is, Feed him with the Law, as you feed an Ox, which you fatten. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let a man deal gently with his son to his twelfth year. The Gloss there, If he refuse to learn, let him deal gently with him, and with fair words, &c.

VERS. XII.

THAT the Apostle is speaking of Doctrines is plain by the Context.

I. He supposeth these builders, although they built not so well, yet to have set themselves upon that work with no ill mind, verse. 15. He himself shall be saved.

II. By the several kinds of these things, Gold, Silver, Wood, Hay, Stubble, we may understand not only the different manner of teaching, but even the different kinds of Doctrines taught. For if they had all propounded the same Truth and Doctrine, it had been no great matter, if they had not all declared it in the same manner. But while some produce Gold, Silver, Wood, precious, pure, sound Doctrine, others bring Hay, Stubble, Doctrine that is vile, trifling, and of no value or solidity; the very Doctrines were different, and some were such as could endure the trial of the fire, and others, which could not.

III. There were some who scattered grains of Judaism among the people: but this they did not, as professedly opposing the Gospel, but out of ignorance, and because they did not as yet sufficiently understand the simplicity of the Gospel. Paul calls these and such like Doctrines Hay and Stubble, to be consumed by fire: Yet while they in the mean time who had taught such things, might escape, because they opposed not the Truth out of malice, but out of ignorance had broached Falsehood.

VERS. XIII.

TWO things shall discover every man's work, The Day, and The Fire. Both which you may not understand amiss of the Word of God manifesting and proving all things. For the light of the Gospel is very frequently called the Day, and the Law of God called Fire, Deut. XXXIII. 2.

But I had rather in this place understand by the Day, the day of the Lord that was shortly coming, and by Fire the fire of Divine indignation to be poured out upon the Jewish Nation. And I am the more inclined to this interpretation, because there is so frequent remembrance of that Day and Fire in the Holy Scriptures.

When therefore there were some, who built Judaism upon the Gospel foundation, and that out of unskillfulness, and ignorance, of the simplicity of the Gospel, (for of such the Apostle here speaks;) he foretells and threatens, that the Day and Fire of the Lord is coming upon the Jews: by which the folly and inconsistency of that superstructure would not only be revealed, but that very superstructure itself should perish.

This place being taken in this sense, all the things the Apostle speaks in this passage become plain. That Fire shall prove Doctrines, whether they are Evangelical, or no. If any ones Work or Doctrine will endure the trial of that Fire, he shall receive the reward of sound Doctrine: if the Doctrine of any will not endure it, but be consumed, he shall receive the damage of his pains and labor lost, but he himself shall be saved, but this, as he is proved by Fire.

Would you have a parallel of a Doctrine and building of straw, concerning which Paul speaks? The Rabbins deliver 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let no man plaster his house with lime, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But if he mix sand and straw with lime, it is allowed. The Tradition respects the times after the Destruction of the Temple, when by reason of the mourning for that fatal overthrow, it was not permitted them to whiten their Walls, but to let them be overrun with blackness, as a Colour fit for mourners. Therefore it was not permitted to whiten the Walls with lime only, lest they should look too bright; but if they were mixed with sand and straw, whereby the whitness of the lime might be darkened, then it was permitted. A Doctrine of straw truly! from a superstruction of straw, and that yields a very fit image of those Jewish Doctrines, of which the Apostle speaks, clouding the brightness of the Gospel.

VERS. VI.

AND why not to himself and Cephas? From this very place, if it may not elsewhere be proved, it appears Peter taught not at Corinth. The Apostle treats purposely of their principal Ministers, and it is past belief, that he would pass by Peter, if Peter had preached among them.

When he saith, That he transferred these things in a figure to himself and Apollo, he understands not the changing of names and persons; nor doth he transfer the names of others into his person, and Apollo's, that he might not reprove any by name; (which sense is commonly fixed to this place,) but the figure, which he useth, is this; namely, while he speaks of that preaching of the Gospel, which was plain, and rude, and very distant from human wisdom; and on the contrary, of that preaching which was elegant, well studied, and more profound; these things, saith he, I have transferred in this Scheme to myself, and Apollo, the former way of preaching to myself, the latter to Apollo.

VERS. VIII.

A Bitter taunt: chastising the boasting of the Corinthians, who had forgot from whom they had first received those Evangelical privileges, concerning which they • ow prided themselves. They were enriched with spiritual gifts; They reigned themselves being Judges, in the very top of the dignity and happiness of the Gospel; and that without us, saith the Apostle, as though ye owed nothing to us for those privileges: and, O! would to God ye did reign; and that it went so happily and well with you indeed, that we also might reign with you, and that we might partake of some happiness in this your promotion, and might be of some account among you.

VERS. VI.

AND why not to himself and Cephas? From this very place, if it may not elsewhere be proved, it appears Peter taught not at Corinth. The Apostle treats purposely of their principal Ministers, and it is past belief, that he would pass by Peter, if Peter had preached among them.

When he saith, That he transferred these things in a figure to himself and Apollo, he understands not the changing of names and persons; nor doth he transfer the names of others into his person, and Apollo's, that he might not reprove any by name; (which sense is commonly fixed to this place,) but the figure, which he useth, is this; namely, while he speaks of that preaching of the Gospel, which was plain, and rude, and very distant from human wisdom; and on the contrary, of that preaching which was elegant, well studied, and more profound; these things, saith he, I have transferred in this Scheme to myself, and Apollo, the former way of preaching to myself, the latter to Apollo.

VERS. VIII.

A Bitter taunt: chastising the boasting of the Corinthians, who had forgot from whom they had first received those Evangelical privileges, concerning which they • ow prided themselves. They were enriched with spiritual gifts; They reigned themselves being Judges, in the very top of the dignity and happiness of the Gospel; and that without us, saith the Apostle, as though ye owed nothing to us for those privileges: and, O! would to God ye did reign; and that it went so happily and well with you indeed, that we also might reign with you, and that we might partake of some happiness in this your promotion, and might be of some account among you.

VERS. I.

NOT his own Mother, but the wife of his Father, who was still alive, as it seems from the second Epistle to these Corinthians, Chap. VII. 12. I wrote to you, not in respect of him, that had done the wrong, nor in respect of him, that suffered the wrong. He that had done the wrong, was plainly this incestuous person; for it will scarcely be denied, but that the Apostle there speaks of that business. And who is he that suffered the wrong? The Father without doubt; now certainly alive and not deceased: for it would scarcely have been said of him, if dead, that he suffered wrong by this wicked action.

VERS. II.

IT is a wonder indeed, that they mourned not; but it is more wonderful that they should be puffed up and glory in such a wickedness, as is shewn at verse. 6. But whence proceeded so foolish and wicked a boasting?

I. Perhaps from the affectation of a party, and the bitterness of their contentions; the adverse party triumphing against that party in which happened so grievo • s a fall.

II. Perhaps by an ill conceit of the liberty of the Gospel, they triumphed in this thing, as though the Gospel had brought in such a liberty against the Law.

III. Or it may seem, that the Father of the incestuous person was not a Christian, but either a Heath • n, or an unbelieving Jew, but the Mother converted to Christianity, and so the Son also. And hence might happen the departing of the wife from the unbelieving husband, and her marrying with the believing son. Thence might the glorying of the Corinthians proceed, not from this merely, that the son had married his mother in Law, (for to think that, would be ridiculous) but that the Gospel had so prevailed, as to separate even a wife from an unbelieving husband.

It was your Duty, O ye Corinthians, to have beseeched God with prayers and fastings, to take away from among you so wicked a man, if so be he repented not: but you are puffed up, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , To mourn, in this place seems to extend to the sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fasting, among the Hebrews.

These are to be stoned; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that lies with his mother, or with the wife of his father. He that lies with his mother is (doubly) guilty, both because she is his mother, and because she is his fathers wife. He that lies with the wife of his father, is (doubly) guilty, both because she is the wife of his father, and because she is the wife of another: whether his father beliving, or dead, and whether she be the wife of his father by espousal, or marriage. See also Maimonides . And elsewhere this very sin is adjudged to cutting off: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 There are thirty six cuttings off in the Law (or thirty six, who are to be cut off) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that lies with his mother, or with the wife of his father, &c.

It may indeed seem a wonder, that one and the same crime should be adjudged to stoning, which was inflicted by the Sanhedrin; and, to cutting off, which was by the hand of God. But hear the Glosser, All those cuttings off, saith he, are concerning things done presumptuously, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where there was no previous admonition, or protestation; but if there were previous admonition, some of them are adjudged to strangling, and some to stoning. But if these things are done out of ignorance, a sacrifice for sin is required.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cutting off, was by the immediate hand of God, which this impious person had deserved in the highest degree: for that this wicked act was done by him out of ignorance, it would be ridiculous to imagine.

VERS. V.

VERS. IX.

IN an Epistle? What?

I. The Aorist 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be rendered, I had written, without any wrong to Grammar. I had written in this Epistle, Accompany not, &c. before the report of this wickedness came to me: but now hearing it, I sharpen my pen the more, and I bind you with a straighter prohibition, namely, That ye do not eat with such.

II. The Apostle had sent Timothy to the Corinthians before he wrote this Epistle, Chap. IV. 17. and it is very likely, that he sent some Epistle by him, in which he had so written. But Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaious coming to the Apostle, and laying open the whole state of the Church of Corinth to him, and bringing him Letters and Questions from the Church, when as yet, as they knew, Timothy was not arrived at Corinth; he suppresses that Epistle, and comprises it in this. And if you say, that is lost, you will say true in some respect, because the exact copy of that Epistle came not unto us: and you will not say true in another respect, because in this Epistle we have all things comprised in that, and much more besides.

I. It is plain the Apostle riseth higher here, and obligeth them with a straiter admonition, than he had done before. He had written to them before Mr 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Not to company with them; now he writes, Mr 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Not to eat with them.

II. It is plain also, that he aims his words at profane Christians, not at Heathens, both now, and when he writ before. For there were among the Christians converted from Heathenism some without doubt, whose Parents, or Children, or Kinsmen, not yet converted, wallowed in Idolatry, Covetousness, and Whoredoms. But now a Christian was not to forget all these alliances. Nor was all familiarity and respect towards them to be cast away.

III. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 denotes, saith Camerarius, Necessitudinem aliquam interiorem, some more intimate friendship, or Alliances: which indeed in some respect is true, if that more inward friendship be distinguished into that which is more close▪ and less close 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be reckoned that conversation and friendship, which a Jew might enter into with a Jew, and not with a Heathen: according to the rule of which, as being very well known, it scarcely can be coubted, but the Apostle speaks.

I. A Jew might deal and traffic with a Heathen: nevertheless under this, and some other cautions of that nature. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Three days before the Festivals of the Heathens, it is forbid to give and receive with them, to lend to or to borrow of them, to restore or to fetch back anything, &c. I scarcely believe this falls under the signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , accompanying,

II. To eat together and at one Table was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to accompany, which certainly appears enough from the strait prohibition of such eating with a Heathen. A Pharisee in Markets and Fairs would have dealing with a common person, but he would not eat with him. So a common person would trade with a Heathen, but he would not eat with him. The Apostle therefore does not oppose 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 accompanying, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Eating together, one against another, but propounds Eating together as a certain degree 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Companying, or mixing together. For

III. There was, which by common experience may be observed, a much more inward friendship, than such a bare eating, namely, that which is called by the Jews Lawyers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Copartnership in merchandize and traffic, and that which is called by us Deputation: both forbidden a Jew with a Gentile. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is forbidden a man to enter into Co-partnership with a Heathen: lest haply he mast sometime swear, and is compelled to swear by his Idol. And Maimonides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Heathen is not made a Messenger, or a Deputy, for anything. Nor is an Israelite made a Deputy for a Heathen.

IV. Friendship was yet more close by contract of marriage and affinity: this the LXX call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jos. XXIII. 12.

And now it is not very hard to fathom the sense of the Apostle, which take in this Paraphrase.

VERS. XII.

HERE perhaps one may stick at the Version and sense commonly received. Beza reads Quid mea interest? What doth it concern me? The French, Qu'ay-je a fair de juger? What have I to do to judge? The Italian, Che appartienni à me giudicare? What doth it belong to me to judge? I know well enough the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 very frequently occurs in this sense: but here we may upon good ground inquire, if it concerns thee not, O Blessed Apostle, to judge them that are without, why didst thou judge Elymas with blindness? Why Hymenaeus and Alexander by delivering them into the hands of Satan, when they were now Apostates, and no other than such as were without?

What therefore if the words be rendered to this sense, For why is power granted me to judge concerning them also that are without? That is, by my Apostolic authority, to strike even a Heathen with some divine plague, if he be uncurably an Enemy, and Blasphemer of the Gospel; which I did to Elymas, &c. Why is this granted me, but to cut off such as are past cure? And do not you also within your Sphere judge those, who are within? But now those that are without, which I thus judge and smite, God judgeth, and smites, and by his vengeance gives his suffrage to my censure.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Therefore put away. In like manner, you also, doing what lies in you, may take away this man, and other such wicked persons by that hand of God. It cannot be past over without observing, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the future Tense, and it is not rashly to be rendered by another Tense. We explain therefore the whole place by this Paraphrase.

VERS. I.

NOT his own Mother, but the wife of his Father, who was still alive, as it seems from the second Epistle to these Corinthians, Chap. VII. 12. I wrote to you, not in respect of him, that had done the wrong, nor in respect of him, that suffered the wrong. He that had done the wrong, was plainly this incestuous person; for it will scarcely be denied, but that the Apostle there speaks of that business. And who is he that suffered the wrong? The Father without doubt; now certainly alive and not deceased: for it would scarcely have been said of him, if dead, that he suffered wrong by this wicked action.

VERS. II.

IT is a wonder indeed, that they mourned not; but it is more wonderful that they should be puffed up and glory in such a wickedness, as is shewn at verse. 6. But whence proceeded so foolish and wicked a boasting?

I. Perhaps from the affectation of a party, and the bitterness of their contentions; the adverse party triumphing against that party in which happened so grievo • s a fall.

II. Perhaps by an ill conceit of the liberty of the Gospel, they triumphed in this thing, as though the Gospel had brought in such a liberty against the Law.

III. Or it may seem, that the Father of the incestuous person was not a Christian, but either a Heath • n, or an unbelieving Jew, but the Mother converted to Christianity, and so the Son also. And hence might happen the departing of the wife from the unbelieving husband, and her marrying with the believing son. Thence might the glorying of the Corinthians proceed, not from this merely, that the son had married his mother in Law, (for to think that, would be ridiculous) but that the Gospel had so prevailed, as to separate even a wife from an unbelieving husband.

It was your Duty, O ye Corinthians, to have beseeched God with prayers and fastings, to take away from among you so wicked a man, if so be he repented not: but you are puffed up, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , To mourn, in this place seems to extend to the sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fasting, among the Hebrews.

These are to be stoned; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that lies with his mother, or with the wife of his father. He that lies with his mother is (doubly) guilty, both because she is his mother, and because she is his fathers wife. He that lies with the wife of his father, is (doubly) guilty, both because she is the wife of his father, and because she is the wife of another: whether his father beliving, or dead, and whether she be the wife of his father by espousal, or marriage. See also Maimonides . And elsewhere this very sin is adjudged to cutting off: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 There are thirty six cuttings off in the Law (or thirty six, who are to be cut off) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that lies with his mother, or with the wife of his father, &c.

It may indeed seem a wonder, that one and the same crime should be adjudged to stoning, which was inflicted by the Sanhedrin; and, to cutting off, which was by the hand of God. But hear the Glosser, All those cuttings off, saith he, are concerning things done presumptuously, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where there was no previous admonition, or protestation; but if there were previous admonition, some of them are adjudged to strangling, and some to stoning. But if these things are done out of ignorance, a sacrifice for sin is required.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cutting off, was by the immediate hand of God, which this impious person had deserved in the highest degree: for that this wicked act was done by him out of ignorance, it would be ridiculous to imagine.

VERS. V.

SECT. A Few things concerning Excommunication among the Jews. Whether to excommunicate, and to deliver to Satan among them were the same.

BEing to speak of Excommunication among the Jews, we must first speak a little concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Reproof, which with the Babylonian Writers was the same with excommunication. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Reproof, or admonition, is not less than for seven days: as it is said, If her Father spit in her face, shall she not be ashamed seven days? ( Numb. XII. 12.) Rabbi Chasda saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Our Excommunication (in Babylon) i • like their Reproof (in the Land of Israel. )

These Examples are there produced. R. Simeon the son of Rabbi (Judah) and Bar Kaphra sat reading, and when the place which they read was too hard, R. Simeon said to Bar Kaphra, We have need of Rabbi for an Interpreter here. To whom Bar Kaphra, And what can Rabbi say in this matter? R. Simeon went away, and told this to his Father, who thereupon was angry. Bar Kaphra came to visit him. He said to him, O Bar Kaphra, I knew you not. He knew what he meant, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Therefore he underwent Reproof thirty days. And again, Rabbi sometime commanded, that the Masters teach not their Scholars in the streets; applying those words mystically hither, The compass of thy thighs are like Jewels ( Cant. VII. 1.) As the Thighs are in secret, so the words of the Law are in secret. R. Chaiia ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) came forth, and taught the two sons of his brother in the street, that is, Rabb, and Bar bar Channah. Rabbi heard this, and was angry. R. Chaiia came to visit him. He saith to him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 O Aija who shall read to thee in the street? (The Gloss there, He called him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aija in contempt: Who shall read to thee in the street, is as much, as if he had said, Be gone hence) He knew why he uttered such words against him. Therefore he took 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Reproof for thirty days.

R. Asher sticks in this business, why Bar Kaphra, and R. Chaiia submitted themselves thirty days to that Reproof, when it extended not itself beyond seven days: concerning which let the Reader see, if he be at leisure, what he discourseth.

The difference between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Reproof, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Excommunication, was this.

I. That Reproof, or Correption had not need of absolution; Excommunication had.

II. Although he who was struck with such Reproof kept himself within doors, and went not abroad, as a man ashamed; yet others abstained not from his company. Before him who had struck him with that Thunder, he appeared not, nor conversed in public, yet any one might resort to him at home. So R. Chaiia is said to have taught Rabh at home those thirty days.

Reproof, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 say the Masters, is, when some eminent man chides another, saying, How impudent is N. or something of that nature. Now the Condition of a man thus chidden, or reproved, is this. He hides himself, and keeps himself at home, as one ashamed, that he may not see his face, who shamed him, nor does he stand before him with his head uncovered. He abates also of his laughter, and of his words, and of his business, and makes himself sad before those that see him. But there is no need for him to withdraw himself from men, but he may eat and drink with them, and salute them. Nor needs he to please him, that reproved him, nor needs be absolution. But when he hath taken the Reproof upon him, and the time is expired, he is free. Compare the words of the Apostle, 1 Tim. V. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Rebuke not an Elder, &c. with this passage.

And now to pass to Excommunication itself.

I. Excommunication was devised and found out by the Jews, if my eyes see anything, to be a punishment of those faults, for which there was no other punishment decreed, either in the Holy Scriptures, or in the Traditions. I believe he scarcely was excommunicated among the Jews, for whose offense the punishment either of Cutting off, or of Death, or of Whipping, or of Restitution of double, or fourfold, &c. was openly appointed either by the Law, or by the Fathers of the Traditions. But in those things, concerning which there was no such appointment of punishment, what was to be done? There were faults worthy of punishment, but neither Law nor Scribes assign them any of all those punishments which were named: but certainly provision ought to be made, that such things be not done without punishment. Hence Excommunication was invented, as the general punishment of such faults. The thing itself (if I mistake not) speaks this, if we well weigh those things for which Excommunication was inflicted.

II. The causes or reasons of Excommunication were generally two: namely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For money; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For Epicurism. This distinction we meet with in a place in their Talmud, where they treat at large of Excommunication, and whence we have many things concerning this subject.

Excommunication for money was not, when one owing another money did not pay it; for an Action at Law laid against him: but when he was summoned into Court, and adjudged by the Bench to pay it, and yet paid it not.

What 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Epicurism means, we may learn from the definition of Epicurus. Epicurus is he, that despiseth the words of God. Epicurus is he that despiseth the Scholars of the wise Men. The Aruch saith thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is he that speaks with an ill tongue: he is Epicurus. Among the Talmudists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 denotes one that is presumptuous, dissolute, a man governed by no rule. Thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Epicurus, Lawless, dissolute, not circumscribed within the Laws of the Scribes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendered by the Gloss 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Heretics have hardened their faces. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Gloss renders it, He reproacheth the Messenger of the Sanhedrin.

More particularly. Rambam of blessed memory saith, For twenty four causes they Excommunicate either man or woman; and these are they that are to be Excommunicated.

• 1. He that vilifies a wise Man, yea after his death.
• 2. He that vilifies the Messenger of the Sanhedrin.
• 3. He who calls his companion, Servant.
• 4. He that sets at naught one word of the Scribes. There is no need to say, he that sets at naught the Law.
• 5. Who appears not at the day set him by the Bench.
• 6. Who submits not to the judgment of the Bench, they excommunicate him, till he do submit.
• 7. Who keeps any hurtful thing; for example, a fierce Dog, or a broken Ladder, they excommunicate him, till he put it away.
• 8. Who sells his farm to a Heathen, they excommunicate him, until he take upon himself all the wrong, which may thence come to an Israelite his neighbor.
• 9. Who gives evidence against an Israelite before a Heathen Tribunal; and by that Evidence wracks money from him: they excommunicate him until he pay it back again.
• 10. A Butcher Priest, who divides not a portion to the other Priest, they excommunicate him, until he gives it.
• 11. Who profaneth the second Feast day of the Captivity, although it be according to custom. Of this day see Maimonides .
• 12. Who doth any servile work on the Passover Eve afternoon.
• 13. Who mentioneth the name of God in vain, either in an Oath, or in Words.
• 14. Who compels the people to eat the holy things out of the bounds.
• 15. Who compels the people to profane the Name of God.
• 16. Who intercalates the year, or months without the Land of Israel.
• 17. Who lays a stumbling block before the blind.
• 18. Who hinders the people from performing the precept.
• 19. The Butcher who offers a torn beast.
• 20. The Butcher who showeth not his knife to a wise Man, to be approved of.
• 21. Who hardens himself against knowledge.
• 22. Who hath put away his wife, and yet hath partnership, and dealing with her.
• 23. A wise Man, that lies under an ill fame.
• 24. Who excommunicates him, that deserves not excommunication. These you have likewise in the Learned Buxtorph his Talmudic Lexicon in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Niddui.

By how much the more carefully I look upon the causes and reasons of Excommunication, so much the more I persist in my opinion, that Excommunication was invented as a punishment for those faults, for which no kind of punishment was decreed, either by the Law or by any Traditional Canons. Consider them singly, and perhaps you will be of my opinion.

III. He against whom they were to proceed by Excommunication, was first cited, and a day set him wherein to appear, by a Messenger sent him by the Bench, which certified him of the day, and of the persons before whom he was to appear. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They appoint him the second day of the week (on which day they sit in the Court, and assemble in the Synagogue) and the fifth day of the week (on which day also there is an Assembly, and a Session) and the second of the week following. If he appeared not on the day first appointed, they look for him unto the day that was secondly appointed, and thirdly appointed. And this was when the case was about money; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But if it were for Epicurism (if he made not his appearance on the first day appointed) they Excommunicate him without delay.

IV. They first struck him with simple Excommunication, which they call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Niddui, in which there was not absolute cursing. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In Niddui was not absolute cursing. For they said only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let N. be under Excommunication.

V. This Excommunication was for thirty days. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Excommunication (Niddui) was not less than for thirty days. As it is said, Until a month, until the flesh come out of your nostrils, Numb. XI. 20. But if the Excommunicated person appeased those that Excommunicated him within that time, they absolve him forthwith.

VI. But if he persisted in his perverseness, the thirty days being ended, they Excommunicate him again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Adding also a curse. And this second Excommunication they call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shammatha. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Whence is it, that we Shammatize? In that it is written, Curse ye Meroz. Judge. V. 23. Rabbenu Asher upon the place , Barak Shammatized Meroz, as it is written, Curse ye Meroz, which is both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Excommunication, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cursing: for in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is both Excommunication and Cursing.

VII. They published his offense in the Synagogue. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 We particularly publish his crime in the Synagogue. The Gloss is, They said to his fellow Citizens, For this and this cause we Shammatize him.

VIII. If he persist still for these thirty days in his perverseness, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They Anathematized him. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They Excommunicate him, and after thirty days they again Excommunicate (Shammatize) him, and after sixty they Anathematize. Rabbenu Asher saith, They Anathematize, saying, Let him be under Anathema. And this much more heavy, than either Niddui, or Shammatha. For in this is both Excommunication, and Cursing, and the forbidding the use of any men, unless in those things only, which belong to the sustaining of life. And they Anathematize not, but when a man hath hardened himself against the Bench once and again.

IX. They give the reason of these proceedings in Moed Katon in these words.

Whence is it, that they send a messenger to him from the Court, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 From the house of judgment?) Because it is written, And Moses sent to Dathan, and Abiram.

Whence is it, that they summon him to judgment? Because it is written, And Moses said to Korah, Be thou and all thy company present.

Whence is it, that they cite him before some great and eminent man? Because it is written, Before the Lord.

Whence is it, that it is before N. or such a man? Because it is writien, Thou and they and Aaron.

Whence is it, that they appoint them a set time of Appearance? Because it is written, Be ye present tomorrow.

Whence is it, that it is from time to time? Because it is written, There they called Pharaoh King of Egypt but a noise, he passed the time appointed. ( Jerm. XLVI. 17.)

Whence is it, that they Shammatize? Because it is written, Curse ye Meroz.

Whence is it, that they Anathematize? Because it is written, Curse ye.

Whence is it, that he is cursed, that eats and drinks with him, and stands within four cubits of him? Because it is written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The inhabitants thereof, as one would say, Sedentes ejus, or those that sit with her, Judge. V. 23.

Whence is it, that they publish his crimes in the Synagogue? Because it is written, Because they came not to the help of the Lord.

Whence is it, that they confiscate his goods? Because it is written, whosoever comes not within three days, according to the Council of the Princes and Elders, all his substance shall be forfeited, Ezra, X. 8.

Whence is it, that we contend with him, and curse him, and strike him, and pull off his hair, and abjure him? Because it is written, And I contended with them, and cursed them, and struck some of them, and pulled off their hair, Nehem. XIII. 25.

Whence is it, that we tie and bind him? (The Gloss is, His hands and feet, and to a pillar to be whipped) Because it is written, Either to death or banishment, or confiscation of goods, or imprisonment, Ezr. VII. 26.

You see excommunication among the Jews, drawn out by their own pensil, from head to foot. And now whether this, themselves being Judges, were delivering into the hands of Satan, is matter of further enquiry, and more obscure inquiry too. Any such saying of Excommunication does not at all occur in terms, and whether it occur in sense, let the Reader judge from those things, that are spoken of the condition of the person excommunicate.

I. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This is the condition of a person excommunicate. They eat not nor drink with him, nor sit within four cubits of him, (his Wife, and Children, and Servants being excepted, to whom it was permitted to sit by him) When they give thanks (at meat) they join him not in the thanks, nor admit him to anything, which wants the Ten men. But any may talk with him, and he hires workmen, and he is hird himself for a workman.

II. As to those things which respect Religion.

First, Persons excommunicate went to the Temple, as well as others. All that go into the Temple, according to the custom, go in the right hand way, and go about, and go out the left hand way, except him to whom anything happens, who walked about to the left hand.

Being asked, What is the matter with you that you go about to the left, he answered, Because I am excommunicate, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) To whom the other replied, He that dwells in this house, put it into thy heart, to hearken to the words of thy companions.

Secondly, It is a Tradition. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He thatis excommunicate expounds the Traditions, and they expound to him. He that is Anathematized expounds not to others, nor do thy expound to him, but he expounds by himself, that he forget not his learning. And again, It is permitted the Excommunicate person to deal in the Law. But to the person Anathematized it is forbidden. But he expounds by himself.

Thirdly, he that turns over the Talmudical Authors shall very often observe, that a person Excommunicate, and he that mourns for the dead, are subject to the same conditions in very many things: yea the Mourner to worse conditions.

The Mourner and the Person Excommunicate are forbidden to have their hair cut. The Mourner is bound to veil his head, the Excommunicate not. The Mourner on the first day is deprived of his Philacteries: The Excommunicate not. The Mourner is forbidden salutation: To the Excommunicate it is permitted: much more is it lawful to talk with him. The Mourner is forbid to employ himself in the Law: To the Excommunicate it is permitted. But the Person Anathematized may not converse in the Law: but he expounds it to himself, and he makes himself a little tent for his food. The Mourner is bound to the rending of his garment; the Excommunicate not. The Mourner is forbid to do any work: to the Excommunicate it is allowed. The Mourner is forbid to wash himself, to the Excommunicate it is allowed. The Mourner putteth not on Sandals; the Excommunicate puts them on. The Mourner lies not with his wife, the Excommunicate lies with his, &c.

From what hath been said it seems, that it may be concluded on one part, that Excommunication among the Jews scarcely sounded the same with Delivering to Satan: and there are some reasons also, by which it seems it may be concluded in like manner, that Delivering to Satan here in the Apostle, doth not sound the same with Excommunication. Be it granted, that he that is Excommunicated and cast out of the Church, is rejected also by God, and is indeed delivered into the hands of Satan: this is not that which is our task at present to consider; but whether Paul, by his, let him be delivered to Satan, or the Corinthians by that expression, understood Excommunication. We embrace the negative for these reasons.

I. Because no reason can be rendered, why the Apostle, rejecting the vulgar and most known word Excommunication, should fly to another that was very unknown, very obscure.

II. The act of this wicked wretch was above Excommunication. And it was a small matter for such an impious man to be excommunicated. He deserved death, as we have observed, two or three times over. And it was more agreeable to that extraordinary wickedness, that it should have some more extraordinary punishment inflicted on it, then that very common one, of Excomunication.

III. Why should the Apostle use such earnest council, and exhortation to excite the Church to excommunicate one that so deserved Excommunication? Was Excommunition a thing so difficult to be obtained among them? What need was there of the presence of St. Paul's Spirit in a thing any Ministers of the Church were empowered to do? What need was there of such solemn determination ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I have determined already ) in a thing, concerning which everyone would confess that he deserved Excommunication?

IV. To deliver to Satan was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , For destruction of the flesh. But what could Excommunication avail to that in a man sworn upon his lusts? You will say, Perhaps it might come to pass, that it might have such an effect. But I reply, when the Apostle saith, To the destruction of the flesh, he speaks not of a fortuitous effect, but of a certain or undoubted one.

These are the reasons, to omit others, whereby we are led to be of their opinion, who interpret the place of a miraculous action, namely, of the real delivery of this person into the hands and power of Satan, to be scourged by him, and tormented by him with diseases, tortures and affrightments. And the Phrases used by the Apostle about this matter, and the circumstances of the thing itself do very well accord hereunto.

I. To deliver to Satan is never mentioned in Scripture, but when there was an Apostolic power, as here, and 1 Tim. I. 20. And that Apostolic power of striking obstinate persons miraculously, or wicked sinners with any punishment, was not usually put forth by them, unless in the presence of the parties, as by Peter against Ananias and Sapphyra, and by Paul against Elymas, and likewise, as it is very probable, against Hymenaeus and Alexander: yet he, being now a great way distant, and remote, I have judged, saith he, and decreed to exercise at a distance this my power against this wicked man, as though I were present, and before his face; which indeed was not ordinarily done, but this was not an ordinary wickedness.

II. To this sense is that clause to be rendered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and my Spirit, that is, my Apostolical Spirit, or the gift of the Spirit conferred upon me. So the Spirit of Elias dwelt upon Elisha, 2 Kings II. 15. that is, The Prophetical Spirit of Elias.

III. And compare that clause, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, with the same manner of speech, Act. III. 6. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk: namely, when a miracle was to be done. And also,

IV. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Power, is very usually in the Gospel referred to miracles; it is very rarely, if at all, used for the power of Discipline.

Let us conclude our discourse of Excommunication among the Jews with a Tradition received among them which see if you please. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If the Rabbins Serpent bite any one, there is no cure for him. Bar Kasha in Pumbeditha was bitten by the Rabbins Serpent, and there was no cure for him. The Gloss is, Because he had transgressed against the Excommunication of the wise men, therefore when he was bitten by a Serpent, there was no healing for him.

VERS. IX.

IN an Epistle? What?

I. The Aorist 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be rendered, I had written, without any wrong to Grammar. I had written in this Epistle, Accompany not, &c. before the report of this wickedness came to me: but now hearing it, I sharpen my pen the more, and I bind you with a straighter prohibition, namely, That ye do not eat with such.

II. The Apostle had sent Timothy to the Corinthians before he wrote this Epistle, Chap. IV. 17. and it is very likely, that he sent some Epistle by him, in which he had so written. But Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaious coming to the Apostle, and laying open the whole state of the Church of Corinth to him, and bringing him Letters and Questions from the Church, when as yet, as they knew, Timothy was not arrived at Corinth; he suppresses that Epistle, and comprises it in this. And if you say, that is lost, you will say true in some respect, because the exact copy of that Epistle came not unto us: and you will not say true in another respect, because in this Epistle we have all things comprised in that, and much more besides.

I. It is plain the Apostle riseth higher here, and obligeth them with a straiter admonition, than he had done before. He had written to them before Mr 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Not to company with them; now he writes, Mr 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Not to eat with them.

II. It is plain also, that he aims his words at profane Christians, not at Heathens, both now, and when he writ before. For there were among the Christians converted from Heathenism some without doubt, whose Parents, or Children, or Kinsmen, not yet converted, wallowed in Idolatry, Covetousness, and Whoredoms. But now a Christian was not to forget all these alliances. Nor was all familiarity and respect towards them to be cast away.

III. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 denotes, saith Camerarius, Necessitudinem aliquam interiorem, some more intimate friendship, or Alliances: which indeed in some respect is true, if that more inward friendship be distinguished into that which is more close▪ and less close 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be reckoned that conversation and friendship, which a Jew might enter into with a Jew, and not with a Heathen: according to the rule of which, as being very well known, it scarcely can be coubted, but the Apostle speaks.

I. A Jew might deal and traffic with a Heathen: nevertheless under this, and some other cautions of that nature. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Three days before the Festivals of the Heathens, it is forbid to give and receive with them, to lend to or to borrow of them, to restore or to fetch back anything, &c. I scarcely believe this falls under the signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , accompanying,

II. To eat together and at one Table was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to accompany, which certainly appears enough from the strait prohibition of such eating with a Heathen. A Pharisee in Markets and Fairs would have dealing with a common person, but he would not eat with him. So a common person would trade with a Heathen, but he would not eat with him. The Apostle therefore does not oppose 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 accompanying, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Eating together, one against another, but propounds Eating together as a certain degree 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Companying, or mixing together. For

III. There was, which by common experience may be observed, a much more inward friendship, than such a bare eating, namely, that which is called by the Jews Lawyers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Copartnership in merchandize and traffic, and that which is called by us Deputation: both forbidden a Jew with a Gentile. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is forbidden a man to enter into Co-partnership with a Heathen: lest haply he mast sometime swear, and is compelled to swear by his Idol. And Maimonides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Heathen is not made a Messenger, or a Deputy, for anything. Nor is an Israelite made a Deputy for a Heathen.

IV. Friendship was yet more close by contract of marriage and affinity: this the LXX call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jos. XXIII. 12.

And now it is not very hard to fathom the sense of the Apostle, which take in this Paraphrase.

VERS. XII.

HERE perhaps one may stick at the Version and sense commonly received. Beza reads Quid mea interest? What doth it concern me? The French, Qu'ay-je a fair de juger? What have I to do to judge? The Italian, Che appartienni à me giudicare? What doth it belong to me to judge? I know well enough the Phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 very frequently occurs in this sense: but here we may upon good ground inquire, if it concerns thee not, O Blessed Apostle, to judge them that are without, why didst thou judge Elymas with blindness? Why Hymenaeus and Alexander by delivering them into the hands of Satan, when they were now Apostates, and no other than such as were without?

What therefore if the words be rendered to this sense, For why is power granted me to judge concerning them also that are without? That is, by my Apostolic authority, to strike even a Heathen with some divine plague, if he be uncurably an Enemy, and Blasphemer of the Gospel; which I did to Elymas, &c. Why is this granted me, but to cut off such as are past cure? And do not you also within your Sphere judge those, who are within? But now those that are without, which I thus judge and smite, God judgeth, and smites, and by his vengeance gives his suffrage to my censure.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Therefore put away. In like manner, you also, doing what lies in you, may take away this man, and other such wicked persons by that hand of God. It cannot be past over without observing, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the future Tense, and it is not rashly to be rendered by another Tense. We explain therefore the whole place by this Paraphrase.

VERS. I.

WE cannot here but first of all produce the words of Titus the Emperor, thus discoursing to the seditious, that were besieged in Jerusalem; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. First, we have granted you to dwell in your own Country, and have set over you Kings of the same tribes with yourselves. Then, we have preserved your Countries Laws, and have permitted you not only to live by yourselves, but others also, according to your will.

That the Jews had nor lived by their own Laws under the Roman Empire, is clearer than to need demonstration. And the Gemarists, being witnessess, Judgment in money matters, or in things pertaining to this life, was not taken from them before the times of Simeon ben Jochai. Now I would have you tell me, whether the same things were not allowed the Jews converted to Christianity? Let us take an Example in this Corinthian Church: it consisted of Jews and Gentiles now converted. The Jews, while they believed not, had in their Synagouges 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Bench of Three, who judged 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 concerning things pertaining to this; and that by the permission of the Roman Empire. Now they were translated into a Christian Synagogue, or Congregation, and with them Gentiles, who believed. Was that denied them by the Romans in a Christian Congregation, which was granted them in a Synagogue?

First, There was no Persecution at all as yet, raised against the Christians by the Romans, when the Apostle wrote these things. For not a few years passed before Nero brake forth into that wickedness.

Secondly, The Romans little cared to distinguish between a Judaizing Synagogue of the Jews, and a Christianizing Synagogue of the Jews. And that of Gallio was, as the business was indeed, See ye to it, I will be judge of no such matters, Act. XVIII. 15. It was free for them to judge of names and matters of their Law.

Therefore these Corinthians were worthy of reproof, in whose power it was freely to exercise such judgments among themselves; yet to the scandal of the Gospel, and the Christian name, betook themselves to Heathen Courts of justice.

VERS. II.

THIS place is wrested to a twofold opinion. By the Fifth Monarchists, into I know not what sense; which I would rather you should ask them, than expect from me. By others into this opinion, That the Saints in the last judgment, shall sit together with Christ, and shall approve his judgment. And to this they bring those words of our Savior, Mat. XIX. 28. Luke XXII. 30. When the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of his Glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, &c.

I wonder, the verses of so illustrious and notable a Subject as that is which we now handle, and that which is now quoted are, so much strained from their proper and genuine sense. Let me speak it by the leave of the Learned. Let us first weigh the words of our Savior.

I. There is but small Logical arguing in this manner (if those words were to be taken in that sense, which they would have) You shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel, Therefore, all the Saints shall judge the world, as Assessors with Christ in the last judgment. Which harshness they thus smooth over, That which he said to them, he said to all those that shall imitate them. Here shall be some eminency of the Apostles above the rest of the Saints. And so very many others.

II. But Judas was present, when these words were uttered by our Savior: and was not he to be concluded within that number of twelve? But omitting this, there were more also present when he said these words, who had followed him in the regeneration: and if all they, and all the Saints that should be in the whole world, were to be concluded within that privilege of sitting with Christ upon the Bench, why is the number restrained, only to Twelve? You Twelve, that is, All Saints, shall judge the twelve Tribes of Israel; that is, the whole world, is so thorny a Gloss, that my fingers can by no means touch it.

III. We gave the sense of the words in their place. Namely, by Christ sitting in the Throne of his glory, is not to be understood his Tribunal in the last judgment; but when he should come in the glory of his vengeance, against the Jewish nation: then not the Persons, but the Doctrine of the twelve Apostles, should judge and condemn that most wicked Nation.

And as to the opinion itself concerning the Saints sitting with Christ.

I. Nothing is plainer in the Scripture, than that all shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ, 2 Cor. V. 10. as well the Sheep as the Goats, Mat. XXV. 32. &c. Mention indeed is made of reigning with Christ, but nowhere of judging with Christ in the day of judgment.

II. How little or nothing doth that sound, The Saints shall approve the judgment of Christ? Are thrones for this to be set up, that those, that sit upon them, should approve the judgment? The very Devils and damned themselves shall not otherwise choose, but acknowledge his justice.

III. And what, I pray, is this manner of arguing, Saints in the last day shall approve the judgment and sentence of Christ; Therefore ye are able to judge concerning those things, which pertains to this life?

We therefore make no doubt, that the sense of these words, Know ye not that the Saints shall judge the World, most plainly is this, Know ye not that Christians shall be Magistrates, and Judges in the World? Which most clearly appears by these observations.

• I. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Saints, in the verse before, denotes all Christians, as opposed to Infidels, not professing Christianity. But that all these shall judge the world with Christ, the espousers of that opinion will not acknowledge: and then let a reason be given, why the word in this verse, is to be taken in a different and stricter sense, than the same word is in the verse aforegoing.
• II. The Apostle speaks as of a thing known, and confessed: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Know ye not? But whence was this known, or to be known, that Christians should be Magistrates, and judges of the world? Most easily and most plainly out of Dan. Chap. VII. 18, 27. Where when the four Heathen Monarchies, which had so long ruled the world under their Tyranny, fell: at length the Rule and Dominion and Empire under the whole Heaven was to be translated to the people of the Saints of the most. In what sense and in what latitude the word Saints is to be taken, one may learn from a very plain Antithesis in that Chapter. The Rule, and the Dominion and Empire under the whole Heaven was before belonging to Heathens, but under the reign of Christ, it was the Saints, that is, the Christians.
• III. This sense agrees very well with the Apostles argument: Think it not unlawful to decide among themselves such differences as arise among yourselves: and by flying to Heathen Tribunals, do not bring a reproach upon the Gospel: for consider what is foretold by Daniel, which ye know well enough, namely, that the Saints, that is, the Christians, shall hereafter possess the Dominion and Government of the whole world, as now a long while the Heathens have possessed and do possess it. If they shall one day be endued with a right of governing, certainly you yourselves may determine of contentions now.
• IV. That which is said by the Apocaliptic, Chap. XX. 4. agrees with the sense of this place. That when Christ had bound Satan, that he should no more deceive the Gentiles as he had done before, by Idols, Oracles, &c. Thrones are set up, and Judgment is given unto them, who set upon them, that is a Power and Authority of judging and ruling, and exercising magistracy.

VERS. III.

HE saith not as he did before, The Saints shall judge Angels, but We shall judge them. By Angels all confess Devils to be understood. But certainly all Saints, (according to the latitude of that word, in the verse foregoing) that is, that profess Christianity, shall not judge Devils. Nor is this judging of Angels to be understood in the last day. But the Apostle speaks of the Ministers of the Gospel, himself, and others, who by the preaching of the Gospel, and the name of Christ, should spoil the Devils of their Oracles and Idols, should deprive them of their Worships, should drive them out of their seats, and strip them of their Dominion. Thus would God subdue the whole world under Christian Power; that Christian Magistrates should judge men, and Ministers of the Gospel, Devils: and do not you now judge among yourselves of some trivial differences?

VERS. IV.

HOW judgments among the Jews were distinguished into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pecuniary judgments, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Capital judgments, everyone knows. Whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judgments of things pertaining to this life, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pecuniary judgments, are the same, we do not dispute: certainly under Pecuniary judgments, as they are opposed to Capital judgments, are comprised all judgments below Capital. Hence is that which we observe elsewhere; Capital judgments were taken away from Israel, forty years before the destruction of the Temple. And Pecuniary judgments were taken away from Israel in the days of Simeon ben Jochai.

I. To interpret this word here for those that are most vile, or most contemptible, which some versions do, is certainly somewhat hard, and improper. What? Needy persons, and such as seek their living by alms, or hard labor, to make them Judges? Whence should such have skill to judge, or be at leisure for it? How apt might they be to consult rather their own gain, than just judgment? And who would not despise such Judges? The word therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , least esteemed, is not to be reserred to the lowest of the common people, but to the lowest of the order of Judges.

II. That Order had these degrees in the Jewish Benches: according to the custom and disposition of which, it is very likely, the Apostle speaks.

• 1. There was the Great Sanhedrin consisting of LXXI Elders.
• 2. There was the Sanhedrin of Three and Twenty, in Cities of more note.
• 3. There was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Bench of Three, in every Synagogue.
• 4. There was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Authorized or Authentic Bench.
• 5. There was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Bench not Authorized; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not authentic.

III. We distinguish first, between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Bench of Three, appointed in every Synagogue, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Authorized Bench, however consisting also of three men. For the Bench of Three in every Synagogue, consisted of three Elders, ri • ely and by imposition of hands preferred to Eldership. But that Bench, which we style Authorized, consisted not always of men, promoted by ordination to Eldership, but often of men, receiving authority to judge in such or such matters by some special Patent, granted them by the Sanhedrin. It consisted for the most part of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fellows of the Wise men, men learned indeed and Scholars, but such as were not yet elected into the Order and rank of Elders.

And the duties of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mumchin, the Authorized Bench, was different from the Duties and offices of the Triumviral Bench. This Bench was to judge of money matters, of wrongs, &c. That, namely the Mumchin, was to judge of the first-born of Cattle to be offered to the Lord, whether they were without spot, or no: of Womens charms to be worn or not, on the Sabbath: of the knives of the Butcher-Priests, whether lawful, or not: and of divers things of that nature.

IV. When we rendered those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Bench not authentic, we meant it so called, not that the judgments and determinations of that Bench were of no value, but that that Bench received not its authority from the Sanhedrin, but was chosen by them, between whom the controversy depended.

Rabh Nachman saith, A widow (if she would sell somewhat of her dowry) hath no need 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Of the Bench of the Authorized; but hath need 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Of the Bench of Idiots, or private men. Maimonides citing these words writes thus, A widow, whether she became a widow after marriage, or after Espousal is bound by Oath, and sells a piece of Land of her Husbands (for her maintenance) either in the Court of the Mumchin, the Authorized, or in the Court of those that are not Authorized: Now that Court or Bench is when three men are present, that are honest and skillful in valuing apiece of Land.

To this very ordinary Bench among the Jews, the Apostle seems to have respect in this place, and to prescribe the Corinthians for a means of ending their differences, which was easy, common, and void of cost and charges.

The Bench of the Mumchin one may not unfitly call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , such as were deputed by Authority; this Bench consisting of those that were not Mumchin, he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not vile or contemptible, but such as were not Authorized.

He exhorteth therefore, that if at any time suits arise among them, concerning pecuniary, or other matters, they by no means run to Heathen Courts, but rather choose some private men among themselves, as Judges and Arbitrators in such matters.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pecuniary judgments may be by three private men; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judgments of things taken away, and damages, by the three Authorized. The precept of pulling off the shoe of the Husbands brother, requires three Judges 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Although those three be private men. And Rambam upon the place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Private men, that is, not they that are the Wise men. And Rabbi Solomon, such who were not of the Bench of the Elders in their City: and yet in that case they might be Judges.

They, who were to judge in that affair, were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elders, by God, Deut. XXV. 9: The wife of his brother shall come to him in the sight of the Elders, &c. And by the Talmudists they are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judges; and yet might be private men.

The same Fathers of the Traditions speak many things, of the Plaintiff and Defendant, choosing themselves Judges or Umpires, to decide their differences; and that both parties be bound to submit themselves to their sentence, although it be a form of judging, not altogether according to the form of the Statute. For example sake, Three Judges were required to determine concerning pecuniary suits, and they, by Canon and Statute, such as were made Elders or Presbyters by lawful ordination. But the contending parties might if they would, choose themselves only one such Arbitrator, or Judge; or three private men, and not Elders. The Rabbins deliver; Pecuniary judgments are by Three. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But if he be authorized, he may judge alone. Rabh Nachman saith, As I judge alone of pecuniary matters. And so saith R. Chaija, As I judge alone of Pecuniary matters. Yea, if he be chosen by the contending persons, he may judge alone; for this hath obtained 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If they take upom themselves, or undertook to submit themselves to the judgment of that one Elder, or those three private persons; they must submit, and the judgment was good.

Of this matter both Talmuds treat largely enough in the Tract Sanhedrin

Out of the Babylonian take these passages in the place now alleged.

Out of the Jerusalem Talmud this passage.

VERS. XII.

THE Apostle now passeth to another subject, and treats underhand against that Plague, that got too much ground in the Church, even the wicked Horesie of the Nicolaitans, which persuaded the eating of things offered to Idols, and Fornication.

I. He that should deny the Sect of the Nicolaitans to have taken its name from Nicolas one of the seven Deacons, would seem certainly to go against all antiquity. And yet the Ancients themselves do not sufficiently agree about the matter. Go to the Authors, and you will find them differing, whether the Heresy sprang from an action of Nicolas, or from some saying of his. What if it came from neither? But that the name of the Sect comes from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nicolah, which signifies, Let us eat. For who knows not, that the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might pass into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Chaldees. And when nothing was more ancient among those very wicked men, than mutually to exhort one another to eat things offered to Idols, saying to each other, and to others also, as we may guess, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let us eat; how very fitly might they be called hence Nicolaitans by the Orthodox? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Saying, Let us eat flesh.

II. Whencesoever the name of the Sect comes, one can scarce say, whether the Sect itself were more to be abominated, or more to be wondered at. For when the Synod of Jerusalem had very lately decreed against eating things offered to Idols, and fornication, Act. XV. it is a matter of astonishment, that presently a sort of men should spring up, and they such as professed the Gospel, who should oppose them with all boldness, and excite others with all industry and endeavor to eat things offered to Idols and to commit fornication.

III. Besides, that those naughty wretches used and abused the pretence of Christian liberty, in the doing of these most wicked actions; they invented arguments, fitted to conceal their wickedness, and to defend their boldness: which the Apostle reflects on in order.

The first is that, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ All things are lawful for me. Which although Paul might very well say concerning himself, All things are lawful for me, as he doth, Chap. X. 23. Yet he seems secretly to whisper their very words, and argumentation: to which he also answereth, But all things are not expedient. But I will not be brought under the power of any.

The second is, The Belly is appointed for meats; Things offered to Idols are meats, Ergo. He answereth, God shall destroy both it and them. Therefore care is especially to be taken of the Soul, not of those things which shall perish. And be it granted, that the belly is for meats; but yet the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord.

VERS. XVI.

AND they two shall be one flesh. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 namely, in that place, where they make only one flesh. Which is an apter Gloss, than you would take it to be at first sight; and which the Apostle most plainly hath respect to in this place. Those words in Moses regard a just marriage, but the Apostle bends it to carnal copulation with an harlot: whence it is necessary to take the words of Moses in this sense. Therefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two (only) shall be one flesh. That is, They between themselves only shall be carnally coupled, and not with any other man, or any other woman.

VERS. I.

WE cannot here but first of all produce the words of Titus the Emperor, thus discoursing to the seditious, that were besieged in Jerusalem; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. First, we have granted you to dwell in your own Country, and have set over you Kings of the same tribes with yourselves. Then, we have preserved your Countries Laws, and have permitted you not only to live by yourselves, but others also, according to your will.

That the Jews had nor lived by their own Laws under the Roman Empire, is clearer than to need demonstration. And the Gemarists, being witnessess, Judgment in money matters, or in things pertaining to this life, was not taken from them before the times of Simeon ben Jochai. Now I would have you tell me, whether the same things were not allowed the Jews converted to Christianity? Let us take an Example in this Corinthian Church: it consisted of Jews and Gentiles now converted. The Jews, while they believed not, had in their Synagouges 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Bench of Three, who judged 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 concerning things pertaining to this; and that by the permission of the Roman Empire. Now they were translated into a Christian Synagogue, or Congregation, and with them Gentiles, who believed. Was that denied them by the Romans in a Christian Congregation, which was granted them in a Synagogue?

First, There was no Persecution at all as yet, raised against the Christians by the Romans, when the Apostle wrote these things. For not a few years passed before Nero brake forth into that wickedness.

Secondly, The Romans little cared to distinguish between a Judaizing Synagogue of the Jews, and a Christianizing Synagogue of the Jews. And that of Gallio was, as the business was indeed, See ye to it, I will be judge of no such matters, Act. XVIII. 15. It was free for them to judge of names and matters of their Law.

Therefore these Corinthians were worthy of reproof, in whose power it was freely to exercise such judgments among themselves; yet to the scandal of the Gospel, and the Christian name, betook themselves to Heathen Courts of justice.

VERS. II.

THIS place is wrested to a twofold opinion. By the Fifth Monarchists, into I know not what sense; which I would rather you should ask them, than expect from me. By others into this opinion, That the Saints in the last judgment, shall sit together with Christ, and shall approve his judgment. And to this they bring those words of our Savior, Mat. XIX. 28. Luke XXII. 30. When the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of his Glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, &c.

I wonder, the verses of so illustrious and notable a Subject as that is which we now handle, and that which is now quoted are, so much strained from their proper and genuine sense. Let me speak it by the leave of the Learned. Let us first weigh the words of our Savior.

I. There is but small Logical arguing in this manner (if those words were to be taken in that sense, which they would have) You shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel, Therefore, all the Saints shall judge the world, as Assessors with Christ in the last judgment. Which harshness they thus smooth over, That which he said to them, he said to all those that shall imitate them. Here shall be some eminency of the Apostles above the rest of the Saints. And so very many others.

II. But Judas was present, when these words were uttered by our Savior: and was not he to be concluded within that number of twelve? But omitting this, there were more also present when he said these words, who had followed him in the regeneration: and if all they, and all the Saints that should be in the whole world, were to be concluded within that privilege of sitting with Christ upon the Bench, why is the number restrained, only to Twelve? You Twelve, that is, All Saints, shall judge the twelve Tribes of Israel; that is, the whole world, is so thorny a Gloss, that my fingers can by no means touch it.

III. We gave the sense of the words in their place. Namely, by Christ sitting in the Throne of his glory, is not to be understood his Tribunal in the last judgment; but when he should come in the glory of his vengeance, against the Jewish nation: then not the Persons, but the Doctrine of the twelve Apostles, should judge and condemn that most wicked Nation.

And as to the opinion itself concerning the Saints sitting with Christ.

I. Nothing is plainer in the Scripture, than that all shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ, 2 Cor. V. 10. as well the Sheep as the Goats, Mat. XXV. 32. &c. Mention indeed is made of reigning with Christ, but nowhere of judging with Christ in the day of judgment.

II. How little or nothing doth that sound, The Saints shall approve the judgment of Christ? Are thrones for this to be set up, that those, that sit upon them, should approve the judgment? The very Devils and damned themselves shall not otherwise choose, but acknowledge his justice.

III. And what, I pray, is this manner of arguing, Saints in the last day shall approve the judgment and sentence of Christ; Therefore ye are able to judge concerning those things, which pertains to this life?

We therefore make no doubt, that the sense of these words, Know ye not that the Saints shall judge the World, most plainly is this, Know ye not that Christians shall be Magistrates, and Judges in the World? Which most clearly appears by these observations.

• I. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Saints, in the verse before, denotes all Christians, as opposed to Infidels, not professing Christianity. But that all these shall judge the world with Christ, the espousers of that opinion will not acknowledge: and then let a reason be given, why the word in this verse, is to be taken in a different and stricter sense, than the same word is in the verse aforegoing.
• II. The Apostle speaks as of a thing known, and confessed: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Know ye not? But whence was this known, or to be known, that Christians should be Magistrates, and judges of the world? Most easily and most plainly out of Dan. Chap. VII. 18, 27. Where when the four Heathen Monarchies, which had so long ruled the world under their Tyranny, fell: at length the Rule and Dominion and Empire under the whole Heaven was to be translated to the people of the Saints of the most. In what sense and in what latitude the word Saints is to be taken, one may learn from a very plain Antithesis in that Chapter. The Rule, and the Dominion and Empire under the whole Heaven was before belonging to Heathens, but under the reign of Christ, it was the Saints, that is, the Christians.
• III. This sense agrees very well with the Apostles argument: Think it not unlawful to decide among themselves such differences as arise among yourselves: and by flying to Heathen Tribunals, do not bring a reproach upon the Gospel: for consider what is foretold by Daniel, which ye know well enough, namely, that the Saints, that is, the Christians, shall hereafter possess the Dominion and Government of the whole world, as now a long while the Heathens have possessed and do possess it. If they shall one day be endued with a right of governing, certainly you yourselves may determine of contentions now.
• IV. That which is said by the Apocaliptic, Chap. XX. 4. agrees with the sense of this place. That when Christ had bound Satan, that he should no more deceive the Gentiles as he had done before, by Idols, Oracles, &c. Thrones are set up, and Judgment is given unto them, who set upon them, that is a Power and Authority of judging and ruling, and exercising magistracy.

VERS. III.

HE saith not as he did before, The Saints shall judge Angels, but We shall judge them. By Angels all confess Devils to be understood. But certainly all Saints, (according to the latitude of that word, in the verse foregoing) that is, that profess Christianity, shall not judge Devils. Nor is this judging of Angels to be understood in the last day. But the Apostle speaks of the Ministers of the Gospel, himself, and others, who by the preaching of the Gospel, and the name of Christ, should spoil the Devils of their Oracles and Idols, should deprive them of their Worships, should drive them out of their seats, and strip them of their Dominion. Thus would God subdue the whole world under Christian Power; that Christian Magistrates should judge men, and Ministers of the Gospel, Devils: and do not you now judge among yourselves of some trivial differences?

VERS. IV.

HOW judgments among the Jews were distinguished into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pecuniary judgments, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Capital judgments, everyone knows. Whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judgments of things pertaining to this life, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pecuniary judgments, are the same, we do not dispute: certainly under Pecuniary judgments, as they are opposed to Capital judgments, are comprised all judgments below Capital. Hence is that which we observe elsewhere; Capital judgments were taken away from Israel, forty years before the destruction of the Temple. And Pecuniary judgments were taken away from Israel in the days of Simeon ben Jochai.

I. To interpret this word here for those that are most vile, or most contemptible, which some versions do, is certainly somewhat hard, and improper. What? Needy persons, and such as seek their living by alms, or hard labor, to make them Judges? Whence should such have skill to judge, or be at leisure for it? How apt might they be to consult rather their own gain, than just judgment? And who would not despise such Judges? The word therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , least esteemed, is not to be reserred to the lowest of the common people, but to the lowest of the order of Judges.

II. That Order had these degrees in the Jewish Benches: according to the custom and disposition of which, it is very likely, the Apostle speaks.

• 1. There was the Great Sanhedrin consisting of LXXI Elders.
• 2. There was the Sanhedrin of Three and Twenty, in Cities of more note.
• 3. There was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Bench of Three, in every Synagogue.
• 4. There was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Authorized or Authentic Bench.
• 5. There was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Bench not Authorized; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not authentic.

III. We distinguish first, between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Bench of Three, appointed in every Synagogue, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Authorized Bench, however consisting also of three men. For the Bench of Three in every Synagogue, consisted of three Elders, ri • ely and by imposition of hands preferred to Eldership. But that Bench, which we style Authorized, consisted not always of men, promoted by ordination to Eldership, but often of men, receiving authority to judge in such or such matters by some special Patent, granted them by the Sanhedrin. It consisted for the most part of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fellows of the Wise men, men learned indeed and Scholars, but such as were not yet elected into the Order and rank of Elders.

And the duties of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mumchin, the Authorized Bench, was different from the Duties and offices of the Triumviral Bench. This Bench was to judge of money matters, of wrongs, &c. That, namely the Mumchin, was to judge of the first-born of Cattle to be offered to the Lord, whether they were without spot, or no: of Womens charms to be worn or not, on the Sabbath: of the knives of the Butcher-Priests, whether lawful, or not: and of divers things of that nature.

IV. When we rendered those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Bench not authentic, we meant it so called, not that the judgments and determinations of that Bench were of no value, but that that Bench received not its authority from the Sanhedrin, but was chosen by them, between whom the controversy depended.

Rabh Nachman saith, A widow (if she would sell somewhat of her dowry) hath no need 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Of the Bench of the Authorized; but hath need 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Of the Bench of Idiots, or private men. Maimonides citing these words writes thus, A widow, whether she became a widow after marriage, or after Espousal is bound by Oath, and sells a piece of Land of her Husbands (for her maintenance) either in the Court of the Mumchin, the Authorized, or in the Court of those that are not Authorized: Now that Court or Bench is when three men are present, that are honest and skillful in valuing apiece of Land.

To this very ordinary Bench among the Jews, the Apostle seems to have respect in this place, and to prescribe the Corinthians for a means of ending their differences, which was easy, common, and void of cost and charges.

The Bench of the Mumchin one may not unfitly call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , such as were deputed by Authority; this Bench consisting of those that were not Mumchin, he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not vile or contemptible, but such as were not Authorized.

He exhorteth therefore, that if at any time suits arise among them, concerning pecuniary, or other matters, they by no means run to Heathen Courts, but rather choose some private men among themselves, as Judges and Arbitrators in such matters.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pecuniary judgments may be by three private men; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judgments of things taken away, and damages, by the three Authorized. The precept of pulling off the shoe of the Husbands brother, requires three Judges 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Although those three be private men. And Rambam upon the place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Private men, that is, not they that are the Wise men. And Rabbi Solomon, such who were not of the Bench of the Elders in their City: and yet in that case they might be Judges.

They, who were to judge in that affair, were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elders, by God, Deut. XXV. 9: The wife of his brother shall come to him in the sight of the Elders, &c. And by the Talmudists they are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judges; and yet might be private men.

The same Fathers of the Traditions speak many things, of the Plaintiff and Defendant, choosing themselves Judges or Umpires, to decide their differences; and that both parties be bound to submit themselves to their sentence, although it be a form of judging, not altogether according to the form of the Statute. For example sake, Three Judges were required to determine concerning pecuniary suits, and they, by Canon and Statute, such as were made Elders or Presbyters by lawful ordination. But the contending parties might if they would, choose themselves only one such Arbitrator, or Judge; or three private men, and not Elders. The Rabbins deliver; Pecuniary judgments are by Three. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But if he be authorized, he may judge alone. Rabh Nachman saith, As I judge alone of pecuniary matters. And so saith R. Chaija, As I judge alone of Pecuniary matters. Yea, if he be chosen by the contending persons, he may judge alone; for this hath obtained 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If they take upom themselves, or undertook to submit themselves to the judgment of that one Elder, or those three private persons; they must submit, and the judgment was good.

Of this matter both Talmuds treat largely enough in the Tract Sanhedrin

Out of the Babylonian take these passages in the place now alleged.

Out of the Jerusalem Talmud this passage.

VERS. XII.

THE Apostle now passeth to another subject, and treats underhand against that Plague, that got too much ground in the Church, even the wicked Horesie of the Nicolaitans, which persuaded the eating of things offered to Idols, and Fornication.

I. He that should deny the Sect of the Nicolaitans to have taken its name from Nicolas one of the seven Deacons, would seem certainly to go against all antiquity. And yet the Ancients themselves do not sufficiently agree about the matter. Go to the Authors, and you will find them differing, whether the Heresy sprang from an action of Nicolas, or from some saying of his. What if it came from neither? But that the name of the Sect comes from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nicolah, which signifies, Let us eat. For who knows not, that the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might pass into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Chaldees. And when nothing was more ancient among those very wicked men, than mutually to exhort one another to eat things offered to Idols, saying to each other, and to others also, as we may guess, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let us eat; how very fitly might they be called hence Nicolaitans by the Orthodox? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Saying, Let us eat flesh.

II. Whencesoever the name of the Sect comes, one can scarce say, whether the Sect itself were more to be abominated, or more to be wondered at. For when the Synod of Jerusalem had very lately decreed against eating things offered to Idols, and fornication, Act. XV. it is a matter of astonishment, that presently a sort of men should spring up, and they such as professed the Gospel, who should oppose them with all boldness, and excite others with all industry and endeavor to eat things offered to Idols and to commit fornication.

III. Besides, that those naughty wretches used and abused the pretence of Christian liberty, in the doing of these most wicked actions; they invented arguments, fitted to conceal their wickedness, and to defend their boldness: which the Apostle reflects on in order.

The first is that, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ All things are lawful for me. Which although Paul might very well say concerning himself, All things are lawful for me, as he doth, Chap. X. 23. Yet he seems secretly to whisper their very words, and argumentation: to which he also answereth, But all things are not expedient. But I will not be brought under the power of any.

The second is, The Belly is appointed for meats; Things offered to Idols are meats, Ergo. He answereth, God shall destroy both it and them. Therefore care is especially to be taken of the Soul, not of those things which shall perish. And be it granted, that the belly is for meats; but yet the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord.

VERS. XVI.

AND they two shall be one flesh. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 namely, in that place, where they make only one flesh. Which is an apter Gloss, than you would take it to be at first sight; and which the Apostle most plainly hath respect to in this place. Those words in Moses regard a just marriage, but the Apostle bends it to carnal copulation with an harlot: whence it is necessary to take the words of Moses in this sense. Therefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two (only) shall be one flesh. That is, They between themselves only shall be carnally coupled, and not with any other man, or any other woman.

VERS. III.

WHAT is wont to be understood here, is known well enough. For although the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 includes all mutual offices of living together, you see to what the Apostle applies it, verse. 5. and that not without reason, when the Jewish Masters seriously prescribed many ridiculous things of this matter; sometimes defining the appointed times of lying with the wife, sometimes allowing the Vow of abstinence. Modesty forbids to relate their trifles: I had rather the Reader should go to them himself, than defile our paper with them. Only these few things we cannot but produce, that a reason may in some measure appear, why the Apostle treats of this matter.

Lying with the wife, concerning which mention is made in the Law, is this: Gentlemen, who neither exercise merchandize, nor any other work, every day. Workmen, twice a week. Scholars of the wise Men, every Sabbath Eve.

VERS. V.

HE that by a Vow constrains his wife from his bed, according to the School of Shammai, let him do it for two weeks; according to the School of Hillel, for one only. Rambam upon the place writes thus, Let him keep this his Vow for one week only. But if he will keep it longer, let him put her away, and give her her dowry. But they say, Let the Scholars go forth to learn the Law, even without the permission of their wives, for thirty days. These indeed are the words of R. Eliezar. But according to the wise Men, it is lawful for two or three years: and the Tradition is according to the wise Men.

You have examples of some that far exceeded these bounds, in the Gemara at the place alleged, which see.

Rambam concludes, (concerning the common people) Know thou, that it is in the power of the wife to retain her husband, from going to Sea, or into the Army, unless it be near at hand; lest she might be defrauded of her due bed. She may also restrain him from passing from one work to another, lest her bed be thereby diminished: the study of the Law only excepted.

VERS. VI.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , permission, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Command, do something answer to those words, very usual among the Fathers of the Traditions, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But now they would have marriage enjoined under a very severe command.

The man is commanded concerning begetting and multiplying, but not the woman. And when doth the m • n come under this command? From the age of sixteen or seventeen years. But if he exceeds twenty years without marrying, behold he violates, and renders an affirmative precept vain. But if he be studious in the Law, and conversant in it; and if he fears marriage, lest the care of providing for his wife hinder his study in the Law; he may still tarry. Because he that is employed in the precepts, is free from that precept: much more he that converseth in the study of the Law. He whose mind is always taken up in the study of the Law, as Ben Azzai, and he that is intent upon it all his days, if he marrieth not a wife, in his hand is no iniquity. But if affection prevail upon him, let him marry a wife, although he have now children, lest he fall into evil thoughts. Let not a man refrain himself from generation and multiplying, unless he hath children already. The Gemara upon this place thus, If he have children, let him refrain himself from generation and multiplying; but from marrying a wife, let him not refrain himself—It is forbid him to be without a wife, because it is said, It is not good for man to be alone. And whosoever gives not himself to generation and multiplying, is all one with a murderer—He is as though he diminished from the Image of God, &c.

The Apostle therefore determines against the Jewish Schools, that a man is not bound by the Law to marriage, but that he is in his own power in this affair, to contract himself, or not, as he finds himself continent or not. They said it is a Command, that everyone marry a wife; but he saith, I have not a Command.

VERS. IX.

THAT you may apprehend the sense of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to burn, hear a story. Some captive women were brought to Nehardea, and disposed in the house, and in the Upper room ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) of Rabh Amram. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They took away the ladder, or the stairs, (that the women might not go down, for they were shut up there, until they should be ransomed) As one of them passed by the window, the light of her great beauty shined into the house. Amram (taken with the woman's beauty) set up the stairs again, which ten men scarcely could do (that he might go up to the woman) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when he was now got to the middle of the stairs, he delayed his feet (and stopped, struggling with that evil affection to overcome it) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And with a loud voice cried out Fire, Fire, in the house of Amram. (The Gloss saith, This he did, that the neighbors flocking thither, he might desist from his purpose, and from that affection out of shame) The Rabbins run to him, and (seeing nothing of fire or flame) say, Thou hast disgraced us. To whom he replied, It is better that ye be disgraced in the house of Amram in this World, than that ye be disgraced by me in the World to come. He adjured that evil affection to go out of him, and from thence it went out as a pillar of fire. To which he said, Thou art fire, and I am flesh, yet for all that I have prevailed against thee.

VERS. X.

AND on the contrary, Vers. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I speak, not the Lord.

I. Weigh first that distinction very usual in the Schools, between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A text of Scripture, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An Opinion. Death by the sword is worse than death by the plague.: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If you will I will produce a Text of Scripture (to prove this) If you will I will produce reason, or my opinion. If you will I will produce an Opinion. That renders one abominable, but not this. If you will, I will produce Scripture, Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death (the plague) of his Saints. Famine is worse than the sword, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If you will, I will produce an opinion. Famine afflicts a long while, the sword not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If you will, I will produce Scripture: It is better for them that die by the sword, than that die by famine. And, A burnt offering that is killed not under its proper notion, the blood of it is not to be sprinkled under a notion that is not proper. If you will, I will produce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 my opinion, or, reason, If you will, I will produce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Text of Scripture. And very many instances of that nature.

II. And now compare the words of the Apostle: These things I say not, but the Lord: that is, This is not my bare opinion, but so saith the Scripture. And on the contrary, These things I say, not the Lord: that is, This is my opinion, although there be not some Text of Scripture, which saith so in plain words. Thus he explains himself, Chap. IX. 8. Say I these things, and not the Law?

Nor without weighty reason doth he admonish concerning this thing also, since both among Jews and Gentiles, the opinion was too loose concerning the firmness of the marriage bond; and more loose among the Jews, than among the Gentiles.

I. Think first of the toleration of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among them, which take in their words, If any marry a young maid, and she afterward will not have him for her husband, she may put him away, and depart from him; and there is no need of a bill of Divorse. Hence this is the form 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of a Bill of this kind of putting away (when the wife put away her husband) if it were demanded.

In the day N. of the week N. of the month N. of the year N. 〈◊〉 . the daughter of N. put away before us, and said: My mother or my brethren deceived me, and wedded me, or betrothed me, when I was a young maid, to N. the son of N. But I now reveal my mind before you, that I will not have him, &c.

II. Among them also there was departing from each other by mutual consent. A good man had a good wife: but because they had not children, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They mutually put away one another. That good man married a bad wife, and she made him bad. That good woman married a bad husband, and she made him good.

They allow also the same license to the Heathen. R. Jochanan saith, The sons of Noah have not divorse, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they put away one another.

III. To omit the departure of the wife from the husband for the causes of lust, as Herodias departed from Philip, to be married to Herod, and Drusilla from Aziz, and married Felix . A perverse wife might compel her husband, to put her away. A wife which refuseth to lie with her husband, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rebellious: And they demand of her, why she is so rebellious: if she answers, I despise him, and cannot endure his bed, they compel him to put her away for a time. Yea, R. Jochanan saith, A wife may put away her husband.

Those departures therefore the Apostle altogether forbids. And when verse. 11. he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But and if she depart, he doth not so much tolerate them, as supposes them to happen, and provides against them all, as much as may be, by the following rules, Let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.

VERS. XI.

COmpare Deut. XXIV. 4. Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife. For the bond which was there made, is not dissolved here. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He makes it void: it is made void: they are the words of Rabbi. (The Gloss is, The husband sends a bill of divorse to the wife: if either he himself afterwards goes to his wife, or sends a messenger to him, saying, The bill of Divorse, which I sent to thee, let it stand for nothing, it is nothing.) A Tradition. In former times he compelled the Bench in another place, who would make void the Bill, and made not the thing known to his wife. Gamaliel the Elder appointed, that they should not do this; because sometimes the wife not knowing of the withdrawing of the Bill, marrieth another, and so hath bastard children.

Behold 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Reconciliation after a Divorse, (but the Apostle speaks not in this place of Divorse) and yet the Jews by their practice shown, that they thought the bond of marriage was loosed by any Divorse, for they admitted second marriages.

VERS. XIV.

A 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Unclean, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Holy, denote not children unlawfully begotten▪ and lawfully begotten, but Heathenism, and Christianism. There is indeed this Tradition among the Jews. A son by unlawful wedlock that is, unlawful by consangunity) is a son of the man in all regards, and is to be reputed for an Israelite, although he be misbegotten. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But a son begotten of a Heathen woman, is not his son. Where the Gloss, He is not called the son of the man, but the son of the woman.

But the present discourse of the Apostle turns not upon this hing, namely, whether a son sprung from parents, whereof one was a Christian, the other a Heathen, be a legitimate issue, but whether it be a Christian issue. For it is sufficiently known, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Holy, is very frequently taken for those that profess Christianity: and so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Holiness in the Talmudists is taken in a like sense.

Au husband, and wife being made Proselytes, are separated from each other ninety days, that distinction may be made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Between an issue born in holiness, and an issue born out of holiness. The daughter of a Proselytess, made a Proselytess with her mother, if she play the whore (after espousal) is to be strangled. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But if she conceive without Holiness, and bring forth in holiness, then she is to be stoned. Again, A Proselytess, which was married to a Proselyte; and they beget a son 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Although both his conception, and his birth be in Holiness, yet it is permitted him to marry a bastard woman.

You see at first sight, what that expression, In Holiness, means. An offspring born out of Holiness, was an offspring born while the Parents were yet Heathens: Within Holiness, when they were now made Proselytes. In the same sense the Apostle; Your children are born in Holiness, that is within Christianity, if either father or mother be Christian. And the children themselves are holy, that is, Christians.

The Heatheus were reckoned by the Jews for unclean, and so unclean indeed, that they could not contract uncleanness, no not from the most unclean thing, a Sepulcher . Hence Heathen children were to them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Unclean, and the children of Jews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Holy. To which sense, very well known to the Nation, the Apostle alludes in these words.

VERS. XVIII.

IN Talmudic Language, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

VERS. XIX.

AMong many things which may here be spoken, we will observe only two; one from the very practice of the Jews, the other from the chief end of circumcision.

I. You will wonder perhaps, Reader, when you hear, that some Jews always went uncircumcised; yea, that some Priests not circumcised, ministered at the Altar, and that without the complaint of any, and indeed without any fault. But the Fathers of the Traditions themselves do confess this. Very frequent mention is made in the Talmudists of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An uncircumcised Israelite, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An uncircumcised Priest.

Hence if the first, second, third son should die by circumcision, those that were born after were not circumcised, but were always uncircumcised, and yet Israelites in all respects, Priests in all respects. R. Nathan saith, I travailed to Cesarea of Cappadocia, and there was a woman there, who had brought forth male children, which had died of circumcision, the first, the second, the third: they brought the fourth to me, and I looked upon him, and saw not in him the blood of the Covenant. He advised them to permit him a little while, though not circumcised, and they permitted him, &c.

Now Jew, tell me, Whether Circumcision is anything, especially whether it be of so much account, either to Justification, or to Sanctification, as you esteem it, when an Israelite might be a true Israelite, and a Priest a true Priest, without Circumcision.

II. Circumcision is nothing, in respect of the time, for now it was vanished, the end of it, for which it had been instituted, being accomplished. That end the Apostle shows in those words Rom. IV. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . A seal of the Righteousness of the Faith in uncircumcision. But I fear the words, are not sufficiently fitted by most Versions to the end of Circumcision, and the scope of the Apostle; while they insert something of their own. The French Translation thus, Scean de la justice de foy Laquelle il avoyt durant le prepuce. A seal of the righteousness of Faith, which he had during uncircumcision. The Italian thus, Segno della giustitia della feed laquale fu nella circoncisione. A Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which was without circumcision. The Syriac